Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 14 October 1999, Corrected Copy)

The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President offered the Prayers.

The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt tabled the Government’s response to the report of the Committee entitled "Working for Children: Communities Supporting Families - Inquiry into Parent Education and Support Programs", tabled on 23 September 1998.

Petition praying that within one year of the presentation of the petition there be a ban on animal exploitation such as battery cages for hens, single stalls and farrowing crates for sows, feedlots for cattle and intensive housing for broilers, wildlife and other animals, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

Petition praying that the integrity of the family unit be encouraged, that the Family Impact Commission Bill be supported in its current form and that all proposals to amend the definition of the family as defined in the bill be rejected, received from Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

Petition praying for opposition to the suffering of wild animals and their use in circuses, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

Petition praying that the House oppose certain recommendations of the Drug Summit and introduce drug reform through a fivefold strategy of coercive residential rehabilitation, free naltrexone treatment, a medical panel to assist the Drug Court, co-operation between law enforcement and parents of addicts, and random drug tests, received from Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

The PRESIDENT: During the second reading debate on the University of New South Wales (St George Campus) Bill on 22 September the Hon. J. H. Jobling took a point of order during the speech of the Hon. I. M. Macdonald, Parliamentary Secretary, that, as there was no Minister in the Chamber, the Hon. I. M. Macdonald was speaking on behalf of the Minister in reply to the motion that the bill be read a second time. In accordance with previous practice I upheld the point of order. I have since had an opportunity to review the standing orders and the practice in other Houses in relation to the right of reply to a debate. Standing Order 74 provides:

A reply shall only be allowed to a Member who has made a substantive Motion to the House, or moved the second or third reading of a bill, which reply shall be held to have closed the Debate.

This standing order reflects the practice in the House of Commons, the Australian Senate and the House of Representatives, where the mover of a substantive motion has a right of reply and such reply closes the debate. The issue of whether another member may speak in reply on behalf of the member who has moved a substantive motion and, if so, whether such a speech in reply closes the debate has not previously arisen. This question has been addressed in both the Australian Senate and the House of Representatives. Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, eighth edition, at page 226, states:

A senator who speaks in reply on behalf of another senator does not close the debate.

House of Representatives Practice, third edition, at page 459, states:

The speech of a Minister acting on behalf of the mover of the original motion does not close the debate.

Therefore, while a member may speak in reply to a substantive motion on behalf of another member, that speech does not effectively close the debate. Under Standing Order 74 it is only when the mover of the substantive motion speaks in reply that debate is closed. I intend to rule accordingly in future.

Page 1397

The Hon. A. B. KELLY [11.08 a.m.]: In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 14(2) of the resolution establishing Legislative Council standing committees, I inform the House that the Standing Committee on State Development received references on 23 September 1999 from the Hon. Harry Woods, MP, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Rural Affairs, and Minister for Local Government and on 17 September 1999 from the Hon. Carl Scully, MP, Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads. By correspondence received on 23 September and 12 October the Hon. Carl Scully, MP, clarified the terms of reference in relation to the social impacts of State and Federal policies. It is purely coincidental that I am wearing my Municipal Employees Union tie today. As the terms of reference are lengthy I seek the leave of the House to have them incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.
______

INQUIRY INTO OPPORTUNITIES FOR STRENGTHENING RURAL TOWNS IN NEW SOUTH WALES

That the Standing Committee on State Development inquire into and report on a number of issues in relation to rural towns, expanding upon the work undertaken through the New South Wales Government’s Direction Statement on Regional Development entitled "Rebuilding Country New South Wales", giving paraticular regard to:

•Examination of economic development strategies that these centres could develop to achieve economic growth and employment. This analysis should include the use of mechanisms such as co-operatives, networks and clusters to achieve this growth. This inquiry should not only concentrate on the use of these mechanisms for the production of products and services for export out of the community, but also the utilisation of these tools to provide services and facilities for consumption within the particular community and in the purchase of inputs for the production of products and services;

•How these centres can identify economic development opportunities. What role can the Government play in assisting these communities identify and develop these opportunities;

•Impediments to economic growth in rural communities eg infrastructure, availability of finance, business advice and assistance; and

•Identify strategies for the development and promotion of economic opportunities in small towns.

(Reference received on 23 September 1999 by the Hon. Harry Woods, MP, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Rural Affairs and Minister for Local Government.)

______

INQUIRY INTO ROAD MAINTENANCE AND COMPETITIVE ROAD MAINTENANCE TENDERING

The Standing Committee on State Development inquire into and report on the following issues:

•A comparison of road maintenance delivery methods in other jurisdictions;

•A comparison of the cost effectiveness of road maintenance in New South Wales with other jurisdictions;

•The effect of Federal cuts to maintenance of the National Highway system on regional development;

•The use of competitive tendering for road maintenance in accordance with the NSW Government’s Service Competition Policy to reduce the cost and improve the quality of road maintenance in New South Wales;

•The implementation of competitive tendering, particularly methods to optimise opportunities for the participation of Roads and Traffic Authority road services and Local Government in competitively tendered road maintenance work.

(Reference received on 17 September 1999 by the Hon. Carl Scully MP, Minister for Transport and Minister for Roads)

Debate resumed from 9 September.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [11.10 a.m.]: I am pleased to support the Public Health Amendment (Smoking in Vehicles) Bill, which was introduced by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. Honourable members will remember that the bill was introduced during National Asthma Week. I agree with the Hon. R. S. L. Jones that there is a strong association between passive smoking and children suffering from asthma. The Asthma Foundation has stated that passive smoking contributes to asthma symptoms in 46,000 children each year.

The effects of passive smoking are serious in the confined space of a vehicle because many drivers close the windows of their vehicles. That is especially so with women, who are fearful of persons trying to get into their cars. Indeed, in the city of Sydney cars have been hijacked with the drivers still in them. Children in cars in which adults are smoking with the windows closed are in a dangerous situation because the toxicity of the fumes will be 50 times the maximum recommended limit in the United States of America for enclosed spaces.

Page 1398

I strongly support the bill. As a child and a teenager I suffered serious attacks of asthma which were aggravated by the smoke from the cigarettes of both of my parents and also from being in places that contained cigarette smoke. In the 1930s and 1940s almost every adult had a smoking habit and, indeed, smoking was promoted by both the tobacco industry and the entertainment industry. It is now known that cigarette companies paid actors and film producers to smoke on screen.

Often there was the amazing sight on the screen of two actors kissing while holding cigarettes between their fingers; they did not stop smoking while they were making love. We know now that that was because they were receiving financial benefits from cigarette companies. One reason for my strong support of the bill is the fact that I suffered from the harmful effects of passive smoking as a child and a teenager and, indeed, I still have to take daily medication to prevent a recurrence of asthma attacks.

In this State laws and regulations govern the behaviour of people in cars. People who do not wear seatbelts are fined, people who use mobile phones while driving a car are fined and, obviously, people in control of motor vehicles must drive safely. Babies are protected from injury by the requirement for them to be carried in properly fitted capsules while in cars. In recent years a great deal of action has been taken to protect people’s health, and a bill to prohibit the smoking of tobacco in motor vehicles in which persons under the age of 18 years are present is not inconsistent with that approach.

Honourable members would be aware that I introduced a bill to prohibit tobacco advertising. That has now become national policy and has resulted in the prohibition of sport sponsorship by tobacco companies, which are now on the back foot. Because of the harmful effects of smoking Parliament House is now subject to non-smoking regulations. Smoking is prohibited in the offices of members of Parliament, although it appears that some members do not heed the regulation as I can often smell tobacco smoke on their clothing.

Recently the President and the Speaker issued a statement in strong terms to all members that the regulation governing non-smoking in Parliament House will be enforced. Existing laws prohibit smoking in places frequented by children - for example, schools, day care centres, lifts, public transport and taxis. The bill is consistent with Government policy. Indeed, the Labor Government should have introduced a similar bill long ago. Although it was introduced by an Independent member I hope both the Government and the Coalition will support it.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: And if not, why not?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: Yes. If not, why not? I gather from interjections of the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti during my contribution that he supports the bill in principle. I hope that means that the Coalition will support it. His interjections endorsed the statements I made about the impact on children of passive smoking. To be consistent the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, a medical practitioner, must take steps to protect children. I was pleased to read in today’s Sydney Morning Herald that, after decades of disputing the findings of the Surgeon General and other American medical authorities, the tobacco giant, Philip Morris, has finally acknowledged that scientific evidence shows that smoking causes lung cancer. That is a great victory.

Although there has always been evidence to support such a claim, the tobacco companies have fought it in the American and Australian courts. It appears that Philip Morris, the largest cigarette maker in America, has now decided to acknowledge the existence of that evidence. The company may be clever enough to realise that such an acknowledgment may reduce the number of court cases against it, or the decision may have been taken because of concern for the company’s shareholders rather than concern for the community. Nevertheless, it is now on the record that the company has at last acknowledged the existence of that scientific evidence, which has been questioned by the companies and, sadly, by some Sydney doctors who smoke and have defended smoking. I am amazed that doctors, who know the dangers of smoking, can become addicted to it, as some members of this House have.

A great deal of the evidence about the impact of passive smoking has related to adults. The passive inhaling of smoke must have a more dramatic effect on a developing child. A recent study by the Department of Medicine of the University of Auckland reaffirmed that men and women who smoke face a greater risk of having a stroke. The study also suggested that passive smoking, which is known to be associated with an increased risk of heart disease, is also associated with subsequent strokes in men and women. Evidence in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1999 states that research involving 600,000 people from eight countries confirmed that passive smoking increases coronary heart disease.

Page 1399

The combined meta-analysis of 18 studies dealing with the possible dangers of passive smoking concluded that smoke from a cigarette can increase a non-smoker’s risk of heart disease by 25 per cent. Obviously smokers believe it is their right to smoke, and they are not concerned about possibly increasing the risk of heart disease in non-smokers by 25 per cent. Obviously the impact would be greater on a child whose organs are developing.

Other surveys have shown that the public has now taken up the theme behind the bill. The Parliament need not be concerned that this bill is draconian and that there will be a backlash in the community against it. In fact, the community is probably now ahead of politicians in its awareness of the harmfulness effects of smoking. According to a survey conducted by the South Australian anti-tobacco research and evaluation program, more than 80 per cent of South Australians agree with that State’s new smoke-free dining laws. As reported in the Sunday Mail of 19 September, about 55 per cent of smokers and 87 per cent of non-smokers gave the ban the thumbs up.

The evidence of the effects of passive smoking is overwhelming. By leave, I table a report entitled "Passive Smoking and Heart Disease - Mechanisms and Risks", published in the Journal of the American Medical Association of 5 April 1995. That informative report contains scientific evidence of the association between passive smoking and heart disease. I urge all honourable members who oppose this bill to study the report if they have not already done so. By leave, I also table a report entitled "Passive Smoking: Health Effects And An Overview", which was part of a publication entitled "Catalyst - An Information Series on Smoking and Health." That publication states:

However, over the past 20 years there has been mounting, conclusive scientific evidence that passive smoking can harm the health of non-smokers.

As early as 1986, a peak Australian medical body, the National Health and Medical Research Council, based on a review of the available medical evidence, recommended that smoking be prohibited or restricted in public places and in the workplace. The Attorney-General, in the same year, stated that injury from passive smoking could lead to legal action for damages at common law.

The tobacco industry was also party to the debate, claiming there was no evidence that passive smoking was dangerous - a claim that was published in a large advertisement in a number of newspapers.

That is part of the ongoing campaign of the tobacco industry to protect its investment. As I said earlier, at last Philip Morris is telling the truth, but the tobacco industry, of course, is still trying to deny the evidence that passive smoking is dangerous. The term "passive smoking" is defined by the report from which I have already quoted as follows:

Passive smoking is the breathing in of other people’s tobacco smoke. It affects non-smokers and smokers. You may not be aware that the process of smoking produces three different types of tobacco smoke.

1. Mainstream smoke - this is smoke directly inhaled by the smoker through a burning cigarette.

2. Exhaled mainstream smoke - this is smoke breathed out by the smoker.

3. Sidestream smoke - this is smoke which drifts from the burning end of a cigarette.

Each of those forms of tobacco smoke has a serious impact. A non-scientific person, a member of the public, or even a parent may say that it is only smoke. However, an analysis of sidestream smoke, for example, shows that it contains greater amounts of ammonia, benzene, carbon monoxide, nicotine and carcinogens than the other forms of tobacco smoke. Therefore sidestream smoke is dangerous poison that is being breathed in by all people, particularly children.

Passive smoking causes a number of serious health difficulties. For example, it causes lung problems. Passive smoking has a significant effect on the respiratory health of adults who do not smoke - not to mention children - including coughing, chest discomfort and reduced lung function. The main effects of the irritants found in environmental tobacco smoke occur in the eyes and the membranes of the nose, throat and lower respiratory tract. These irritant effects are a common complaint in places where the air is polluted by tobacco smoke.

Passive smoking is a cause of lung cancer in non-smokers. A major review which examined 13 studies on passive smoking and lung cancer estimated that non-smokers who are exposed to their spouses’ tobacco smoke at home have a 35 per cent to 53 per cent greater risk of developing lung cancer than have non-exposed non-smokers. I suggest that the effect of passive smoking on children in the confined space of a car would at least double that risk. It may not simply happen on a trip to the shopping centre. It could happen on a two-hour or three-hour drive interstate, with the children falling asleep and still breathing in the smoke from the confined space.

There is an association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and the development
Page 1400
of cardiovascular disease. Passive smoking increases the risk of heart disease, and there is a clear dose-response relationship. Passive smoking also has an effect on the unborn child. Women who smoke when they are pregnant expose their unborn babies to chemicals from tobacco smoke which have a number of effects. Smokers have a higher incidence of miscarriage and complications during pregnancy and labour. Babies of smokers have decreased birth weight and increased risk of death around the time of the birth. Maternal smoking, both before and after birth, is also a risk factor for sudden infant death syndrome, or cot death.

Obviously this bill is directed at the effects of passive smoking on young children. However, a pregnant mother who smokes in a car may cause damage not only to the children in the car but also to the unborn child she is carrying in the womb. The effects of passive smoking on infants and children are the most serious. Children spend much of their early life around their parents and, if their parents smoke, the children will be exposed to tobacco smoke for long periods. Almost half the Australian children aged four and under - that is, 570,000 children - live in households with one or more smokers.

Children are especially vulnerable to passive smoking as their lungs are smaller and more delicate, and their immune system is still developing. Tobacco smoke has a chronic effect on a child’s upper airways. The children of parents who smoke have an increased frequency of hospitalisation for bronchitis and pneumonia during the first year of life compared to children of non-smokers. Children under the age of two also have an increased frequency of a variety of acute respiratory illnesses and infections.

As I said earlier, that is an accurate description of my own health as a child. I recall that night after night my mother would light a little lamp that burnt some sort of concoction which produced fumes, which relieved the asthma attack that I was experiencing. I recall that night after night I was not able to sleep because I was gasping for air to breathe. I used to sit up, often all through the night, leaning on the windowsill to stay upright, because if I lay down I would almost choke because of the contraction of my throat. In those days the medical treatment of today was not available. The matters contained in the medical reports to which I have referred are true for a cross-section of children. However, having regard to my own experience I am a witness, so to speak, in the court case against the tobacco companies relating to the impact of passive smoking.

Children of smokers experience a higher incidence of fluid in the middle ear. That is sometimes known as glue ear and is the most common cause of deafness in children. The long-term implications of passive smoking for affected children are not yet widely known. However, the impact of passive smoking on the child could be far more serious, as I said, because of the developing aspect of a child’s body. Exposing children to passive smoking also predisposes them to the development of chronic obstructive airways disease as children and cancer as adults.

The major concern about passive smoking is its impact on children with asthma symptoms. For some reason - and I concede that the reason is a mystery - Australia has the second highest death rate from asthma in the world. I understand that Australia may also have the highest percentage of asthma sufferers of any country in the world. Obviously, passive smoking is one reason for that, and there may be other reasons such as pollution. My family and I lived in Ryde for about 17 years. At that time there were some large paint factories in the Concord area, and when the wind blew in a certain direction people developed respiratory problems. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill wholeheartedly. [Time expired.]

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [11.30 a.m]: The Opposition will not be supporting the bill. This proposal has been around for a long time. The Opposition supports the principle that nobody should smoke in a motor car, because it distracts and reduces the level of alertness of the driver and thereby increases the chance of an accident. However, it is quite clear that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, in his rush to introduce his headline-making bill, has failed to include any requirement that bus drivers, including those who may be driving buses with children on board, must not smoke if they do not have a separate cabin.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: They cannot smoke.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Yes, they can, as long as they have a separate cabin.

The Hon. A. G. Corbett: But they are not putting children at direct risk, are they?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: No, but the issue is road safety, and this bill does not cover that aspect. Second, the bill provides the defence of reasonable belief that nobody in the vehicle was under the age of 18. I compare the introduction of this bill by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones with his support
Page 1401
for a bill to lower the age of consent for other activities. The bill also makes it an offence to smoke tobacco - but not marijuana - in a car in which people under the age of 18 are present.

The Hon. I. Cohen: Do you ever smoke in a car when your children are in the car with you?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: No.

The Hon. I. Cohen: Why not?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Because it smells the car out. The bill does not prevent occupants of a vehicle from smoking when the vehicle is off-road. Why does the Hon. R. S. L. Jones not include off-road vehicles or any confined space? The Opposition is working on something that the community at large will support to deal with smoking in enclosed spaces. In a moment I will read a letter from Action on Smoking and Health [ASH] to support what I am saying. There is a need to look at regulating smoking in enclosed spaces, including clubs and public eating places.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: You don’t care about children.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: The Hon. R. S. L. Jones should really mind his tongue. The question that needs to be answered is how to bring the community along in supporting these measures. Smoking in public places might become more regulated, but will the community favour a similar regulation of smoking in their own homes? That is where most damage is done to children under the age of six or seven, and is the greatest concern of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. However, this is an evolutionary process.

We are being encouraged to introduce smoking regulations by May 2000 - we are awaiting reports on ventilation and the like, but I do not think that is a solution - to ban the smoking of cigarettes in clubs and public spaces where people congregate. But it is about time people examined what they do in their own homes. I am sure the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and the Hon. A. G. Corbett would not want to start regulating what people do in their own homes. However, we are trying to stop people from damaging others when pursuing their own activities or addictions. If the Hon. R. S. L. Jones were to come forward with a proposal about people not smoking in their own homes -

The Hon. A. G. Corbett: That is not the issue here.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: It is precisely the same issue. He is not talking about public safety; he is talking about a headline issue to which he is not really committed. If the Hon. Liz Kirkby or the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans - activists who have had a long-term interest in this area - had brought forward this proposal I would have understood, but when an opportunist like the Hon. R. S. L. Jones shows a sudden interest in the care and welfare of children I have to be suspicious. There is a need to promote smoke-free workplaces, smoke-free homes and smoke-free cars. The way to do it is not to suddenly regulate in this way but, rather, to introduce regulations for public places similar to provisions that apply to clubs, hotels and the like, and to address the real problems endured by children being raised in poor households accommodated in small locked-up units.

[Interruption]

I look forward to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile bringing that bill before the House. Tobacco smoking is a major health problem and tobacco use control is a very important social issue. This frivolous bill, however, does not address the real issues raised by bodies such as ASH, the Cancer Council and the Heart Foundation about the lack of government funding and the lack of will to introduce further regulatory or legislative measures to deal with and prevent the biggest contributor to ill-health and death in this country. Today I received a letter from Anne Jones of ASH. I am sure the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans has heard of Anne Jones. The letter from Anne Jones advised, amongst other things, that the best solution for New South Wales would be to amend the Smoking Regulation Act to take effect after the Olympics, in December next year. The letter states:

Meanwhile Richard Jones’s bill is an opportunity during Asthma Week (this week) to talk about the harmful effects of passive smoking on children’s health -

which Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has done -

and the need for education campaigns that could be run by QUIT NSW, if they had the funds.

They do not have the funds. The letter further states:

The Asthma week theme is Be asthma aware care for my air as asthma affects 1 in 4 children and 1 in 17 adolescents.

Urging adults not to smoke in cars with kids is very similar to requiring that they wear seatbelts for safety!

The use of seatbelts is regulated because there is empirical and absolute evidence that seatbelts save lives.

[Interruption]

Page 1402

I acknowledge that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has tabled the document. There is a strong association between passive smoking and asthma and other illnesses, but that is different from a cause and effect relationship.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: There is scientific evidence.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: There is an association, but that is quite different from a cause and effect relationship, which is precisely the reason for car safety belt regulation. ASH - a group that the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans has been close to - has been a major activist in urging that adults not smoke in cars.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: They are supporting the bill.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: No, she does not say that. She wrote to me and said that we should be urging adults with kids not to smoke in cars. I agree completely with that sentiment. We must keep our eye on the big game - smoking in enclosed places. We must urge parents not to smoke at home and, when we can, we must regulate in clubs and pubs. We must do what we can to raise the level of knowledge in the community about the dangers of cigarette smoking. I agree with everything that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said about the danger that smoking poses to children. We must ensure that children have a right to breathe clean air in the home, in the street and in any enclosed space. More importantly, we must actively try to stop kids - 12-year-old and 13-year-old children - from smoking.

The Government’s QUIT campaign has almost ceased. Funding for that campaign has been reduced dramatically over the last three or four years. New South Wales is the only State which has experienced a rise in the number of young people smoking. The increase in the number of young girls smoking is quite alarming. We must get the QUIT program back on the rails. The recent admission by Philip Morris Ltd is precisely what Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile thinks it is - an attempt to reveal that cigarette smoking is addictive, that it causes lung cancer, and that it causes other damage. Smokers will then be told, "You have been warned. You smoked our product."

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It is still the truth.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: It is true. Philip Morris acknowledged that it is true. Smokers will be told, "You smoked the product, you knew from 1999 that it was harmful to your health but you took the risk. Do not blame us; we told you. It has been on the packets for years." However, it is helpful to have that market-driven admission. There are two important issues to which I wish to refer. I have a great deal of sympathy for drug addicts, but tobacco is also a drug of addiction. We must do more to reduce this addiction to nicotine. I urge the Commonwealth Government to ensure that it makes more readily available nicotine patches and other alternatives to enable people to stop smoking.

This Government must provide - as it has in other areas - treatment mechanisms to enable those who are addicted to cigarettes to give up smoking. It is a shame that the bill was introduced in this way. It is a shame that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones does not work harder to ensure that the Smoking Regulation Act and other regulations are amended. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones, who is able to do such nice deals with the Government, should encourage it to implement regulations to take effect from 2000 rather than 2004, which is what is now proposed. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones, who professes to be such a good wheeler and dealer, should encourage the Government to amend the Smoking Regulation Act and ask it to continue funding the QUIT program.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: You would not support that.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I would support such a move. I would support any such initiative proposed by the Government. It is about time that we saw some real advertising about the dangers of cigarette smoking. The Government must show a real commitment to warning parents of the danger of smoking in their homes and smoking around children. The Government must do what it can to reduce the incidence of smoking by reducing the number of people smoking and by funding and properly advertising the QUIT program. People should not just be told that it is bad for them to smoke; they must be given an opportunity and the means, through adequate health measures, to stop smoking.

Generally speaking, smoking is most prevalent among young people in low socioeconomic groups. Australia has a reputation as one of the countries with the lowest proportion of smokers, but we have good reason to encourage people to stop smoking - a matter referred to earlier by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile - as we have one of the highest death rates and the highest incidences of asthma. I am not saying that smoking and passive smoking are the major cause of asthma, but people who have asthma are
Page 1403
much more sensitive to and suffer more damage from nicotine and passive smoking. In the good old days, back in the 1930s, people were asked to start smoking because they had asthma. We have learned an awful lot since then.

It is about time we did a bit more than play at the edges - which is what we are doing with this legislation. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones knows that he will get nowhere with this bill. If it is passed in this place it is not likely that it will be passed in the lower House. So he is just playing at the edges when he should be using his micro-party might to get the Government to support his legislation.

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN [11.46 p.m.]: The Government does not support this bill. The enforcement of this legislation is likely to be extremely difficult. In addition, it is not based on any research which suggests that specific restrictions on smoking in vehicles will significantly reduce the overall exposure of minors to tobacco smoke. Children exposed to environmental tobacco smoke in cars are likely to live in a home environment where they are exposed to passive smoke in lower concentrations over longer periods. In the absence of research demonstrating that there is a benefit arising from specific restrictions focusing on smoking in motor vehicles, it is considered that a more appropriate approach is to focus on reducing children’s exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.

A long-term education and information strategy on the dangers of tobacco use and passive smoking is likely to be more effective in reducing the exposure of young people to environmental tobacco smoke. Rather than focusing on one environment in which a child may be exposed to environmental tobacco smoke, such campaigns, in conjunction with campaigns to encourage adults to quit, take a broad approach to the problem and, consequently, will lead to more significant improvements in the health of young people.

The New South Wales Government has introduced a range of initiatives aimed at reducing smoking rates through prevention and cessation. Almost $2 million is spent annually on tobacco prevention programs in New South Wales in the health portfolio alone, including funding of the QUIT campaign of $1.3 million per annum. The New South Wales QUIT campaign supports national television advertising campaigns such as "Every cigarette is doing you damage", and international events such as World No Tobacco Day. These campaigns result in large increases in calls to QUIT phone lines from smokers wanting to quit. New South Wales Health estimates that more than one-quarter of callers in response to these campaigns are non-smokers one year later.

In addition the New South Wales QUIT campaign provides sponsorship to the Sydney Flames basketball team - an amount of $165,000 over a period of two years. The sponsorship includes participation in the Flames’ statewide education program involving visits to schools and youth centres to promote non-smoking messages. QUIT has also sponsored the Rock Eisteddfod, a statewide dance competition for secondary school students. About 500 schools and 16,000 participants compete each year. An important part of the Government’s efforts to reduce the number of young people smoking has been the amendment of the Public Health Act in 1996 to enable retailers to request proof of age from young people purchasing tobacco products.

New South Wales Health continues to take strong action against retailers who sell cigarettes to those under the age of 18. Ongoing compliance monitoring activities across the State have resulted in a substantial increase in compliance by retailers with the Act. In some area health services, 96 per cent of retailers now comply with legislation. To date there have been 126 successful prosecutions for illegal cigarette sales in New South Wales.

In relation to environmental tobacco smoke, the Government is awaiting results of the Standards Australia review of the relevant ventilation mechanism standard. When these results are available, the Government will be in a position to prescribe an air quality standard. A Smoke Free Hospitality Project Reference Committee, chaired by the New South Wales Cancer Council, has also been established. The aim of this reference group is to accelerate the provision of smoke-free venues in the hospitality industry. Under the initiative, a range of demonstration projects have been funded. Environmental tobacco smoke issues have also been incorporated into the curricula of TAFE hospitality courses.

It is clear that the enforcement of the proposed legislation would be almost impossible. It would be difficult to ascertain the age of teenagers in a car, unless the Hon. R. S. L. Jones is suggesting that all occupants of a vehicle would be required to produce proof of age. I believe that this would become a significant civil liberties issue. There is also a legitimate question as to whether enforcement of this law would be an appropriate use of policing resources. New South Wales Health recognises that a range of measures are required to reduce the number of people smoking.

Page 1404

Advertising restrictions, enforcement of bans on sales to minors, and regular QUIT campaigns are all important aspects of the long-term goal to reduce the damage and costs caused by smoking. There is no evidence that the proposed legislation would achieve the stated aim. Enforcement would be costly and difficult, and the legislation would overlap with existing provisions in other Acts. For these reasons, the New South Wales Government does not support the bill, and will continue to combat the effects of smoking by the use of a number of proven strategies.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [11.52 a.m.]: Let me say at the outset that I absolutely hate smoking. It has cost the lives of my father and at least four of my friends. There is no question about that. I also hate passive smoking. I have suffered it during my lifetime, working in newsrooms in the 1950s when everyone smoked and ventilation was poor. I know about the effects of passive smoking. Whilst I support the intention of this bill, it has flaws which need to be corrected by amendment before I am prepared to wholeheartedly support it.

The admission by Philip Morris Ltd that tobacco smoking is addictive is, as the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said, a cop-out on the part of the tobacco company. However, I do not think we should see it as being any kind of amelioration of the current position. There are problems with the bill in its intention to stop people from smoking in an enclosed space, that is, a motor vehicle, and forcing others to undertake passive smoking of their side-stream smoke.

Firstly, as to the definitions in new section 61Q, by only including tobacco as a substance which must not be smoked in a car, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones has overlooked the fact that smoking any substance in an enclosed space could cause a problem. I know that the bill is designed to protect people from passive smoking. It is not, as the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti said, about public safety. However, this matter ought to be taken into account as well, and I would welcome the Hon. R. S. L. Jones addressing it in his reply. If it is addressed adequately, I will support the bill. Secondly, new section 61R (1) states:

A person who smokes tobacco in a motor vehicle in which a person under the age of 18 years is present is guilty of an offence.

I have no problem with that in general terms. However, as the Hon. Janelle Saffin said, a civil liberties issue is involved: a person’s right to smoke in his own car. I do not believe that a person should be able to smoke in a car and force young people to undertake passive smoking. But I put to the Hon. R. S. L. Jones: What about the situation of a person over the age of 18 smoking in a car when others in the car who are under the age of 18 are also smoking? Sadly, many people under the age of 18 do smoke. Can a person over the age of 18 be found guilty of such an offence if passengers under the age of 18 are also smoking? Surely in such a case the offence must be ameliorated.

As the Hon. Janelle Saffin said, this law would be difficult to enforce, if it ever becomes law. The way things are going at the moment it does not look as though it has much chance, because both major parties do not support it. I ask the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to look at those areas of concern and either move or accept amendments in the Committee stage to clarify the position. It would be grossly unfair to impose an on-the-spot fine of $100 for smoking in a car when people under the age of 18 are present if one or more of those under 18 were also smoking. As I said, many young people do smoke - some start at the age of 14.

This bill is an honest attempt to reduce passive smoking, which I have suffered from, as have many others, as a child and young person. The intention of the bill is laudable, and I commend the honourable member for introducing it. However, the flaws in it at present might be its undoing.

The Hon. I. COHEN [11.56 a.m.]: I support the Public Health Amendment (Smoking in Vehicles) Bill. I was very interested to hear the contribution of the Hon. J. S. Tingle. This bill is not only laudable, it is also supportable. The Greens support many bills that are not passed through Parliament. Nevertheless, it is extremely important that we make a strong statement to the community that there are members and parties in this House who, in principle, look forward to the day when this type of bill - which may need amendment, as the Hon. J. S. Tingle suggests - will be passed. That will show that it is accepted and understood that the real criminals in this society are the tobacco companies and those who support them. I strongly feel that this bill is worthy of support.

I note that the Hon. J. S. Tingle has lost his father and friends from tobacco smoking. I contend that there would be not a member in this House who has not also been affected. Only a few months ago I spoke in this House about a very dear friend who passed away in her early 50s. She was a wonderful activist in the community and a mother. The tobacco industry took her life prematurely. We are all affected across the board, and we need to make a stand. At every level the Greens are making a stand
Page 1405
against the proliferation of tobacco smoking and its adverse effects in the community.

The hot air arguments from the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti about passive smoking in buildings and hotels ignore the fact that passive smoking in an enclosed car, which is an extremely small area, creates a high concentration of smoke. I am sure that all honourable members have experienced it. The fact is that in those cars, more so than in hotels or public places, young children often are present. Those young children are in an undeniably dangerous situation. If the Government and the Opposition were not so timid in this area, they would find ways to support this bill. Young people riding pushbikes wear helmets.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: They can smoke while they’re riding their pushbikes.

The Hon. I. COHEN: Obviously the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti’s perception on this issue is severely clouded by his habitual activity of smoking cigarettes. It is a great pity. The wearing of seatbelts in cars and helmets on bikes is compulsory. With the knowledge of the effects of smoking in the community, greater controls should be put in place. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, who is a doctor, should be well and truly convinced.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What about pot smoking?

The Hon. I. COHEN: Pot smoking is against the law, as it stands at present.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What about climbing smoke stacks?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You would not change it.

The Hon. I. COHEN: The Treasurer, a recidivist smoker, is now speaking in defence of the tobacco industry.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I am not a recidivist smoker.

The Hon. I. COHEN: You are a recidivist smoker and I will stand by that.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I never stopped!

The Hon. I. COHEN: Perhaps I should look up the definition of a recidivist but I think it fits the bill. People can smoke if they like but it should not impact on other people, particularly children.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Would you ride your bike behind the Hon. R. S. L. Jones’ car?

The Hon. I. COHEN: There are adequate laws for that. That is a clever piece of propaganda but, as I understand it, unless the honourable member is telling an untruth, a new motor was put in his car. It may not be a new vehicle, but that is another issue altogether. This bill is consistent with relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to which Australia is a signatory and has ratified it. Article 3 states:

State Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being.

Article 5 states:

State Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Does he agree with the comments of business journalist Terry McCrann in today’s Daily Telegraph that "Watkins attack on petrol prices is just plain stupid" and "After his initial foray on Tuesday, [the Minister came back] even dumber on Wednesday [on petrol prices]"? Does the Treasurer agree with Mr McCrann’s comments or with Mr Watkins stupid antics?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The difference between the Opposition and the Government on this issue is that the Government believes in a fair go for country and regional New South Wales and the Opposition does not. The Opposition believes that people who live in the country should be fleeced when they buy petrol. The Government is on the side of consumers in the bush - and proudly on their side. It is absolutely disgraceful that the Leader of the Opposition is supporting higher petrol prices in the bush.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: My question without notice is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. What is the Government doing to maintain sustainable fisheries in New South Wales?

Page 1406

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I draw the attention of the House to a challenge that has been lodged in the Land and Environment Court by Sustainable Fishing and Tourism regarding the application of certain provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. This is not a new development; it was brought to the Government’s attention in March 1998. The matter has been continually adjourned by the applicant and is currently set down for hearing on 19 and 20 October. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the matter. However, I wish to highlight the work of this Government to ensure the sustainability of the State’s fishery resources, the sharing of those resources among commercial and recreational users, and the viability of commercial fishing businesses.

The Government is concerned that there are too many competing groups chasing a limited resource. This has brought the need to embark on a process of structural adjustment in the State’s fisheries. The introduction of the restricted fisheries in March 1997 has been both a progressive and significant step in restructuring the State’s commercial fisheries. However, further adjustment is necessary. An ongoing commitment to structural adjustment was supported by the fisheries regulation implementation committee chaired by the Director-General of the Premier’s Department. The Government is approaching structural adjustment on two fronts. An interdepartmental committee - comprising representatives of the Premier’s Department, Treasury and the Cabinet Office, and chaired by officers from my department - was established in 1998 to consider the structural adjustment options on an industry-wide basis.

The committee has been investigating structural adjustment frameworks adopted by other fishery agencies and other industries, and after considering the many complex issues will make recommendations to the Premier and me about the development of a fishery structural adjustment framework. My department is also developing fishery-specific management plans in consultation with each industry-elected commercial fishery management advisory committee. Management plans will provide the rules and future directions for each fishery over a five- to seven-year period and will be used to implement fishery-specific adjustment programs. During the process of developing plans of management the current commercial fishery licensing policy will continue to provide the primary means for fishery adjustment.

The licensing policy enabled the introduction of restricted fisheries, has been used to identify individual commercial fishing businesses and to define the historical catches of each business upon which eligibility for restricted fishery access right were assessed. Management plans will control industry restructuring primarily by adjusting the criteria or level of historical catches required to transfer an access right. Management advisory committees have already made recommendations about the levels of transfer criteria, and a discussion paper has been prepared for my advisory council on commercial fishing. While the Government is conscious of the need to enhance recreational fishing opportunities, it is also mindful that the commercial fishing industry provides a much-needed resource to the community. Most honourable members would know that seafood has taken over from more traditional food, particularly during the Christmas period.

I must also emphasise that I do not support proposals that would needlessly impact on the livelihoods of commercial fishers and throw thousands of people out of work. Approximately 7,000 people are employed in the commercial fishery sector. The New South Wales estuarine commercial finfish fishery is currently valued at $12.5 million, and is very important to the State’s economy and provides much regional employment. However, the Government is approaching the need to provide increased recreational fishing opportunities in a fair and considered way. There has been significant enhancement to the State’s inland fisheries through the implementation of the freshwater recreational fishing licence. Projects have included fish stocking programs, the expansion of fishing clinic programs, increased fisheries law enforcement, funding for State fishway program initiatives and the buy back of commercial fishing licences.

I wish also to bring to the attention of the House that the Government will be holding a commercial fishing industry summit on 4 and 5 November in fulfilment of an election commitment to review the future direction of commercial fishing in New South Wales. All commercial licensed fishers have been invited to attend the first day of the summit. Fishery status reports and management presentations will be given on the status of the eight major marine and estuarine commercial fisheries. All commercial fishers will be encouraged to make submissions to the summit. That will be followed by a recreational fishing summit in late November to bring together the leading recreational fishing people in New South Wales to discuss recent achievements and future directions in recreational fisheries management, research and compliance. The Fisheries portfolio is full of challenges, and I look forward to the future with enthusiasm and optimism.

Page 1407

This issue will affect thousands of people in regional New South Wales. We have a group that has suddenly decided, through some technicality it perceives in the law - that has not yet been tested - that it can wipe out a commercial fishing industry that employs more than 7,000 people up and down the coast. The Government will not adopt a crash-and-barge attitude in this fishery. Over time we will adjust the fishery. People will not be unfairly asked to leave their businesses or their fishing lifestyle that probably has been handed down from generation to generation. The situation will be very serious for all the commercial fishers up and down the coast if, by some fluke, the commercial fishing industry is wiped out. When questioned this morning by radio station 2UE the only thing Robbie Oakeshott, the member in the other House who is the Opposition spokesman on Fisheries, said is that it is as simple as no fish and no fishermen. Instead of being outraged that a group of people, using a technicality to deny people their livelihood -

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Point of order: I request you, Madam President, to ask the Minister to refer to the Opposition spokesman on Fisheries by his proper name -

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

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Robert Oakeshott, rather than Robbie Oakeshott. Yesterday the Treasurer asked me to use a proper title, to which I agreed.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: To the point of order: That only verifies what the Treasurer said yesterday about the Hon. D. J. Gay, that is, dumb Duncan. My name is Edward, and I am often called Eddie. I do not object to that. If the honourable member is objecting to my using the Hon. Robbie Oakeshott -

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: He is not honourable.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Perhaps his title does not include the word "honourable", but I consider him to be honourable. I thought he was doing a pretty a good job as the Opposition spokesman on Fisheries, until his lackadaisical attitude about this issue.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister might not be offended by being referred to by a diminutive name but Mr Oakeshott might. The Minister should observe the standing orders and refer to Mr Oakeshott correctly.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I will attempt to note the delicate nature of Opposition members, and I will try to get their first names and even their second names correct so that those who are born to rule will not be offended. The person who is trying to wipe out commercial fisheries up and down the coast is no less than the person who ran Doug Anthony’s campaign for more than 20 years. His affiliation with the National Party is well known. His name is Elton Stone. He is directing the group. Our colleagues in the National Party are not raising their ire on behalf of all the commercial fishers who could be wiped out overnight. I have spent countless hours defending the right of commercial and recreational fishers, both of whom have a stake and a share in the resource. But Elton Stone, who has very solid connections with the National Party, wants to come in overnight and wipe out the commercial fishing industry.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: I think you are exaggerating a bit, old boy!

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: That is exactly what he is doing and that is what it means. What offends me more is that this group of people rang my ministerial office on 30 September asking for an appointment to discuss the long-term sustainability of the industry. They were given an appointment for 8 October, but they did not turn up; nor did they bother to discuss what I, as the Minister, or the Government had in mind about issues with which they were concerned. It is absolutely appalling! Now that group is spending international money to deny Australian fishers their jobs in the regions. The National Party should be disgusted. I would like to hear the position of the Hon. D. F. Moppett on this issue.

Under the Carr Labor Government there will be no quick grab for resources. The fishery will be administered in a sustainable way and all stakeholders will have a chance to share in it. We have a program, which is a sustainable fish industry for all, not for just one greedy group and not for those who are interested only in wiping out one sector for the benefit of the other. The National Party and the Opposition spokesman on Fisheries, Robert Oakeshott, should make known where they stand. Is the Opposition spokesman with the commercial fishers to get a fair go, or is he part of this bloody campaign to wipe out the commercial fishing industry?

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer whether he is aware that a study of 18- to 25-year-old males in New South Wales prisons revealed that one in four claim to have been sexually assaulted, and that those who are the youngest - that is, closest to 18 years old - and who are in prison for the first time
Page 1408
are very likely to be sexual assaulted within the first couple of weeks of being in a prison cell. Does the Government take responsibility for these young men who are highly likely to have been raped while serving prison sentences for possession and use of small amounts of marijuana? In light of this study, why has the Government refused to remove gaol penalties for simple cannabis offences, as was unanimously recommended by the Drug Summit and the Australian Labor Party caucus in 1997?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Point of order: The Government cannot remove penalties under the law. That is a matter for the Parliament.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: To the point of order: My question was to the Special Minister of State, not the Treasurer.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Further to the point of order: My point of order is valid. If the honourable member is inquiring as to why the law has not been changed, that is a matter for the Parliament.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Further to the point of order: I asked the Special Minister of State the question, which was perfectly valid and appropriately worded. Obviously it is a very sensitive question for the Government because it knows it is allowing 18-year-olds to be raped in gaol. I can see why the Government does not want to answer the question, but it is perfectly legitimate. I repeat: I asked the question of the Special Minister of State, not the Treasurer.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order. The Treasurer is correct in saying that it is the Parliament, not the Government, that amends legislation. I will allow the member to rephrase the question.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: Point of order: This directly canvasses matters currently before the Parliament in the form of the exposure draft of the Drug Summit Legislative Response Bill, which was tabled before the end of last session.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: To the point of order: I contend that, as no question is before the Chair as a result of your previous ruling, the Minister may not take a point of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order. There is no question before the House.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: On a point of clarification -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Madam President, there is no provision in the standing orders for members to seek a clarification of a ruling. The ruling stands.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: I am seeking a clarification of your ruling. Does your ruling mean that we cannot ask any questions on policy for the rest of this session?

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member is canvassing my ruling. He will resume his seat.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I address my question without notice to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Is the Treasurer aware that Sydney Water’s statement of corporate intent states that Sydney Water will borrow $870 million over the next four years? Is this level of new borrowings in line with his strategy of reducing the State’s net debt?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes, it most certainly is.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment. Will the Minister inform the House about security improvements in juvenile detention centres?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: This is an important question and both I and the Government, on behalf of the community, take detention centre security very seriously. The department has made important achievements over the past two years about which I would like to inform the House. Escapes are just one, albeit important, aspect of centre security. The figures have dramatically improved since the bad old days of the Coalition Government when escapes averaged almost 200 a year between 1988 and 1991. During 1997 there were 121 escapes from juvenile justice facilities. This dropped to 87 in 1998 and as at the end of September this year the number was 41. The Coalition does not like to hear this because it knows the number of escapes that occurred during its administration of juvenile justice.

The department’s policy is to investigate the circumstances of each escape in a rigorous and
Page 1409
thorough manner. Such investigations include details covering the level of supervision of the detainee prior to the incident, the activities being undertaken at the time and any contributing physical environmental matters. These investigations are used to implement improvements, take remedial action with facilities or detainee activities and, as necessary, to implement disciplinary action against staff. Although such an important improvement in management of such a sensitive issue for the public should be acknowledged, the department has also continued to implement new and improved physical and program-based strategies to maintain and improve overall security of centres.

In the past four years major capital works have been implemented to enhance security at all units, most of which were initially constructed as low- to medium-security facilities many years ago. Three new centres will be opened by the end of this year and I have referred to those in previous responses to this House. The new centres have been designed to incorporate the latest features to enhance security.

Some of those features include five-metre high anti-climb expanded mesh fencing, admissions areas designed to separate reception of detainees, single- and twin-room accommodation to replace dormitories - a very important measure - interlocking security gates and doors at identified access points, the strategic use of closed-circuit television, an integrated master key system, bed and bathroom design standards to meet deaths in custody standards, a cell-call system in each bedroom, low-voltage power and smoke detectors in bedrooms, installation of metal detectors for visitors and the use of electronic strike locks for strategic doors.

The security of established detention centres has also been improved in this process. All electronic security systems in all centres have been upgraded to year 2000 compliance and any defects found during the upgrade were repaired. A key feature of this program has been the installation and upgrade of anti-climbing barriers in the majority of centres and the increased use of closed-circuit television surveillance.

In addition, the department has introduced improvements to its range of programs and casework management to ensure that the needs of detainees are addressed in positive ways to encourage their continued compliance with the requirements of their period in detention, because security in detention centres relates to far more than just the physical surrounds. It is important to also acknowledge that the department has increased the funding it provides to facilitate family contacts for detainees, an exceptionally important mechanism for assisting detainees who will eventually reintegrate into the community.

The Hon. M. I. JONES: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment. Will the Minister confirm what determination has been made as to the future of the area on South Ballina Beach that extends from the southern wall to Broadwater Beach? The future management of this area is causing community concern. Is it to be managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service and, if so, will there be reasonable and adequate community consultation as to its future?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I am unable to respond to the question. I am unaware of the detail of the issues raised by the honourable member but I will undertake to obtain an answer as soon as possible.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Education and Training. At the beginning of term three this year did three staff employed by the Department of Education and Training at Sunning Hill School raise concerns about safety within the school? Did the principal respond to these concerns by charging the three staff members with insubordination and placing them on leave? Did the three staff appeal against this action? Is it a fact that their appeals were upheld? In view of the investigation being undertaken by the Department of Education and Training into events at Yasmar in late July, have these staff been interviewed as to why they raised these issues of safety?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: The question deals with specific and important issues. The only appropriate course of action is for me to take the question on notice and to provide the honourable member with an answer as soon as possible.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Leader of the House. Will the Minister advise the House on recent sightings of the
Page 1410
honourable member for Murray-Darling, Mr Peter Black?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: As honourable members who listen to the radio will be aware, this is a matter of statewide significance and importance. The honourable member for Murray-Darling is still in Tottenham. Indeed, today he will spend most of the day interviewing constituents at Tottenham hall. Tonight he will be heading for Cobar, and he will be passing through Miandetta, Hermidale, Canbelego and Meryula. I understand that yesterday Mr Black was sighted at Nyngan and, according to ABC radio this morning, at Girilambone.

No doubt Blackie is prodigious in the work that he does in country New South Wales. Every day he is all over country New South Wales. I know some of this from listening to ABC radio this morning. Occasionally I listen to ABC radio but this morning I broke the rule of a lifetime: I was reading the Sydney Morning Herald while I was having my breakfast. I was mortified to read an article in which the Opposition accused me of being arrogant.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: It couldn’t have been you.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is what I thought - it could not be me. I was flabbergasted. In fact, it was not good for my health. I was so bewildered by what I read that I ended up smoking my bacon and eating my cigarette. The fact is that no-one in this Parliament or, indeed, anywhere in Australia is more modest, self-effacing, gentle, caring, generous or humble. I thank the leader of the Country Labor Party for his question.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Mineral Resources, representing the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads. Is it a fact that on Thursday 7 October CityRail ticket inspectors surprised approximately 100 ticket-holding commuters on the Central to Wollongong interurban train with $100 fine notices for alighting from a train at Sutherland station which supposedly stopped to pick up passengers only? One commuter who alighted was a woman who has travelled on the same train for four years. Can the Minister clarify why passengers with rail tickets were fined for alighting from the train?

Can the Minister further clarify that the platform signboard indicated that the service would make a stop at Sutherland station, leading passengers to believe that they could alight from the train at Sutherland? Does the Minister agree that issuing a $100 fine was wrong and that CityRail failed in its duty of service to communicate clearly this little-known rule about alighting from interurban services at suburban stops? What action will the Minister take to investigate this poorly executed sting operation at Sutherland station? Will the Minister revoke the fine notices issued to fare-paying passengers due to CityRail’s inept handling of this situation?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I thank the Hon. Elaine Nile for her important and detailed questions. These serious questions should be answered in detail. I will attempt to obtain from my colleague in the other House, the Hon. Carl Scully, a detailed answer to the honourable member’s questions.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware that $32.5 million is currently being spent on 10,000 radio handsets for the Olympics radio network? Is it a fact that when the Minister for Emergency Services, Mr Debus, and all his ministerial advisers were asked during the budget estimates committee hearings whether the radios are compatible with the Government’s radio network and whether they could be used after the Olympics, they were not even aware of the budget allocation or the purchase of the radios? From that, can the Treasurer draw the conclusion that $32.5 million is being spent on radios that may not be compatible with the Government’s radio network and that they may not be of any use after the Olympic Games? Does the Treasurer find that sort of extravagance acceptable?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not familiar with the issue. I will take it up with my relevant colleagues and report to the House in due course.

The Hon. A. B. MANSON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. What is the significance of the oil and gas exploration taking place in New South Wales? How is the Carr Government promoting further exploration?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I thank the Hon. A. B. Manson for his continued interest in the minerals sector in New South Wales. I am pleased to inform the House that Amadeus Resources announced on Tuesday its intention to explore for oil west of Maitland. This follows its earlier announcement on 30 September indicating its
Page 1411
intention to explore west of Wollongong. I am expecting a third location to be announced in the near future. To put that in context, New South Wales has no commercial source of oil production and almost all of the gas requirements of New South Wales are sourced from Moomba in South Australia. This has particularly constrained gas usage in New South Wales and makes us vulnerable to disruptions to supply. New South Wales is currently experiencing unprecedented levels of petroleum exploration activity.

Private expenditure on exploration over the next few years is expected to total up to $85 million. The discovery of gas in New South Wales has the potential to increase competition, resulting in lower energy prices to consumers. This has the potential to create opportunities for the development of new industries in regional New South Wales, in particular, industries such as food processing, secondary minerals processing and power generation. In addition, gas energy produces about half the greenhouse gas emissions compared to coal. Increased use of gas, particularly for power generation and transport, would contribute significantly to reducing New South Wales greenhouse gas emissions. The dramatic increase in exploration investment in New South Wales is a direct result of the Carr Government’s funding to promote exploration.

Exploration results to date are highly encouraging. Along with the project by Amadeus to test for oil, several projects, including projects at Narrabri, Camden, Gloucester and the Darling Basin, are planned to test gas production over the next 24 months. Under this Government new areas of the State have been identified that were not previously thought to be prospective for petroleum. The Government will continue to investigate the regions for exploration potential in order to attract new investment.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I ask the Treasurer, in his own capacity and representing the Minister for Police: Is it a fact that as a result of budget cuts the Drug Enforcement Agency has been ordered to stop marijuana plantation raids and eradication, especially on the North Coast of New South Wales? Is it a fact that the specialist support agency which runs covert surveillance of drug operators has also had to reduce operations because of funding cutbacks? Will the Government confirm or deny these reports? If the reports are accurate, will the Government take urgent action to allocate the extra funds, or is this a backdoor way of decriminalising or legalising the growing of marijuana?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I thank Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile for his question. The advice that I received this morning is that the article in the Sydney Morning Herald is unfounded. The New South Wales Deputy Police Commissioner for Specialist Operations, Ken Moroney, has advised today that there will be no change to the program. In other words, New South Wales police officers will continue to target the supply and manufacture of illegal drugs in New South Wales, as one would expect.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: As usual, my question is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. When will the Ballina Hospital dialysis training unit, which was opened by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, Dr Refshauge, with great fanfare just before the election eight months ago, begin to operate?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Health.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS: My question is directed to the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer. Will he inform the House why some insurers are charging pensioners green slip premiums of over $500?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for his question. Members of the House would be aware of the considerable decline generally in the cost of green slip insurance for motorists. Across New South Wales, premiums have been reduced. Age pensioners should also enjoy reduced premiums for green slip insurance. As is the case for all motorists, the premiums can vary between different insurance companies. The Government is helping all motorists to access the cheapest prices through the green slip help line. For the price of a local call, people can find the cheapest premium by dialling 1800 021 031 or by accessing the web at www.maa.nsw.gov.au.

I am advised that the cheapest premium without conditions for a 69-year-old pensioner with a 20-year-old car is $316 from QBE Insurance Group Ltd. If a pensioner meets some conditions, such as gaining a no-claim bonus on comprehensive
Page 1412
insurance, better rates may be available from some other insurers. At the other end of the scale, some insurers offer premiums to pensioners of more than $500. Indeed I have identified at least one instance of a $528 premium costing $200 more than the best price offered by QBE.

The Government is keen to ensure that pensioners receive the best possible price. People who have been with one insurer may find, when opening their green slip renewal notice, that there has been an increase in premium without any explanation. I believe it is incumbent upon insurers to explain changes to loadings or discounts that have been made available to their clients. I have already raised this issue with the insurers and will continue to pursue this matter.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Did they say, "Go away"?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: No, they have not said that; they have said that they are going to come back to me and fix the problem. In relation to pensioners, I inform the House that the Motor Accidents Authority will widely publicise the green slip helpline through advertisements in the seniors’ press as other information facilities are less likely to be used by senior citizens. This will be done in addition to the current media campaign, which also features details of the green slip helpline.

I have noted the interjections of the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, who told me during a private conversation about a survey he had taken personally of North Coast residents indicating particular falls in green slip premiums and a lack of falls in green slip premiums that he has recorded throughout his local area. He continues to repeat what is something of a furphy.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You would not be relying on any information that he gave you, would you?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I am, because I am assuming that it is right. I am checking it out.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca has a lot to learn.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I have a lot to learn, but I am improving all the time. I am taking the word of the Hon. Dr P. B. V. Pezzutti and I am investigating the problems that he has brought to my attention. However, he continues to repeat the furphy that country people will not get a decrease in the cost of green slip premiums. Honourable members may recall that during my second reading speech and debate on the legislation, there was reference to green slip premiums for country motorists set at 80 per cent of the Sydney metropolitan rate. Therefore, the decline in the premiums is represented by country people paying approximately 80 per cent of the metropolitan rate. The Hon. Dr P. B. V. Pezzutti knows that people who live in country areas will pay less for their green slip premiums and he knows that the decrease in premiums will be proportionately similar to the decrease enjoyed by Sydney motorists.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: You promised them a $100 cut.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: No, I did not promise anybody in country areas a $100 decrease. The honourable member knows that the decrease in premiums will be proportionately similar to the decrease enjoyed by Sydney motorists. He knows that because three weeks ago in response to a question I informed the House that rural motorists would pay less. Rural motorists will now pay much less, although that is probably of little interest to the Hon. D. J. Gay. Most country motorists will pay a green slip premium of approximately $255. The goods and services tax [GST] is applicable on top of that, as honourable members opposite well know, just as it is applicable to many other household necessities.

Members of the Opposition were happy to see country people, including pensioners and families, slugged with a GST. Members opposite wanted to amend the green slip legislation and would have hit country motorists with a green slip premium costing $424 plus GST. The Coalition offers rural motorists a $424 premium; Labor offers rural motorists a $255 premium. I believe that that is the end of the story. However, I will continue to investigate the issues raised with me by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti.

The Hon. D. E. OLDFIELD: My question is directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, representing the Minister for Transport. What were the total staffing numbers on railway stations in New South Wales as at 30 June 1998 and 30 June 1999? Have those staffing numbers changed since 30 June 1999? Are the new ticket turnstiles and ticket-vending machines manufactured in Australia? If not, is there a similar system manufactured in Australia? Does the Government plan to install these ticket machines on every station in New South
Page 1413
Wales, or will they be restricted to the metropolitan area?

What is the level of reliability of the machines, considering that at Kingswood station for many weeks until recently there was a noticed stating, "Due to continuous vandalism the ticket machine will be available only during office hours"? What security measures are being put in place at stations where there may not be any ticketing or other platform staff on hand, particularly at night?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I thank the honourable member for his very detailed question. I will convey his question to my colleague the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads and obtain a detailed answer.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: My question is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Has he noted the Auditor-General’s finding that there is at least a perception of a conflict of interest in the way the Protective Commissioner manages clients’ money and assets? As the Commissioner is managing larger amounts of money for people with serious lifelong incapacities, will he ensure that the Commissioner complies with the recommendation for transparency, including regular detailed financial statements to clients and their families? Will he indicate his response to the Auditor-General’s recommendation that clients and their families have a right to, and a need for, an accessible, simple and speedy appeal process?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: In relation to the first part of the honourable member’s question, I am prepared to take appropriate steps to ensure transparency and disclosure. I take the Auditor-General’s comments in that respect very seriously. I will be working with the Protective Commissioner, who, I am sure the honourable member would acknowledge, has a difficult task and is subject from time to time to criticism which is not always justified. Certainly the idea that there should be transparency, accountability and disclosure of information is an important one. I think the Auditor-General’s report ought to be given real weight.

The second part of the question concerns some form of review mechanism in respect of administrative decisions taken by the Protective Commissioner in implementing plans or policies in relation to particular individuals. I am very sympathetic to that. I think I mentioned in the House earlier this week that I have had discussions on that issue with my colleague the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Women, Faye Lo Po’, and I have asked my department to prepare some proposals in relation to it.

One real answer to the problems of people such as relatives lodging complaints about decisions that are made by the Protective Commissioner is that there ought to be some mechanism or some rights of review in relation to those decisions, and I am wholly sympathetic to that proposition.

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Is he aware that the Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner has expressed concern about the Federal Government’s response to the revision of the Maternity Protection Convention (Revised) 1952 (No. 103), especially the Federal Government’s stated support for compulsory pregnancy testing?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The New South Wales Government is committed to preventing discrimination in employment on the grounds of pregnancy and to providing parental leave and avenues of redress in the event of discrimination, through both industrial relations and anti-discrimination legislation. In response to a request received from the Federal Government in early 1998 the New South Wales Government completed the International Labour Organisation [ILO] questionnaire on maternity protection and forwarded it to the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business in June 1998.

The New South Wales Government was also asked to provide additional comments to the Australian Government in March 1999 on the issues of cash and medical benefits, periods of compulsory leave, employment protection and non-discrimination. It is interesting to compare the marked differences between the New South Wales Government’s response to the ILO maternity protection survey with the final response the Federal Government submitted to the ILO. In particular, the Federal Government opposed a blanket prohibition of compulsory pregnancy testing on recruitment.

The New South Wales Government supported such a prohibition. The New South Wales Government objects to compulsory pregnancy testing by employers in any circumstances. This would amount to unlawful discrimination against women and is offensive to privacy principles. Any proposal
Page 1414
for compulsory pregnancy testing should be strongly opposed. The Federal Government’s response also opposed the extension of maternity leave to casual workers, unlike the New South Wales Government, which, in accordance with its pre-election commitments. is currently working on extending parental leave entitlements to casual workers, appropriately defined, in New South Wales.

The State Government has actively promoted the rights of pregnant women through: a statewide maternity rights awareness campaign, which distributed 2,500 kits in the first week of operation; provision of advice to employees and employers in relation to parental leave through the Department of Industrial Relations awards inquiry service and the Women’s Equity Bureau; and the development of a draft code of practice in relation to occupational health and safety for pregnant workers, which the recent Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report of the national pregnancy and work inquiry recommended be adopted nationally.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Mineral Resources, representing the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads. Considering that the Minister for Transport acknowledged that his job slashing and restructuring of public transport services were "aggressive" and needed to be renegotiated, has the Government learned that it needs to work with unions and its members? Will the Government immediately heed the concerns of the Municipal Employees Union on competitive tendering without forcing workers to take strike action, as is planned in the next few weeks?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I have no doubt that my colleague and the Government as a whole are very conscious of the union movement and the employees employed in the -

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: That is why we keep having demonstrations outside the gates of Parliament House.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: People are entitled to demonstrate. They are entitled to have a point of view. The Government governs for all New South Wales, not just for one sector. I am more than happy to convey the question to my colleague in the other House and seek an answer.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: Treasurer, on 15 September you informed the House that you had not read the December 1998 report of the Council on the Cost of Government. Have you now read that report?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: I ask a supplementary question. Treasurer, in view of your answer will you apologise to police officers and nurses who have been struggling with insufficient funding from your budget whilst you ignore the significant savings identified in the report that you will not read?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I always enjoy questions from the Hon. J. M. Samios. I am pleased to refer him to the budget which I introduced in this Parliament in June. I would recommend that he first read the Budget Speech. In summary, it indicates huge increases in expenditure in health, education, community services and road building. There have been very significant increases in practically every area of government activity, not only nominally but also in real terms.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question is to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. What is the Government doing to reduce and prevent violence and crimes against gay men, lesbians and transgender people in our community?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: In the past year the Government has introduced a number of major initiatives designed to protect the rights of sections of the community that seem to be vulnerable to violence - lesbians, gay men and transgender people. We are concerned about their right to safety and freedom from violent attacks and abuse. In December 1998 an announcement was made that the Crime Prevention Division in the Attorney General’s Department would employ a policy officer (gay and lesbian liaison) to develop policies and programs to reduce or prevent violence and crimes against gay men, lesbians and transgender people, and to promote liaison between the communities and the various parts of the department.

The policy officer has been undertaking a series of consultations with key business units within the department, gay and lesbian community organisations and government agencies. One of the major outcomes of this consultation process is to inform the department about the current priorities for crime prevention and law reform in relation to lesbians, gay men and transgender people. The effective promotion of this position has also been achieved by establishing a media profile within the gay and lesbian media, including interviews with all
Page 1415
major weekly publications and several monthly magazines.

Organisations representing the gay, lesbian and transgender communities continue to express their concern about high levels of violence, assault and abuse directed at lesbians, gay men and transgender people. A number of research studies have shown that gay men and lesbians are much more likely to experience assaults and violent physical and verbal attacks than are men and women in the community generally. The Crime Prevention Division has provided funding for three innovative projects conducted by the New South Wales Lesbian And Gay Antiviolence Project designed to reduce violence against lesbians and gay men.

The policy officer has been working closely with the antiviolence project on planning the forthcoming Community United Against Violence campaign targeting young people, parents of young people and people working with these groups and in the areas of community safety, violence and/or crime prevention. This project will involve a range of activities, including the development of resources, information and training. The policy officer has also raised the concerns of gay men, lesbians and transgender people about the operation of domestic and personal violence orders in the Attorney General’s Department’s review of apprehended violence orders.

Personal violence orders in particular have been an effective legal recourse for people who are experiencing or who are threatened with homophobic violence and attacks. The policy officer’s liaison work includes facilitating a co-ordinated approach across the department to ensure that people understand and are able to access the justice system, and in turn that the justice system can and does respond appropriately to their needs. They are some of the initiatives taken in this area over the last year or so. They have promoted the interests of minority groups that are vulnerable to oppression and unfair treatment.

The Hon. P. J. BREEN: Is the Treasurer aware of a report in today’s Daily Telegraph to the effect that Westpac bank has capped the debt of the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party at $3.5 million? Does the Treasurer know that Westpac bank is a major contributor to the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party, with donations totalling $116,000 according to the latest returns filed with the State Electoral Office? Is he also aware that returns filed by the Liberal Party indicate that there are no major bank contributors to the New South Wales division of the party with the exception of $10,000 donated by St George bank? Can the Treasurer assure the House that there is no conflict of interest between Westpac bank’s role as a substantial creditor of the Liberal Party and its position as a sponsor of the Labor Party?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not familiar with donations that various groups make to any political party in Australia. Obviously, the Liberal Party would be happy with the Westpac bank as its banker, otherwise it would not bank with Westpac. It is a choice for the Liberal Party.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment, representing the Minister for Western Sydney. Will the Minister advise how much partially treated effluent flows into Mount Victoria’s Fairy Dell Creek each time there is a torrential downpour in this environmentally sensitive area? Is it a fact that the sewage treatment plants at Mount Victoria and Blackheath are underdesigned and are unable to cope with the increase in population? What is the completion date for the upgrading of the treatment plants in Mount Victoria? What is the completion date for the new treatment plant in Blackheath? Is it a fact that work on the two plants will not begin until 2001, despite the urgent need identified by a recent environmental impact statement?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I will take the question on notice, but I am not sure that the Minister for Western Sydney is the appropriate Minister to refer it to. I undertake to obtain a response as soon as possible.

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

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 9 September the Hon. Elaine Nile asked me a question without notice relating to police regional commands. The Minister for Police has provided the following response:

The Minister for Police has advised that budget allocations for all regional commands are consistent with those provided in 1998-99. As I stated in the House on 9 September, the Police Service budget contains a special supplement to accommodate additional demands placed on the Police Service by the Olympic Games.

Page 1416

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 9 September the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti asked me a question without notice relating to hospital food quality. The Minister for Health has provided the following response:

The Department of Health reports that Public Health Unit inspectors advise public hospitals on food safety practices on an ongoing basis. A hospital menu assessment tool has been developed, to serve as an indicator of nutritional quality for hospital food services. The tool is a key component of the Healthy Food Choices for Hospitals Strategy 1996-2000. The tool provides the means to gather information for needs assessment, intervention and evaluation of nutritional quality of food serves, and allows for assessment of the nutritional quality of hospital menus and menus for hospital cafeterias, by food service and other area health service personnel. The tool has been printed and is soon to be dispatched to all public hospitals in New South Wales. The tool will also be available on the New South Wales Health Intranet, allowing accessibility by private hospitals and other institutional food services.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: On 9 September the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn asked me, in my capacity representing the Minister for Education and Training, a question without notice regarding a lower Hunter high school. I have been supplied with the following answer:

(1) The Child Protection Investigation Unit of the Department of Education and Training did receive an allegation of improper conduct concerning a teacher in a lower Hunter high school.

(2) There were no grounds for standing the teacher aside.

(3) I am advised that the substance of the allegation was of a minor nature and no student was assessed as being at risk.

(4) Following receipt of the allegation, staff and students were interviewed to establish the facts of the complaint. Subsequently, certain matters were put to the teacher involved. The teacher was given the standard time to respond. In the light of his response some further interviews were conducted. Having considered all available evidence, I am advised that the Child Protection Investigation Unit determined that the allegation was not substantiated and the case was closed.

(5) No.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Yesterday the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans asked me a question about the possibility of making public the contracts with insurers who manage workers compensation claims. I inform the House that insurers operating on a fee-for-service basis to manage the New South Wales WorkCover scheme are licensed under the Relevant Provisions of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. They do not have contracts as such, but apply for and obtain a licence. The performance of the insurers is monitored under the conditions of that licence.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Yesterday I was asked a question by the Hon. I. Cohen about financial rewards to insurers if the insurer is able to persuade a worker to accept a lump-sum settlement of a particular quantum. The inquiries I have made since yesterday do not indicate any difference between the answer I gave yesterday and the actual position. However, I provide the following further information:

•The WorkCover Authority has no role in determining, approving or facilitating lump sum commutations or redemptions.

•The Workers Compensation Act 1987 provides that if a worker agrees, the insurer may commute the worker’s weekly entitlements to a lump sum. If the worker agrees to the commutation, their legal representatives must approach the Compensation Court to determine the amount of the lump sum to be paid to the worker.

•In practice, most requests for commutation are initiated by workers who want to resolve their claim into a lump sum and make a fresh start. As with any compromise and release arrangement including commutations, the amount of the lump sum reflects a discounted amount on the estimated value of the claim if it had run to completion, since the worker has the immediate benefit and use of the funds. There is nothing novel in this approach; it is common to all personal injury jurisdictions.

•The Workers Compensation Advisory Council also strongly advocated the increased availability of commutations as a means to resolve workers compensation liabilities and contribute to the deficit reduction. There has been a high take up rate by workers for commutations, and this has contributed to the deficit reduction outcome.

•In respect of incentives for insurers to use commutations, insurers are paid according to an overall remuneration package negotiated between insurers and WorkCover taking into account the Advisory Council’s expectations of insurer performance, and ultimately approved by the WorkCover Board.

•There are three components of this package, a base fee reflecting the process based nature of the majority of workers compensation claims, performance-based fees for achieving the overall scheme objectives, and an investment management fee.

•One component of performance fees is an amount of 8 per cent of claims cost savings for insurers who actively work to reduce the scheme deficit. Insurers are able to use a variety of strategies that best suit their portfolio to reduce the deficit, including better injury and claims management, use of commutations and use of two-year reviews on entitlements.

Page 1417

•As I indicated yesterday, the scheme’s projected deficit has fallen substantially. This has been achieved through a variety of means, but principally through better injury management and consequent better return to work. This was an explicit objective of the 1998 reforms.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: On Thursday 15 September the Hon. M. I. Jones asked me a question about noxious weeds. The Minister for the Environment has supplied the following answer:

1. The seeds of some weed species can attach to a horse’s coat or lodge in its hooves. The seeds can then be dislodged and drop into soil that has been cut up by hooves. Such disturbed soil presents a highly favourable environment for the setting of weed seeds. In addition, horses can consume other grasses, clovers and weeds found in pasture and along roadsides. The seeds of these species can be present in manure.

2. See answer 1.

Questions without notice concluded.

[The President left the chair at 1.04 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 11 October 1999 the Clerk received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones a written notice of a dispute as to the validity of a claim of privilege on documents received from Delta Electricity relating to subparagraphs (b), (d) and (e) of paragraph 1 of the resolution of the House of 15 September 1999.

In accordance with the resolution of the House, I appointed Sir Laurence Street, a retired Supreme Court judge, as an independent arbiter to evaluate and report on the validity of the claim of privilege. The Clerk released the disputed documents to Sir Laurence Street, who has now provided his report to the Clerk. The report is available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. I. COHEN [2.32 p.m.]: I am disappointed with the position of the major political parties on this issue. Australia is a signatory to and has ratified the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child. As I said earlier, Article 3 of that declaration states:

State Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being.

Article 5 states:

State Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

That is extremely relevant to issues surrounding smoking, and in particular passive smoking in motor vehicles. Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child states:

State Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from . . . negligent treatment.

Article 24 states:

State Parties recognise the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health . . . parents and children are informed, have access to education and are supported in the use of basic knowledge of child health.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: More information should be made available about that.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I agree that more information on child health should be available to the public. At the same time there has been a two-pronged attack in many areas, particularly health, where there is both public education and certain punitive measures. There are many other laws in the community, including those relating to drink-driving or the compulsory wearing of seat belts.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: But it does not mean that a person cannot drink while driving a car. People are allowed to drink while they are driving.

The Hon. I. COHEN: Surely drivers are not allowed to drink alcohol.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Yes, they can drink while driving, provided they are not drunk when they are driving.

The Hon. I. COHEN: Perhaps we need to debate that issue at another time.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I see it all the time on Parramatta Road - drivers having a drink on the way home.

Page 1418

The Hon. I. COHEN: It never ceases to amaze me that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, who is a medical practitioner -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I am simply telling you what the law is.

The Hon. I. COHEN: The issue at hand is both a social issue and a very important medical issue. I would have expected the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, as a medical practitioner, to be far more sympathetic to this type of legislation. Australia has signed and ratified a treaty which specifies that governments must take action with regard to children in specific areas. This bill would ensure that action would be taken. Currently children are exposed to smoke in vehicles because that area is unregulated. They may not want to be exposed, or may not know of the harm that the smoke can do to them.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: The Greens have been sucked in by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, the big manipulator and wheeler and dealer.

The Hon. I. COHEN: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti does not seem to appreciate that young children are not aware of the dangers of smoke inhalation. I suggest that he allow me to continue my contribution.

[Interruption]

Given that I am on a time limit, I will not listen to the equivalent of medical blasphemy. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is defending the tobacco industry against reasonable legislation. It is up to members of Parliament, as legislators, to make laws which protect children from harm. The Greens believe that parents’ rights extend only so far. They do not extend to harming their children. It is appropriate that a parent’s right to smoke should be curtailed so that it does not harm children.

Evidence is now coming to light about the health issues surrounding passive smoking. A report released in November 1997 by the National Health and Medical Research Council showed that passive smoking contributed to asthma in 46,500 Australian children a year. The report described the effect of passive smoking as more marked in children whose mothers smoked more than 10 cigarettes a day. I know many people who have respiratory problems or asthma, and it appears that such conditions are more prevalent now than they were in the past.

The accumulated effects of increased pollution and cigarette smoking have created a social and medical disaster that must be properly addressed. The report of the National Health and Medical Research Council, which reviewed more than 400 international studies, concluded that non-smokers who lived with a smoker had a 30 per cent greater risk of developing lung cancer than those who lived with a non-smoker.

Despite the position of the major parties, a number of honourable members approached me during the luncheon break. The Hon. A. B. Kelly spoke of an aunt who died 30 years ago of lung cancer, despite the fact that she had never smoked a cigarette in her life, because her husband was a chain smoker. The Hon. A. B. Kelly said that when he was a general manager in the Wellington area he was able to achieve $300 extra for council vehicles that had been driven by non-smokers. The Treasurer should be made aware of the added value of a motor vehicle fleet if people do not smoke in the vehicles.

The report estimated that each year there were about 12 new cases of lung cancer and 11 deaths from lung cancer in people who had never smoked, due to exposure at home; children who were exposed to environmental tobacco smoke were about 40 per cent more likely to suffer from symptoms of asthma; about 8 per cent of childhood asthma was attributable to passive smoking; children under 18 months of age faced a 60 per cent increase in the risk of developing respiratory illnesses such as croup, bronchitis and pneumonia; and about 13 per cent of such cases each year were due to passive smoking.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones has received correspondence from the Asthma Foundation of New South Wales and the Heart Foundation, which both support the bill. If the Government and the Opposition supported the bill it would send a significant message to the children of New South Wales, but neither party will support it. If this bill were passed, I would suggest that the Government embark on an education campaign to make parents and caregivers aware that they risk prosecution if they smoke in a car while a person under 18 years of age is in the car. This bill is a valuable initiative, which any reasonable member of this House should support. By failing to support the bill the major parties have shown that they have no conscience.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.40 p.m.]: I support the bill. Honourable members will be aware that this very day Philip Morris has admitted that tobacco is both harmful and addictive. It is a great breakthrough! The fact that for 48 years it has been known that smoking causes lung cancer and that Philip Morris has done immense harm and
Page 1419
killed billions and will kill billions is just by the way. I presume that because Philip Morris has not yet admitted that passive smoking is harmful it will still defend passive smoking cases with the type of sticky science it has been using for years.

This admission may be seen as the start of the end game against the tobacco industry, but as tobacco smoking throughout the world continues to increase we should not be too confident about our end game. The industry has survived by sneaky tactics. Our Government, and I refer to both so-called major political parties, has done as little as possible for as long as possible. Any progress towards smoke-free air has come through litigation. The major parties have been too gutless and too spineless to act against tobacco interests for the sake of public health.

I once spoke to the Liberal Party about the harmful effects of tobacco and the need for something to be done about it politically. One fellow said that I had a very liberal attitude and that I should join the Liberal Party, so I did - perhaps somewhat hastily. I was under the illusion that no-one had told the politicians that something needed to be done. My stock-in-trade then was an endless litany of tobacco-caused diseases: people dying, people on ventilators, people having their legs chopped off, and people suffering from lung cancer and every other sort of cancer. It was my entire life.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: Is that more than one patient?

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: The majority of acutely ill patients that I treated suffered from tobacco-related diseases. The official statistics of the number of people who die from tobacco-related illnesses are unbelievably conservative - so conservative that they are wrong. Many more people are dying from tobacco-related diseases than are revealed in the official statistics. When all the cleverness is put aside, if the honourable member worked with seriously ill people in cancer wards and intensive care wards he would know that the sickest people in those wards suffer from tobacco-caused diseases.

This minor bill refers to cars carrying people under 18 years of age, yet the major parties still do not have the guts to support it. When I was a member of the Liberal Party and said that something had to be done about tobacco advertising some old fellow said to me, "Sonny, they are very generous to our party. Do you know that last year they gave us $30,000?" I said, "The going price for the Liberal Party in New South Wales is $30,000, is it?" He said, "You won’t get far with an attitude like that, sonny." He was dead right: I did not get very far.

When I was a member of the Health and Welfare Policy Subcommittee I wrote 17 tobacco policies, which the then shadow health minister, Rosemary Foot, pruned to four. All of the policies said basically the same thing, so four would have done quite well. The chairman of the joint policy committee was the chairman of a tobacco company! I was wasting my time; I did not go back. In 1981 I joined the billboard sprayers.

Now, 18 years later, we hear mealy-mouthed nonsense from the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti as to why he cannot support this bill. What is new? One would think a modest little bill like this would have some chance. It does not threaten the big boys, the funds are still coming in, the old mates lobby is okay, but we cannot risk it. Smokers have an increased risk of being involved in car accidents. There is some doubt as to whether that is because they drive older cars, they are in lower socioeconomic groups, they tend to drink more, they take more risks, or they have grossly increased carbon monoxide levels compared to those of non-smokers.

Smoking while driving involves opening the packet, putting the cigarette in one’s mouth, fiddling with matches, lighting the cigarette, and even dropping the cigarette and trying to pick it up again as one drives along. It is not clear which of all those risks is the greatest. It may be said that nicotine keeps people awake. Perhaps the driver who is not smoking is more at risk if the passenger is smoking because although the driver is not getting a nicotine hit to perk him up, he is only getting the carbon monoxide effect.

The carbon monoxide effect is quite marked. Recently in my occupational health practice I measured the carbon monoxide levels in people who worked in toll booths. The level of carbon monoxide in a non-smoker is either one or two parts per million. The readings of people who worked in toll booths were less than five parts per million, with the exception of smokers, whose readings were generally more than 20 parts per million and up to 65 parts per million. Smoking is a far greater risk than working at a toll booth that is shrouded all day in exhaust fumes.

The coalition of the non-smokers rights group has been the driving force in the world movement against smoking. Governments have been pathetic and health workers have been hopeless lobbyists. Cars are the ultimate passive smoking environment,
Page 1420
and children are most affected. While I was working in the casualty section of Blacktown Hospital, which was one of my first jobs, a woman whose husband was a milkman and was going broke, decided to poison herself and her three children.

She turned on the gas, closed all the windows and doors in her kitchen, gave the children some tablets and took some herself. Her husband came home earlier than expected, found them and saved them. It is interesting to note that the baby was so badly affected it could not stand. The next oldest child was a bit groggy on his feet, and the oldest was not affected. The conclusion to be drawn from that example is that the smaller the person the faster the metabolism is affected. Therefore, babies are affected far more by passive smoking than older children or adults because of their faster metabolism and the affinity of their haemoglobin for carbon monoxide.

This bill is not absurd. Cars are the ultimate small environment in which carbon monoxide is concentrated. Smokers are at greater risk of death or accidents than non-smokers. There is no reason why this bill should not be passed. The suggestion that policing would be a problem provides the Government with a loophole. Most laws that relate to smoking are not enforced by police; they are enforced by pressure from society. People wear seatbelts because it is commonsense to do so and because they save lives. People obey most laws because they are trained to do so, and they would obey this one as well. To suggest otherwise is just a cop-out for a Government that does not want to do anything about this problem.

This bill could result in improved public health, but once again the major parties are venal and are not willing to bite the bullet and do something about tobacco. The Government could do a thousand things. It could prosecute the tobacco industry, it could stop advertising at grand prix meetings, and it could get smoke-free indoor air, but it is doing none of those things. The Government will not even keep babies in cars away from carbon monoxide and reduce the rate of motor vehicle accidents. That is a pathetic effort. We support this bill and will call for a division if necessary.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [2.50 p.m.]: I support the Public Health Amendment (Smoking in Vehicles) Bill. The object of this bill is to amend the Public Health Act 1991 to prohibit the smoking of tobacco in motor vehicles in which persons under the age of 18 years are present. I congratulate the Hon. R. S. L. Jones on introducing this bill and I commend him for his efforts to attempt to protect our youth and to decrease the effect of passive smoking on them. I am surprised that neither the Government nor the Opposition members will support this bill. I do not understand that. The arguments put forward by the Hon. Janelle Saffin and the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti for not supporting this bill are weak and unacceptable. I am led to believe that they have had to tow the party line.

The prohibition of smoking in vehicles in which minors are present would do much to alleviate the severe effects that side stream smoke is now known to cause. Honourable members who have spoken in this debate have been able to demonstrate that passive smokers suffer a great deal from environmental tobacco smoke [ETS]. It is particularly appropriate that we are debating this bill during National Asthma Week. Earlier the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti referred to the theme of National Asthma Week as being "Be asthma aware, care for my air", but the theme for National Asthma Week is actually "Be asthma aware, care for my air - don’t smoke around kids". The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti conveniently omitted to include the words "don’t smoke around kids", which is what this bill is all about.

With the increasing incidence of asthma in Australia, it is not surprising that the Asthma Foundation supports this bill, as smoking is a major contributor to this debilitating disease. I believe that this bill has the support not only of the Asthma Foundation but also of health agencies such as Action on Smoking and Health, the Heart Foundation and the Council for Civil Liberties. Figures released by the Asthma Foundation show that passive smoking contributes to the symptoms of asthma in 46,000 children each year. The effects of passive smoking are exacerbated in the confined space of a car. It is important for all honourable members to support this legislation.

Smoking is already banned in many places - schools, cinemas, aircraft, buses and trains - so why not in cars? It is time to add cars to the list. The World Health Organisation published a report this year in which it supported the right of children to grow up in a smoke-free environment. Included in its recommendations was the protection of children from passive smoking in cars. It is tantamount to abuse if we continue to accept that it is the prerogative of parents or adults to decide whether they should protect children from the passive effects of their own smoking addiction. This bill provides for penalties, and that will assist to stop this abuse.

Page 1421

It is not insignificant that recently a summit was held in this Parliament to discuss ways to deal with drugs and to help society deal with the effects of drug-taking, particularly by our youth. A drug such as tobacco, although it is the cause of many illnesses and adds largely to our health budget, hardly rated a mention.

The Drug Summit concentrated its efforts on illicit drugs. Tobacco is a legal product, but smoking kills significantly more people in Australia than do all the illicit drugs combined. Heroin kills disturbingly quickly, and each year between 1 per cent and 2 per cent of the heroin-using population overdose, which is between 700 and 1,000; but tobacco results in the death of between 18,000 and 20,000 people annually - 21 per cent of Australians being smokers.

Tobacco is, therefore, the most insidious of all drugs - creepingly addictive and highly deadly. Several years ago the Standing Committee on Social Issues conducted an inquiry into drugs and youth. I know the topic of drugs very well. One thing I learned from that inquiry was that there is no safe puff. We should aim to ensure that we negate mechanisms or enticements that encourage young Australians to smoke. Besides peer pressure, a major mechanism which has caused 16 per cent of Australians aged between 14 to 19 years to become regular smokers is that their parents are smokers.

Removing any amount of passive smoking will undoubtedly alleviate the onset of tobacco addiction and the onset of disease and contribute to a healthier Australia. I wish to read a letter from the National Heart Foundation to the Hon. R. S. L. Jones which outlines its support for this bill. I agree with the sentiments expressed by the National Heart Foundation. The letter states:

Passive smoking is an important and avoidable cause of heart disease, increasing a person’s risk by about 25%. There is evidence for the cardiovascular effects of passive smoking occurring from an early age with the observation of damage of the artery lining in healthy young adults. In June this year the World Health Organisation (WHO) reported that children’s exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) may also contribute to cardiovascular disease.

The WHO also reported that ETS can cause lower respiratory infections such as pneumonia and bronchitis, coughing and wheezing, worsening of asthma and middle ear infections in children. Exposure of non-smoking pregnant women to ETS can lead to decreased birth weights, while infants’ exposure to ETS may contribute to the risk of SIDS.

Despite the health and economic evidence and public support for smoke-free public places, many children in NSW continue to be exposed to ETS on a daily basis.

There is much evidence to support the aims of this legislation. I am concerned in particular about the exposure of young children to tobacco smoke. I am sure that all honourable members would be aware - as I have referred to this matter on numerous occasions - that I have two young grandchildren, Emily and James McPherson, who are aged 10 months and just under three years respectively. We must ensure - and I am vitally concerned about this matter - that children are protected. Let us start with this legislation. I strongly support it.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [2.57 p.m.]: I am extremely disappointed about the views expressed by honourable members from both major parties who do not see fit to support this bill. I am particularly alarmed by the view expressed by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti. In my view he has totally abdicated from his duty as a doctor and an anaesthetist by making such irresponsible statements. I am saddened also by the statements by the Hon. Janelle Saffin. I am sure she really does not agree with many of the things she said today. I no longer have faith in the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti’s views on medical matters, because the statements he made today were not truthful.

The Public Health Amendment (Smoking in Vehicles) Bill is an attempt to address problems associated with smoking, particularly the effect of passive smoking on children and young people. Smoking is one of the biggest risks to public health, but it is the right of people to choose to smoke. However, in certain environments the public good and people’s health rights far outweigh an individual’s right to smoke. In a small way, this legislation will attempt to limit smoking in vehicles in which children under the age of 18 are present.

This legislation is an important child health protection and harm minimisation mechanism. Apart from its legislative importance, it also has a symbolic importance as it is being debated during National Asthma Week. Earlier the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho said the theme of National Asthma Week is "Be asthma aware, care for my air - don’t smoke around kids".

Medical research in Australia and overseas has proven that passive smoking increases the danger of young children developing asthma. As Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said, asthma is prevalent in Australia. Unfortunately, Australia and New Zealand have the highest incidence of asthma in the world. Children are particularly vulnerable to asthma caused by passive smoking, because they are not always able to choose their environment. Evidence
Page 1422
that passive smoking caused respiratory illness in young children emerged during the 1970s, and that evidence is supported by current research.

A recent report of the World Health Organisation stated that 700 million children, almost half of all children worldwide, live in homes where there is frequent tobacco smoking. Children whose mothers smoke have an estimated 70 per cent more respiratory problems, including croup, bronchitis and pneumonia, as well as middle ear infections. The prevalence is 30 per cent higher if the fathers also smoke. It is well known that the risk of lung cancer due to passive smoking is also very high.

Traffic authorities and other agencies should take note of the dangers of people smoking while driving, as well as the health effect on passengers in vehicles. Adults and children who suffer chronic asthma attacks are particularly vulnerable. Awareness of the dangers must be raised to prevent smoking in vehicles, even when passengers are over the age of 18. It has been shown that smoking while driving is a cause of accidents. I would suggest that this legislation go even further and ban smoking in vehicles altogether. As has been said by previous speakers, I fail to understand why the Government bans the use of mobile phones while driving, yet will not support a ban on smoking while driving.

I do not believe that prohibition is the only and most effective answer to health and social problems. Education and active preventive policies must be developed and adapted to assist legislation and raise public awareness. However, in this instance a prohibition on smoking in vehicles carrying children will serve to protect the health of children, and it must be supported by Parliament.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [3.01 p.m.]: There can be no doubt that if we make our decision based on what is in the best interests of children - honourable members should try to imagine a child’s feelings as he or she inhales smoke within the close confines of a car - the Government, Opposition and all crossbenchers will support this bill. If necessary, amend the legislation here or in the other place. Tragically, both major parties have used all their creativity to make pathetic excuses, rather than try to make this legislation work.

The next time I see a baby in a car breathing smoke I will remember their opposition. The next time the Government or Opposition talk about asthma prevention, I will call them hypocrites. The next time the Government talks about the millions of dollars being spent on the health care system, I will remind them that they bear partial responsibility for many of the children in hospital. I congratulate the Hon. R. S. L. Jones on introducing this bill. I deplore the actions and the pathetic excuses of the Government and the Opposition on this important public health issue.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.03 p.m.], in reply: I thank Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, the Hon. I. Cohen, the Hon. J. S. Tingle, the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans, the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, the Hon. Dr P. Wong and the Hon. A. G. Corbett for their strong speeches in support of the legislation. I do not thank the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, whose speech was disgraceful. For the information of the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, who well knows the effect of passive smoking on the health of children and on himself, he having undergone a heart operation, this bill first appeared in 1995. It is hardly a headline-seeking bill, as the honourable member put it.

It is purely coincidental that the bill came up for debate during Asthma Prevention Week. That is fortuitous, because this week highlights the fact that we should be looking after children, particularly those with asthma. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti asserts that I am some kind of Johnny-come-lately in the tobacco debate. I first ran a campaign against smoking in 1965. I started defacing cigarette advertisements in 1966 and 1967, and I also wrote to health Ministers at that time to try to remove cigarette advertising from television. That happened, but not necessarily because of my actions.

The community fully supports this legislation. In a 1995 study, 70 per cent of participants supported a ban on smoking in cars carrying children. The results of the study, which was conducted by the University of Sydney, were published in the British Medical Journal. Only 27 per cent of participants in the survey disagreed with a ban. Even 63 per cent of smokers supported it. It is clear, therefore, that there is tremendous support from the community.

I am pleased that this legislation has come up for debate during National Asthma Week, which has as its theme "Be asthma aware, care for my air - don’t smoke around kids". That means nothing to the Government or the Opposition. Asthma affects one in four children in New South Wales, and passive smoking contributes to the symptoms of asthma in 46,500 children each year. Not only does passive smoking cause asthma, medical evidence shows that it also causes bronchitis, cot death, middle ear infection and low birth weight. Of even more concern is recent evidence that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in childhood is a powerful risk factor later for breast cancer.

Page 1423

The aim of the bill is to protect the interests of children who are exposed to passive smoking in motor vehicles, as well as to reduce the number of motor accidents. Children travelling in cars in which people are smoking are effectively trapped and are exposed to toxic chemicals 50 times the United States of America maximum limit for enclosed spaces. In such circumstances, children cannot remove themselves, as opposed to being exposed to passive smoking in the home, in which case they can at least leave the room.

Children’s exposure to dangerous passive smoking in cars is involuntary. Therefore it is necessary to give them greater protection. Smoking is already banned in many places that children frequent: schools, day care centres, lifts, public places, public buses, trains and taxis. It is ironic that children can be exposed to dangerous levels of toxic chemicals on their way to a smoke-free learning environment. The Asthma Foundation, in a letter of support for the legislation, said:

Passive smoking is known to increase the propensity for young children to develop asthma, a disease which costs the Australian community an estimated $720 million per year. Children are not always able to walk away from cigarette smoke, as adults can - therefore, children’s rights to good health need to be supported.

The letter continued:

Asthma NSW is, therefore supportive of a Bill which seeks to protect the rights of children and reduces their exposure to passive smoking, especially where that passive smoking is in a confined environment such as a motor vehicle.

Mr Andrew Penman, Chief Executive Officer of the New South Wales Cancer Council, said:

As you are aware the NSW Cancer Council has been a strong advocate for measures to reduce exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), as evidence of its harm continues to accumulate . . . Action to protect the health and safety of all children exposed to ETS is long overdue, given the scale of the health problems it causes. Exposure in cars is only one aspect of this problem and I would have preferred a broader approach, perhaps through the Smoking Regulation Act as general legislation to eliminate environmental tobacco smoke . . . However, I am pleased to support the intent of the Bill, and wish you well in your endeavour.

Action On Smoking and Health said:

ASH is very supportive of legislation and education programs that will protect the rights of children to smoke free environments - particularly in enclosed spaces like cars, child care centres, schools, shopping centres, sports centres and other venues that children frequent . . . Enforcement would need to be part of an education program and police checks for compliance with seat belt requirements could be extended to ensure that children are not exposed to the hazard of environmental tobacco smoke.

The Heart Foundation, in a letter to the Minister for Health, said:

Passive smoking is an important and avoidable cause of heart disease, increasing a person’s risk by about 25%. There is evidence of the cardiovascular effects of passive smoking occurring from an early age with the observation of damage of the artery lining in healthy young adults.

The letter continued:

Despite the health and economic evidence and public support for smoke-free public places, many children in NSW continue to be exposed to ETS on a daily basis.

The Heart Foundation believes that what is required is a systematic regulatory response which ensures that all public places where children frequent are smoke-free. This would include such venues as child care centres, schools, shopping centres, sporting venues, cinemas and transportation.

The Foundation urges the Carr Government to take action and support legislative measures for smoke-free public places which will ensure that all children can grow up in an environment free of tobacco smoke.

In 1995 the peak health authority in Australia, the National Health and Medical Research Council, in its draft report entitled "The Health Effects of Passive Smoking", supported the prohibition of smoking in cars. This year the World Health Organisation called on governments around the world to protect children from passive smoking, including protecting them from the effects of smoking in cars.

Furthermore, current fashion dictates that smoking in cars is not acceptable, as ashtrays are no longer standard inclusions in most vehicles. Holden released its latest model without ashtrays as standard items. Customers who wish to smoke in cars will have to pay an additional $80 to install an ashtray. Smoking whilst driving is a considerable safety risk to all passengers, as drivers who smoke have 50 per cent more car accidents than non-smokers, for a range of reasons including the physiological effects of carbon monoxide and nicotine, which may impair a driver’s reactions and ability to judge risk.

In addition, the distraction of trying to light, smoke and dispose of a cigarette whilst driving, turning corners and stopping at traffic lights may lead directly to a loss of concentration and subsequently an increased risk of accident. In all of those instances the driver must momentarily take one hand off the steering wheel. The act of lighting, smoking and disposing of a cigarette is commensurate in many ways with the distraction caused by the use of hand-held mobile phones.

Holding a mobile phone or smoking a cigarette requires one to take one’s hand off the steering
Page 1424
wheel, which increases the chance of an accident. Using hand-held mobile phones whilst driving has been outlawed and the police can fine motorists for doing that. To reduce accidents, the same principle should apply to those smoking while driving or those smoking when there are children in the car. Arguments that the bill infringes on the civil liberties of the individual smoker have no basis whatsoever.

It would be a small number and an incredibly selfish group of people who would argue that they have the right to smoke in their car with a child present, knowing the damage they could do to the child’s health. I sought advice from the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties [CCL] as to its opinion on whether the bill will infringe civil liberties. The CCL policy on smoking states that the prohibition of smoking on public transport is not a civil liberties issue. That decision was based on the principle that while people have the right to smoke, it is legitimate for others to be protected from the impact of passive smoking. Its advice continued:

Since 1977 the evidence of damage caused by passive smoking has mounted, and a Federal Court decision has recently recognised that evidence. In these circumstances, a move to protect children from the effect of passive smoking in cars (whether private or public) should not be seen as a violation of the liberties of the individual smoker, as it might be if the smoker alone were affected. Rather, such a move should be seen as an attempt to secure the rights of children to a healthy environment, and to be protected from the damage caused by passive smoking.

Legal opinions also concur. Peter Gordon from Slater and Gordon agreed with that view and, when asked whether we will infringe smokers’ rights if we legislate to prevent smokers lighting up when there are children in the car, he said:

When children sit in a car in which their parents are smoking, the children are in effect being forced to sit in a locked air environment where they have no choice but to breathe in a poison gas - a gas that has been proved to cause a range of potentially fatal diseases. The children have no effective choice and the risk that they run (because of latency periods involved) stay with them well into adulthood. When parents smoke in the car, they are indulging in a personal ephemeral pleasure (with similar long-term consequences for themselves).

The balance of the rights and interests at stake is beyond argument. Just as we prohibit a parent from physically abusing a screaming child because it might temporarily make the parent feel better, we should likewise prohibit parents from getting a temporary nicotine fix in circumstances which compel their children to inhale lethal toxic gases.

Despite this being Asthma Week and the bill being supported by national and international health specialists, the Asthma Foundation of New South Wales, the Cancer Council, the Heart Foundation, Action on Smoking and Health, civil libertarians, lawyers and the general community, it is extraordinary that the Government is not willing to support the proposal. By not supporting it the Government is flouting the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Australia is a signatory. I draw attention to Article 6, which declares:

States Parties recognise that every child has the inherent right to life. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

It is extremely disappointing that during national Asthma Week - which highlights a disease that affects one in four children in New South Wales and costs the nation $720 million each year - the Government is not prepared to take one small step to defend the rights of children to have a smoke-free environment. To argue that we overgovern if we intervene in the private lives of individuals is extremely shortsighted. The effect of passive smoking on children in cars should be viewed as a public safety issue, just as we legislate to protect children and adults from injury in car accidents.

We require all passengers to wear seat belts and cars to be fitted with baby capsules because we know that their use will lessen injury in the event of an accident. In the same way we must protect children from passive smoking in cars because there is a volume of evidence linking passive smoking in confined spaces to a range of serious illnesses. As I said, the State already legislates to require people to do certain things in their cars. We curb people’s behaviour with mobile phones, and there is absolutely no reason why we cannot legislate to stop people smoking in cars.

[Time for debate expired.]

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

The House divided.

Mr Breen Ms Rhiannon
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Tingle
Mr Cohen Dr Wong
Mr Corbett Tellers,
Mr R. S. L. Jones Rev. Nile
Mrs Nile Mrs Sham-Ho
Page 1425
Mr Bull Mr Lynn
Ms Burnswoods Mr Manson
Mr Della Bosca Mr Oldfield
Mr Dyer Dr Pezzutti
Mrs Forsythe Mr Ryan
Mr Gallacher Ms Saffin
Miss Gardiner Mr Samios
Mr Gay Ms Tebbutt
Mr Hannaford Mr Tsang
Mr Harwin
Mr Hatzistergos Tellers,
Mr Johnson Mr Jobling
Mr Kelly Mr Primrose

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Private Members’ Business Item No. 2 postponed on motion by the Hon. A. G. Corbett.

Private Members’ Business Item No. 3 postponed on motion by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans.

Debate resumed from 23 September.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [3.23 p.m.]: I support the bill. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has clearly identified the damaging impact of gambling on our community. He has introduced a bill that attempts to ameliorate some of those damaging impacts. The excellent research paper prepared by John Wilkinson of the Parliamentary Library Research Service details the odds stacked against gamblers. The paper quotes the founder of classical economic theory, Adam Smith, who commented:

The world neither ever saw, nor ever will see, a perfectly fair lottery. There is not a more certain proposition in mathematics, than that the more tickets you adventure upon, the more likely you are to be a loser.

Unlike most economic exchanges the nature of the contract between a gambler and an organisation providing a gambling service is entirely unequal. The gambler does not have a true appreciation of the improbability of winning as the gambling industry deliberately hides this fact from gamblers. Regulations about many types of commercial transactions protect consumers from being deceived by ensuring that they have a good knowledge of the product or services they are purchasing. This enables them to make informed, rational choices about how they spend their money. We often hear from governments of all types of the importance of people having a free choice in the market. However, the very nature of the gambling transaction defies that logic of a consumer making an informed choice.

Gambling is designed to deceive the gambler, pure and simple. Therefore it is not an equal contract, but a device for transferring money from the poor to the rich. Free marketeers and socialists alike should acknowledge that. When viewed in this way it is clear that the issue with which we are dealing is not the regulation of problem gamblers, but the problem with gambling. The bill attacks the unequal nature of gambling. I offer my strong support to the attempt by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile to regulate the gambling industry and to measure the extent of its damaging impact on the community. I propose to move some amendments of a minor nature in Committee to clause 19 and schedule 1. I support the bill.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.25 p.m.]: The Government opposes the bill. Honourable members will be well aware that the Government has introduced the Gambling Legislation Amendment (Responsible Gambling) Bill, which deals comprehensively with the key topics covered by the bill introduced by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. In the past few days the Government’s bill has been debated at great length. The documents that have been placed before honourable members confirm that the Gambling Legislation Amendment (Responsible Gambling) Bill has been the subject of considerable public consultation, which has ensured that the measures contained in our legislation are balanced, sensible and workable.

Honourable members will also be aware that the Minister in the Legislative Assembly tabled a very detailed set of proposed regulatory controls to be enforced by the bill to deal with matters such as restricting gambling-related advertising and inducements. I agree with what the Hon. A. G. Corbett said about some of the difficulties that gambling creates for families and for the State.
Page 1426
Those matters are currently the subject of a further public consultation process to ensure that full account is taken of the range of views held by members of the community on that important issue. I assure honourable members opposite and those on the crossbenches that the Government will not go down the path taken by Jeff Kennett in Victoria, and make the economy of New South Wales totally casino driven.

The measures contained in the Gambling Legislation Amendment (Responsible Gambling) Bill are designed to set in place the most effective policy platform for ensuring that gambling-related harm in the community is minimised and, at the same time, to acknowledge the pleasure that a great many in the community derive from taking part in gambling activities. I know that the Hon. Elaine Nile may not be able to agree with that, but, for better or for worse, a large number of people enjoy gambling. I will have a great deal more to say on these various issues as debate on the Government’s bill proceeds. The amendments foreshadowed by honourable members of all political persuasions will be considered. For those reasons, the Government opposes the bill.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.28 p.m.]: I support the bill with a proviso, which is that I take on board and agree with what the Hon. I. M. Macdonald has said. The responsible gambling legislation may cover a great deal of the ground covered by the bill introduced by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. I believe that debate on this bill should be adjourned at a suitable stage to allow passage of the Government’s bill so that it can be ascertained whether it does indeed cover the ground that this bill seeks to cover.

However, having said that, at this stage I still support the bill because the issue needs to be discussed and debated. The community should also realise that this Chamber is aware of the immense damage that gambling can do in our community. Earlier today the House debated a bill introduced by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones which sought to stop people smoking in motor vehicles in which young children are present. Many times in this Chamber we have debated bills relating to health, drugs, alcohol, tobacco and other forms of sickness.

We should understand that gambling, particularly compulsive gambling, is also a form of sickness. It is an addiction which is similar to an addiction to tobacco, alcohol or any other drug. It is a drug in our society which is doing great damage. I shall give an example that revolves around poker machines. I have played poker machines many times and my wife has actually won money on them. However, most people put money in but very few take money out. The poker machine is not only a contrivance of lights and electronic circuits - in the old days it had a mechanical arm that one had to pull - it is a psychological device. The psychology of the poker machine is that one has to keep on playing because the next pull might be the big one, the jackpot. Many people have never understood that they are suckers when they play poker machines.

As a member of the administration of various clubs I have had to counsel members who have found it impossible to turn away from poker machines. One case in point was a man whom I know quite well who had nine children and although he was not highly paid, every pay day he put his whole pay into the poker machines. I cannot begin to imagine what his wife and kids lived on. We had to forcibly, physically ban him from playing those machines in an effort to get him to break the habit. Unfortunately, I think he simply played them somewhere else. There is probably no cure for such people but Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is seeking to reduce the inducements, lures and snares that attract people to gambling, something that does so much damage to people, their families and society.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has canvassed a wide field of gambling such as lotto, keno, and poker machines and he would probably include the lotteries because they are a form of gambling. However, it should be understood that gambling is an industry. It is not something that merely grew up by accident because people wanted to gamble. It is a controlled, contrived, managed industry which sets out to impose itself on people by offering them inducements to take part in whatever sort of gambling they happen to choose. Therefore, we must cut the line between the inducement and the person actually taking part in the gambling. That is what the bill seeks to do.

I understand from reading the bill that it seeks to make illegal the advertising or promotion of anything that will encourage people to take part in any kind of gambling. Limitations have already been placed on the advertising of cigarettes, alcohol and similar substances, and gambling is just as much a disease or drug in society as those substances. Therefore, it is reasonable that we impose limitations on the advertising of gambling and, accordingly, I support the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. J. S. Tingle.

Page 1427

Private Members’ Business Item No. 5 postponed on motion by the Hon. Elaine Nile.

Debate resumed from 23 September.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.34 p.m.]: The Opposition has not yet formed a view about this bill. Most members would be aware that the Government has given notice of similar legislation which will include measures to overcome the tablecloth ballot paper that caused so much concern at the last election. The bill introduced by the Hon. J. S. Tingle should attract widespread debate because of excellent options it puts forward to overcome the problem of the tablecloth ballot paper. The bill relates to the eligibility of political parties, as does the Government’s proposed legislation, and specifies that a party must have at least 1,000 genuine members.

It is appropriate that only legitimate parties contest an election, not parties which arrive at five minutes to midnight prior to an election without the Electoral Commissioner having had the opportunity to properly scrutinise whether their registration is valid. There has been a proliferation of those types of parties at the past few elections. They are single issue groups or parties in name only with little to offer except the promotion of a particular cause. In some instances they have been elected as a result of some fantastic mathematical equation, and that is something we do not want to continue. The clause providing that a party must have 1,000 members to be eligible to stand candidates at an election is a worthwhile measure.

The provision relating to the application for registration and the setting out of the names and signatures of 1,000 party members follows on from the clause that defines an eligible party and is concurrent with it. That is also an extremely worthwhile measure. The clause providing that the Electoral Commissioner may investigate applications for registration is also important. It will avoid the farcical situation of single-issue micro-organisations registering at the last minute and is undoubtedly similar to the Government’s proposal. It is important that the Electoral Commissioner be able to examine whether those parties have the right to stand candidates.

The bill provides that the Electoral Commissioner must refuse to register a party if he is satisfied that more than one-quarter of the members whose names are set out in the application have had their names set out in another application in the previous five years. That is not unlike the Government’s proposal to ensure that the same member cannot be relied upon by more than one party to qualify or continue to qualify for registration.

To overcome the problem of having a tablecloth-size ballot paper, whatever bill is passed by the House must provide that the Electoral Commissioner is able to refuse to register a party when the membership is not valid. As to the provision of information regarding membership, the Hon. J. S. Tingle has proposed that the registered officer of a party must, in the case of a party registered immediately before 1 January 2001, by 31 January 2001, within one year after a periodic council election and at such other times as the Electoral Commissioner may require, furnish to the Electoral Commissioner a list of the names, addresses and signatures of at least 1,000 electors who are members of the party, in the form and manner approved by the Electoral Commissioner.

If a registered party fails to comply with any requirement made under this part of the legislation, the party will be taken to be not eligible for registration under this part, and the Electoral Commissioner must cancel its registration accordingly. It is important to have time frames in place to enable the Electoral Commissioner to scrutinise properly the validity of these so-called proposed parties and, if the parties fail to comply, not to register them or to cancel their registration accordingly.

The bill introduced by the Hon. J. S. Tingle contains some worthwhile proposals. I do not think we are ready to vote on it today, given that we must have an opportunity to scrutinise and debate the Government’s proposals. It is interesting to note that this bill and the Government’s proposals are similar. It seems that the Government has picked up the Hon. J. S. Tingle’s bill, finetuned his proposals and drafted its own bill. One important difference between the proposals is the provision of a one-off registration fee for parties. It is important that there be some financial commitment.

For a party with 1,000 members, the registration fee equates to $3.50 per member, which
Page 1428
is no great burden for the political party to bear. It is a one-off registration fee; it is not an annual registration fee, and I do not see any problem with that. Another proposal that is worthy of consideration - it does not appear in the Hon. J. S. Tingle’s bill - is that of preferential voting above the line. The Hon. I. Cohen has entered the Chamber and preferential voting above the line is one of his pet proposals. It is a worthwhile proposal and it deserves the proper examination of the House at the same time as the Government’s proposals are considered.

Preferential voting above the line would give electors the opportunity to vote for parties. Obviously, the major parties will have how-to-vote cards indicating how they would like their supporters to vote. I suppose most people will vote that way, but those who want to flirt with the party’s preferred option can do so by numbering the squares above the line. That will be a lot easier for voters than traversing the boxes below the line on a tablecloth-size ballot paper such as the one voters had to suffer at the last election. The Hon. I. Cohen’s proposal is a worthy one. Obviously the Government has accepted preferential voting above the line as a good idea and as something that is worth considering when the House deals with the Government’s proposals.

Honourable members will be in a much better position to consider the Hon. J. S. Tingle’s proposals when the Government’s bill is before the House. No doubt we will want to amend some parts of the Government’s bill. When I say "we" I am not talking about the Opposition; I am talking about the House. It may be necessary to consider amendments to the legislation when we have seen the bills. The House should delay its determination of the fate of this bill until it has had an opportunity to properly scrutinise the Government’s proposals.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.45 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party [CDP] supports in principle the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Registration of Parties) Bill introduced by the Hon. J. S. Tingle. Honourable members are aware that the Government has foreshadowed the introduction of its bill, which is not yet before the House. However, the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer has briefed honourable members on the Government’s proposals, and he has made a ministerial statement in the House about them. We have not yet seen the fine details of the Government’s proposals but in principle the CDP agrees with them as they will at least solve some of the immediate problems.

Perhaps it is wrong to draft legislation to solve a problem - for example, to reduce the huge ballot paper, the tablecloth-size ballot paper, and the number of parties and to eliminate any attempt by any political party to deceive voters as to its intentions, particularly the 30 or 40 so-called microparties and the way they allocate preferences to finally benefit one party out of that group. The Hon. J. S. Tingle introduced his bill prior to the ministerial statement about the Government’s proposals. The major difference between this bill and the Government’s proposals is that the Hon. J. S. Tingle has endeavoured to clarify the procedures for registering a party, that is, what constitutes a political party in New South Wales.

The honourable member deliberately concentrated on that aspect. The proposed registration requirements announced by the Government are similar, if not identical. For example, a party must increase the size of its membership to 1,000, and the election of a member to this House will not be sufficient, at least in the immediate future, for a party to be registered. As honourable members know, until now a party had to have 200 members to be registered as a party or to have a member elected to this House. If a party increased its membership to 1,000 that would mean that it had a substantial support base.

Increased membership would also solve a problem that arose during the 1995 election when some party members, and some members elected to this House, solicited names and signatures by visiting houses door to door. Our inquiries show that some people who signed sheets of paper thought that they were signing petitions; they did not realise that they were becoming foundation members of a political party. During the 1999 election campaign in some shopping malls people were confronted with a sheet of paper on which they were asked to put their names and addresses. Again those people became foundation members of a political party. That must be prevented from recurring, either by this bill or by the Government’s bill, which raises a key area of concern: How can a political party establish that its 1,000 members are genuine? What type of documentation would be accepted as proof?

Obviously it would be difficult to manage 10 sheets of paper containing the names, addresses and signatures of 1,000 members. Members of political parties reside in various areas throughout New South Wales and it would be very difficult to circulate a document to collect 1,000 names, addresses and signatures. My solution is that the State Electoral Office should design a simple form to be signed by
Page 1429
one person to indicate, for the purposes of registration, that that person is a member of a particular party. The form could contain the name and address of the person and, when it is signed, it could be returned to the office of the political party concerned. The secretary of that party could collate the 1,000 forms and lodge them with the State Electoral Office.

The next stage would be for the State Electoral Office to transfer those names to the State Electoral Office database, which would then become the official list. A slightly greater number of signatures than 1,000 will be required to cover loss of membership through death and people leaving Australia. The Electoral Commissioner will need to check those 1,000 names against the lists provided by other registered political parties to ensure that duplication does not occur and to guard against people trying to set up two or three phoney political parties by using one set of 1,000 names.

In spite of the difficulties associated with that type of procedure, people are sometimes prepared to spend a great deal of time attempting to get around the law. It is possible that someone would attempt to register more than one political party by using 1,000 names more than once. The Government has indicated - and I am sure that the Hon J. S. Tingle would agree - that the State Electoral Office should run a computer check to compare the memberships of each political party and ensure that the names appear on the membership list of one party only.

Without wishing to conceal the names and addresses of the membership from the State Electoral Office, there may be a need for some confidentiality. Members of political parties such as the Australian Labor Party, the National Party, the Liberal Party and the Christian Democratic Party may not wish other people in the community to know that they have joined a political party, and that is their right. Consideration may need to be given to restricting access to those 1,000 names.

By virtue of the Freedom of Information Act, a demand may be made to inspect membership lists. I am aware that other documents are available for inspection at the State Electoral Office, such as electoral funding returns. I have no problem with that because those returns are part of the requirements for disclosure; but I do not think it is necessary or desirable for the members of the community to copy lists or investigate membership of a political party with the intention of maliciously causing problems for individual members whose names appear on those lists. There can be no doubt that the State Electoral Office should have the power and authority to investigate the authenticity of names appearing on political party membership lists by conducting spot checks. I suggest that 10 per cent of the membership should be asked to confirm the genuineness of signatures.

It is not unknown for electoral fraud to occur. When I visited the State Electoral Office, the commissioner and staff showed me an application form submitted prior to the 1995 election which contained the names, addresses and signatures of 200 members, and all were in the same handwriting. I will not name the political party involved; suffice to say that it is not represented in this House. That was an obvious case of forgery and, if the person involved thought that 200 signatures in the same handwriting would be accepted, perhaps complete stupidity.

I personally believe that that was an attempt to get around the law by providing a document which at face value contained 200 names and 200 signatures, albeit signed by only one person with one pen and in the same style of writing. It was quite clear that the form did not contain 200 genuine signatures. To avoid a recurrence of that type of conduct, the State Electoral Office should be empowered to conduct spot checks of a proportion of the membership - at least 10 per cent - to obtain confirmation from the signatories that they genuinely and knowingly signed the form.

As I mentioned earlier, the bill presented by the Hon. J. S. Tingle deals with the registration issue and the Government’s proposal is for the registration and voting procedures to be contained in one bill. All honourable members would understand the registration procedure - it is common ground that it needs to be tightened up - but the process in relation to the voting procedure is perhaps not quite black and white. The Government may need to think through its proposal to discover whether any unintended consequences exist. At first glance, the proposal seems to be workable.

One of the major changes contained in the Government’s proposal, which is not mentioned in the bill presented by the Hon. J. S. Tingle, is that a party or coalition must nominate 15 candidates. I assume that means that the Liberal Party and the National Party could provide candidates listed in one column to be a registered party. It would also mean that some minor parties which normally have two candidates will now be forced to have 15 candidates. The effect of that provision will be that it will cost $7,500 for the candidates.

Page 1430

I acknowledge that the Government is considering a limit of $5,000; nevertheless, a good deal of expenditure is involved because it will cost $3500 for registration and $5000 for the candidates. There is a constitutional requirement whereby a voter must choose from a minimum of 15 candidates. The only way that the Government’s proposal will be workable is for parties to provide a column containing the names of 15 candidates. In fact, each column will have to contain the names of 15 candidates or more which to my mind seems to be a bit heavy-handed. Perhaps from a legal point of view, there is no other option.

The Government has announced a plan to provide optional preferential voting. Electors will be able to record a vote in the top section of the form above the line by numbering one or more boxes to indicate their preference, or electors can rank candidates from one to 15 in the order of preference below the line and leave the top section blank. The Christian Democratic Party [CDP] would rather not have votes recorded above the line.

I would prefer to have candidates nominated in groups with their names listed in columns so that voters can indicate a choice by marking the form with numbers from 1 to 15. To my mind, that would be a simple and effective approach to the task. The Christian Democratic Party agrees in principle with the bill presented by the Hon. J. S. Tingle, although it may be best to adjourn debate on that bill until honourable members have had a chance to peruse the Government’s legislation.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: You will like ours.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: As I indicated earlier, the Government’s proposal provides for both registration and voting procedures. The issue is whether those procedures should be contained in separate bills. The Government’s proposal is to incorporate both procedures in one piece of legislation. Honourable members should not lose sight of the voting procedure that has been announced by the Government. It needs to be very carefully weighed. I suggest that electoral experts should consider the effects of the procedures and examine some scenarios. Honourable members will recall that the Government never intended to produce a ballot paper the size of a tablecloth and no-one foresaw the possibility; nevertheless, that is what happened.

Honourable members should be careful to ensure that, in attempting to solve one problem, they do not create another problem at a later stage. With those few remarks, I reiterate the Christian Democratic Party’s in-principle support for the bill presented by the Hon. J. S. Tingle. I congratulate him on moving quickly to present a simple bill to solve a major problem.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [3.59 p.m.]: Like other members, I intend to address the changes to the electoral system relating to the Legislative Council in greater detail when the bill mooted yesterday by the Special Minister of State is introduced, but I commend the Hon. J. S. Tingle for introducing the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Registration of Parties) Bill. A number of its elements have merit and will be picked up by the Government’s bill, which we hope to see in the near future.

Subsequent to the 1999 State election I, like others, have had the opportunity to discuss with many people across the State the constitutional reform proposals of the Leader of the Government and the so-called tablecloth ballot paper. It is my clear impression that most National Party supporters favour amendments to the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act. It was also obvious in the post-election period that the unilateral and radical proposals to effectively neuter the Legislative Council as a proper house of review were not highly regarded.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: They had great support.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: No, they did not.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: If they were put to a referendum they would be carried overwhelmingly.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: They obviously did not have support in Cabinet and in caucus let alone amongst the wider community. They were not supported in the Parliament let alone out amongst the people.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: It is called crash through or crash.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: And he crashed. It is helpful of the Hon. I. M. Macdonald to point out that the Leader of the Government crashed on this issue. The Governor’s Speech first flagged the amendments which were foreshadowed yesterday by the Special Minister of State. It was obvious from the Speech that the idea of a constitutional referendum had been dumped, which is appropriate.

Page 1431

The plans to neuter the upper House have taken a dive. There are parallels with what is happening to the Egan proposals and what has happened to the Premier of Victoria in the wake of the Victorian election. People became extremely concerned about a government being perceived as a power unto itself and not prone to accept accountability requirements - with the watering down of the power, operations and resourcing of the Auditor-General’s office. As a result of the backlash against the Kennett Government the Auditor-General’s office is back on the agenda. Mr Egan has taken the same sort of thrashing on reform of the Legislative Council.

I reinforce what Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said at the conclusion of his remarks in relation to privacy and lists of members of political parties. It is a very important issue. A fair dinkum registration process with integrity is needed but we have to be very careful about the idea of exposing members of a preferred political party to some sort of discrimination and recrimination because of the membership they have chosen. We should not follow the McCarthyist line. A balance must be found. I will expand on my comments when debating the Government’s bill. I commend the Hon. J. S. Tingle for his initiative and the principles contained in the two bills.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner.

Private Members’ Business Item No. 7 postponed on motion by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods.

Private Members’ Business Item No. 8 postponed on motion by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.05 p.m.]: I move the following motion, as amended by leave:

1. That, under Standing Order No. 18, there be laid upon the table of this House and made public without restricted access no later than 5.00 p.m. Thursday 28 October all documents including relevant correspondence, memoranda and files, whether recorded in written or electronic form, relating to:

(a) the contract between the RTA and Baulderstone Hornibrook,

(b) the contract between the RTA and Hyder Consulting,

(c) the contract between the RTA and Air Noise Environment,

(d) the contract between the RTA and Devine Erby Maslin,

(e) the contract between the RTA and Holmes Air Sciences,

(f) the contract between the RTA and any other subcontractors on the components of the M5 project,

(g) any commercial or environmental agreements between the RTA and any other partners on the M5 project, and

(h) budgetary documents showing cost savings or overruns on the M5 East Motorway.

2. That an indexed list of documents tabled under this resolution be prepared showing the date of creation of the document, a description of the document and the author of the document.

3. That any report, return or other paper required to be laid before the House by this resolution may be lodged with the Clerk of the House if the House is not sitting, and is deemed for all purposes to have been presented to or laid before the House.

The sorry tale of the M5 East has been told many times in adjournment speeches in this House. To date it has been a story of the triumph of political expediency and unpardonable arrogance over the best interests of the communities affected by the motorway and of this State as a whole. This motion is designed to redress the balance in some measure by exposing some of the clandestine deals and secret arrangements surrounding the motorway. The information may avert a financial and community health disaster. At the very least, it would satisfy in part the democratic rights of the communities that have campaigned so valiantly against the motorway.

The Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] M5 East contract was awarded to Baulderstone Hornibrook Bilfinger and Berger in August 1998 with a number of consultants engaged either directly to the RTA as the proponent or as subcontractors to Baulderstone Hornibrook Bilfinger and Berger. The design-and-construct project is believed to cost around $750 million and is totally funded by the taxpayer. There are already numerous breaches of the conditions of consent, including condition No. 70, which calls for independent verification of the design of the exhaust stack, and condition No. 73, which calls for independent wind tunnel testing.

For example, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport is on record on 30 August 1999 as stating that discussions relating to wind
Page 1432
tunnel testing have taken place and that approval from the Environment Protection Authority would be sought in the near future. However, the minutes from the RTA consultative committee of 8 February clearly show that modelling is being undertaken by MEL Consultants at Monash University, which has a longstanding working relationship with the RTA. It is hard to understand how this can be described as independent.

Further, there are reasons to believe that even at this early stage of construction there have been cost overruns. The Government’s web of deceit is beginning to unravel before the road is even completed. The project has been shrouded in secrecy from the moment the Government chose the politically expedient path of replacing three exhaust stacks on high ground with a single unfiltered stack in the Turrella Valley. This major design change involved an additional cost of $30 million in construction and an estimated minimum of $3 million each year in operating costs.

This change exposed the local community to massive health risks as a result of the untested dispersal performance of the stack. It also created significant financial risks to the State for, if the predictions of at least five well-respected individual experts are borne out, there will be a clear need to retrofit additional equipment at enormous taxpayer expense and possibly to pay massive compensation to the affected communities.

Despite exposing the State and local government to massive risks, none of the decision-making process leading to this outcome was ever allowed to see the light of day. The parameters for the design and testing of the stack were kept secret from the communities at risk and from the government agencies that are charged with safeguarding public health and amenity. The representations report, a crucial component of the planning process, was suppressed until after the decision was locked in.

Contracts were awarded without any public knowledge of what they were for, what financial risks were involved or how much they would cost. Even the siting of the single megastack and the post-exhibition changes were kept secret, by order of a ministerial directive, from government agencies such as the Department of Health, Rockdale and Canterbury councils and Sydney Water.

The Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] and the Minister, Mr Scully, were asking the people to trust him. In effect, the roads mandarins were claiming that they know what is best for all of us, better than we could possibly know ourselves. This is a totally unacceptable proposition, born of conceit and arrogance and matured in an environment where bullying and tough-men tactics have been allowed to supplant rational argument.

Having hatched their plan without input from the agencies, without consultation with the affected communities and without the benefit of an open and well-informed public debate, Scully and the RTA forged ahead, arrogantly and deceitfully keeping us in the dark. In the face of overwhelming community opposition, they decided to take the tough-man approach: just weather the storm and hope that the residents will go away.

The latest example of this treachery is on exhibition as we speak, at the RTA office in Earlwood, where the community has been invited to comment on the models of the stack. The RTA’s contempt for public consultation is clearly demonstrated by the use of models that are not to scale, and by the request for comments on the colour of a stack of an undetermined height and untested efficiency.

To their eternal credit, community groups such as Residents Against Polluting Stacks, the Wolli Creek Preservation Society and the Transport Action Group refused to buckle under those disgraceful tactics. They maintained the rage, refusing to accept the divine right of Ministers to decree what is best for all of us. With skill, commitment and courage these good citizens doggedly insisted that they had a right to know what was really going on, and to be safe in their homes.

One cannot help but conclude that Mr Scully and the RTA started with the proposition that a road had to be built, at any cost, and then worked backwards to a planning approval construction and validation process. The RTA is redefining "design and construct" projects as "construct and justify" projects. Dr Refshauge, the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, is aiding and abetting the RTA by keeping quiet, by turning a blind eye to breaches of conditions and by consistently refusing to meet with residents to discuss their concerns. This is becoming a pattern with government. We saw it with the Eastern Distributor and we are seeing it emerge with the cross-city tunnel and the Western Distributor.

Mr Scully has described himself as a road builder. The Greens would describe him as the Minister for Urban Destruction and the Minister for Road Builders. For, in the end, the only winners from this project will be the construction companies
Page 1433
who will run off with $750 million of public funds and leave behind transport chaos, declining air quality and a degraded urban environment. The companies will also leave behind various campaign donations for the major parties. The time has come to expose this farce to public examination. If we do not start now, when the truth finally gets out the State could be facing massive costs to rectify a flawed design and to pay out dodgy financial arrangements.

Whatever happens to this motion, once the motorway begins to operate, the exhausts of 21 million vehicles will be concentrated into a single location in the Wolli Creek valley. The Minister will not be able to hide from the statistics of increasing incidents of asthma and cancer, especially in older people and the very young. The documents listed in this motion will provide essential information on the scope of work, design specifications and parameters; costings, provisions and penalty clauses for amendments, variations or late completion; roles and responsibilities for meeting approval conditions; and clear comparisons of the costs of integrating filtration equipment at the outset with the costs of retro-fitting filtration equipment, as required by approval conditions.

It will allow not only public scrutiny of the main construction contract with joint venturers Baulderstone Hornibrook Bilfinger and Berger, but also with Hyder Consulting, which is designing the ventilation system; MEL Consultants and Air Noise Environment which, it appears, have been independently contracted to perform modelling tasks that will predict the behaviour of the stack; Divine Erby Maslin, which is consulting on the urban design issues associated with the megastack; and the RTA’s favourite environmental chemist, Kerry Holmes. Exposing the information contained in these documents and throwing the matter open to public debate is the only step this House can now take to avert the impending disaster in Sydney’s south-western suburbs.

This House would also be facilitating informed debate on the timely review of the design, before construction has progressed further than a few metres and before the exhaust tunnel has been built. The conditions of approval clearly state that air treatment systems will have to be retro-fitted if the emission levels are exceeded. We now know that this will certainly be the case! The 900-metre exhaust tunnel will act as a very effective chemical processor, a stack reactor. This is clearly world’s worst practice and a scandal on an international scale. Retro-fitting is bound to be expensive.

However, this motion is not only about the M5 East and the Government’s failure to be open and honest about the design changes and subsequent construction; it is not only about protecting the lungs of Sydney’s people; it is not only about exposing the madness of transport planning that relies on increasing numbers of private motor vehicles - it is about good government. It is about creating a political climate in which governments, as a matter of course, take the community into their confidence, and in which debate is informed and planning disasters are averted by public consultation. The Greens believe that it is time that the people of New South Wales were treated with the respect they deserve. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [4.16 p.m.]: On behalf of the Opposition I indicate that it is our intention to support the motion of the Hon. Lee Rhiannon. Like many members we have individually and collectively received considerable representations and correspondence from many people, particularly those in the area that will be affected by the placement of the tunnel in Wolli Creek, Bexley and other areas. Without doubt many unanswered questions have arisen and problems continue to emerge. It is in the public’s interest for those unanswered questions to be resolved and for the documentation called for in the various contracts between the RTA and a large number of reputable and skilled companies to be put on the public record so that everyone can understand what has been undertaken and what the outcomes will be.

Quite a number of questions cause a great deal of concern. The principal question is about tunnel ventilation for the M5 East and whether it does or does not comply with the strict air quality goals stated by the Minister in the conditions of approval set by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning and the Environment Protection Authority. It has been stated that some of these controls are as strict as any for tunnels, yet the question relating to electrostatic precipitators to deal with 0.2 micron particulates has not been specifically answered.

Electrostatic precipitators have been installed in projects in Japan and Norway, but it has been argued that ventilation alone cannot meet visibility requirements. Electrostatic precipitators are quite well known and commonly used to deal with many stack emissions throughout the world; indeed they are used in the mining industry and to ensure removal of particulates in the production of electricity at power stations.

Page 1434

The Opposition is concerned about the number of vehicles travelling through the tunnel and vehicles of a truck configuration which have a diesel particulate emission. We are concerned also about the suggestion that the air quality goals required by the conditions of approval will be met and that there will not be a need for additional systems such as electrostatic precipitators. The Opposition is equally concerned about where this type of stack is used in the world.

The issue of trying to remove other gases which are of an invisible nature is a long-term problem in most stack emission treatments. Indeed, given the geography of the Wolli Valley and the surrounding area, the question of whether a sink effect will be achieved is a matter that appears to be highly probable and highly likely. To that end, the placement of the stack should cause any reasonable person a great deal of concern.

The tunnel emissions are a problem. Matters such as the health hazards that would arise from automobile emissions from a very large single stack, the effect it would have on the citizens of the valley and the sink effect have not been adequately dealt with anywhere. International experience would tend to suggest that such levels should not be allowed to accumulate. The current levels will obviously be increased.

Honourable members would be aware of the pollution and photochemical smog that moves from the western suburbs to the sea and back. I am sure that they would have noticed the brown haze that tends to occur on certain days. Of course, one finds a similar haze in cities such as Los Angeles. No-one would wish such an issue to be dealt with in a way that would cause inconvenience or danger to the health of the communities of such areas.

The location of the stack, the special nature of the emissions, and the long-term and cumulative effect of certain chemicals and particulates that may be emitted are major problems that must be addressed. It is important that this House is aware of what is contained in the contracts between the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] and the many and varied specialist contractors who are parties to the contracts.

It would be in the interests of the health of the community if the particulate level could be reduced to 10 microns. It is well known among medical circles that a particulate level of 10 to 20 microns has the potential to cause certain health and respiratory conditions. I do not believe that these matters have been adequately addressed, and I do not believe that this House is satisfied that they have been addressed.

The motion moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon, which seeks this information, is fair and reasonable. However, the Opposition will support the Government’s foreshadowed amendment, which supports the documentation being brought before the House, but questions certain matters of privacy and the determination of whether the documents should be made publicly available.

If the House is able to obtain the documents, after consultation with people such as Residents Against Polluting Stacks [RAPS], it will be able to put the issue to rest or to prove conclusively whether the stack and the particulate will be a health hazard. The people who live in the area will be able to relax and be assured in the knowledge that they have the documentation. The Opposition supports the motion because it is in the public interest.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.24 p.m.]: I move:

That the question be amended by inserting at the end:

4. Where it is considered that a document required to be tabled under this order is privileged and should not be made public or tabled:

(a) a return is to be prepared and tabled showing the date of creation of the document, a description of the document, the author of the document, and reasons for the claim of privilege; and

(b) the documents are to be delivered to the Clerk of the House by 5.00 p.m. Thursday 28 October 1999 and:

(i) made available only to members of the Legislative Council, and

(ii) not published or copied without an order of the House.

5. That in the event of a dispute by any member of the House communicated in writing to the Clerk as to the validly of a claim of legal professional privilege or public interest immunity in relation to a particular document:

(a) the Clerk is authorised to release the disputed document to an independent legal arbiter who is either a Queen’s Counsel, a Senior Council or a retired Supreme Court judge, appointed by the President, for evaluation and report within five days as to the validity of the claim; and

(b) any report from the independent arbiter is to be tabled with the Clerk of the House and:

(i) made available only to members of the Legislative Council; and

(ii) not published or copied without an order of the House.

Page 1435

I understand that the Opposition will support the amendment. The Government has taken a similar course in respect of numerous motions moved in this House relating to the presentation of papers. The Government can table the documents held by the Roads and Traffic Authority which are covered within the scope of the motion, subject to the usual protections afforded to privileged documents that I have moved by way of amendment. However, Ms Lee Rhiannon, who moved the motion, should be aware that some of the documents referred to are contracts between the builder of the M5 East, Baulderstone Hornibrook, and its subcontractors, which the RTA does not have in its possession.

The RTA has advised that it requires three weeks from the date of passage of this motion to collect, collate and index the documents. That is provided for in both the substantive motion and the amendment I have moved. Ms Lee Rhiannon implied in her speech - and I am sure the Hon. I. Cohen will support her comments - and implied in the covering note to the motion, which has been circulated to members, that the M5 East project has been inadequately supervised. The M5 East has been one of the most scrutinised projects in the history of this State. It has been on the planning maps of this State for 50 years and it has been the subject of three environmental impact statements over a 10-year period.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: You moved the road from where it was supposed to be. That is the problem.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I wish to make it clear that it has been anticipated that there be a major road system through that area, and it has been on the maps for many years.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Had it gone where it should have gone, there would not have been a problem.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I do not know whether Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is trying to be helpful or not. In January 1998 the Environmental Defender’s Office [EDO], acting for Transport Action Group Against Motorways Inc, issued a notice to produce which required the RTA to furnish documents relating to the proposed M5 East. Those documents were produced. With these documents in hand, the EDO took the RTA to the Land and Environment Court. The Land and Environment Court found in the RTA’s favour in November 1998. The opponents of the freeway appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. On 18 June 1999 the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the RTA. However, some people are slow learners.

The proponents of the M5 East proposal now claim that they do not object to the freeway but they want the stack to be relocated. They want it to be relocated from an industrial part of Turrella back into the residential areas of Bardwell Park and Arncliffe. The Government will not be relocating the stack. The M5 East project was approved subject to 150 stringent conditions relating to air quality and environmental practices. The builder of the tunnel and the stack will have to meet all relevant Environment Protection Authority guidelines for air quality.

The Government also notes the support of the Opposition, confirmed during the recent State election campaign, for the building of the M5 East along the alignment and design approved by the Government. The Government is not prepared to delay the M5 East project.

For too long while this project has been discussed the residents of Bexley, Rockdale, Bardwell Park and Turrella have tolerated noise and pollution, and have endured the effects of heavy traffic congestion in local streets. The Government is getting on with the job of building the M5 East, as it is doing with the Eastern Distributor - which, the Minister for Transport announced yesterday, would be open before Christmas, eight months ahead of schedule.

That is a real Christmas present for the residents of the area, and it is great news for Sydney motorists. The opening of the M5 East will result in the removal of thousands of vehicles a day from local streets and improve the quality of life for thousands of residents. The Government is committed to completing it. I commend the amendment to the House.

The papers presented during the past year or two amply demonstrate that the Government’s actions have been both proper and for the good of the citizens of New South Wales. We have not heard a murmur about many of those issues since the release of the documents. This Government has nothing to hide and does everything to promote the general interest of the citizenry of New South Wales.

This will be a positive development for the Hon. Patricia Forsythe and others like her on the North Shore, who during the winter will be able to drive onto the freeway just north of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and travel all the way to the snowy mountains. One would have thought that North Shore Liberals would be supportive of the proposal because it will enable them to pack the kids into the Volvo and shoot straight through to the snow. The
Page 1436
Hon. Patricia Forsythe will benefit directly from this wonderful freeway expansion.

Having said that, the Government is building this motorway for the general citizenry of New South Wales. It will dramatically improve the lives of people in the suburbs. We are taking thousands of cars and trucks off the roads and putting them on a good transit system. I am sure the Hon. Dr P. Wong would be supportive of that.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [4.32 p.m.]: The sad reality is that we do not have serious planning in our city. We are modelling our planning on Los Angeles and ignoring the existing rail system, which has had little improvement in 50 years, particularly in western Sydney. Governments have released chunks of land to developers, not along the railway line near Schofields where the market gardens were and where it should have been released, but in Castle Hill, where residents are dependent on vehicles as there is no rail transport. Deals have been made to build motorways, and probably clauses inserted in contracts to provide compensation if a railway is built. I would like to know whether the Parramatta to Chatswood railway link will mean that more money will have to be paid to the owners of the M2.

The Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] has acted as a law unto itself for long time. State Rail has behaved like a child playing trains on existing lines instead of planning rail transport for the future. The Government seems unable to think beyond busways, which suit the bus lines but do not solve the problems of western Sydney. It has allowed freeways - the Los Angelisation of Sydney - to be built. The RTA has a vision; it wants roads everywhere. No rail planning has occurred. Supermarkets and shopping complexes are built without any regard to rail, resulting in low-rise housing in Sydney, urban sprawl and traffic problems. The Government is doing very little to solve the problem - with the exception of the Parramatta to Chatswood rail link.

If that is not enough, the contracts are secretive and the Government fights all the way to the High Court to stop taxpayers finding out where their money is going. When the contracts are finally revealed, they are revealed only to members of Parliament, and only if they sit in little rooms and do not take copies. If those members do not understand engineering they cannot evaluate the quality of the contracts.

If the contracts are not successful legislation is pushed through, as occurred with Walsh Bay, and due process is not adhered to. When the contracts are through, everything is secretive again. There was the non-lining of the Northside Storage Tunnel, artificial deadlines for the Northside Storage Tunnel, and then changes on the M5 from three stacks to one stack. Because of some semantic difficulty in the courts what happens to those who will have a stack at the end of their valley depends on the wording rather than changes in pollution.

With commendable tenacity and scientific acumen for an amateur group, Residents Against Polluting Stacks [RAPS] has undertaken the scientific studies and research that the RTA and contractors should have done. That organisation has come up with detailed information, which has given rise to many speeches on the adjournment and on other occasions in this House. The crossbenchers ask that work be suspended on that stack until a rigorous and proper analysis of the community health risk and alternative ventilation technology is conducted.

Is that making any difference? No! The sad reality is that when the Government sets up these community consultative bodies it is just a delaying tactic. When eventually the project is completed the Government can then say that the process did not work. By then the project is complete and nothing can be done. That has certainly been the experience with the northside storage tunnel.

The Greens have moved a motion asking for the facts about this tunnel and as usual, right on cue, the Government started placing restrictions. It moved an amendment to prevent the plans from being photocopied, denying access to the public - only members can look - that is, restricting information. The taxpayers of New South Wales are paying for this road and they have a right to know where their money is being spent.

It is absurd to suggest that the revealing of contracts, as if they were rocket science, will greatly disadvantage the private sector. It seems from inquiries made by RAPS that the Norwegians, who have the best tunnels, and the Japanese believe that they must purify the air in the tunnels rather than have many stacks. This type of research has not been looked at by the appropriate people - the Government, the RTA and the contractors.

We are concerned that the Government is trying to suppress this. I could say much more about the planning standards. The bottom line is that the Norwegians have built 54 tunnels, with a total length of 242 kilometres. Japan has built 43 tunnels with a total length of 209 kilometres. Norway is about to complete the longest road tunnel in the world, that is, 24 kilometres. Together, Norway and Japan have
Page 1437
built more than half of the long road tunnels in the world and have pioneered the use of air cleaning equipment. The United States has never built a road tunnel more than three kilometres long. Britain has built one 3.4 kilometres long, Germany has built three totalling 14.4 kilometres. Yet the countries that have not built tunnels are the ones the RTA is turning to for advice.

The information in these contracts should be made public; the commercial in-confidence ruse simply does not wash. Information about where the money is spent should be given to taxpayers and the contract must be open, not secret. Queen’s Counsel should not have their two-bob’s worth, with all the money lining the pockets of lawyers in an endeavour to prevent information being given to us. The amendment must be defeated and the motion must be passed.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [4.40 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party, which has been involved in this issue not just for months but for years, supports the views expressed by residents in the area around Bardwell Park and other suburbs. Initially, residents were concerned about stacks being erected in a residential area. Because of their objection the Government agreed to locate a stack in Turrella. Residents do not believe that to be a solution to the problem. They believe that the erection of a huge four-storey stack will only create more problems.

I congratulate the Residents Against Polluting Stacks on its hard work in relation to this issue. These grassroots members of the community, who are not professionals and who have not been paid for the work that they have done in this area, have carried out research which should have been carried out by the Government. They have experienced a lot of heartache and have been discouraged because of the way in which they have been treated by the Government. On most occasions the door has been slammed in their faces, they have not been permitted to meet with the Minister, or the Minister has not been prepared to meet with them to discuss their concerns.

Let me correct something that was said earlier by the Hon. I. M. Macdonald. He said that residents wanted to move the stack from Turrella to a residential area. That is not true. I do not know where the honourable member got his information from. People do not want a stack in a residential or commercial area; they want the Government to investigate the possibility of installing purifying equipment in the tunnel. Other honourable members have already made reference to the Norwegian and Japanese experience. I have not seen the tunnels to which they have referred, but I believe that those tunnels do not have any stacks at all. The air in those tunnels is purified from within the tunnel system.

If the Government took a deep breath it might find that it is cheaper to do that than to erect a four-storey stack, which will only alienate the community and a lot of working-class Labor voters in that area. Governments believe that they must pursue their proposals no matter what the outcome, but I believe that this Government should suspend the building of this stack and conduct an urgent investigation into its costs. The Government must also determine whether or not purifying equipment can be installed in the tunnel.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald also said that the building of this stack has been on the agenda of the Roads and Traffic Authority for more than 50 years. When the honourable member was speaking in debate on this motion I interjected and said that if the Government had stuck to its original plan it would never have had all these problems. Lobby groups told the Government that they did not like the original plan or the route of the road that had been laid out for 50 years. Some lobby groups objected to the location of the stack and the Government said that it would be moved.

Residents objected to the location of the stack and the Government then said that it would build a tunnel, which will cost taxpayers millions of dollars. However, the Government was then faced with the problem of petrol fumes and it had to determine where to locate the stack. Residents rightly objected to three stacks being built in a residential area so the Government decided to build a massive stack in Turrella to take away petrol and other fumes.

The Government is not sure, even with all the scientific advice that it has received, where the pollution from that stack will go, or whether it will affect commercial or residential areas. This motion, which is, to a certain extent, a rap on the knuckles for the Government, will enable an investigation into some of the financial aspects of this scheme. If the scheme is carefully examined I am sure that the Government will establish that the money could be better spent on installing purifying equipment in the tunnel rather than on building a stack. The Christian Democratic Party supports the motion moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon.

The Hon. I. COHEN [4.45 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon to force the Government to be transparent in relation to this
Page 1438
issue. It is imperative that we have a proper investigation of this matter. It was inappropriate of the Hon. I. M. Macdonald to sidestep the issue by moving an amendment to the motion. The Greens want to ensure that there is adequate inspection of all the contracts that were listed by Ms Lee Rhiannon, as this has been a controversial issue for many years.

The Government said that these plans had been on the drawing board for many years and that the road was something that was wanted by the community. Times have changed. As we are nearing the end of the twentieth century it is clear that people have different aesthetic values about what they want to see built in their living areas.

People in that area do not want a visually polluting stack. They do not want to be hampered by serious air pollution. A 15-storey, 40-metre high stack will dominate their landscape. Their children will be affected. In 1979-80 the Kirby inquiry into the Kyeemagh-Chullora Road found that it would have unacceptable social, environmental and traffic management impacts on the valley. The Government erroneously refers to the stack site as an industrial area, which is a joke.

I have seen the area. The Government’s reference to the area is completely misleading. It is a green belt area. The road will have a completely unacceptable air pollution impact on the valley; there will be inversions; and that, combined with air pollution from Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, will compound the whole issue. The Government and the Roads and Traffic Authority have not come clean on the air pollution issue. The road will pose real risks to residents in the valley.

Some honourable members referred to the experience in other countries. Air is being cleaned within the tunnels in those countries and primitive exhaust stacks are not being built. The health of people in Arncliffe, Turrella, Earlwood and Bardwell Park will be placed at risk. What health costs, real estate costs and quality of life costs will be incurred as a result of this scheme?

Proper exhaust systems must be installed in the tunnel to clean polluted air before it escapes. We do not want to see plumes collapsing and the dumping on local residents of exhaust fumes from 21 million vehicles each year. The Government does not have available to it a proper, independent model. Quite clearly, the Government is playing roulette with the health of the community, which will result in high costs in the long term.

When the road is opened it will be operating at full capacity and we are likely to see increasing volumes of traffic and a clogged-up system. It is the wrong way to go. The Government should be looking at other transport options rather than implementing this freeway design. We are likely to see 33 million vehicles using that freeway, resulting in a massive increase in pollution concentrations in that area. This issue must be given adequate ventilation and transparency. I support the motion moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon. The Government must be brave and not sidestep the issue, as the Hon. I. M. Macdonald attempted to do by moving an amendment to the motion.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS [4.49 p.m.]: Some honourable members in their contributions have attacked the Government over the M5 East proposal, which the Roads and Traffic Authority has had approved by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. There has been a distinct lack of suggested alternatives, particularly on the part of the sponsors of this resolution. At meetings of the Residents Against Polluting Stacks [RAPS] group, and its associated supporters, I had a problem getting from any of them their alternatives to this proposal. In terms of process, the protest was dismissed by the Land and Environment Court, and that decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The RAPS group was successful in getting Canterbury City Council to agree to undertake a study of the single stack proposal. As a member of the council at the time, I supported the proposal to commission Mr Noel Child to carry out the study. However, I specifically had included in the resolution a paragraph which obliged Mr Child to identify the alternatives to the single stack proposal. That study included two alternatives, but the people who lived in the area would never commit themselves to a single alternative. One alternative was for multiple stacks at various locations. If that alternative were accepted, the residents near those stacks would object, as they did in Rockdale. The other alternative was for tunnel portals using jet fans. That alternative also encountered opposition.

What we have on the part of some of the people who sponsored this resolution, and I include the movers to some extent, is spin doctoring. They all want a tunnel but they do not want a system to exhaust the fumes that come out of it. The Opposition is the most hypocritical of all. When Wal Murray was the Minister for Roads he said that there should be an open-cut road. He said that the road should be visible in the Bardwell valley and it was not worth constructing a tunnel.

Page 1439

This Government committed itself to building a tunnel, which is what the environmental movement wanted. It did not want the environment of the Bardwell valley destroyed, it wanted a tunnel. The moment that proposal came up, the Opposition said that it did not want an exhaust stack. Put simply, I have some problems with people who say that they do not want a road, they want a tunnel, but they do not want any stacks. It is incumbent upon any member who is to participate in this debate -

[Interruption]

The Hon. I. Cohen talked about the Government not having done the work. He does not live in the area, he lives in the open fields of Lismore. He does not have to put up with the traffic chaos in Rockdale, Canterbury and surrounding areas, and the problems of environmental pollution from the excessive traffic. All I say is: Do not merely criticise the Government and say that you are not in favour of this or that. Tell us about your proposal for a solution to this problem.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.53 p.m.], in reply: The two speeches from the Government clearly show why the people of south-western Sydney have serious problems before them. There is no honesty when it comes to debating the issue. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald put various arguments, which showed both his lack of understanding of the issue and his difficulty with being honest when dealing with issues that greatly affect people’s lives.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: This is outrageous!

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Hon. I. M. Macdonald should listen and not just use his bombast to try to avoid the issue. The Government’s amendment is about privileged information. It is a coward’s defence, and one that we see too often. The Government is using a legalistic smoke screen that will allow it to hide its dirty linen. The Government is not facing up to the facts and is trying to avoid the issue because it has much to hide. That is why the general public will not be allowed to see these documents.

The Government tried to use the argument that the M5 East proposal has been highly scrutinised. Once again, the Australian Labor Party shows little regard for the concept of genuine public consultation. This project has been one of the worst examples of the conduct of an environmental impact statement in this State. The EIS was conducted on a completely different project. The route of the roadway, the number of stacks and their position were changed. The Government can in no way say that it has been highly scrutinised.

If the Hon. I. M. Macdonald actually bothered to read the judgments from the court case that he referred to he would have seen that the judges were highly critical of the whole process. There has been a lack of fairness and honesty in the handling of the matter. The honourable member argued that the majority of residents were in favour of the stacks being moved. If the Hon. J. Hatzistergos attended some of the exhibitions and various seminars that have been arranged, he would have heard that there are many alternatives.

The Greens have a clear position that there be no motorways in Sydney. They induce traffic and make life hard for people in local communities. They quickly lead to congestion across the city, merely moving the traffic jam 20 metres, 100 metres, a few kilometres down the street. The Greens have serious problems with the way this project is being conducted.

The amendment moved by the Government, and unfortunately supported by the Opposition, shows elitism of the worst type. It is not surprising that both major parties support it. Documents can only be viewed by members of this place, who do not have the expertise or time to give them the scrutiny that is required, which will allow for a thorough analysis to determine what has really occurred with these contracts.

It is another example of the state of secrecy that has become characteristic of the way Labor has governed for the past four years and intends to govern for the next four years. The Government has a bag of dirty tricks. It uses various smoke screens, dishonest and legalistic arguments and shows a lack of accountability, openness and willingness to allow community groups to see the contracts that will affect their everyday lives.

The people do not want to live near a stack, 40 metres high, 15 metres wide, spewing out fumes from 21 million vehicles. They have alternatives, and I urge the Government to speak directly to those people so that it can hear about their very clear solutions.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN [4.58 p.m.]: I move:

Page 1440

That this House:

1. Expresses in the strongest terms, its support for the public education system.

2. Recognises that the public education system is the cornerstone of our wonderful democracy.

3. Recognises that any attempt to undermine the public education system threatens our democratic system.

4. Expresses concern at the Federal Government’s current and planned policy which sees much needed public funds siphoned off into wealthy private schools.

I hope that I can muster some support for this motion. I know that point four of my motion will be difficult for some honourable members to accept, particularly members of the Opposition. However, I seek support for the spirit of the motion and for public education, because I believe that most members of this House support the continuance and strengthening of the public education system.

[Interruption]

Honourable members will have an opportunity to debate the motion and put their submissions before the House. Notice was given on 12 May when the schools policy was being discussed and it was then most timely. That matter has not gone away and will not go away.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

Motion by the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt agreed to:

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 19 October 1999 at 2.30 p.m.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [5.01 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [5.01 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to inform the House of the importance of the North Head Quarantine Station. The role of the quarantine station has been unique in enhancing Australia’s maritime, immigration and public health history. The station is now under threat from commercial development. North Head Quarantine Station is Australia’s Ellis Island. It was opened in the 1830s and was a temporary home to more than 13,000 immigrants before closing its doors in the 1970s.

The ownership of the station was transferred to the National Parks and Wildlife Service in 1984. Its history is etched in the rock engravings left behind by former residents, the graves and the 66 buildings used to house immigrants. The engravings in particular recount the unique passage of Australia’s first Asian immigrants. Prior to European occupation the site was used by Australia’s first people, the Aborigines. It was the place where they lived and conducted their ceremonies.

The significance of the natural environment of the site is also undisputed. The site contains the only known breeding ground of the little penguin on mainland New South Wales. The threatened long-nosed bandicoot nests in thickets bordering the grassed areas of the station and there are more than 600 native plant species on North Head, including endangered eucalypts and acacias on the site.

Recently I had the opportunity to co-host a successful inspection tour of the site with the Independent member for Manly, Mr David Barr. The tour was organised for Australian Chinese business and community delegates and the media to inform representatives of a significant proportion of the people of this State what the Government is attempting to do. Guests were very surprised to find such significant cultural heritage there with a depth of inspiration and courage from our Asian forebears.

The Government is now considering granting a 40-year lease to Mawland Hotel Management Pty Ltd to develop the site. I do not mind if the environment and the cultural significance are preserved, but I doubt that it will be. The Minister for the Environment has stated that the lease is designed to allow the National Parks and Wildlife Service to concentrate on its core activities. However, the role of the National Parks and Wildlife Service includes preserving the cultural heritage of New South Wales and that should not be undermined.

It appears that the leasing arrangement represents a disturbing move by the Government to have the service pay its way for its core activities. This form of economic rationalism does not sit well with an organisation that exists for the protection of the natural environment and wildlife as well as significant cultural sites. The lease will not allow the service budget to be freed up to allow it to
Page 1441
concentrate on its core issues - as if protecting historic sites was not one of those core activities. The Thredbo disaster is a case in point as to where cost cutting and leasing arrangements can lead.

Furthermore, the public consultation procedures have been highly inadequate. There has been no revised management plan for the site, and we still await the findings of an environmental impact statement. The 1992 plan clearly stated the significance of the station, its intact preservation, its setting and its sense of history. The cultural history of the site is embedded to such depth that any degradation of it would be a travesty. Members of Parliament must become more focused on the need to conserve our cultural heritage more adequately so that this generation and those to come can fully appreciate a sense of history and of place.

I entreat all honourable members to become better informed on this attack on our cultural and environmental heritage. I press the Government into considering options which are more akin to protecting our cultural and natural environment in perpetuity, as it should be. This proposal should not proceed.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [5.06 p.m.]: I wish to mention the success of the Australian Chinese Day commemorated last Saturday at Tumbalong Park and organised by the Australian Chinese Community Association of New South Wales Inc. [ACCA]. In noting the progress of the Chinese community in Australia since the gold rush days we have been prone to acknowledge the important role of the Australian Chinese community in commerce, and their mobility in the professions and in public life.

ACCA reflects the success of the community in terms of the welfare support that it provides in conjunction with other organisations such as the Chinese Australian Services Society [CASS]. ACCA plays a pivotal role in providing for the needs of the aged, youth and people in need of assistance generally. Recently ACCA elected its new President, a young dynamic leader, Mr Kenneth Kwok, who I believe will lead ACCA with the same distinction as previous presidents have done. The length of involvement of ACCA in the welfare and social life of the Sydney Chinese community has been a much longer one, spanning more than two decades. It has now progressed to the stage where it has been able to establish six outlets in the Sydney basin, including Baulkham Hills and the western region.

ACCA is playing an important role in relation to the needs of Australians of Chinese descent. On occasions such as this it is important to acknowledge the role that welfare organisations within the ethnic community play in general. ACCA is one of a plethora of welfare structures that operate within the community with Federal and State funding. Its relationship benefits everyone - the taxpayer at large has a vested interest and the community, particularly the ethnic community with its volunteers, makes good use of Federal and State funding by providing for the needs of the community at large.

The organisation employs only a small staff at little cost to the taxpayers, and its volunteers play an important role in the Australian community as a whole. ACCA operates in the same tradition as Co As It - which is an Italian welfare organisation - Greek welfare and a plethora of other welfare organisations. The structures are not merely recipients of grants, achieving only with the aid of the Federal and State governments. A host of volunteers have been working year in and year out to accommodate the needs of the community at large. I believe that under the new leadership of Kenneth Kwok the great traditions of ACCA over the years will be maintained.

The Hon. I. COHEN [5.11 p.m.]: I should like to speak about the restoration of our environmental icon, the Snowy River, because there has been so much debate about it, particularly in light of the recent Victorian elections. First, I am most impressed by the true grit of the people who have worked for years to restore the river to some semblance of its original flow. There has been a significant breakthrough with the Victorian elections and this should alert politicians of all parties to the fact that this issue will not go away and that it can make or break governments. The once mighty Snowy River, a national icon, has been reduced to a series of small, stagnant pools, choked with weeds and sand. Seawater is intruding upstream and native fish are disappearing.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You camped on the bed of the Snowy River.

The Hon. I. COHEN: Yes. This is because the water supply to the river has been diverted to such an extent that a 50-centimetre pipe feeds the river with 1 per cent of its original flow each day from the Jindabyne Dam. This is a sorry state of affairs. As part of the equation one of the Treasurer’s major arguments relates to electricity generation from the flow. New South Wales has
Page 1442
available in excess of 10 years electricity supply and the reintroduction of that flow would take six months off that figure.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Should we replace it with Victorian brown coal?

The Hon. I. COHEN: No, that is not the argument at all. If a turbine is added to the release at the point of the Jindabyne Dam, electricity production will increase significantly and that will resolve the problem. There is a scientific basis for calling for a 28 per cent flow. In 1994 a scoping report commissioned by the New South Wales and Victorian parliaments recognised that 28 per cent of the Snowy’s original flow is needed to reinstate the ecological function of the river.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It has been updated since then.

The Hon. I. COHEN: Indeed. Both the expert panel of scientists in 1996, and the scientific reference panel of the Snowy water inquiry conducted by the New South Wales and Victorian governments in 1998, support a 28 per cent flow. The water needed for the Snowy could come from efficiency savings in irrigation. Up to three million of the 12 million megalitres allocated for agricultural and other uses are lost through inefficient water use. Professor John Lovering, the former Chairman of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, has stated that just over 10 per cent improvement in irrigation and farm management practices could deliver one million megalitres of extra water to irrigators. That is three times the amount needed to save the Snowy River.

The amount needed to restore the Snowy River represents approximately 2.75 per cent of all water used in the Murray-Darling system. Bringing the Snowy back to life will protect endangered species. Once again there will be fishing, rafting and canoeing. Tourism and recreational activities will inject a conservative estimate of between $50 million and $300 million. That money will go into regional economies and spread throughout the entire community.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: How about developments along the river?

The Hon. I. COHEN: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti’s interjection related to developments along the river. I spent time at Dalgety with Paul Leete - a major proponent of turning the tap on once again for the Snowy - at a spectacular, typical highland village of wonderful heritage and wonderful architecture. I stayed at a friend’s house, which was the original stone slab hut. Restoration of the Snowy River will rejuvenate that type of town. The arguments of the honourable member relate to another issue. We are dealing with water flowing again in the Snowy, which will have a significant impact on communities downstream.

Some years ago Orbost, which is in the middle of east Gippsland in Victoria, was an anti–Green town but it is now pushing to have an Independent represent it in the Victorian Parliament to call for an increase in the flow of the Snowy. That is a turnaround for that community. It has acknowledged that hand in hand with the Green community, reconstituting the river, saving the ecology, increasing tourism and creating an economy in rural areas that have been in decline for so long will not only save the Snowy but the people of rural New South Wales.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS [5.16 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House the staging in Sydney of the Aegean maritime exhibition, the opening of which I attended yesterday on behalf of the Premier. Also in attendance were Ms Rosa Iremia, the Consul-General of Greece; the President of the Federation of Greek Aegean Islands of New South Wales, Mr John Spanellis; the Mayor of South Sydney, Councillor Vic Smith; the Mayor of Marrickville, Councillor Barry Cotter; and the Mayor of Randwick, Councillor O’Sullivan.

The exhibition has already been staged in Melbourne and Canberra. It is the first occasion on which an exhibition of this kind has been seen in Australia. It is an outstanding collection of maps, ships, replicas and photographs which capture the true depths of the Hellenic civilisation that has flourished in the Aegean for thousands of years. There are some 2,463 islands in the Aegean, most of which are home to some of ancient Greece’s most renowned cities, harbours, temples and monuments. With such a rich presence of Greek antiquity many view the islands of the Aegean as the cradle of Hellenic civilisation. Some of the ancient world’s greatest figures also came from the Aegean, such as Hippocrates, Pythagoras and Homer.

The exhibition has three segments: first, the maritime tradition; second, the archipelago; and, third, people and places. One aspect of the exhibition which is of unique interest is the cartography that is on display. It is the first time that authentic Greek cartographic material has been exhibited in Australia. Being at the crossroads of
Page 1443
three continents, the people of the Aegean were well versed in the skill of cartography. The earliest reference of Aegean cartography is found in the epic versus of Homer’s Odyssey, which describes Nestor’s return journey from Troy to Pylos.

Since ancient times the Aegean has been subject to some of the finest cartography ever seen. In the Middle Ages the Aegean became vital to the western naval powers due to its strategic significance. Cartography of the region became a valuable skill which flourished. The exhibition offers a unique opportunity to the people of Sydney to see the actual predecessors of modern maps and to admire the accurate details that they contain. Indeed, whilst the exhibition is being conducted it is expected that 4,000 children from schools throughout Sydney will be able to visit Redfern Town Hall and view the exhibition free of charge.

The exhibition also highlights the sacred bond between the inhabitants of the islands and the sea. The Aegean has been a source of great inspiration to all facets of Hellenic culture: theatre, song, art and dance. This bond has been constant throughout the ages, whether it be ancient Greece, Byzantium or the modern Greek State as we know it today. The Aegean also saw some of the most decisive battles in the fight for Greek independence. Heroic figures, such as Miaoulis, Boumboulina, Konstantinos, Kanaris and Manto Mavroyenous, were immortalised by their heroic sacrifices in Aegean waters. The significance of the Aegean to the Hellenic identity can be best signified by the fact that the blue in the Greek flag symbolises the blue of the Aegean Sea.

I cannot think of a more fitting tribute than to locate this exhibition in Redfern, where some of the early Greek migrants, particularly those from the Aegean, settled in the late 1950s and 1960s. Particular credit should be given to those responsible for putting together the exhibition, thereby allowing the public - young people in particular - to see the collection. I acknowledge the Federation of Greek Aegean Islands of New South Wales, its President, Mr John Spanellis, other members of the executive and the 14 associations and brotherhoods that comprise the federation. The federation raised $20,000 to bring the exhibition to Sydney.

I pay tribute also to the Hellenic Ministry of the Aegean and the National Centre for Hellenic Studies and Research Unit of La Trobe University, both of whom co-ordinated the exhibition. Finally, particular credit must be given to the South Sydney City Council, which generously provided the Redfern Town Hall for the staging of the exhibition.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [5.20 p.m.]: Tomorrow is International Rural Women’s Day. I want to mark the occasion by noting recent events which involved a cross-section of rural women in New South Wales. On previous occasions I have addressed the House on the increase in the number of organisations in which rural women, particularly those who are associated with life on the land, involve themselves. They have taken new opportunities to voice their perspective on rural and regional issues - often presumed in the past by their male colleagues, spouses and partners.

Women in Agriculture conducted its 1999 Paddock to Parliament forum at Dubbo. I was happy to participate in that dialogue, together with my National Party colleagues, the Hon. D. F. Moppett and the honourable member for Burrinjuck, Katrina Hodgkinson. I have had the pleasure of addressing Women in Agriculture at other forums - for example, at Orange last year - and I opened the 1999 annual conference at yet another function in Dubbo earlier this year. It was most pleasing to have my other National Party colleagues attend the latest event in Dubbo, the Paddock to Parliament forum.

The participants raised many issues, including the failure of the New South Wales Government to make public any rural impact studies, the lack of education opportunities in the country, concern about the ongoing health funding crisis in regional New South Wales, the Carr Government’s daylight saving legislation, native vegetation regulations, and a whole host of issues of concern. At the suggestion of the National Party’s women’s policy committee, the Federal Leader of the National Party - the Minister for Transport and Minister for Regional Services and member for Gwydir, John Anderson - hosted a regional women’s workshop at this year’s popular Ag-Quip exhibition at Gunnedah, which I attend annually.

The National Party has a permanent exhibit at the Ag-Equip exhibition. It was wonderful to participate in that additional feature of Ag-Equip in 1999. The regional women’s workshop attracted women not only from the north and north-west but also from more distant places. They included Mrs Cathy Cleary, a prominent dairy farmer from the South Coast; Emma Fairbairn, the new State Chair of the Young Nationals, who travelled from Cowra; Robyn Barrett of Narrabri; Mrs Pauline McAllister of Dubbo; and Mrs Glynne Tosh, a primary producer and activist of Dorrigo. The workshop was convened by Mrs Di Hockey of Spring Ridge, who
Page 1444
is the Chair of the National Party women’s policy committee, among her many other roles.

Although prominent National Party women were in abundance at the workshop, it was by no means a party-political event. It attracted a terrific roll-up, regardless of any participant’s political leanings. The workshop’s morning session was opened by the Hon. John Anderson and focused on issues affecting service delivery in regional New South Wales, including health and child care, counselling, transport services and banking facilities. There was an afternoon session on building community leadership skills and discussion groups focusing on telecommunications issues, economic and business development, education, skill-building and training.

John Anderson attended both sessions, notwithstanding his extremely heavy commitments at the Ag-Equip exhibition, where National Party members of Parliament routinely meet constituents from all over New South Wales. All workshop proceedings were recorded and have been circulated to all participants. The issues of concern and suggestions for Federal Government action have been forwarded for consideration to the Regional Australia Summit, another important initiative of the new leader, John Anderson. That summit will be held in Canberra during the week after next.

The deliberations of the Ag-Quip workshop have also been brought to the attention of the regional women’s advisory committee - another initiative of importance to regional women, set up by the energetic John Anderson. That committee includes a number of very impressive rural women, such as Jenni Hawkins of Finley. The Ag-Quip workshop outcomes have been brought to the attention of the New England and north-west New South Wales regional forum, hosted at Armidale by John Anderson and Stuart St Clair, the National Party member for New England, as one of two precursors to the forthcoming Regional Australia Summit.

I am delighted to draw attention to International Rural Women’s Day and express great satisfaction that the Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anderson, actively encourages rural and regional women. Indeed, he has given them additional new forums from which they can have unprecedented input into crafting the policies which will set up rural and regional Australia for exciting times ahead - times in which country women will play an equal role with the men of rural and regional Australia.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.25 p.m.]: I announce to the House that measles has been almost wiped out in the United States of America, a country with a population of about 300 million. Last year only 100 cases of measles were recorded. The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta noted that all but 29 cases were directly or indirectly infected in other countries. In other words, those 71 people contracted the disease overseas.

Statistics suggest that measles has joined the ranks of smallpox, polio, diphtheria and some other diseases that have been effectively wiped out in the United States of America because of its policy on immunisation which, to some extent, provides for compulsory immunisation. Dr Mark Papanya, from the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, said, "If we didn’t have importation, we wouldn’t have measles in the US." Before the vaccine became available in 1963, almost every child in the United States - and the same would apply to Australia - caught measles in their mid-teens.

At the known peak in 1941, American public health records show that measles infected 894,134 Americans and killed 2,279 people. I decided to speak on this topic because last year in Queensland 15 people died from measles, yet in New South Wales the Vaccination Awareness Network’s nefarious activities, which are supported by some members of this House, would stop the immunisation of children, which is designed to prevent deaths and the spread of this terrible disease throughout our country.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: And there is one in the other place.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: There was one in the other place, who does not speak about it any more. This is a very important issue because we now have vital evidence that smallpox, polio, diphtheria and measles can be eradicated as they have been in America. It is about time that we became serious about immunisation to ensure that children are immunised and protected from death or serious illness.

I plead with honourable members to take note of the statistics I have referred to and spread the word among their constituents and the people of New South Wales about immunisation. Although measles vaccination has increased dramatically in the last few years because of the activities of various general practice networks throughout the country,
Page 1445
supported by both the previous and current Federal governments - and I note in passing that Michael Wooldridge has increased funding during the last two years - there is still much to be done. We can beat measles, polio and diphtheria. Smallpox has been eradicated; the last case in the world occurred some years ago, and not one case of smallpox has been reported during the last two years.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: What about whooping cough?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I hope that the Minister will agree to booster immunisation for adults in an attempt to beat the scourge of whooping cough, which claimed 14 victims last year.

Motion agreed to.