Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 26 October 1999, Corrected Copy)

The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

The President offered the Prayers.

The President tabled, pursuant to section 78 (1) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, the report entitled "1998/99 Annual Report".

The President announced that under section 78 (3) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act she had authorised that the report be made public.

Motion by the Hon. J. W. Shaw agreed to:

(1) That a joint select committee be appointed, further to the Joint Select Committee’s recommendation in its December 1999 Report on the Inquiry into Psychological Injury - Shock, to inquire and report on

(a) the effectiveness and efficiency of the New South Wales Victims Compensation scheme in providing assistance to genuine victims of crime;

(b) the current state of the provision of counselling and associated support services for victims of crime; and

(c) other relevant matters.

(2) That the committee consist of four members of the Legislative Assembly and three members of the Legislative Council.

(3) That the Legislative Assembly members comprise:

(a) three Government members nominated in writing to the Clerk of the House by the Leader of the House, and

(b) one Opposition member nominated in writing to the Clerk of the House by the Leader of the Opposition.

(4) That the Legislative Council members comprise:

(a) one Government member nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council,

(b) one Opposition member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council,

(c) one crossbench member nominated by the crossbench.

(5) That notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the standing orders of either House:

(a) the committee is to elect as chairman a Government member of the Legislative Assembly;

(b) the chairman of the committee have a deliberative vote and in the event of an equality of votes, a casting vote; and

(c) at any meeting of the committee four members will constitute a quorum, provided that the committee meet as a joint committee at all times.

(6) That the committee have leave to sit during any adjournment of either or both Houses; to adjourn from place to place; to make visits of inspection within the State of New South Wales and Australia; and have power to take evidence and to send for persons, records and things; and to report from time to time.

(7) That the committee report by 29 February 2000.

(8) That should either or both Houses stand adjourned and the committee agree to any report before the Houses resume sitting:

(a) the committee have leave to send any such report, minutes and evidence taken before it to the Clerks of the respective Houses;

(b) the documents be printed and published and the Clerks forthwith take such action as is necessary to give effect to the order of the Houses; and

(c) the documents be laid on the table of the Houses at their next sittings.

Message forwarded to the Legislative Assembly advising it of the resolution.

Bill read a third time.

The Hon. Janelle Saffin, on behalf of the Chair, tabled report No. 3/52 entitled "Report on the
Page 1868
Dangerous Goods (General) Regulation 1999", dated October 1999.

Ordered to be printed.

The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, as Chair, tabled report No. 10, entitled "Report on Person Referred to in Legislative Council (Mr L. R. Allen)", dated October 1999.

Ordered to be printed.

Petition praying that the House will stop the opening of a proposed methadone clinic at Wyong Hospital by the Central Coast Area Health Service, received from Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

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 the Hon. Elaine Nile.

Motion by the Hon. M. J. Gallacher agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the moving of a motion forthwith that Private Members' Business Item No. 43 outside the order of precedence relating to the order for papers on Olympic Games premium ticketing be called on forthwith.

Motion by the Hon. M. J. Gallacher agreed to:

That Private Members Business Item No. 43 outside the order of precedence relating to the order for papers on Olympic Games premium ticketing be called on forthwith.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [2.44 p.m.]: I move the following motion, as amended by leave:

1. That under Standing Order 18 there be laid upon the table of this House and made public without restricted access no later than 5.00 p.m. on Wednesday 27 October 1999 all documents including letters, memoranda and files, whether recorded in written or electronic form, relating to:

(a) the allocation of premium ticketing for the Year 2000 Olympic events held by the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, that is, tickets not offered to the general public by SOCOG in its July 1999 public ticket offer, but reserved by it for sale at a premium,

(b) all applications held by the committee for premium tickets for the Year 2000 Olympic events, and

(c) all deliberations and minutes of the SOCOG Ticketing Commission relating to premium tickets.

2. That an indexed list of all 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 anything 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 and published by authority of the House.

4. That all documents relating to the purchase of premium tickets by individuals are to be delivered to the Clerk of the House and:

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

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

This motion is straightforward and meets a number of expectations of members of this Chamber and members of the wider community. At the outset I will spell out the reason for my amendment, to avoid causing confusion. Last week the Government spoke to a number of crossbench members about identifying individuals who were fortunate enough to purchase tickets for the Olympic Games. Today, in an endeavour to put this concern to rest I have moved that individuals who have purchased tickets will have their names, for the purpose of examination by this Chamber, protected until such times as the House decides it wishes to have further clarification of any such purchase.

It is important to recognise that this amended motion does not in any way impact upon organisations which have purchased tickets. For that reason I elect, at the outset, to spell out the
Page 1869
reasoning and concerns of the Opposition with regard to the matters raised by the Government, and I will address those matters later. The need for this motion follows the biggest confidence trick played on the Australian people by the New South Wales Government, in particular by all those responsible for ticket allocation for the Olympic Games next year. I do not intend to go down the path of saying who is individually responsible for what has happened, but I cannot stop other honourable members doing so.

The outrage displayed by Opposition members is indicative of outrage throughout the community. I will not name those responsible for this confidence trick, but I cannot make the same promise on behalf of other members of the Opposition. This has been a smoke and mirrors trick of mammoth proportions. The Parliament and the community know the answer to the question widely asked about who is responsible.

Today I will reveal exactly what has occurred. In doing so I give the Government an opportunity to finally come clean and put this horrible mess to bed. I offer the Government a lifesaver in this motion which will give the Government an opportunity to reveal to the community the grubby and underhand way in which the people of this State were duped into believing that they had a chance to purchase tickets to the listed host of events.

Following widespread community outrage over this dash for cash by certain elements of the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, the Government has elected to come clean. The truth should be known, but the Government has elected to come clean only in part, only a little bit. The Government has been forced to come clean following attacks by the Opposition mounted in this Chamber and in the other House last week, attacks quickly overtaken by community outrage.

The Opposition is speaking for the people of New South Wales and for the entire nation. We want to know what backroom deals were done. We want to know the truth, and we want to know it now. The Opposition is committed to ensuring that the truth, the whole truth, becomes known. My motion gives the Government an opportunity to come clean on exactly what has been going on.

In the past couple of days the media has reported that the Government intends to spell out exactly what has gone on, but has said that it will not reveal the names of those who went through the back door to purchase tickets at whatever price the Government elected to put on them. The Government did not want to tell the whole truth, only part of the truth. That is a little like being part pregnant - there is no such thing! The community cannot be expected to sit back and accept that the Government has given the rich and the influential a gold-plated opportunity.

The Hon. J. M. Samios: Point of order: I know that this issue is embarrassing to the Government, but the noise coming from the Government ranks makes it very difficult to follow the speeches.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask honourable members to reduce their level of conversation.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: The community cannot be expected to accept that the Government has allowed the rich and the influential a gold-plated, diamond-encrusted rails run to the starting line next September and excluded those directly shouldering the impact of the Treasurer’s budget cuts to fund the Games. What does the Government offer the people? The Government has offered the people front-row seats - in their own lounge rooms! The Government effectively has told people that they can sit in front of their television, grab a six-pack and have a great time, but they should not expect to be part of the Olympic Games.

The Government is saying, "Come down to Darling Harbour by all means and feel the ambience, walk through Darling Harbour. You may even bump into a support group from another nation’s Olympic team and you will feel privileged." But the ordinary people will not get in the way of the rich or the privileged, who will have the red-carpet treatment to every event. There is no limit on the Visa cards of the rich, and there is no limit on the underhand tricks that this Government will play to pay for its Olympics. Until yesterday the Leader of the Government proudly touted throughout New South Wales that these Games will be the people’s Games. We have heard it more than once or twice.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Which people?

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: As the Hon. J. H. Jobling interjected, which people are they talking about?

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Opposition cannot have it both ways. I upheld the point of order by the Hon. J. M. Samios that Government members should not interject. The same ruling applies to Opposition members.

Page 1870

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: The old mates act is alive and well in New South Wales. That is no more evident than in the underhanded way in which premium tickets have been allocated not only in this State and this country but, indeed, worldwide. Richo’s fingers reach far and wide and when these documents come before this Chamber honourable members can be guaranteed that his fingerprints will be all over them. There is no doubt that the Parliament will be looking at putting in its own ninhydrin unit, a system that identifies fingerprints on paper. I guarantee that his fingerprints will be found all over this grubby little mess.

Which people is the Government talking about when it says these are the people’s Games? Is it talking about the people of western Sydney who are rightly concerned that police resources will be stripped away and sent to Homebush Bay while crime continues to spiral out of control in other areas of Sydney? Criminals will not take a holiday during the Olympic Games. That probably comes as a surprise to members of the Government.

Criminals will probably work longer and harder because they know police will be involved at Homebush Bay and they will have a free run to do whatever they like. As members behind me rightly point out, it will not be only the people of metropolitan Sydney who will feel the impact of the Government’s action with regard to the Games. What about the people of western and south-western New South Wales who are concerned about the lack of road funding or the cuts in local hospital facilities? What was in it for them in the first place and what is in it for them now?

Many parts of our community will be hard hit in one way or another by the Olympic Games. Most Australians, known worldwide for their love of sport, were willing to put up with the difficulties and inconvenience knowing they had a chance to win a seat at the Games. They knew that even though things would be tough and traffic a nightmare, this was their chance to take the family to the Olympic Games. A falsehood has been inflicted on the people of this State.

My family is no different. Like many people in this State we applied for tickets to the opening ceremony, the soccer final and the swimming. We knew the likelihood of winning seats through the ballot system would be tough, but we put our entries in under the old Australian adage that you have to be in it to win it. Like the remaining 99 per cent of our community who missed out, we waited in expectation for the gold letter to come through the mail to tell us that we had won chance-of-a-lifetime seats.

We told ourselves there was no way this allocation of seats could be rigged. We believed it was going to be fair. We believed, foolishly, that the Government intended to run the allocation of tickets to these Games in a fair and equitable way. I cannot believe that members in this Chamber today are debating one of the greatest tricks and false pretences ever imposed on the people of New South Wales. Every Opposition member, every member of the crossbench, and possibly everyone in the gallery, foolishly believed the words of the Australian Olympic Committee President, John Coates, that were reported in the Daily Telegraph on 25 April 1998:

You will be very surprised at how many tickets we will be able to offer the schoolchildren of New South Wales in the company of parents.

We were truly surprised! Further, when Sandy Hollway said in the same report:

A significant majority of tickets will be for Australians rather than overseas, and the vast bulk of those will be in a general ticket distribution rather than through sponsors or other means.

Only 1˝ years ago this statement was being put forward as the answer to everyone’s concerns. Everyone in the community went to sleep on 25 April 1998 content that come the day when the ballot opened we would all be in with a show, we would all have a chance. It is worth noting that in the debate that has ensued in this Chamber on this issue Government members have been mute. They have not said one word. We have not heard one backbencher on the Government side say, "Hear, hear, we want to know the truth".

Not one Government Minister has said they want to get to the bottom of this. The truth is they do not want to know. I suggest that once the papers are placed on the table all will become much clearer. All will become known, not only to this Chamber but to the people of New South Wales. I love the term used by Sandy Hollway that "a significant majority of tickets will be for Australians rather than overseas". It is amazing how things can change for the worse in just over 12 months.

On 25 April last year we slept easy knowing everything was in hand because we had the assurance that the Government was doing the right thing for the people of New South Wales. In addition, the International Olympic Committee Co-ordinator, Mr Jacques Rogge, who has the oversight of organisations outside of SOCOG and beyond the reach of the Minister for the Olympics, said in an interview that he was surprised that 85 per cent of the Olympic tickets would go to Australians, to the Australian community.

Page 1871

What has gone so terribly wrong? I look forward to the Government tabling the documents. I also look forward to the Leader of the House or, if he cannot answer the question, perhaps the future leader of this House, the Special Minister of State, explaining why Mr Rogge said that 85 per cent of the people of New South Wales would get tickets - 85 per cent is much more than 33 per cent.

Today we read in the newspapers under the caption "Lie 1" that SOCOG said 3.5 million tickets were available to Australians in the public ticket ballot, while the real figure was 3.08 million. However, that is not really lie No. 1. I draw honourable members’ attention to the Sydney Morning Herald of 3 July 1998 in which the Minister for the Olympics is reported as promising that 4.5 million tickets would be available for ordinary Australians when the ballot opened. If one takes the time to look at a number of reports around that time, one sees a number of references by the Minister to 4.5 million tickets being made available.

What happened to the extra one million tickets? What happened to the 3.5 million tickets described in the media reports that confronted us this morning as being the subject of a lie? Is it any wonder that the people of New South Wales are rapidly losing confidence in the ability of the Government to manage anything? The concern is that the green Games, as they are being touted by the Government, will become the greenback games of the year 2000.

The Minister for the Olympics also promised 1.5 million tickets at between $10 and $19 for socially disadvantaged groups. What disadvantaged groups was he talking about? Was he talking about the battlers from the Tattersalls Club or about that small but significant group of unfortunate people who, down to their last couple of million dollars, make the Business Review Weekly’s top 200 each year? Who is the Minister talking about when he promises 1.5 million tickets at between $10 and $19 for socially disadvantaged people? This whole affair is a shocking nightmare.

I call on the Government to table the documents as listed in the motion before the House. Nowhere is the Government’s contempt for and deceit of the Australian public more evident than in the words of the Minister for the Olympics when he said, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 3 June 1998:

It will be a ballot. Just put in. It won’t be who you know or friends of friends. It will just be a fair ballot system. I feel very intractable about that.

Exactly what did the Minister mean when he said, "It will be a fair ballot system. You have only to put in your ballot. We will not use the old mates formula to determine whether or not you win a ticket."? There is nothing fair about what the Government is doing to the people of New South Wales. We must now examine, first, the role of this Government and, second, the role of the Minister in this whole sorry affair. We must also consider our role as a true House of review and hold this Government accountable to the people of New South Wales for its actions thus far.

Under this Government there is only one other option, one remaining chance for people in this country to go to the Olympics. The Minister has not revealed it yet, but I guarantee that he will. People should buy themselves a pair of running shoes and start training because that is the only way they will be able to go to Homebush. It is the only chance that they will have under this Government of getting to the Olympic site.

[Interruption]

I note that one of the interjections from honourable members opposite is, "It is a bit late." That is so true of the Government’s attitude to this sorry affair. I am sure all honourable members recall the public stoush that took place in April last year between the Minister for the Olympics and the International Olympic Committee official, Mr Primo Nebiolo. When Mr Nebiolo requested 85,000 free tickets Mr Knight stoically refused to give him the tickets and stated that he would do whatever he could to preserve those tickets for ordinary Australians.

It is obvious now what he meant by ordinary Australians. He, in fact, meant the rich, well-paid, influential mates of Richo and the Australian Labor Party. It does not really matter whether or not they are Australian; it is just a matter of whether they have a big enough bank balance to cover the cost of these tickets. The revelations continue about how individuals other than Australians have access to these tickets. In the last 48 hours we have heard that a number of American-based sports-promotion agencies have received thousands of tickets that should otherwise have gone to a much beleaguered Australian public.

The time has now come for this Government to spell out the truth about this ugly affair. The motion before the House is very straightforward; it calls on the Government to table all records with respect to the offer and acceptance of premium tickets, together with all minutes and correspondence
Page 1872
regarding the decision to go down this dark and sinister path. The Opposition is committed to clearing the air on this issue. We recognise that the Government and some members of SOCOG are concerned, allegedly, about the privacy of individuals.

When referring earlier to a foreshadowed amendment, I alluded to the fact that the Opposition is prepared to continue to protect those fortunate individuals who have taken up this Government’s most generous offer. However, the Opposition will not resile from the fact that there has been some skulduggery with regard to the way in which this Government and the Minister for the Olympics have dealt with various organisations, not only in New South Wales and throughout this country but also worldwide.

This Chamber has a responsibility to the people of New South Wales and this country to finally put to rest what occurred in the backroom deals done by SOCOG or the Government in Sussex Street. In the view of the Opposition - a matter to which I alluded earlier - if the Government is innocent, it has nothing to hide in relation to the purchasing of premium tickets. However, I assure members on the crossbenches and the wider community that the Opposition is not hell-bent on causing angst or embarrassment to those fortunate individuals who have been able to jump the queue.

I am led to believe that the amendments to the motion, which I foreshadowed earlier in debate, will be moved later by one or two members on the crossbenches. I look forward to the moving of those amendments. The Government has until 5.00 p.m. tomorrow afternoon to table all the documents referred to in the motion. I assure the Leader of the Government in this House that a failure to do so will not only bring about swift action by members of this Parliament; the pain that the Treasurer will experience in the wider community will be far worse.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.05 p.m.]: I am sure that all honourable members agree with the sentiments expressed by the Leader of the Opposition. In the minds of the public the Olympic Games ticketing arrangements have become a fiasco. We must conduct an inquiry into not just the issuing of premium tickets but all the arrangements relating to the issuing of tickets by the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games [SOCOG]. For that reason, I move:

That the question be amended by omitting all words after "That" at the commencement and inserting instead:

General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 inquire into and report on all matters relating to SOCOG ticketing, and in particular:

(a) the allocation of premium ticketing for the year 2000 Olympic events held by the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, that is, tickets not offered to the general public by SOCOG in its July 1999 public ticket offer, but reserved for sale at a premium, and

(b) all deliberations and minutes of the SOCOG Ticketing Commission relating to all ticket sales and not only premium tickets.

(2) That the committee report by Tuesday 23 November 1999.

Obviously, that committee will report to this House. All honourable members and, in particular, members of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1, would know that that committee has already arranged for a hearing on 8 November to deal with the Olympic ticketing matter. At this stage the Minister for the Olympics, Mr Michael Knight, and Mr Hollway will be attending. The hearing had to be delayed, however, as Mr Hollway is embarking on a prearranged two-week holiday break. The Minister indicated that Mr Graham Richardson will also appear before the committee.

On Friday this week the committee will vote on the issue of whether or not to request Mr Richardson to attend that hearing. There will be three key players: the Minister, Mr Hollway and Mr Richardson. I am involved in discussions with the Minister to require other members of SOCOG staff who have been involved in ticketing to answer questions at that committee hearing. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 has already conducted an estimates hearing into Olympic Games ticketing. The committee must follow up its reference calmly, deliberately and factually.

All of these issues must be carefully considered by a committee that represents all sides of the Parliament - Government, Opposition, and crossbench members - and those facts must be tested and put together in a report to be presented to this House. The motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition - undoubtedly with the best of intentions - may cause serious concerns for the 2000 Olympic Games. We must maintain our bipartisan approach to those Games. However, that bipartisan approach is experiencing severe cracks at the moment. It is important for all honourable members to avoid point-scoring. We must obtain the facts, conduct an investigation and report to the House.

We all want the Olympic Games to be a success. Our purpose must be to ensure that in every way possible. The Games must also be a financial
Page 1873
success with no remaining deficit. At our first meeting the Government said, and SOCOG agreed, that a $30 million surplus to the State could be maintained, and that one way of achieving that was through sales of premium ticket sales, which number only a small quantity of the overall tickets available for the Games.

Corporations and other bodies are prepared to pay a large amount of money to secure premium tickets, and those ticket sales will bring in millions of dollars of revenue, which, in the long run, will provide the surplus at the end of the Games. This present outcry about tickets will be nothing compared to what will happen if taxpayers who did not get tickets to the Games somehow have to pay for any deficit. That will be a serious reflection not only on the Government but on all members of Parliament of this State. We must avoid an Olympic Games budget deficit in every way possible.

The Opposition took up the point based on information first published in the media, which inferred that thousands of premium tickets were being set aside for the so-called rich. In fact, the number of tickets set aside in the premium packages is less than 802 for the opening ceremony, which represents 0.76 per cent, and 709 tickets for the closing ceremony, which represents 0.66 per cent of tickets available. Those figures include also a second category of combined premium and hospitality tickets that SOCOG referred to as hospitality tickets. Together, those categories total only 802 tickets for the opening ceremony of a total venue capacity of 118,000 seats.

However, because of problems associated with the layout of the stadium - the need to provide seating for commentators, areas for cameras and other matters - some seats cannot be sold. Therefore, the total capacity of tickets to be allocated is 105,262, of which 802 were put into the premium-hospitality category. The media have blown up the figure to give the impression that that category could have been half or quarter of all available tickets. The same allocation applies in respect of other events at the Olympic Stadium and at other venues.

For example, for swimming events premium and hospitality packages total 750 tickets of a total capacity of 14,660. The premium packages issue must be brought into perspective by the House. That is why my amendment makes it clear that the committee should continue its investigation into all matters relating to SOCOG ticketing, not only to premium tickets. For that reason subparagraph (b) of my amendment states:

all deliberations and minutes of the SOCOG Ticketing Commission relating to all ticket sales and not only premium tickets.

I am sure the Opposition would agree that the important question is: Where did all the tickets go? If only 800-odd were allocated to premium and hospitality packages for the opening ceremony, where did the rest go? Crossbench members have had extensive briefings by the Minister and his staff. At the briefing this morning, which lasted for more than an hour, we were provided with a print-out of all tickets allocated for main events - opening ceremony, closing ceremony, swimming and so on.

That print-out shows - and some crossbench members were concerned at this aspect - that a large number of tickets appear to have been allocated to overseas purchasers. For example, for the opening ceremony 32,206 were allocated to other countries, but that is part of a contract that SOCOG signed to hold the Games; certain tickets in fairly large quantities must be provided to every accredited Olympics committee in each of 200 nations. Of course, that adds up to a large number of tickets.

Ticket allocations to the press, non-Australian sponsors, national Olympic committees and other bodies total approximately 32,000. For the opening ceremony the Australian Olympic Committee was allocated more than 4,000 tickets; Australian sponsors, 7,461; hotels 271; Stadium Australia-Stadium Gold, which was an early SOCOG fundraising project to try to get funds in early, 33,600 tickets; suites, 2,079; and the Olympic Club, 424. Premium and hospitality packages were allocated only 802. That is where the tickets went.

I said to the Minister this morning that it may have been better when the process was publicly advertised to say, "Order your tickets, but there are only 24,296 tickets available for the opening ceremony for Australians to purchase." I believe that may have been an incentive to order tickets. Some people were a bit laid back and thought they would order later. Those who did that will now not get a ticket. If that information had been provided at the beginning, we would not have had this controversy. People would have seen that SOCOG was handling the ticket sales in a sensible way and that only a certain amount of tickets were available in Australia as part of its allocation.

Although we are hosting the Games, we do not get all the tickets. That was not made clear to the public in the advance publicity. SOCOG’s objective obviously was to sell tickets and it concentrated on that task. The controversy would have been reduced if SOCOG had said it was not selling 120,000
Page 1874
tickets to the opening ceremony, and instead was selling 24,000. The same process would apply to all other events. I agree that the public has a right to be upset.

During a previous inquiry I said to the Minister that those who missed out on the first round ballot should have preference in the second round. His belief was that that was not physically possible because of the computer program. To me that seemed to be one way to reduce the hurt experienced by those members of the community who missed out completely; that they might get some tickets in the second round. To miss out on tickets in the second round and get nothing at all will really rub salt into the wounds of many Australians, and that could easily happen.

I ordered tickets to the opening ceremony, the soccer finals and other events, but I did not receive any tickets. I hope that with my second order I might get some tickets, but again, that will be a matter of chance when tickets are allocated again by computer. It may have been better to allocate tickets on a first-in-first-served basis because those who missed out got their second orders in quickly to try to get a ticket. A first-in-first-served ticket allocation may have helped satisfy those who missed out.

I hope those facts and figures will help the House to get this ticketing issue into perspective. I trust there will be bipartisan support for my amendment, which will, in the long run, achieve what the Opposition seeks to achieve. The Opposition will have two members on the committee to ask questions. Under the rules of the committee, other honourable members can support the inquiry as it would not be a closed inquiry.

As this would be a special reference, hearings could be heard in camera, if necessary. If the committee wanted the Minister to disclose information that may have some commercial impact on the success of the Games it could vote to hear that evidence in camera so that only committee members would be present. That would be a decision for the committee in due course.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.19 p.m.]: The Government will oppose the motion by the Leader of the Opposition. However, it will support the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile to refer these matters to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN [3.20 p.m.]: I support the motion. Not since the days of the Rum Corps have we achieved such infamy. Who would have thought that here, in Australia, the world’s premier sporting event would be run by a bunch of cheats - not five blind mice as headlined in today’s newspaper, but a bunch of cheats? Before I speak to the motion I should outline my involvement with sport, lest I am labelled as anti-Olympic by the backroom spin doctors in the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games [SOCOG]. I represented the Australian Army at interservice level in Australian rules football, tennis, squash and marathon running.

I have held the State ultramarathon record, and I organised the world’s longest, toughest and richest ultramarathon between 1984 and 1991. I have also organised and directed international marathon races in Sydney, and an international mile foot race down George Street in Sydney. I worked with the Melbourne Olympic Committee to organise the 4,000-kilometre torch relay between Darwin, Cairns and Melbourne when Melbourne made its bid for the 1996 Olympics.

I was as proud as any other Australian when we won the right to stage the 2000 Olympics. I am well aware of the tremendous benefits that flow to the host country of any Olympic Games for many years after the event. But now, together with millions of ordinary Australians, I feel that the opportunity of the millennium is being sullied by secret, backroom deals among an elite bunch of mates. The Olympic ticketing fiasco is one of the most dishonest, deceptive and shameful confidence tricks ever played on ordinary Australians.

I would venture to say that it is the greatest breach of trust ever perpetrated by a secretive Labor Government and a super-secretive Olympic movement on a trusting and unsuspecting Australian public. It is a betrayal of young Australian Olympic athletes who, thus far, have devoted their entire lives to realising their Olympic dream, a dream empowered by the opportunity to compete in front of a home crowd in Sydney. At this level, where the margin for success can be measured in thousands of a second, that extra Aussie voice could well be the difference between a dream realised and a dream stolen; or, in this case, a dream sold to the highest bidder.

Australia’s head swimming coach, Don Talbot, said that Americans dominated the crowd at the Atlanta Games and helped their local team. He estimated that more than 90 per cent of the seats
Page 1875
were occupied by Americans and the remaining seats were for the rest of the world. But in our 1,500 metre swimming final, our premier swimming event, Australians will occupy fewer than 30 per cent of seats. Our very own Thorpedo risks having been sold out by SOCOG spivs, by those on the other side of the House and their Labor mates.

What type of Australians will make up the 30 per cent? Will they be raw, enthusiastic, vociferous cheerleaders for our Aussie athletes? Absolutely not! It is obvious that secretive backroom deals have been done to set most of the seats aside for plastic, corporate sports fans, Australia’s very own social X-ray set. The dinkum Aussie sports fans will have to stay home and watch the events on television, well out of earshot. Our elite athletic champions such as young Dean Pullar will have just 597 Aussie supporters in a crowd of 12,000 to cheer him on in his quest to defeat the Russian world champion, Dmitry Sautin, for Olympic gold in his home town.

It is a travesty that our athletes will have to get used to a new Australian chant based on the clink of Chardonnay wine glasses from a distant corporate box and a condescending cheer of, "Come on what’s-his-name!" It is a disgraceful betrayal. Who gave these corporate carpetbaggers - Michael Knight, Graham Richardson and John Coates - the right to turn our greatest Olympic sports stadium into a gigantic corporate mates box? Do these spivs not know anything about atmosphere or national esprit de corps?

Have they not ever stood on a hill amongst battalions of battlers urging on their local team? Do they not understand that these dinkum supporters do not want any favours, or special deals, or comfortable corporate surrounds? All they want is an opportunity to stand shoulder to shoulder with their flags and cheer home their young Aussie heroes. Who gave them the right to sell off the dreams, goals and aspirations of our young athletes to the highest corporate bidder? Who gave them the right to sell off our home ground advantage for these Olympics? Who gave them the right to secretly execute the greatest sporting sale of the century?

There is no more clear example of the hypocrisy of the new Labor Party than this sell out of its own working-class ideals. I venture to say that many older Australians would be prepared to give up their Olympic seats if they knew our kids would get an opportunity to sit in the stadium and savour the atmosphere. And why should they not? It is in their millennium. Our millennium belonged to young athletes like Herb Elliott. Herb was 16 years of age when he sat at the Melbourne Cricket Ground in 1956 and saw Vladimir Kuts run down his opponents in the 800 metre final. That heroic run provided the spark that ignited the desire in Herb Elliott to become an Olympic athlete.

How many Herb Elliotts will miss out on this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity in Sydney because some young corporate spivs, or wealthy ruddy-faced mates will have most of our available seats? When Nick Greiner formulated the vision for Sydney to host the first Olympic Games of the new millennium, and when John Fahey went on to realise the dream the city was ecstatic. Both Nick Greiner and John Fahey knew that a sporting event of this magnitude demanded the best corporate leader in Australia, so they carefully established the criteria and the remuneration package to attract the right person for the job. But when Labor accidentally won the election in 1995 the criteria changed.

It is a matter of record that SOCOG provided a once-in-a-lifetime, jobs-for-the-boys opportunity for its mates. But, more importantly, Graham Richardson was put on the SOCOG board as kingmaker, a title he used to devastating effect in his Federal parliamentary days. His personal ethics are well documented in his books as doing whatever it takes to win. He is a self-confessed liar and a notorious backroom wheeler and dealer. Which corporate giant did Richardson encourage to assume the presidency of the biggest show in town? None other than former Campbelltown City Council social worker, Michael Knight, a disciple of the Richardson whatever-it-takes school of political ethics.

Michael Knight switched his political allegiance from left to right when it was more advantageous for his personal advancement to do so. When he got his snout in the ministerial trough he deserted his working-class constituency at Campbelltown and joined the silvertails at Roseville, on Sydney’s leafy North Shore. Now we have a self-confessed liar and an ideological charlatan running the biggest show in town. Since he and Richo captured the control room of the Australian Olympic machine he has cut a swathe through the professional management of the organisation by getting rid of the bloke who successfully managed our bid, Rod McGeoch, and other self-made sporting role models such as Tracey Holmes, and stacked the place with mates from Labor’s Right.

It is little wonder that we have had to endure the internationally embarrassing marching band fiasco, and that we now have to suffer the sad
Page 1876
consequences of one of the greatest sporting scams in our history. These tickets were offered to clubs. Were they offered to the Campbelltown Catholic Club, the Campbelltown RSL Club, the Blacktown Workers Club, the Rooty Hill RSL Club, or Penrith Panthers?

The Hon. A. B. Manson: Yes.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: They were? I am pleased to hear that. How many did they get? I have a letter dated 31 May 1999 signed by Sandy Hollway, the Chief Executive Officer of SOCOG to all members of Parliament. The letter states in part:

The Games are for all Australians and we believe that these, the "Athletes Games", will be a wonderful and unique experience.

The briefing paper states:

Because millions of tickets have been especially reserved, for most sessions Australians will simply order their tickets and automatically get them.

Where there’s a session of sport, like a swimming final, where more people want a ticket than there are available seats, everyone will be treated fairly.

The briefing paper continues:

The 30 May offer will include the vast majority of the tickets set aside for Australians - more than 3.5 million tickets.

If we mislead the Chamber we lose our jobs as parliamentarians. Sandy Hollway has misled the whole nation because we now know that just a smidgen over three million tickets were available. The briefing paper further states:

The ticket sales process is designed to be fair by providing plenty of time to order and equal access to tickets for all Australians . . .

Whether you’re a rich businessperson, you live in Perth or you worked on the Olympic Stadium, you’ll have the same opportunity to secure tickets.

If that is true, why will the Government not table the documents that the Opposition is seeking? Mr Hollway said, "You will have the same opportunity to secure tickets." If everyone had the same opportunity, the evidence should be laid on the table; otherwise those statements should be retracted, In an article this week Mike Carlton referred to the Olympics as the so-called follies. He said:

The SOCOG board would save itself an awful lot of pain, scorn and humiliation if it would stop behaving like an inner-city branch of the NSW ALP. The similarities are considerable: the obsession with stealth and secrecy, the incessant number-crunching, the shoving and leaking for political advantage, the dribbling of only such carefully doctored droplets of information as the plebs need to know. It’s all there in spades.

Silly to expect anything else, I suppose, when the show is run by a politburo of Michael Knight ("the soft-voiced killer", as he is described in the eagerly awaited Bob Carr diaries) his factional mentor, Graham "Whatever-it-takes" Richardson (the Packer ambassador to SOCOG) and the suave and implacable John Coates of the AOC.

It amazes me why Graham Richardson did not hand out tickets to everyone who attended Jamie Packer’s wedding last weekend. Mike Carlton said further:

They are doing it the only way they know how. Candour and public disclosure are as foreign to them as Swahili. With this troika at the top there is little need for the other board members bothering to turn up.

Except, of course, that these three musketeers keep shooting themselves in the foot every three months.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: Chris Hartcher has an obligation. He should resign.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: You will not get away with that shot. Mike Carlton continued:

We are only just over the public relations disaster of the foreign marching bands, with all its retreat and defeat in the attendant legal battles and, still, the possibility of seven-figure compensation to be paid. That was a Knight-Richo special.

It will be paid not out of their pockets but out of the pockets of ordinary Australians, who did not have a chance to get tickets but who will have to foot this bill. He said:

Now the great ticketing fiasco is fast becoming another quagmire, and you can nail it down to secrecy in each case, that and cack-handed political decisions made with knee-jerk haste.

Secrecy is the hallmark of this Government:

Above all, the ticketing should have been seen as fair and open to everyone.

As Sandy Hollway said it would be when he wrote to the Opposition:

But for all the ear-bashing we have had about "our Olympic Games", in the public perception it is now Their Olympic Games which some of us might get lucky enough to attend.

The clunker was SOCOG’s reluctant disclosure of the so-called premium program with its red carpet entrance to the Games for the rich and well-connected. It was like pulling teeth without an anaesthetic, but eventually we learnt that the gentlemen members of Tattersall’s Club -

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: Did you write this?

Page 1877

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: No, this is Mike Carlton.

The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt: It is a great speech.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: It is great, and one should look at the headlines that have been produced. Australia is on show for the biggest marketing event in the world and there are headlines such as "Need, greed and tickets" - the slogan of the ALP - "Sold Out, ‘Ugly’ truth of Olympic ticket allocation" and "How a nation was betrayed". Mr Richardson, the chairman of the SOCOG ticketing subcommittee, said in the paper today, "I don’t think we have been dishonest." He is a liar and a cheat, although he does not think he has been dishonest. He does not know the difference.

Richardson’s values are so corrupted and blurred that he does not know the difference anymore. That is a sad indictment on him. Mark Taylor, one of our greatest ever test cricket captains, was used in an endeavour to pull Richardson out of the quagmire and try to give some credibility to the grubby ethics and grubby deals. The Government should call on Graham Richardson to apologise to Mark Taylor because his name has been sullied. It is a disgrace. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald today reported:

"I am the ugly face of capitalism," SOCOG’s commercial and marketing manager Paul Reading said with a distinct touch of pride.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: He is running for Liberal Party preselection.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: He may well run, mate, but he will have to keep on running. The article continued:

I’m not employed to give advice on equity; this is about raising money.

What an indictment on the Labor Party and its working-class roots! It is about the worst aspects of grubby capitalism.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: Grubby capitalism?

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: Labor capitalism is grubby capitalism because it is not based on values; it is based on mateship and cronyism. The article further stated:

What a pity then that SOCOG’s marketing campaign insisted for so long on running the line that this was "the people’s Games" and that "every Australian had an equal chance of getting the tickets they want".

After an hour of questioning yesterday on whether ticketing was pulling in big money, Graham Richardson stated bluntly, "As far as I am concerned we have done what we had to do." This is an extension of "We will do whatever it takes." What an arrogant, condescending statement. Kevan Gosper - and one thing I can say about Kevan is that he at least is an international athlete -

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: So is Coates.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: Yes, but Richardson and Knight are not. The only Olympic sport they have been involved in is backstabbing and front stabbing - and they would be gold medallists in that. Kevan Gosper outperformed Reading because he managed to present the ugly face of the IOC by insisting that the public should be grateful that SOCOG was belatedly agreeing to provide some of the facts on the ticketing debacle. He said:

If you ask me if we’ve got anything to apologise for, I’ll give you an answer very simply . . . no.

Apparently he believes there is nothing to apologise for and the public should just eat cake and be grateful that they will be able to watch the Games on television. The only regret shown yesterday was that the public were not told about the premier packages for the elite a bit earlier - or was it just that the information was leaked first without a SOCOG spin? Graham Richardson admitted that this was a mistake. The editorial of the Daily Telegraph on Richardson stated:

Arrogance reaches a new level. Graham Richardson, after a lifetime in the cesspool of backroom ALP politics, is blunt, ruthless and arrogant.

Yesterday, he also displayed a contempt for Australians who had paid in advance in the hope of fair treatment in obtaining tickets for the Sydney Olympics, billed as the People’s Games . . .

Mr Richardson and Mr Reading have compromised their positions and, by their silence up until yesterday, have breached public trust.

Both Mr Richardson and Mr Reading should resign their appointments in the hope of restoring faith in the Games administration from an Australian public which has been the unwitting dupe in this pathetic affair.

Labor often says that it is the social conscience of the Australian people and that the Liberals are silvertails.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: It is the other way around now.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: It is the other way around now. Recently I looked at Michael Knight’s
Page 1878
resumé, which showed that at one time he was a labourer. I would like to see that! That would have been either just before or just after he attended Cranbrook, which is an established "working-class" school attended by many people from Campbelltown. Labor holds the working-class people in contempt, and thinks it can get away with it. It should reassess its policies if it wishes to retain government in 2003. The Hon. P. T. Primrose is a former mayor of Campbelltown and there is no doubt that he was a hardworking mayor.

The Hon. P. T. Primrose: I will have to make a personal explanation if you continue.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: I did not say you were any good; I just said you worked hard. He is now a member of this House. He lives in the area and has all the time in the world to look after the concerns of the working people of Campbelltown, and he should establish an office and do that. However, I have to hold many interviews with people in that area because there is no-one else for them to see.

Whom do people from the housing commission areas of Airds and Cromer ring? They ring Charlie Lynn because he lives there. They know that he was the former shadow member for Campbelltown and that he is now the shadow minister for western Sydney. I spend all my time driving to Campbelltown because Labor’s local member is in the back of his chauffeur-driven limousine with a bottle of Bollinger and is being driven across to the North Shore. He is a "virtual" member.

The Hon. P. T. Primrose: What are you talking about?

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: The Hon. P. T. Primrose should be quiet because I am actually trying to do him a favour; I am trying to get him promoted. I would like him to have an office in Campbelltown so that the people of Campbelltown can receive good, honest political representation. I believe that if any credibility at all is to be salvaged, the Minister for the Olympics should be made a member of this House. Then he will not have to pretend to have a constituency at Campbelltown; he can be a "virtual" member - by press releases and the odd gracious appearance.

Then the Hon. P. T. Primrose should become a member of the other place so that he can establish an office in Campbelltown and provide a service to local constituents. That would be a good, positive step towards restoring some form of credibility in the eyes of the working class whom Labor members have betrayed. Labor Party members live in places such as the North Shore. The Minister for the Environment, Bob Debus, represents the Blue Mountains but lives somewhere in Glebe and the Minister for the Olympics, Michael Knight, represents Campbelltown but lives in the leafy suburb of Roseville.

The Hon. P. T. Primrose: What about Hawkesbury? Where does the member for Hawkesbury live?

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: I go out there. I am the shadow minister for western Sydney and I look after there. If the Labor Party made those changes that would be the first step towards restoring some credibility in that the eyes of the working-class people that Labor members purport to represent. If members of the Labor Party do not think they should take that step, they should remember what happened to Jeff Kennett, who was perceived to be arrogant. He went to the Michael Knight-Michael Egan-Bob Carr school of arrogance, and although he was not a patch on them, look what happened to him.

If Labor is to salvage any semblance of credibility from this disgraceful scam, and if there is to be any hope of restoring national and international credibility as well as credibility relating to the ticketing process, the documents relating to the premium tickets must be tabled so that we can all see which companies and which clubs received which tickets. That is not too much to ask. People do not care about the ticketing process, and neither do I. I cannot afford to go to the Olympics so I did not apply for tickets, but I am a supporter of the Olympics.

I know there are people who make much more money than I do who can afford to go to the Olympics and who can afford to pay a premium price for premium tickets. I have no chip on my shoulder about that - that is fine - but I and others like me should have known that up-front. If people had known that was the arrangement, they would have accepted it and said, "That’s fine." People can watch the events on television and they can savour the atmosphere by going to the venues.

People can go to some of the lower-priced, less-popular events and be part of the Olympic spirit, and they can certainly all be the beneficiaries of the Olympic Games because of the international marketing power this event will have in years to come. Australians would have accepted that, but they will not accept liars, cheats and scammers.
Page 1879
Unless the Government tables the documents, all rights to any sort of credibility will have been forfeited. Having tabled the documents, Michael Knight and Graham Richardson should be sacked for lying to, and cheating on, ordinary Australians. If those things are done, this Parliament will get back to being a bipartisan institution.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: So you are threatening the Olympics now?

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: No. If a former Campbelltown social worker can run the Games, I can run them, if the Special Minister of State wishes. I used to organise international sporting events and I will step in if the Government wants me to. I will give advice, and I will do so free of charge. I have wide experience in that area - more than the Minister for the Olympics ever had - both as an athlete and as a sports organiser, so if the Special Minister of State is in trouble he should just give me a hoy and I will come and help him in the spirit of bipartisanship. Until the Government gets rid of those blokes and tables the documents, members of the State Labor Government will bring disgrace to the Games, and the Sydney 2000 Olympics will be regarded as one of the great lost opportunities.

The Hon. P. J. BREEN [3.44 p.m.]: I speak against the motion moved by the Opposition and I support the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. The motion seeks to analyse and dissect the premium tickets offered by the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games [SOCOG]. Paragraph 1 (a) of the motion asks about the allocation of premium tickets, but that question has already been answered by SOCOG. There are 320,000 premium tickets that have been offered or already sold. Paragraph 1 (b) asks about applications held by SOCOG for premium tickets, how many have been received and, importantly, who applied. Paragraph 1 (c) requests all the deliberations and minutes of the SOCOG ticketing commission relating to premium tickets.

Those issues were first raised at the budget estimates hearings on 15 October 1999, which I attended as one of the crossbench members, together with Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. The Hon. D. T. Harwin, one of the Coalition representatives, asked the Chief Executive of SOCOG, Sandy Hollway, a question which started the commotion. It is worth repeating the question asked by the Hon. D. T. Harwin, which was directed to the Minister as follows:

I want to go back to the quantification that Mr Hollway gave earlier of the gold tickets -

he used the words "gold tickets"

- to make absolutely certain that I have it correct. Ten and a half thousand stadium packages were purchased back by SOCOG as the basis for these gold ticket packages, by 18 sessions, which gives about . . . 250,000 tickets . . .

Mr HOLLWAY: Yes, subject to my checking and correcting if that is wrong . . .

In response to that question, Mr Hollway, as I have just read, said, "Yes, subject to my checking and correcting if that is wrong." What was wrong was the Hon. D. T. Harwin’s question. There were no such things as gold tickets. Mr Hollway had spoken about "stadium gold packages" - a reference to a disastrous stadium float, but there were no such things as gold tickets. It is no wonder that Mr Hollway had to qualify his answer.

There never were 250,000 gold tickets. Mr Hollway took the question to refer to premium packages and, importantly, said he would need to check the figures. I then asked Mr Hollway whether my family members who had not applied for tickets would get another chance. Mr Hollway replied:

I would not want to come across as a crass salesman, but if your family calls 13 63 63 and registers we would be happy to send them a book the next time round. In November we will make available to anyone who wants it, and widely available throughout Australia, yet another ticket book . . .

I then asked:

Will there be a publicity campaign along similar lines?

Mr Hollway replied:

Very much so. I was not being facetious when I mentioned 13 63 63. We have a system whereby if someone wants to preregister to get that book and did not order before, they can do that now.

Subsequently Mr Hollway said - and Mr Paul Reading also said - that everyone wanting to apply for premium tickets could phone that number, 13 63 63. Since the budget estimates hearings the press has been in a frenzy about the program. The frenzy has been led by the Sydney Morning Herald following a freedom of information inquiry. Perhaps the most interesting feature of the front page of today’s Sydney Morning Herald is not the bold headline but, rather, the pie chart which appears in the context of the republic debate and is clearly wrong. It seems that SOCOG is not the only organisation that is capable of publishing incorrect pie charts.

The reality is that if people want to be fair - which is the one thing that everybody seems to agree on - it must be acknowledged that most people
Page 1880
did not apply for the top events such as the opening and closing ceremonies, either because they could not afford the tickets or because the chances of getting the tickets they wanted were better if they did not ask for tickets for top billing events. As I said earlier, information was available simply by ringing the SOCOG ticket number. My sister, Janette Warby, rang the number and passed on information to me. Relying on that information, I chose events in the second and third line of choice, and my selection was successful.

I suggest that people who have been disappointed by the allocation of tickets will have ample opportunity to obtain their fair share of the pie if the ticketing process is allowed to take its course. To intervene now, as the Opposition’s motion would have honourable members do, would simply ruin the process by exposing purchasers of the premium packages and hospitality tickets to unwanted publicity.

If the Opposition’s motion is passed, the proposed $60 million in revenue from premium packages and hospitality tickets will be jeopardised. I fail to see the point of incurring that kind of budgetary damage. With the greatest of respect to the Leader of the Opposition, who moved the motion, I ask him, as a former policeman, to consider the premium packages and hospitality tickets as if they were tickets to the police ball.

Honourable members would have purchased tickets to the police ball at some stage in their lives. Would they want their names to appear on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald as having bought those tickets? I doubt it! Tickets to the police ball are sold under the counter and out of the limelight. If people who bought tickets to the police ball were named, no-one would buy them and the ball would be a big flop. I urge honourable members to remember that, to vote against the original motion, and to support the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.50 p.m.]: I support the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. It would be dangerous to have all these details released to the public; it would cause tremendous problems in selling premium packages, which are necessary to fund the Games. I have examined the sales figures for "A" tickets and other tickets which were presented to me this morning. I was shocked to discover that, while 3,800,535 tickets are available, only 285,936 "A" tickets are available to members of the public.

Therefore, of the 1.75 million "A" tickets available, the public is able to purchase only 285,936. In other words, the public is allocated 33.25 per cent of the total tickets but only 16.38 per cent of the "A" tickets. Members of the public are being treated like second-class citizens. For the opening ceremony 89,848 "A" tickets are available but members of the public, Australians, are allocated only 7,984 tickets, or 8.88 per cent. However, of the 10,330 "D" tickets, the worst tickets, Australians are able to purchase 10,000, which is 97 per cent. Again, they are being treated like second-class citizens.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Those seats are behind concrete pillars, and other places.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: They are not behind concrete pillars, but they certainly do not have good views. For the closing ceremony, 92,848 "A" tickets are available but the public are able to purchase only 4,788, or 5.16 per cent. There are 5,237 "D" tickets available, and the public is allocated only 5,000, or 95 per cent - again they are being treated like second-class citizens. A diving final event, on 24 September, has 9,400 tickets available, but only 81 tickets, or 0.86 per cent, are allocated for members of the Australian public. Of the 9,400 tickets available for a diving final event on 26 September, only 16 tickets, or 0.16 per cent, are offered to members of the public. That is an absolute outrage.

Of the 9,400 tickets available for a final diving event on 28 September, only 382, or 4.4 per cent, are available for members of the public. On 30 September, 9,400 tickets are available for another diving final event but only 782 tickets, or 8 per cent, are offered to the general public. For football, 63,000 "A" tickets at the Olympic Stadium are on offer, but only 7,200, or 10.6 per cent, are on offer to the public.

For rhythmic gymnastics there are 6,000 tickets available, with 246 for the first final and 159 for the second final on offer to the public, or roughly 3.5 per cent. For a swimming final on 16 September, 14,300 tickets are on issue but only 737, or 5.15 per cent, are available to members of the public. On 17 September, 14,300 tickets are available and only 649, or 14.5 per cent, are offered to the public. On 18 September, of the 14,300 tickets available, only 631, or 4.4 per cent, are offered to the public. On 19 September, of the 14,300 tickets available, only 768, or about 5 per cent, are offered to the public.

Of the 3,200 tickets available for a tennis final on 27 September, only 203, or 6.3 per cent, are on offer to the public. For a tennis final on 28 September, of the 3,200 tickets available, only 224 are on offer to the public. This pattern carries through the whole ticketing process. Members of the
Page 1881
Australian public are being treated as second-class citizens and are getting a raw deal. Sure, they may get 33 per cent or more of the total number of tickets available, but they are getting the worst tickets. That is an outrage. In order for Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile to conduct his inquiry I move:

That the amendment of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile be amended by adding at the end:

(3) That there be tabled with the Clerk of the House by 5.00 p.m. on Tuesday 2 November 1999:

(a) an indexed list of all files held by SOCOG relating to Olympic ticketing, and

(b) details of all deliberations and minutes of the SOCOG Ticketing Commission relating to all ticket sales,

whether recorded in written or electronic form.

(4) Any document required to be tabled under this order is to be:

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

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

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile needs to obtain these details in order to carry out a proper inquiry, and unless this motion is passed he will be hamstrung. I understand that there are great sensitivities involved, and my amendment does not allow for information to be made available to the public. This information could, and would, be used politically. It might well damage the sale of a number of packages. I support the motion moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, with my amendment.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.56 p.m.]: The Greens support the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. I foreshadow that the Greens will move an amendment to his amendment to require the inquiry to look at the ticketing process involving people with disabilities and disadvantaged people. In Australia many people are angry about the ticketing process, and they have a right to understand how the process has been undertaken.

The Olympics have been on the nose for a long time, and corruption has become synonymous with the Olympic process. But now that we are moving closer to the event and the tickets are coming on line, people are starting to feel more confident about having a chance to go to the Games, to share in the spirit of the Olympics and participate in the joy of sport.

However, people have now found out that they have been conned, and that feeling is shared by Mark Taylor, whom SOCOG conscripted to sell tickets. Australians have not and will not have anything like 50 per cent access to tickets for popular and premium events and sessions. This is despite the strong marketing impression created by SOCOG that they would have access to that level of events. The Council of Social Service of New South Wales [NCOSS] has done a great deal of work on this issue. NCOSS has shown that SOCOG’s ticketing policy allows high-income people two opportunities to purchase Olympic tickets for prestige events.

For the opening and closing ceremonies and premium events such as swimming and athletics finals, the better off can purchase both the highest-priced "A" category and lowest-priced "D" category tickets. This is an option which low-income people who cannot afford A-priced tickets do not have. Under the SOCOG ticketing process many tickets designed to give low-income people access to prestige events have been taken up by high-income earners. SOCOG’s refusal to quarantine cheap tickets for the most popular events for the least well-off in the community is totally wrong and unacceptable and it needs to be changed urgently.

There are no cheap tickets to the basketball final, which is popular with young people, particularly those from working-class backgrounds, and the disadvantaged. Also, there are no cheap tickets to the gymnastics or tennis. This situation needs to be thoroughly investigated.

NCOSS sought the urgent consideration by the SOCOG board of the following measures, and I urge SOCOG to report to the inquiry on the immediate public release of the details about the number of tickets remaining for sale in all sessions of all events; to give a commitment to conduct the second ticket ballot on an event basis rather than allocating all the ticket requests of applicants that come out of the ballot draw; to guarantee that there will be 1.5 million Olympic opportunity tickets at the previously advertised price available across all sessions for all events, that were not sold out in the first-round ticket ballot; and to reallocate unsold premium package tickets at Olympic opportunity ticket prices to low-income people through either a Centrelink ballot or a ballot conducted by NCOSS of its member community organisations for distribution to clients. This is a very clear proposal and would start to bring some confidence back to SOCOG and the whole Australian conduct of the Olympics.

Page 1882

The other matter to which the Government should give consideration is the way in which people with visual disabilities have been treated in the allocation of tickets. They have had virtually no access to information about the ticketing process. It is time the Government came clean in this regard. People with such disabilities have had to battle to find out what tickets are available, quite apart from having to make a decision on which tickets they would like to purchase. In June this year a complaint was lodged with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission by Mr Bruce Maguire, a blind citizen, following SOCOG’s refusal to produce the first round ticket book in braille.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT, by leave: During question time last week I was asked a number of questions in relation to the escape from Minda Juvenile Justice Centre. On more than one occasion I stated that six detainees were engaged in activities in the unit. This advice was provided to me by the Department of Juvenile Justice. Following receipt of the interim departmental report on the escape last Friday - an investigation I requested - I was advised that in addition to the six detainees engaged in activities in the unit a seventh detainee had requested to go to his room immediately following dinner. Technically, therefore, there were seven detainees at Minda Juvenile Justice Centre -

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Point of order: I understand the Minister sought leave to give a personal explanation, but I believe that the Minister is providing information to the House in the form of a ministerial statement.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: The honourable member is simply correcting information she gave to the House last week.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister is making a personal explanation. She may proceed.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Technically, therefore, there were seven detainees at Minda Juvenile Justice Centre, although only six were engaged in activities at the estimated time of the escape. I apologise to honourable members for any misunderstanding my remarks may have caused.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: My question without notice is to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. When does the Minister intend to implement private underwriting in the workers compensation scheme or has he decided to abandon private underwriting, as reported in the latest issue of industry journal Workers Compensation Report?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Private underwriting is dealt with in legislation passed by this House. It provides that private underwriting shall take place from 1 October 2000 or such date earlier as specified by the Minister. That is the law. If this House decides to take some other position, so be it, but that is the position at the present time. I have talked to insurers about this matter and an amicable discussion is going on about timing. The present legislative framework set by Parliament states that private underwriting will take place on or before 1 October 2000.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: Will the Treasurer update the House on the state of the New South Wales budget?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I have today released the monthly budget statements for July and August of this year as well as the unaudited final results for 1998-99. I am pleased to advise the House that the budget is on track to achieve a surplus of around $200 million in this financial year, that is, for 1999-2000. However, I point out that the introduction of the Federal Government’s general services tax [GST] on 1 July next year will create some uncertainty for this year’s revenue estimates.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Only in the right way.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No. At this stage it is very difficult to predict to what extent people will bring forward expenditures - for example, on housing, because after 1 July next year there will be a GST on housing - or the extent that people will delay expenditure, for example, on motor vehicle purchases, because after 1 July next year sales tax will be abolished and the GST will apply. As the extent to which the normal spending patterns will
Page 1883
change is uncertain, it is therefore somewhat uncertain as to what impact that will have on the Government’s revenues, particularly in the last few months of the financial year.

Nevertheless, at this stage it appears we are well on track to achieve a modest surplus of around $200 million. For the first two months, for example, the Government finance statistics [GFS] surplus is some $373 million, and that is out of a total budget for which spending and receipts are in the vicinity of $26 billion.

The results to the end of 1998-99 indicate that we have a decrease in the operating surplus from what was anticipated when the budget was brought down in June. That decrease is $344 million but there is an increase of $208 million in the GFS surplus from the June budget projections for 1998-99. That means we have been able to reduce our debt by $208 million more than we anticipated in June when I brought down the budget. This means the budget is quite clearly now in surplus and it contrasts with a peak deficit of $1,626 million in 1991-92.

The budget results will continue to improve but, as I mentioned at the outset of my answer, there is some uncertainty as a result of the introduction of the GST and the effect that will have on people’s normal spending patterns on items that will be affected by the GST.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG: I ask the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment a question without notice. In view of the recent report by the Australian Institute of Criminology that showed that the imprisonment rate has increased by around 4.4 per cent a year over the past decade, what is the rate of juvenile offending and detention over the past decade? What structures and procedures are in place in the juvenile justice system to address the growing representation rate of juveniles from non-English-speaking backgrounds into the system?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I will take on notice the first part of the honourable member’s question because I do not have the material available to me to enable me to provide a response at this time. However, the Department of Juvenile Justice is putting in place measures to address the important issue of the overrepresentation of people from non-English speaking backgrounds. At the moment there is a significant overrepresentation of young indigenous people in detention centres.

The representation of young people from a South-East Asian background is roughly of the order of 4.5 per cent; the representation of young people from an Arabic speaking background is roughly 4 per cent; and the representation of Pacific islanders and Maori detainees is 9 per cent - a significant increase in representation for that group.

The department is undertaking a number of measures to address the services and diversionary strategies provided in detention centres to try to ensure that young people have options available to them other than control orders. I point out that the purpose of the Youth Justice Conferencing Scheme - a scheme to which I have referred in this House on a number of occasions - is to enable the department to intervene early in the piece and to provide options other than control orders to meet the needs of young people through the conferencing process.

Drug and alcohol counselling, extra family support, or issues relating to schooling can be addressed. The Youth Justice Conferencing Scheme covers a range of issues. I will take the first part of the honourable member’s question on notice as I am not presently able to provide information, going back 10 years, relating to the rate of incarceration of people from a non-English speaking background.

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. What time frame is the Government working on to finalise the privatisation of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme? When will the Government announce its response to the Webster inquiry into the future flows to the Snowy River?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: There is no timetable for the privatisation of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: There was going to be an inquiry.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No. The honourable member would be aware that legislation has passed this House allowing for the corporatisation of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme, and that
Page 1884
is somewhat different from privatisation. That will depend, as the legislation requires, on an agreement being reached on environmental flows between New South Wales, Victoria and, no doubt, the Commonwealth. That agreement has then to be laid before each House of this Parliament, and I believe that 15 days are allowed for either House of this Parliament to disallow the agreement.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Are you talking months or years?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I do not know. Yesterday I was interested to read in one of the newspapers that the Federal Minister for the Environment, Senator Hill, seemed to be arguing that there should not be any additional environmental flows down the Snowy River. That would certainly not be the position of the New South Wales Government. But the three governments - and I suppose the South Australian Government also has an interest in this - will have to come to an agreement that I hope will do almost the impossible, that is, satisfy all the legitimate interests that are involved in this issue.

I hope that the Commonwealth Government, the Victorian Government, the South Australian Government and, I am sure, the New South Wales Government can address the issue on the basis of sound and good policy and not in any way simply to score political points off one another. I would have hoped that that agreement could have been arrived at almost 12 months ago. I have no idea how long it will take, but we will take as long as we need to ensure that the optimal decision is made.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: And then privatisation will take place after that?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Corporatisation. There are no plans on our part to privatise the Snowy Hydro-Electric Scheme, although I understand that that is the policy of my comrades in Victoria.

The Hon. H. S. TSANG: My question is addressed to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Will the Treasurer update the House on the outcomes of the latest investment tour to Singapore?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I thank the honourable member for his question.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: You have got it off the Walker corporation.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Who did?

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: I do not know. Are you going to claim that you did?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Not off the Walker corporation. I am a shareholder in a lot of corporations but I am not a shareholder so far as I know - and I do not know whether the Assistant Treasurer is - of the Walker corporation. The Walker corporation is not something for which I am responsible.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: What about privately?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, not even privately. I did meet Lang Walker once. In the days when I was the member for Cronulla he had a small office in Miranda, just near the Miranda railway station. A friend of mine, who was a solicitor in Cronulla, came to my electorate office one day and said, "What are you doing for lunch?" I said, "I am having a sandwich here." He said, "No, come with me." So I went with him and we went via Lang Walker’s office in Miranda, where I was introduced to him for the first time.

Then the solicitor took me horse riding at Kurnell, where I proceeded to get on top of a horse which completely lost control of itself. It created panic all round. From that day on I never left my electorate office for lunch; I stayed there, bolted to the seat. I have the honour of having been the only Labor member for the seat of Cronulla, and it was a great privilege to represent the people of Cronulla.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You cost the Labor Party that seat for ever.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: If honourable members look at the figures for the seat of Cronulla - and I do not want to be accused of arrogance by members of the Opposition - they will find that Labor never got over 35 per cent of the vote before I first contested that seat in 1971, and it never got over 35 per cent after I ceased to be the candidate for Cronulla. But on the six occasions on which I was the candidate for Cronulla, the vote was always between 47 and 57 per cent.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: It must have been a great honour.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It was a great honour to represent the people of Cronulla. The only difficult thing about that seat was that it was a natural Liberal Party seat. I thank honourable members for the diversions. Honourable members know that I do not read the daily newspapers. I
Page 1885
might get round to reading them a month or so later. Sometimes a snippet from the newspapers is put under my nose by one of my colleagues or one of my staff, but there is seldom very much of value, particularly in the Sydney Morning Herald.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Do you not read the financial pages?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Absolutely not. I am not referring to State political reports because the State journalists in this gallery for the Sydney Morning Herald have always tended to be above the average. In non-parliamentary matters it is often the case that one gets a better news account of a story in the Daily Telegraph than one gets in the Sydney Morning Herald. I can recall many instances when I have looked at the Sydney Morning Herald to get news of an announcement on some issue and all I have seen is comment and analysis.

For example, when the Creative Nation statement was released by the Federal Government some years ago I can remember pouring through the pages of the Sydney Morning Herald to find out what was in it, and all I could find was comment and analysis. I had to go to a completely different newspaper to find out what had actually been announced in the Creative Nation statement. That is the problem with the Sydney Morning Herald.

Last week I had drawn to my attention a letter from various chefs around town complaining about Sydney Morning Herald food reviews. I agreed with their letter entirely. I find the Sydney Morning Herald very negative, very cynical, anti-Sydney and, in a lot of ways, anti-Australian. I penned what I thought was a brilliant letter of support for those chefs, a brilliant letter of denunciation to the Sydney Morning Herald. I was ready to send it but my staff would not let me. I might consider reading it to the House tomorrow.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Ray Thomas is a fine horse racing journalist.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I do not read the racing section. I told the Deputy Leader of the Opposition before that when I go to the races I have a foolproof system.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: That’s why you’re so rich.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I wish I were! I back the clear third favourite in the betting market. I return to the question asked by the Hon. H. S. Tsang. As part of the Carr Government’s continuing efforts to create jobs and attract investment to New South Wales the Department of State and Regional Development took part recently in an investment tour to Singapore. The South East Asian Investment Series, as it is known, is designed to introduce Australian and New Zealand businesses to Singapore-based companies looking to invest in new technologies.

Some 13 Australian companies participated in the investment tour, of which seven were from New South Wales and five were Australian Technology Showcase [ATS] companies. Already a number of firms have achieved some success through their involvement in the investment series. For example, Streamline Drains and Pipelines from Mortlake is close to signing a joint venture agreement with a potential worth between $3 million and $5 million a year with ABV Engineering, which is a leading construction and engineering company.

Bishop Austrans from North Ryde has been invited by the Singapore Government to explore the possibility of incorporating its rapid transit technology into the Singapore public rail system. The Bowral-based company Technico, of which the Hon. D. J. Gay is aware, recently completed its first offshore production plant in China. It signed an agreement with a major Indian-based company to establish operations in that country to service India’s growing food market. Technico is close also to committing additional funds to establish operations in Thailand.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Have you given them some more money?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No. The purpose of the Australian Technology Showcase is not to throw money at companies.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: They like the compliments but they need money.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The showcase provides more than compliments; it provides practical assistance in many ways, for example, by assisting firms to attend some of these missions, to obtain venture capital, and to build up their export operations. It is practical assistance and has been well received by companies. The visit to Singapore resulted in Technico being approached by the Singapore Government Investment Corporation, one of Singapore’s leading venture capital firms, to explore financing options for Asia. Hospitality 3000, one of the newest Australian Technology Showcase companies, is negotiating a $4 million software deal with Thakral Holdings, which, of course, is a Singapore-based hotel chain.

Page 1886

Thakral Holdings is a fascinating company. It was on show at the last ATS function we had at the Australian technology show park. The Singapore tour has the potential over the next three years to net some $23 million worth of new business for the companies involved. I hope it has reinforced also Australia’s image as an innovative country with a solid regional and element base, and has stirred interest among the Singapore venture capital community to invest in our innovative technologies. I look forward in the near future to updating the House on the progress of the companies involved.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question is directed to the Attorney General. On 13 October I asked the Attorney a similar question, as did the Hon. I. Cohen, who received a reply on 14 October. I asked a further question and received a further letter, which was tabled in this House last week, about the method of payment between WorkCover and insurers. In the main the reply dealt with management and changes as per the new insurer remuneration package for the 15 months from 1 July 1998. My question is: How are payments made for the processes that insurers go through as opposed to results obtained? What assessments have been made of that matter? If any have been made, can those assessments be made public?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Last week I tabled the documents that I believe govern the relationship between WorkCover and insurers.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: I need the updates.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: If there is more technical or detailed matter, I suggest that the honourable member put a question on notice to which a reply can be made.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Is it a fact that no classes have been held at Sunning Hill school since a fatal stabbing at the school on 23 July? Is that because the students have refused to attend classes? In view of the importance of education to the detainees, what steps have been taken to assist the principal and staff to overcome problems at the school?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I do not have an answer to the honourable member’s question. As the matter referred to is obviously of importance I will ask the Minister to provide a reply as quickly as possible.

The Hon. A. B. MANSON: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Could the Treasurer please update the House on the latest multinational company to base its Asia-Pacific regional headquarters in Sydney?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I would be delighted to answer that important question from the Hon. A. B. Manson. I am pleased to inform the House that the prestigious German office furniture manufacturer, Wilkhahn, has opened its new Asia-Pacific headquarters, its manufacturing facilities and showroom facilities in Redfern. Wilkhahn plans to invest some $20 million and create more than 250 new jobs over the next five years. I am told that the company could eventually generate more than $50 million in exports, most of which will be sold in the Asia-Pacific region.

Wilkhahn is one of the world’s most innovative and creative furniture makers specialising in office and commercial furniture. Worldwide it has 6,000 employees and last year generated more than $160 million worth of sales. In Australia Wilkhahn has supplied furnishings to Lexus showrooms nationally, executive levels of the ANZ Bank and Sydney’s new Price Waterhouse Coopers building. Wilkhahn’s reputation as a pioneer in innovative design and use of materials is acknowledged by architects and engineers throughout the world.

When a company like Wilkhahn chooses Australia for a significant new investment it tells us two things: first, that Australia as an economy, community and investment and business location is doing well; and, second, it reminds us that we cannot afford to let the grass grow under our feet. We must remain attractive and competitive because companies like Wilkhahn can indeed, choose to have its Asia-Pacific operations, Asia-Pacific manufacturing base and any of its regional purposes anywhere in the region.

The fact that it chose Sydney is not because it likes Bondi Beach, although that is probably an attraction. It chose Sydney because on all the facts that go in to making important investment decisions Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, comes up best. Obviously, in Australia we have a strong and developing domestic market that increasingly looks for the quality and innovation for which Wilkhahn is renowned.

We have also a strong and developing export culture with over 60 per cent of our exports already
Page 1887
going to the Asia-Pacific region. Of course, that export culture accords with that of Wilkhahn. Wilkhahn joins around 285 international companies that have established Asia-Pacific regional headquarters in New South Wales in recent years.

Wilkhahn joins approximately 340 German companies that do business in and have a presence in Australia. We welcome such involvement of German companies in Australia. New South Wales companies will now be able to buy the same high-quality furniture as Wilkhahn’s international customers, such as the Bank of China, the World Trade Centre at Seville and a host of other companies throughout the world. I congratulate Wilkhahn on its decision, and I wish the company and its staff all the best for the future.

If honourable members want to have a look at Wilkhahn it is not far away; it is in Redfern. I am sure the Hon. I. Cohen would be interested, because last year, I think it was, Wilkhahn won a prestigious European environmental award for its approach to the materials it uses and for its production process. Wilkhahn has a very good record in regard to the release of chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs] into the environment. I did not realise that CFCs were involved in furniture making, but I am informed that they come from glues and other materials.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: What is Wilkhahn’s address?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will find it for the honourable member. I am serious when I say that it is worthwhile having a look at Wilkhahn. It is an enthusiastic company that has a worldwide reputation not only for its design and innovation, but also for its environmental record. Wilkhahn has an excellent reputation around the world as a model corporate citizen. Last Friday I opened their premises, and I urge honourable members, if they have the chance, to visit them.

The Hon. I. COHEN: My question is directed to the Attorney General. Given the announcement by the Premier in the lead-up to the March election that police Special Branch files would be made accessible under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, will the Minister advise the House why the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties [CCL] has not been accorded access to its files, despite numerous requests? Will the Minister confirm the information given to the CCL that the reason it has not been given access is that only individuals, not groups, can access the files?

Will the Minister then confirm that the changes to accessibility of police Special Branch files represents only a partial shift in policy, as not all Special Branch files have been made available, and advise why this is so? Will the Minister advise the House why people are experiencing difficulty gaining access to their police Special Branch files, and also advise what measures will be taken to address these delays and difficulties in the name of justice and openness?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I have noticed the apparent problem and also discussion about access to these files by organisations such as the Council for Civil Liberties. In partial defence of some of those difficulties, it is not impossible to recognise that there might be privacy considerations. For example, if citizen X were to access the file on the Council for Civil Liberties it is possible that a detail might be revealed about individuals that would result in that individual suffering an infringement of his or her privacy. There are some difficulties. At the same time, I am sympathetic to the project.

I would be happy to take this up within the Government. Ultimately it is a matter for the Premier, who administers the Freedom of Information Act, and the Minister for Police, who has authority over the police Special Branch. I take note of the point raised by the honourable member of the apparent dichotomy between individual access and organisational access. I can only undertake to raise it within the Government and see what methods can be employed to give that access within the bounds of the preservation of privacy.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question without notice is to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Is it a fact that complaints to the Anti-Discrimination Board have to be made in writing? Does the Minister agree that people with dyslexia who believe they have been discriminated against would have some difficulty in filing such a complaint with the board? Notwithstanding the provision enabling another person to lodge a complaint on behalf of a person with a disability, will the Minister consider amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 to change the method by which complaints to the boards can be lodged?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: It is an interesting question.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: And it is an important question.

Page 1888

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I did not say anything to the contrary. I believe the questioner is correct in saying that complaints to the Anti-Discrimination Board ought to be in writing. That is not an unusual provision, but a fairly orthodox one, in relation to any watchdog or complaint mechanism. The honourable member raised the question that has not been raised with me hitherto about people who may suffer from some difficulty putting a complaint in writing. One option might be that assistance could be provided to such people to reduce their complaint to writing. The New South Wales Law Reform Commission will soon complete a comprehensive review of the Anti-Discrimination Act. It may be that if there are any community concerns about the matter raised by the honourable member, they will surface in the review of the Act.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Will you refer this issue to the Law Reform Commission?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am happy to raise the matter with the Law Reform Commission and the Anti-Discrimination Board. I do not want to disrupt what has been an extensive and lengthy process. I will raise the issue raised by the honourable member. I can appreciate the force behind the point he makes.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations a question without notice. Will the Attorney outline recent Government initiatives to address gender inequality in the legal profession?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Honourable members may be aware that last week my colleague the Hon Faye Lo Po’ and I announced Government initiatives aimed at redressing gender issues in the legal profession. Those initiatives form part of the Government’s response to a report of Keys Young consultants commissioned by the Department for Women entitled "Gender Bias and Women Working in the Legal Profession". The report made comprehensive recommendations aimed at addressing discriminatory work practices and gender barriers to women’s progress in the legal profession. One of the concerns raised in the consultant’s report involved the need to widen the available pool of candidates for judicial office.

Last week I announced that the Government would soon introduce legislation to allow for the appointment of part-time magistrates. The proposed legislation accords with the Government’s pre-election commitment to apply flexible and family-friendly workplace practices to the appointment of judicial officers, and to remove existing barriers to the appointment of magistrates on a part-time basis. By providing for such part-time appointees the Government is recognising that many outstanding female candidates for vacancies to the magistracy are currently unable to take on a full-time appointment because of family responsibilities. This initiative will ensure that women, in particular those with young families, are not denied access to judicial office simply by virtue of family commitments.

The Government has also taken action to implement another key recommendation of the consultant’s report. The report recommended that subordinate legislation should be introduced to specifically prohibit harassment and discrimination in the legal profession, and to operate in addition to the general prohibitions on such conduct that are contained in the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. The Government has now introduced the Legal Profession Regulation 1999, which took effect on Friday 22 October. The regulation prohibits conduct that is unlawful under the Anti-Discrimination Act that occurs in connection with the legal practice. A breach of the regulation may constitute grounds for disciplinary action against a legal practitioner under the Legal Profession Act 1987.

It is important to note that the regulation also requires that a management course dealing with equal employment opportunity, unlawful discrimination and occupational health and safety is included in the mandatory continuing legal education program for legal practitioners. The Government is committed to ensuring that obstacles to women’s participation in the legal profession are eliminated.

The initiatives I mentioned today provide a concrete demonstration of our determination to overcome gender bias in this area. Although the Government has taken the initiative in these matters, I have had considerable co-operation and support from the legal profession. Times seem to have changed over the past few years and the Law Society appears to have been quite supportive of the proposition. I was interested to read the opinion piece - and I hope honourable members noticed it - by Michael Duffy, a journalist whom I regard as a conservative commentator, who wrote in the Daily Telegraph today that he was very supportive of these initiatives.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: It is an important issue.

Page 1889

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I acknowledge the support of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe by way of interjection. These are good initiatives and have been negotiated without too much hubbub from the legal profession, even from its more conservative elements. Perhaps they are keeping quiet about it. This has been a good exercise. It is more than symbolism; it is a tangible move forward in enhancing the position of women in the legal profession.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health. The Government’s response to the Standing Committee on Social Issues inquiry into parent education and support programs states on page one, "Recent neuro-physiological research has demonstrated that early experiences and stimulating, positive interactions with adults and other children are far more important for brain development than previously realised." The reference is a yet unpublished study entitled "The Early Years Study". What are the specific findings of this new research and what practical implications are there for parents and others responsible for nurturing young children?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I have to admit that I am not aware of the report. I did not actually catch the details of the first part of the question, although I was listening intently. Notwithstanding the fact that I have no children myself, I am an expert on the raising of children. I am constantly giving very good advice to all my friends and if only my friends would follow my advice, they would all be better off. I will obtain a considered response to the honourable member’s question and provide it to the House as soon as possible.

If the Hon. J. F. Ryan wants any good advice about the raising of his children, he need only consult with me. Sometimes an outsider has a more objective view on these things. I have been a close observer on how to bring up children, having been a child myself for some considerable period of time and, more importantly, watching other people make a hash of bringing up their own children.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health. Is it correct to say that the number of beds at Auburn District Hospital will be slashed from 169 to 127? Will the Minister confirm that the surgical ward will be closed on weekends and, furthermore, will only act as a short stay ward from Monday to Friday? Will the Minister also advise where casualty patients will be sent on weekends and inform the House about the Government’s long-term plans for Auburn hospital?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, I cannot confirm those matters. However, I will refer the question to the Minister for Health for a considered reply.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question without notice is to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister inform the House on how the Government is promoting workplace reform through the Government’s new directions program?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Our legislation does provide a framework which facilitates workplace reform by encouraging New South Wales businesses to implement best practice and achieve greater competitiveness in international and domestic markets. The Department of Industrial Relations has a role to play in promoting workplace reform throughout the State. One activity sponsored by the department is its new directions awards program, which showcases exemplary examples of innovative and co-operative workplace reform.

Since 1997, when the program was launched by the Premier, new directions awards have recognised and encouraged organisations that negotiated best practice enterprise agreements or enterprise awards under the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act 1996. The objectives of the awards are to acknowledge the achievements of organisations that have negotiated and implemented outstanding enterprise agreements or enterprise awards under the Act; to assist successful organisations to share their vision, experience and ideas with others in the community; and to encourage organisations to develop enterprise agreements or enterprise awards that facilitate co-operative workplace reform and equitable, innovative and productive workplace relations.

Successful agreements have been entered into under that legislative regime which exhibit procedural flexibility. These agreements have created workplace consultation structures and processes as a way of negotiating change and improvements in productivity. These elements are consistent with the Government’s view of workplace reform. They demonstrate a balanced and practical approach which, in turn, encourages businesses to invest and expand, and enables workers to perform in a productive and secure working environment. There
Page 1890
have been a number of award winners, which have encouraged other enterprises to enhance productivity and efficiency through the introduction of innovative work arrangements.

The Hon. M. I. JONES: My question without notice is to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment. Will the Minister explain to the House why a draft management plan for Yengo National Park has not yet been completed despite the park being proclaimed in 1988? Will the Minister also confirm which community and recreational groups have been consulted in regard to any draft plan of management possibly being prepared?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I will take the question on notice because I am unable to respond to it. I will undertake to obtain an answer as soon as possible.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for Emergency Services. Are there any programs in place to provide trauma counselling to Rural Fire Service volunteers who may be called to an incident such as a road accident where they may have to deal with the death of a person involved?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Hon. D. J. Gay for this important question, which I am unable to respond to at present. I will take the question on notice and undertake to obtain a response for him.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: My question without notice is to the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer. Will the Minister confirm whether or not large trucks, specifically those over 13.9 tonnes gross vehicle weight, have experienced an increase in compulsory third party insurance premiums? Will the Minister explain why premiums have increased? I might say that I have not been paid to ask this question.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I will not speculate as to the meaning of the last part of the question. Compulsory third party insurance has increased in a very important category of motor vehicles on our roads, that is, large trucks over 13.9 tonnes gross vehicle mass. This has come about as a result of a change in the classification system applying to trucks. Under the national registration system put in place over the last two years, registration for trucks has changed from tare weight, or unloaded weight, to gross vehicle mass, or loaded weight.

The system for determining compulsory third party premiums for trucks was reviewed in 1998 to accommodate this change and the new system introduced, which is consistent with the national registration scheme. In keeping with the previous registration system the premiums for goods vehicles were divided into two classes based on tare weight - vehicles less than two tonnes tare, and vehicles greater than two tonnes tare. This has now been changed to a classification based on gross vehicle mass. In conjunction with this change the risk for different weight trucks was reassessed.

This showed that the arrangement of only two classes did not reflect the real cost of accidents caused by large trucks. For those reasons three classes now apply, being trucks less than 4.5 gross vehicle mass, trucks from 4.5 gross vehicle mass to 13.9 gross vehicle mass, and trucks over 13.9 gross vehicle mass. These changes were due to be introduced from 1 July 1999 but most insurers elected to introduce the changes in conjunction with the refiled premiums to apply from 5 October 1999 when the new green slip system was introduced.

The new classification means a decrease in premiums for 465,367 small and medium trucks in New South Wales but it means an increase for approximately 29,277 trucks over 13.9 gross vehicle mass [gvm], even after premium reductions resulting from the scheme’s changes are taken into account. This increase reflects the costs of injuries and accidents caused by large trucks. The level of claims associated with large trucks is 11.6 claims per thousand vehicles compared to 4.4 claims per thousand vehicles for trucks below 13.9 gross vehicle mass. As well, when large trucks are involved in accidents, the cost of claims is much higher.

While this is the cause of the increases in truck green slip premiums, it also represents a significant road safety problem which the Government is eager to address. For that reason the Motor Accidents Authority has initiated discussions with the Australian Trucking Association and the Transport Workers Union to address this problem. The road safety issues involving large trucks are clear and stark.

Page 1891

Information available from the Federal Office of Road Safety indicates the following points: trucks are involved in one in five road deaths and one in 10 serious injuries; of all deaths on the roads, trucks are associated with higher risk levels than are passenger vehicles and buses; where an articulated truck is responsible for an accident, the major factors involved are loss of control, speed and fatigue; and where a rigid truck is responsible, the major factors involved are alcohol and speed. Those issues will be addressed.

Discussions held between the Motor Accidents Authority and the Australian Trucking Association have focused upon supporting existing road safety initiatives being developed by the industry, including Truck Safe. The industry is to be commended for these initiatives. I will be in a position to make further announcements about this in the near future. The Motor Accidents Authority has also initiated discussions with the compulsory third party [CTP] insurers about providing lower premiums to operators who meet certain minimum standards. This may include the standards applying in the Truck Safe program and could also involve the development of risk management programs, such as a fatigue management plan for drivers.

The Motor Accidents Authority is also working with the Australian Trucking Association and the Transport Workers Union to establish the best ways of delivering road safety messages. The Government supports the campaign by the Transport Workers Union for safer working conditions to put an end to unreasonable and unrealistic time pressures placed on drivers and operators. This is forcing trucks to stay on the road for longer periods and is very likely the reason why fatigue is becoming such a common cause of accidents.

At the end of the day, green slip premiums for all vehicles reflect the cost of personal injuries associated with and caused by road accidents. While the level of fatalities has dropped in recent years, the level of accidents remains far too high and the level of injuries, particularly serious injuries, is a source of concern. The Motor Accidents Authority has a vital role to play in road safety to address the cause of accidents and the focus upon particular risk groups. The development of a safety program for large trucks is an important example of this role.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health: Is he aware of the fukang tablet, which is used in China to assist heroin addicts to quit the habit? What research is being undertaken by the Department of Health to determine the efficacy of this remedy in assisting heroin addicts? If the research is positive, will the Minister for Health move swiftly to ensure that this remedy is readily available to assist those wishing to quit using this problematic drug?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I have never heard of the fukang drug. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones might indicate, however, whether it helps people give up nicotine -

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: No. It is not known to do that.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: - in which case I would order a bucket load of the stuff. I am informed that my colleague the Special Minister of State is seeing someone about fukang shortly. I ask both my colleagues the Special Minister of State and the Minister for Health to give me some advice on the matter.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I take this opportunity to inform the Hon. D. F. Moppett and other honourable members that Wilkhahn Manufacturing is located at 235-239 Cope Street, Waterloo, near Redfern.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: During my response on the child-raising question the Special Minister of State made a comment which I thought was one that I should pass on. He said, "The great art of life is to see your own mistakes as you are making them."

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: In view of that intriguing answer from the Treasurer, I also direct a question without notice to the Treasurer in his capacity representing the Minister for Health. Is he aware that certain members of the New England Area Health Service board have stated publicly that they represent the Minister and are not responsible to the residents of the area they serve? Does he concur with that interpretation of the responsibilities of a board member of that or any other area health service?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The answer to the first part of the question is no. The answer to the second part is that I am not aware of the Government’s arrangements for area health boards. I
Page 1892
will, however, refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Health.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I direct my question without notice to the Leader of the House, and Treasurer. Is it a fact that the other place will be debating on Wednesday the most important question facing the people of Australia this century, namely, the republic referendum on 6 November? As this House is the main protector of the Constitution, will the Leader of the House arrange for a similar debate in this House on Wednesday 27 October or Thursday 28 October - so that members can express their views - with a 10-minute time limit, a 20-minute introduction by Malcolm Turnbull and a 20-minute introduction by Kerry Jones?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not sure that I would regard this House as a protector of the Constitution. I see it as the protector of privilege -

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: You are showing your ignorance.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I know that we have disagreement on this issue. There are some people who uphold the rights and privileges of the bunyip aristocracy, but I have never been one of them. For that matter, I have never been a great supporter of the late Jack Lang, but at least on abolition of the upper House I would be absolutely 100 per cent on his side.

I agree that the decision which Australians will soon make is a vital one for the future of this country. I, for one, object to the fact that my head of state has to be a direct descendant of Queen Victoria and I am very pleased that some of the more enlightened members of the Opposition, including the Hon. J. F. Ryan and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, are sporting badges which indicate that they will be voting yes when the referendum is held in less than two weeks.

Last week I was hoping that I would be able to set aside a day or the better part of a day for a debate on the question of having an Australian head of state. I regret to say that I think there is probably too much Government business to be able to do that. The decision, of course, will not be made by this House.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: That would at least allow us to let the public know what our positions are.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Absolutely, but honourable members do not need the privilege of this House to do that. Honourable members can at any time indicate their views to the public and, of course, they can use private members’ time on Thursday. I understand that some members are considering the possibility of bringing forward a motion that private members’ time on Thursday be devoted to this issue. I think that would be a good idea provided that it is not just a talkfest and provided that at the end of the debate there is an assurance that we vote on the issue. I think it is important that each honourable member indicate to the public what he or she will be doing.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: What about a secret ballot?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Absolutely. As far as I can work out, only two members of the Australian Labor Party [ALP] are monarchists. One is a member of the South Australian Parliament and the other is the former Lord Mayor of Sydney, Doug Sutherland.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: And Kim Beazley’s dad.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I did not know that. It is time that people indicated where they stand.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Is Hayden still a member of the ALP?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Absolutely not. He would be most welcome to rejoin, although he might not think that is appropriate given his former vice-regal status. If we have the opportunity on Thursday, I am looking forward to hearing the views of the Liberal members of the House and seeing all Coalition members voting.

The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: My question is directed 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 of action that the Government is undertaking to enhance the consumer protection and education of young people about mobile phone use?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Hon. P. T. Primrose for his question and his interest in matters relating to young people. That young people are in debt through mobile phone use is a
Page 1893
matter of great concern, as has been highlighted by a recent report from the Communications Law Centre entitled "Mobile Matters; Young People and Mobile Phones". It is also an issue that the Youth Advisory Council raised with me at one of its recent meetings. Young people often raise this issue as well. The use of mobile phones is increasingly regarded by young people as a central part of their lives. The Communications Law Centre report determined that 18 per cent of 14- to 17-year-olds and 36 per cent of 16- to 24-year-olds either own or have sole use of a mobile phone.

Young people surveyed as part of the report described mobile phones as a part of their transition to independence in higher education, employment and living away from home. Mobile phones are used for a range of reasons, including personal safety and to keep in touch with family and friends, and I am sure any parent would attest to that. Mobile phones are also used for job-related activities. What is worrying about the Communications Law Centre report is that it stated that 18 per cent of young mobile phone users find paying their bill is a bit difficult, 7 per cent are struggling with their bills, and 17 per cent reported some anxiety or depression associated with payment difficulties.

Of additional concern was the findings that 11 per cent of respondents stated that they had not read the mobile phone contract, and 7 per cent had read, but did not understand, the contract. A further 11 per cent of young mobile phone users had been in dispute or disagreement with their phone company. That is quite worrying and indicates that young people are having difficulties with their obligations under their mobile phone contracts.

The report also highlighted the need for better consumer protection for mobile phone users, including education for young people; better disclosure provisions by the telecommunications industry regarding costs, payment options and dispute resolution; and greater representation of young people on policy decision-making bodies. The Government has several initiatives currently under way that address some of the recommendations raised by the report.

My colleague the Minister for Fair Trading and his department are currently working on a multimedia education project for secondary schools on consumer issues which include credit and debt. This project will form part of the curriculum for secondary school students and will be supported by a video and youth-specific web site for young consumers. I previously mentioned the Government’s commitment to involving young people in the decision making through the register of young people for boards and committees.

The Government has also established a youth customer group made up of five young people who will provide advice to the Government on service delivery issues for young people when accessing government services. A number of recommendations raised by the Communications Law Centre are part of the Commonwealth Government’s responsibility. I have written to the responsible Minister, Senator Richard Alston, to request that the Commonwealth Government review all options available to improve consumer protection for mobile phone users.

That should include improved disclosure by the telecommunications industry, including the requirement for mobile service providers to provide a one-page, plain English outline of the conditions of the contract. This outline should include the duration of the contract, the actual and minimum call charges, the costs and procedures for terminating a service agreement, the amounts and frequencies of payments, the rights and responsibilities of the person signing the contract, and who to contact if there is a disagreement with the service provider and/or contract. I look forward to a reply from the Federal Minister.

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

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 21 September the Hon. J. M. Samios asked me a question without notice relating to the Ethnic Affairs Commission name change. The Premier has provided the following response:

The Government has listened to community views on this matter. This is reflected in the groundbreaking legislation currently before the Parliament. The Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Bill 1999 enshrines principles of multiculturalism in law for the first time in Australia.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 21 September the Hon. J. S. Tingle asked me a question without notice relating to driver blood testing. The Minister for Police has provided the following response:

The provisions for the collection of blood samples from motorists are contained in the Traffic Act 1909, which is administered by the Minister for Transport, the Hon. Carl Scully, MP. Whilst the Minister for Police suggests that the

Page 1894
honourable member direct any questions on this matter to the Minister for Transport, he can inform him that he has been advised that it is not a function of the New South Wales Police Service to develop specifications for blood sampling.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 21 September the Hon. Dr P. Wong asked me a question relating to the Haberfield branch of the Australian Labor Party. The Premier has provided the following response:

The Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Bill 1999 currently before the Parliament enshrines the principles of multiculturalism in law. This is a first for Australia and once again places New South Wales at the forefront of policy development for a multicultural society.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 21 September the Hon. D. E. Oldfield asked me a question relating to Kings Cross policing. I have been provided with the following response:

The Minister for Police has advised that Kings Cross police have conducted a series of operations this year that have resulted in hundreds of drug related charges. The Minister can also confirm that the reported level of general crime in Kings Cross has dropped to pre-1996 levels. The Minister congratulates Kings Cross police for these excellent results.

The Government supports a tightly controlled trial of a medically supervised injecting room, the effectiveness of which will be evaluated by a qualified expert team.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 21 September the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti asked me a question relating to multipurpose service health centres. The Minister for Health has provided the following response:

The Advisory Committee on Health Services in Smaller Towns, chaired by the Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair, is speaking to rural communities regarding their health and aged care needs. The committee is examining a range of models to meet these needs, not simply multipurpose services.

The advisory committee will be making a final report to the Minister for Health in December 1999.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 22 September the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho asked me a question, relating to the Chinese business community. I have been provided with the following response:

The Minister for Police has advised that the issues raised by the honourable member have been investigated by Hurstville detectives, in consultation with the South East Asian Organised Crime Squad, Forensic Services and Fingerprint Unit. Police have discussed this matter with members of the Hurstville business community and urged them to contact police if any further contact is made by persons seeking protection money.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 23 September the Hon. D. J. Gay asked me a question relating to night racing. The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planing has provided the following response:

Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Canterbury City Council is the authority responsible for the detailed planning within the Canterbury local government area, including the determination of development applications.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: On 21 October the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner asked a question regarding the establishment of an agricultural college at Gunnedah. In her question the honourable member claimed that I had failed to answer a previous question regarding the agricultural college at Gunnedah and asked about the timetable for answering questions. Firstly, the timetable for answering questions without notice as well as those on the notice paper is 35 sitting days. Secondly, on 29 June the honourable member asked her first question concerning the establishment of an agricultural college.

A response to her question was promptly lodged within 35 sitting days and can be seen on pages 36 to 37 of Questions and Answers, published by the Legislative Council on 11 August when the House prorogued. I suggest that the honourable member read all questions and answers in that document before making false and misleading statements. That is where she will find responses to her questions.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: On 21 September the Hon. P. J. Breen asked me a question about Aborigines. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer:

Aboriginal people are not a homogenous group and, like all Australians, hold a range of views including the issue at hand regarding terminology relating to identity.

The Government and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs are committed to consultation with indigenous people,

Page 1895
communities and organisations across the State. We will continue to seek their views and opinions and put forward policies and programs which reflect needs and aspirations including terminology.

The Department of Aboriginal Affairs will continue to consult, use appropriate terminology, and pursue directions while regarding local issues and preferences.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: On 21 September the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans asked me a question about the Higher School Certificate. The Minister for Education and Training has provided the following answer:

1. TAFE Institute directors were advised of their budgets as usual. New South Wales spends more on TAFE than any other State. More than one-third of all vocational education and training spending in Australia is in New South Wales. The State Government has increased funding for TAFE New South Wales by $53 million since 1995, despite Federal cuts totalling more than $75 million.

2. No.

3. There have not been and will not be any forced redundancies or sackings.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: On 21 September the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked me a question without notice concerning the Higher School Certificate. The Minister for Education and Training has provided the following answer:

1. Yes.

2. Many submissions to the review of the Higher School Certificate questioned the inequitable nature of the existing arrangements, seeing the early commencement of Higher School Certificate studies as a means of providing some schools and students with an advantage in the HSC examinations that is not available to others.

In line with the white paper statement of August 1997, the Board of Studies announced in 1998 that schools may not commence preliminary studies for the new HSC before day 1 of term 1 of year 11. All schools are expected to comply with the board’s determination.

3. No.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: On 21 September the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho asked me a question relating to the Parramatta to North Shore rail link. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following answer:

1. Officers from the Department of Transport and the National Parks and Wildlife Service [NPWS] have discussed a range of possible routing and bridging options for the proposed Parramatta rail link. The potential impacts on the conservation values of Lane Cove National Park are being assessed as part of the environmental impact statement for the proposal.

2. Similarly, any potential impacts upon the recreational viability and aesthetic amenity of Lane Cove National Park are being assessed as part of the environmental impact statement for the proposal.

3. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act requires the proponent of the project to prepare an environmental impact statement for the project and place it on public exhibition so that interested parties may make submissions on any proposed routing and bridging options. It is understood that the environmental impact statement has yet to be finalised. When it is placed on public exhibition the National Parks and Wildlife Service will review any proposed options and make its assessment of any potential impacts of the proposal on Lane Cove National Park, before making its submission to the environmental impact statement. Any submission by the NPWS will be in accordance with its responsibilities under New South Wales environmental legislation.

4. The selection of route options for this proposal rests with the proponent. Therefore, questions relating to the viability of alternative route options should be referred to my colleague the Hon. Carl Scully, Minister for Transport.

Questions without notice concluded.

Motion by the Hon. M. J. Gallacher agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the moving of a motion forthwith that Private Members’ Business No. 43 outside the order of precedence relating to the order for papers on Olympic Games premium ticketing be called on forthwith.

Motion by the Hon. M. J. Gallacher agreed to:

That Private Members’ Business Item No. 43 outside the order of precedence relating to the order for papers on Olympic Games premium ticketing be called on forthwith.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.08 p.m.]: As I outlined earlier, the Greens support the motion moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and will move an amendment to ensure that the inquiry investigates ticketing for disadvantaged people and those with disabilities. I referred earlier to the case
Page 1896
Mr Bruce Maguire took to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [HREOC]. The commissioner, Mr William Carter, upheld Mr Maguire’s complaint under the disability discrimination legislation. Despite this ruling, the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games [SOCOG] did not produce a second-offer ticket book in braille and does not appear to have taken steps to produce a final-offer ticket book in braille.

Clearly, this issue needs to be taken up by the inquiry. Mr Maguire’s complaint to the HREOC incorporated two other concerns that SOCOG failed to address. The first is the restricted accessibility to SOCOG’s web site by vision-impaired Internet users who use non-visual means to access text and graphics due to the fact that the site does not conform to the international standard for web site accessibility design. In fact, the site does not even comply with the guidelines for web site design issued by the New South Wales Attorney General’s Department.

The second unresolved concern is the issue of the Olympic Games souvenir program in braille. The importance of this matter is that the National Convention of Blind Citizens of Australia in Brisbane earlier this month called on the Minister for the Olympics, as SOCOG president, to direct SOCOG staff to comply with Commissioner Carter’s orders in the Maguire case and to state publicly that the mass distribution of Olympic Games materials would be made available in braille and other accessible formats. Ordinary Australians are facing uncertainty in trying to gain tickets but it has been impossible for the visually impaired to gain sufficient information to be able to get into the ballot that we have learned is not fair to the majority of people.

It is deplorable that people with disabilities must still engage in legal and political battles to assert their fundamental rights. It is deplorable that the Minister who presides over the organisation of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games failed to intervene in the matter, even though Mr Maguire contacted the Minister’s office in early June seeking his assistance to resolve his concerns about ticketing for the Olympic Games. It is also deplorable that SOCOG has wasted so much public money in legal costs defending its position. The issue of money has been taken up strongly in the debate, so it is worth mentioning what happened in Mr Maguire’s case.

During the HREOC inquiry into Mr Maguire’s complaint it was revealed that the production of 200 copies of the ticket book in braille would have cost $17,250. It was submitted that such a cost would have been minuscule when compared with the total SOCOG budget. For the record, the SOCOG budget for the year ended 30 June 1998 was for a total net revenue of $2,597 billion, and a total expenditure of $2.567 billion, leaving a surplus of $30 million. Similar figures are to be found in the 1990 budget. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Commissioner of the HREOC, Mr William Carter, said in his determination:

It is noted that the contingent expenditure provided for in the 1999 budget was fixed at $142.7 million. The cost of printing and distributing the ticket book was, in fact, $7.18 million.

In the context of the budgets and the cost of printing and distributing the ticket book, the question remains as to whether in terms of increased costs, the expenditure of $17,500 on the preparation of, say, 200 copies in braille will constitute an unjustifiable hardship for the respondent.

I would think not.

It is extraordinary that SOCOG fought so hard to spend so little to assist people with disabilities to gain information about tickets to the Olympics. It is to be hoped that the inquiry can provide the answer. Commissioner Carter added:

The provision of the ticket book in braille would have benefited the complainant and others similarly disabled. The benefit to a section of the Blind community was obviously considerable and at a relatively small cost if the ticket book had been produced in braille. On the other hand, the production of the braille ticket book, if well-publicised, would probably have benefited the sale of tickets.

The HREOC commissioner stated that the sale of tickets would have benefited if SOCOG had done the right thing for people with disabilities. It is outrageous that, having been found guilty by the HREOC of discrimination, SOCOG has failed to make full amends and has failed to apologise to Mr Maguire for the stress and indignity he has had to endure. Surely this again is an issue the inquiry must take up. The House should ask what people must do to secure their fundamental rights, and that question should be referred to the inquiry.

Honourable members should appreciate that the opportunity to access information by reading it independently is taken for granted in countries like Australia. Braille is a primary literacy medium for many blind people, and they have just as much right as other Australians to enjoy the benefits of reading independently. I cannot believe that Mr Maguire was forced to go to court to fight for this right, but that is what he had to do. Mr Maguire put his case very freely to the HREOC inquiry but the matter has not been fully resolved and the Greens are eager that the inquiry should follow it up.

Page 1897

This matter must be given serious attention because next year 770 delegates from all over the world will gather in Australia for the Congress of the World Blind Union. The Minister for the Olympics, members of the Government and SOCOG and its staff should note that at that congress the World Blind Union will debate a motion deploring the lack of accessibility by print-handicapped people to information on the Atlanta Games. There is a possibility that a similar motion could be moved about the Sydney Games.

It is not too late to rectify the situation. We do not want the Sydney Games to be shamed in the same way as the Atlanta Games were because they could not deliver for people with disabilities. Commissioner Carter noted in his findings that he could not order SOCOG to produce ticket books in braille because of the time constraints in the ticketing process. However, SOCOG has the opportunity - and the moral obligation - to address the unresolved concerns raised in Mr Maguire’s complaint. They were the inaccessibility of the SOCOG web site and the production of the souvenir program in braille.

SOCOG could redeem itself if it resolved these issues. In order to address the issues I have outlined about the rights of disadvantaged people and the ability of the visually impaired to be able to access tickets I will move an amendment to the amendment of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. I move:

That the amendment of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile be amended by inserting after paragraph 1 (b):

(c) the publication of ticket books and information in formats that were accessible for people with disabilities,

(d) the decision-making in respect of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission findings and other obligations to make the Olympic Games accessible to people with disabilities,

(e) how the number of sessions for the different sports that opportunity tickets for low income groups will be available, the price of the tickets, and the method of distribution of the tickets,

(f) the number of sessions for the different sports that opportunity tickets for low income groups will be available, the price of the tickets, and the method of distribution of the tickets, and

(g) the projected revenue shortfall in the SOCOG budget and the financial contribution that ticket sales make towards these shortfalls.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [5.16 p.m.]: I support the motion of the leader of the Opposition. One question occurs to me, and I think has occurred to everyone in New South Wales: What tickets were not offered for sale to the general public by SOCOG in its July 1999 public ticket offer and what tickets has it reserved for sale in the premium package? It would be interesting to know precisely how much was taken by way of deposit from members of the general public. SOCOG knew full well that it would retain that money over a number of months, earning interest on the short-term money market, yet the money was taken in the full knowledge that those tickets would never be available to the public.

SOCOG had a nice little money earner that would add to the profits of the exercise. The number of tickets available to the public and those marked as sold out have since become known. I support the motion to have the papers relating to these matters, in whatever form, tabled in the House by order of the House. A number of amendments to this motion have been moved. I oppose the amendment proposed by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. The honourable member, in dealing with the reference to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1, left himself in a vacuum. The vacuum relates to the production of papers, because such production will not be by the order of the House.

General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 is structured in such a way that it may call witnesses, by subpoena if necessary. It has the right to ask questions of a lawful nature of any witness who appears before it, but that witness may choose not to answer. If a witness chose not to answer a question, the only action available to the committee would be to report that witness to the House for contempt. At the same time, the committee does not have the power to compel the production of papers. That would create the difficulty of how it would inquire into this matter. However, in the event that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile’s amendment succeeds, the Opposition would support the amendment moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: It doesn’t work that way.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: Yes it does. If the Treasurer looks at the amendment he will establish that that is right. The amendment moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones will have the effect of including in the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile a request relating to the production of papers by a specific date and the tabling of those papers, whether they be in written or electronic form. As some aspects are missing from the amendment moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, I move:

Page 1898

That the amendment of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones be amended as follows:

No. 1 After paragraph 3 (b) insert:

(c) details of all applications and sales for premium tickets other than applications by individuals.

No. 2 Insert at the end of paragraph 4 "The Clerk is to keep a record of all members who inspect the documents."

The first paragraph of my amendment will protect the confidentiality and privacy of individuals. Concern has been expressed about the possible leakage of papers that are tabled with the Clerk. That can be alleviated by the second paragraph of my amendment, which will insert after the end of paragraph (4) of the amendment moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones the words "The Clerk is to keep a record of all members who inspect the documents." Therefore, if there is a leakage of any information those who have seen the papers will be easily identified.

I was reminded earlier by one of my colleagues that, in the case of the documents relating to Integral Energy, there have been no leaks whatsoever, even though it may well be that some of the matters raised earlier were confirmed in the Integral Energy documents. The Opposition will support the amendment moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon to the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile to insert a new subparagraph (c), and the reference in her amendment to subparagraphs (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h).

I hope that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition will be supported by the House. We need honesty and disclosure in relation to these matters. In the event that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition is not carried and the amendment of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile to the motion is agreed to, the Opposition will support the amendment moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to the amendment of Ms Lee Rhiannon and the amendment that I moved.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: [5.23 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats regard it as an issue of extreme importance that a maximum number of ordinary Australians should have access to the Olympic Games. Only once or twice in a lifetime will the Games be able to be staged in an Australian city. It has not happened since 1956 and I presume that it will become even more competitive in the future. When Sydney won the bid to stage the Olympic Games I wondered about the Aussie concept of a fair go.

Generally, up until now Australians have been able to afford tickets to events such as grand finals. Because of the closed system of the International Olympic Committee - a hierarchy which seems to owe no allegiance to anyone - it is regarded as a highly secretive organisation in the European tradition of a fiefdom rather than a United Nations organisation owned by all and established to achieve world co-operation. The Olympic movement, although highly regarded, is an historical evolution of an anomaly. Will the in-house secrecy that seems to have characterised the operations of the IOC triumph over the Australian fair go?

What is needed in Australia is a commitment by the Government to honesty in such processes. On previous occasions in this Chamber I have berated the Government in relation to a number of issues, including Olympic infrastructure contracts. When this matter blew up, Michael Knight, the Minister for the Olympics, spoke to members on the crossbenches. When I told him that I was disturbed about this aspect of secrecy that was a feature of the Olympics he said, "Yes, but the infrastructure is quite different from the ticketing."

I told the Minister that he should have been honest about the infrastructure and that it was hard to support what the Government was doing when it had not been open about infrastructure contracts, just as it has not been open about many of its contracts. The Minister replied that, although the Atlanta Games organisers had been open about their infrastructure contracts, they had not been open about their ticketing contracts. The essence of negotiation in a poker game is that one does not reveal one’s hand. Similarly, one does not disclose the prices one has in place for other sponsorships when one is trying to negotiate new sponsorships or the prices of premium tickets to ensure that taxpayers are not left with a large bill.

It must be remembered that, in most instances, it would not be sensible for any government to try to ensure that one event or a series of events pays for the entire Games. It is reasonable that people who are going to the Games should have to pay for them rather than leaving the bill to those taxpayers who do not go to the Games. However, I confess that I was shocked to find how few tickets were available to the Australian public. Only 16 of 9,400 tickets were available in the ballot for a diving final, which is very worrying, bearing in mind that the Government wanted to ensure that there was access by all to the Games and that such access should not be based on income.

In fairness, the Minister, Mr Knight, said that 24,296 tickets were available for the opening
Page 1899
ceremony, which represented 23.08 per cent of the tickets available in the ballot. At the opening ceremony in Atlanta, which had a smaller stadium, only 6,000 tickets were available to the general American public. It could be said that Australians got a better deal than the Americans, a matter about which we should be grateful. It is no secret that Michael Knight has spoken to members on the crossbenches and said that it would be difficult for him to negotiate the sale of the remaining tickets if they all become available.

The motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition requires all documents relating to ticketing to be made available to members of this House, with some restrictions being placed on their wider availability. I am sure that all honourable members will remember the Water Board contracts which had to be produced, which now fill a whole room. Honourable members either do not have the financial expertise or the time to go through those documents to achieve the best deal for the Australian public or to ensure more open government. We require an open process to ensure that we achieve a fair deal within the constraints of the various contracts entered into by the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games [SOCOG] with the IOC - an organisation which I said earlier needs some broad reform.

The amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is an attempt to refer this matter to a committee to unravel these issues. The amendment will also enable the committee to meet SOCOG organisers face to face. It may be that some of the deals that have been played close to the chest have not involved a large amount of documentation and that those documents have not been leaked. There might be advantages in having a committee asking the people who made these deals what the public were getting rather than requiring the Government to table a large number of documents.

The Australian Democrats support the amendment to the motion moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. We also support the amendment to the motion moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon from the Greens, which referred to the availability of tickets for disabled people. I foreshadow that I shall move an amendment that, to overcome the difficulty faced by the hearing impaired, the committee investigate the cost of providing full subtitling of all events that are telecast. Subtitles were provided for all events televised from the Atlanta Olympics. Sydney’s Channel 7 is willing to show some subtitling, but not for all events.

Telecasting is in the hands of self-regulatory committees within the television industry, and anyone who has dealt with self-regulation and social justice knows it is a rough ride. This ticketing process is no exception. In the interests of open government and fairness in the ticketing procedure, we support the Opposition motion with the amendments of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and Ms Lee Rhiannon.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: What about the Jones amendment?

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I do not have the wording of the amendment of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. I will consider its merit when I have looked at it. I move:

That the amendment of Ms Lee Rhiannon be amended by inserting after paragraph 1 (g):

(h) the cost of providing full subtitling of all events telecast.

[Interruption]

In reply to the interjection that this is a cynical deal, I have not made any deals. I have simply read the amendments that were given to me. There is no quid pro quo for the exchange of support for amendments, as suggested somewhat unworthily by a colleague behind me.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [5.31 p.m.]: I despair at some of the debate on this matter because the key public concern is the incredible secrecy that has surrounded this ticket allocation fiasco. The only excuse given for this secrecy is the commercial security of the sale of Olympic tickets. There was only one commercial consideration for those who organised the sale of tickets in this way: they wanted members of the public to race like lemmings for what remained of the Olympic tickets and commit themselves to tickets that nobody really wanted.

The orchestrators of this ticket sale wanted to build up the atmosphere and have us all spend the weekend, as I did, in the belief that we were applying for something that was available. We were asked to list a compromise second choice, one that we may not necessarily have bought tickets for as our first choice, and then to list a third choice. When the first choice was eliminated because it was not available in the first place, SOCOG urged everyone to have a crack at a second choice, and finally at a third and last choice.

When SOCOG allocated the last-choice ticket, buyers were not given the option of returning the ticket and saying the whole transaction was a complete fraud. They were charged for the ticket as
Page 1900
a debit against their Visa account, and they cannot even sell the ticket to anyone else. If any business in this country were to sell anything in this fashion - cat food for that matter - the proprietors would be gaoled!

Mr Knight was responsible in another House for moving for the expulsion of a member of Parliament whose business practices he disagreed with. Mr Knight had the former member for The Hills, Tony Packard, expelled from the House because he was charged with an offence for which he was fined $1,000. No doubt that was a disgraceful offence, but Mr Knight nevertheless set the benchmark. Mr Knight, without doubt, has adopted phenomenal business practices in the sale and allocation of tickets for the Sydney Olympic Games.

No company in this country would be able to sell anything on the basis of providing the third choice of product without the consumers knowing that there was no chance of purchasing their first choice. No-one would be allowed to market goods in that way. For example, people would have requested tickets to the diving competition as their first choice, and then, as directed, nominated a second or third choice. They had no chance of getting any tickets for the diving. Had they known how very few tickets were available for the diving they may not have ordered tickets at all.

SOCOG attempted to generate an incredibly favourable attitude to purchasing tickets by having former Australian cricket captain Mark Taylor generate euphoria within the public; but he was generating euphoria for tickets that had been allocated elsewhere even before the public applied for tickets. That act alone was incredible, but the public did not learn the details of this procedure until after the closing date of the second round of a crack at nothing! That is incredible!

We would not let anybody market anything in that fashion, yet crossbench members and members of the Government are prepared to let the Government continue with this secrecy. Effectively, what they have done is to take the Opposition motion to Mr Knight and ask him, "May we have a committee in this fashion? What information can we have? What will you give us? You decide how much information you want to give us and we will decide whether or not we can do something useful with it."

I warn crossbench members that the Government treats the committees of this House with total contempt. I shall read a memo from the Cabinet Office which may not be available to everyone. It will demonstrate to honourable members how much respect the Government has for the committees of this House. The memo is from Roger Wilkins and is addressed "To all Chief Executive Officers". I hope crossbench members are aware of it.

The memo contains instructions on how chief executive officers [CEOs] can avoid answering questions in committees. That is what will happen when the proposed committee is set up and no documents are made available. When Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile asks questions, Sandy Hollway will consider whether to answer them. He will have memorised this memo and will answer accordingly. No doubt Sandy Hollway will have a copy of this memorandum. The memorandum has a covering letter from Roger Wilkins, and some of the key statements are:

Estimates hearings will soon be held by the Legislative Council’s General Purpose Standing Committees. It is therefore timely to remind CEOs and other officers who may appear before parliamentary committees of the guidelines governing their conduct.

The primary rule is that officers may only give evidence of a factual nature and should refer questions seeking opinions or judgements of a political nature to the Minister (when in attendance) or take them on notice for a written response from the Minister.

If it gets tough, if anyone is asked to give facts about which they might be doubtful -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: No.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Don’t worry, I will read the rest of it. You know what is coming. It states:

Where questions on notice are submitted to agencies prior to the committee hearing, all answers must be approved by the Minister before being sent to the committee.

If any question is taken on notice, be assured that no answer will be forthcoming from the CEOs. The answer will be provided by the Minister after it has been drafted by the CEO. The memo continues:

Answers which would affect the whole of government or other agencies are to be referred to the Premier for approval.

A document attached to the circular contains information about advice to CEOs on whether they should answer questions. I am happy to make multiple copies of this document available to honourable members of the House. This is the sort of bulldust that is circulated to CEOs before they appear before parliamentary committees -
Page 1901
instructions on how to avoid questions from a parliamentary committee.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Is that the same as the Coalition’s instructions?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I do not know whether they were the Coalition instructions, but that is not relevant. What is relevant is that I have attended enough estimates committees hearings to know that this Government treats them with contempt. It allowed Ministers to attend for only two hours. Even if Ministers were willing to attend for longer they were put on a leash for two hours, and to avoid providing some answers they took on notice multiple questions that were difficult. Under the heading "Guidelines for Public Servants Appearing before Parliamentary Committees" the document states:

Oral evidence before Committees

4. Officers should only give evidence of a factual nature and should refer questions seeking opinions or judgements of a political nature to the Minister (when in attendance) or take them on notice for a written response from the Minister.

I have no problem with that, because it is a reasonable response. However, the memo then states:

Committees only have power to ask ‘lawful questions’ under the Parliamentary Evidence Act.

First of all chief executive officers [CEOs] are warned that these are the sorts of questions that parliamentary committees can ask, and then the guidelines continue:

Failure to answer a question which is not a ‘lawful’ question cannot result in the punishment of the witness. A question may not be a ‘lawful question’ if the answer is privileged (e.g. legal professional privilege, public interest immunity - which includes the confidentiality of Cabinet documents - or the privilege against self-incrimination) or if the question falls outside of the Committee’s terms of reference.

That is the sort of thing that CEOs are supposed to take into consideration. The guidelines continue further:

A question may also not be ‘lawful’ if an officer is under a statutory obligation not to reveal information which is the subject of a question.

Where an officer is in doubt whether a question is ‘lawful’ or how to respond, the officer should take the question on notice and seek legal advice from the Crown Solicitor’s Office.

What will happen to the answer if the officer has taken a question on notice? The answer will go to the Minister and it will be vetted. That is the tactic used by CEOs to avoid answering questions. They are under instruction from their Ministers not to answer difficult questions, but to take them on notice so that the Minister can answer them. I have no doubt that is what will happen in any committee that investigates this matter. Sandy Hollway did not openly confess to the committee; the information slipped out as a result of an Opposition member doing a quick calculation and realising its import. Consequently Sandy Hollway was asked, "Do you realise that a quarter of a million tickets are involved?"

Committee members will need to know what questions to ask to achieve a successful hearing. Members of SOCOG will not simply reveal the information. Mr Knight has said he does not know most of the information, yet he has confidently told members of the crossbenches that if the information were to become known there would be a wholesale collapse in ticket sales. He cannot have it both ways. Either he knows about the information and realises that it would be dangerous to release it, or he does not have the information and, therefore, does not know of its import.

We currently have confidential documents relating to Sydney Water and other matters in the Clerk’s office. Honourable members have acknowledged the confidentiality of those documents, and no information has been leaked. The Franca Arena debate is another example of the confidentiality with which honourable members treat documents: again no information was leaked. Members of this House are aware that unless they respect the confidentiality of such documents the flow of information will cease.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile should not be under any misapprehension: committee members will not know what questions to ask, and they will be snowed by all sorts of misinformation unless they have the opportunity, at the beginning, to look at source documentation. If the House has to consider whether to receive documents, how will the committee, which is a subcommittee of this House, have confidence at another time to ask for documents? It will not have that confidence.

There is no doubt that the committee will be nobbled by not asking for documents. I ask honourable members to give serious consideration to requiring the documents to be produced to this House. However, as the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans said earlier, that may not solve the problem because sometimes documents are filed and tabled in such a way that they are difficult to interpret.

Page 1902

Unless members of the committee have the original source material in the first instance they will only be guessing whether they are asking the right questions, and they will have to rely on witnesses inadvertently revealing information that might otherwise be incriminating or embarrassing. To date the record of SOCOG board members has not been good. They have not revealed anything, unless it has been dragged out of them kicking, screaming and hollering. Yesterday’s press conference was an excellent example of how open SOCOG is prepared to be: to ensure that nothing leaked out accidentally all the journalists were locked up for an hour and a half before the information could be made public at midday. There is no doubt that SOCOG is desperate to maintain the secrecy that has surrounded this issue.

We have a duty to answer the public outrage and to look at these documents and see whether there is more information that has not been revealed. There is no way that I would support naming individuals. Members on this side of the House have a great respect for personal privacy. We do not intend to infringe personal privacy, nor do we intend in any way to jeopardise the commercial sale of the rest of the Olympic tickets.

On the other hand secrecy has been used to dupe the 3.5 million members of the public who put large amounts of money - roughly equivalent to the cost of an average refrigerator or washing machine - on credit in the hope that they would get their first choice of tickets. But there was little chance of that, and the lucky ones received only their second or third choice. They may not have sought tickets in the first place had they known all the facts. They do not have the option of returning their tickets or reselling them.

The Olympic ticket offer was a con designed by SOCOG for the specific purpose of selling tickets that could not be priced as premium tickets because the events they covered do not attract the same level of euphoria and excitement as other events. Do honourable members seriously think that the response to the Olympic ticket offer would have been what it was if Australians knew they did not have the opportunity to see Cathy Freeman run the 400 metres or Ian Thorpe win a gold medal in the 400 metres freestyle? Not a chance on God’s earth! Nobody would have done that.

People should have known they were likely to only get tickets for minor events rather than have the euphoria of potentially seeing an Australian win a gold medal. As things stand there is almost no chance for Australians to see an Australian win a gold medal because tickets to those events have been classified as premium and have been sold elsewhere.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Not all the tickets.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Almost all of the tickets that most people wanted, were hoping to get, and were dreaming about when they filled out their form have been designated as premium-price tickets, and many of them are not available.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Five per cent.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: If I were Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile I would not start defending the Government before I started to hold the inquiry.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: These are the figures we have been given. We’ve got the figure of 5 per cent.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: The honourable member has the first version of the figures. There has been the first version, the second version and the third version. He should at least keep an open mind until the facts are put before his committee so that he can decide. Who knows what his committee will find as it continues to delve into this matter? I say that with great respect because I know that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has a great respect for the authority of governments, and I know that is a matter of integrity for him. I understand and highly respect that. But it is not unusual for governments or government departments to lie, as they have done in this instance.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: SOCOG is not the Government.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I am not suggesting that SOCOG is the Government. But SOCOG is so wrapped up in the left wing -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Mr Greiner and Mr Valda are on SOCOG.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I know that, but there is no way they have the majority.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Mr Donald McDonald is on SOCOG

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: The honourable member may name all the members of the SOCOG board, but he should remember that most of the members of the SOCOG board did not even know
Page 1903
that this rort was going on. There is no point in saying that there were other members on the SOCOG board. There is no way that Mr Greiner or Mr Valda or, for that matter, many of the other members on the board knew anything about this. Apparently nobody knew anything about it. There were five blind mice. It is about time we knew. We owe it to the public to have a decent crack at finding out. If this House is serious it will demand the documents so that members of the committee will have the chance to know what questions to ask and whether they are being answered honestly.

The SOCOG board employed Mark Taylor to tell the public that everybody had an equal chance to get tickets, and that there could be nothing fairer than that. It is unthinkable to treat an Australian icon, whose major commercial value is his credibility, in such a way. It may be that sponsors will no longer regard Mark Taylor as a person of credibility but, rather, as the bloke to be sent in when there is something smelly to sell. It is possible that when he receives advice he might sue SOCOG, and legitimately so. I commend the motion in its original form, and ask the House to think seriously about whether we are going to do this properly or whether we will let the Minister dictate the terms by which he is investigated.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [5.49 p.m.]: I support the amendments of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. What has happened recently with the allocation of Olympic tickets has disappointed many Australians, because the ticket allocation process has not been transparent. The organisers only revealed the complicated process after many painful extraction attempts, and therefore a proper inquiry is necessary. I have listened to many briefings and speeches and what has come across is very clear.

The best tickets were given to the privileged few, and SOCOG board members, and indeed the Minister himself, do not seem to be aware of the wheeling and dealing within the system. What is also clear now is that the people of New South Wales are being asked to take all the risks, but Australians are being given only a small proportion of tickets. That does not seem very fair. What also has been revealed is that press and broadcasters are entitled to 12 per cent of the 9.6 million tickets, which amounts to close to one million tickets, if my calculations are right.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Who is entitled to that?

The Hon. Dr P. WONG: The press and broadcasters are entitled to 12 per cent. These tickets are given free and almost all are in vantage positions. It does make one wonder why no member of the media has yet complained that this is a totally unfair, undemocratic and greedy arrangement. However, I do feel that as we have been given the opportunity to stage the Olympic Games it is up to us to make the most of it.

Any fiasco that appears in the international press is perceived not only as a shortcoming of this Government but as an inability by Australia to manage an international event. By this, I do not mean that the Government is not at fault - far from it. However, as Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said earlier, we need to return to a bipartisan approach to make the Olympics not only good for Australia but also a rewarding exercise for the people of New South Wales, who have to carry the financial responsibility of it.

I would also like to address a few concerns raised by the Hon. J. F. Ryan. The crossbenchers have agonised over this problem for many hours. We do not take our decision lightly. First, we believe that sometimes commercial dealings cannot be fully revealed. Second, we should have confidence in the committee, which has already expressed its confidence in Reverent the Hon. F. J. Nile and on which committee the Opposition has two members.

Last, we can promise that in the event that the committee finds that the matters have not been fully revealed and that the answers have been evasive or misrepresented or are totally untrue, I have no doubt we will come back to the House and ask for further authority, or even agree to the earlier suggestion.

[The President left the chair at 5.55 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [8.00 p.m.]: The Government will support the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. It will also support the amendments moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon and the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans, which amend the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: What about the Hon. R. S. L. Jones?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, the Government will not support the amendment moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. As I said, the Government will support the amendment to the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, and will support the
Page 1904
amendment as amended. The Government will make available to the committee whatever documentation the committee wishes to receive.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Is that a firm promise?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes, it is. I accept the bona fides of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, and I have no doubt that under his chairmanship the information will not be misused. As I am currently advised, some $60 million worth of premium packages are still to be sold. Obviously, SOCOG wants that exercise to be commercially successful, but it will not be commercially successful if people buying the premium packages believe that somehow they will become the centre of public controversy. It is for that reason, and for no other, that that information should remain confidential. The Opposition likes to have it both ways. The Opposition would be baying for SOCOG’s blood if SOCOG failed to balance its budget.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: What would you be doing if you were on the other side? We are paying for it anyway.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Let me inform the House what we are paying for and what the taxpayers of New South Wales are paying for. Taxpayers are paying for the great bulk of the expenditure on the Olympic venues and infrastructure. It is a sizeable cost - almost $2 billion. But the SOCOG budget, $2.5 billion, which is the budget for the staging of the Games, is entirely different. That money has to be raised from such things as sponsorship, ticket sales -

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Television rights.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is right. It is a huge amount of expenditure to ensure that the Games will be the best the world has ever seen. SOCOG is doing all that it sensibly, reasonably and properly can do to raise the revenue to pay that bill. If SOCOG fails to do that the taxpayers of New South Wales will have to pay that bill.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: That’s right, you are subsidising losses to capitalise the Games.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I do not know whether the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn is suggesting that taxpayers should have to foot that bill, but SOCOG is doing all it can to raise the necessary revenue to pay for all of the expenditure of SOCOG. I would have thought that the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn would support SOCOG in that endeavour; support his colleague the honourable member for Gosford, who is the Opposition’s representative on SOCOG; support Mr Greiner and Mr Valda; and support the Prime Minister’s representative, Mr Donald McDonald, all of whom are members of SOCOG and all of whom are doing the right and proper thing to ensure that there is not a SOCOG bill for the public of this State to pay. I believe that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has approached this matter in a bona fide way. The Government will support his amendment.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [8.07 p.m.]: I support the amendment of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile to the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I also support the amendments to the amendment moved by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans and Ms Lee Rhiannon. I will not support the amendments moved by either the Hon. J. H. Jobling or the Hon. R. S. L. Jones because they are not appropriate at this time. They are premature. I would have supported them later if the committee chaired by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile found that the Minister for the Olympics, the Hon. Michael Knight, was obstructing the committee. At this stage we know that the Government, and particularly the Minister, have indicated to members on the crossbenches that the Minister will be co-operative.

The amendment of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile stated that the committee will investigate all deliberations and minutes of the SOCOG Ticketing Commission relating to all ticket sales, not merely premium tickets. However, premium tickets account for only 5 per cent of the tickets. It is appropriate that the committee investigate all ticket sales. The amendments of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and the Hon. J. H. Jobling were specific. If the Minister obstructs the committee, the committee can report to the House so that the House can determine what the committee should do next.

That is the parliamentary process and it is the appropriate way to deal with the matter because the motion, and the amendments of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and the Hon. J. H. Jobling are too specific. I hope that the other crossbenchers will support these amendments and those supported by the Government. I believe that the committee, in a co-operative spirit and under the chairmanship of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, will be successful in clearing up this ticketing saga.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [8.10 p.m.], in reply: This is a sad time for the people of New South Wales because, irrespective of the community concern and anger about what has occurred in the past 48 hours in
Page 1905
relation to Olympic ticketing, this Minister, this Government and indeed other members of this Chamber have allowed secrecy to prevail over this serious matter that impacts upon so many people. I believe that the sense of outrage felt by the people of this State is evidenced by the number of people present in the gallery tonight to express their concern.

The PRESIDENT: Order! People in the public gallery must be quiet. I will ask the Usher of the Black Rod to remove anyone who is noisy.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Members of the Coalition are as one in the belief that secrecy is alive and well in this Government. That is evident from the arm twisting, negotiations and deals that have been done inside and outside this Chamber in the last couple of hours in an attempt to paint a picture that this motion is merely an opportunity for the Opposition to identify, and hold up to public ridicule by every newspaper and every television reporter in the State, those fortunate enough to have been able to buy tickets.

A short time ago I overheard a number of members of this Chamber talking about the likelihood that the Coalition would leak such information and that such revelations would then hit the public arena. A number of members addressed that issue prior to the dinner adjournment. I place on record my personal disgust at the suggestion that the Opposition would try to gain political advantage from this issue by leaking the names of the rich people who could afford to buy tickets to the Olympic Games when the wider community was told, "Sorry, no tickets for you. Bad luck, watch it on TV. Go and get yourself a six pack of beer and enjoy the Games at home because you won’t be there."

The way in which the Government has conducted itself is a disgrace. It had no intention of supporting the motion because it had stitched up the Opposition before entering this Chamber. The Opposition has put forward a legitimate argument which would uphold the reason for this House’s existence, namely, reviewing the role of government and introducing accountability into the process. Madam President, I spoke about this at length when you were sworn in as President of this Chamber. It concerns me that during the past 12 months the people of New South Wales have been continually duped by this Government into believing that they were going to get tickets to the Olympic Games.

The Opposition has provided an opportunity for this House to debate and examine the issue as a House of review, but the numerous amendments that have been moved to my motion have simply whittled away the substance of the motion to the point where we will not be able to gain access to the facts or the documents. The Treasurer said earlier, "We give you an undertaking that we will supply you with the necessary paperwork." This is the mob that said we were all going to get a crack at the Games and that the average Australian would have an opportunity to take the kids to the Olympic Games. We now know that was false, and the Government knew it was false.

Now that we have proved it to be false, the Government has said, "Don’t worry about the motion. Everything is fine. We will give you the documents should you require them." The $64,000 question is: Do they know which documents they require in order to ask for them in the first place? My suggestion is that they will not know until they have full and complete access to all of the documents with respect to the sale of premium tickets in this State. During the dinner adjournment I had an opportunity to examine a matter that was raised earlier and it is important that the crossbenchers realise that their position has been undermined by this aspect.

I am told that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will have access to details about the sale of premium tickets in conjunction with its examination of the whole ticketing process for the Olympic Games. The Government knows it cannot stop the ACCC delving into what it has done, but under no circumstances will it allow this House to conduct the very same scrutiny, despite knowing that members can conduct a very thorough and proper investigation.

The Government is locked in with the ACCC but it does not want its secrets revealed and will do everything in its power to avoid any scrutiny whatsoever by this Chamber. If this is the way the Government intends to run New South Wales for the next three years, then God help the people of this State because we will not get truth, and secrecy will prevail.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [8.18 p.m.]: I request that my two amendments be dealt with seriatim under Standing Order 106.

[Debate interrupted.]

The PRESIDENT: Order! I draw attention to the presence in the President’s Gallery of the Mayor
Page 1906
of Hastings, Councillor Wayne Richards, and the Deputy Mayor of Hastings, Councillor David Morton.

[Debate resumed.]

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has moved Private Members’ Business Item No. 43 as by leave amended. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has moved an amendment to omit all words after "That" at the commencement with a view to inserting an alternative proposition for a reference to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones has moved an amendment to the amendment of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile to add paragraphs (3) and (4).

Ms Lee Rhiannon has moved an amendment to the amendment of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile to insert new subparagraphs (c) to (g) in paragraph 1. The Hon. J. H. Jobling has moved an amendment to the amendment of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to insert a new subparagraph (c) in paragraph (3) and add words to paragraph (4). The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans has moved an amendment to the amendment of Ms Lee Rhiannon to insert a new subparagraph (h) in paragraph 1.

I propose to first put the amendments of Ms Lee Rhiannon and the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans, and then the amendments of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and the Hon. J. H. Jobling.

Amendment by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans to the amendment of Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to.

Amendment by Ms Lee Rhiannon, as amended, to the amendment of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile agreed to.

Question - That amendment No. 1 by the Hon. J. H. Jobling to the amendment the Hon. R. S. L. Jones be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Bull Mr Lynn
Mr Gallacher Mr Ryan
Miss Gardiner Mr Samios
Mr Gay
Mr Hannaford Tellers,
Mr Harwin Mr Jobling
Mr R. S. L. Jones Mr Moppett

Noes, 25

Mr Breen Rev. Nile
Ms Burnswoods Mr Oldfield
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Ms Rhiannon
Mr Cohen Ms Saffin
Mr Corbett Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Della Bosca Mr Shaw
Mr Dyer Ms Tebbutt
Mr Egan Mr Tingle
Mr Johnson Mr Tsang
Mr M. I. Jones Dr Wong
Mr Kelly Tellers,
Mr Macdonald Mr Manson
Mrs Nile Mr Primrose

Mrs Forsythe Mr Hatzistergos
Dr Pezzutti Mr Obeid

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment No. 2 by the Hon. J. H. Jobling to the amendment of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones negatived.

Question - That the amendment by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Bull Mr Lynn
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Oldfield
Mr Cohen Ms Rhiannon
Mr Gallacher Mr Ryan
Miss Gardiner Mr Samios
Mr Gay
Mr Hannaford Tellers,
Mr Harwin Mr Jobling
Mr R. S. L. Jones Mr Moppett

Mr Breen Rev. Nile
Ms Burnswoods Ms Saffin
Mr Corbett Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Della Bosca Mr Shaw
Mr Dyer Ms Tebbutt
Mr Egan Mr Tingle
Mr Johnson Mr Tsang
Mr M. I. Jones Dr Wong
Mr Kelly Tellers,
Mr Macdonald Mr Manson
Mrs Nile Mr Primrose
Page 1907
Mrs Forsythe Mr Hatzistergos
Dr Pezzutti Mr Obeid

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile as amended agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Government Business Notice of Motion No. 2 postponed on motion by the Hon. J. J. Della Bosca.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [8.34 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust Amendment Bill allows the trust to grant leases for specific elements of its lands for terms longer than the eight years to which leases are currently limited. The bill includes another minor housekeeping change which enables the trust to grant licenses and easements for the same purposes as it may grant leases. This facilitates the better management of trust assets and provides for administrative consistency. When the trust Act was first drafted the only leases managed by the trust were for restaurants. The eight-year lease period is no longer always sufficient for restaurants because of the large capital cost of refurbishing and fitting out such facilities. The option of providing a lease of up to 10 years will allow the trust to negotiate an increased capital contribution from a lessee by slightly extending the potential return period to the lessee where appropriate.

Similarly, the trust now collaborates with other government agencies and Sydney City Council in a number of initiatives to improve the enjoyment of trust lands, which were not anticipated in 1980. The first of these is the Domain Parking Station. The station is currently leased to South Sydney Council under separate legislation, the Domain Leasing Act 1961. This amendment is in anticipation of the lease expiry in 2008. The second area includes the oil storage facility next to Lincoln Crescent constructed under emergency legislation during World War II and now redundant to the defence department’s needs. The Act was amended in 1996 to allow the tanks to be adapted for some other purpose consistent with trust objectives. The Department of Defence has completed cleaning and remediating the tanks to the satisfaction of an independent environmental auditor approved by the Environment Protection Authority. Expressions of interest have been called to adaptively reuse the facility and a long lease is required to recoup the very considerable capital investment needed to adapt the facility for public use.

The redevelopment will provide for enhanced landscaping of the roof of the facility to integrate the area with the new land bridge and approach to Woolloomooloo Bay. The third area is the land bridge over the Eastern Distributor between the Domain and Woolloomooloo Bay. This has greatly improved the amenity of the Domain by minimising the visual and noise impact of the roadway, by improving pedestrian access to the gardens and Woolloomooloo Bay and by adding nearly a hectare of green space to the Domain. The trust is required to enter into a 50-year lease with the Roads and Traffic Authority for the small area of trust lands on which the land bridge rests. Airport Motorways will also enter into a sublease with the trust to ensure the trust has no responsibility for maintaining the physical structure but will retain control of the green space above.

The bill also makes provision for the trust to assist Sydney City Council in the redevelopment of the Andrew "Boy" Charlton Swimming Pool. While the design competition brief made it clear that the pool would remain substantially within its current footprint, a long-term lease may be required for subsurface supports. Finally, the bill allows the trust to enter into a long-term lease with Sydney City Council for a small section of Cook and Phillip Park. The lease would cover a slight realignment of St Mary’s Road to improve traffic flow and the supports for the pedestrian bridge, which connects the new park with the Domain. The only other amendment addresses limitations in the trust’s licensing power.

The trust’s power to grant licences is currently limited to quite specific purposes, such as laying and maintenance of cables, et cetera. In contrast, the trust may grant a lease for a commercial purpose or any other purpose not prejudicial to the objects of the trust. It is reasonable that the basis of granting leases, licenses and easements should be the same. In summary the amendments give the trust greater flexibility and authority in fulfilling its obligation to manage and protect the land under its control. They are broadly common sense amendments which allow the trust to support community projects which have emerged in the last few years.

The Hon. D. E. OLDFIELD [8.34 p.m.] (Inaugural speech): Madam President, I take this opportunity to publicly congratulate you on your election as President of this House and to express my gratitude for the fair manner in which you have thus far conducted its business. I also acknowledge the work of the staff of the Parliament, be they from security, administration or catering; during my time here I have found them to be extremely courteous, helpful and professional.

Clearly, my charter of responsibility as a representative in this place is for the people of New
Page 1908
South Wales, but I will not be deterred from the fact that we the people of New South Wales are but a part of our great nation of Australia. I will not, however, extrapolate that with the notion that we as Australians are but one group of people in this world, because no-one will ever care for our own people as we do ourselves.

I particularly thank the nearly 300,000 New South Wales people who voted for One Nation at the last State election and the more than one million Australians, many of whom were from New South Wales, who voted for One Nation at the last Federal election. It is of particular note that this was our first State election in New South Wales and that our organisation was less than two years old, yet twice as many people chose One Nation as those who chose the Australian Democrats or the Greens. Once again we confirmed our position as the third most popular political movement nationally and in New South Wales.

The way for me to take up my place here was made possible by our organisation, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party. Its members and supporters have my thanks for all their efforts. Our movement bears its founder’s name, and I am especially pleased that Pauline is present in the gallery tonight surrounded by hundreds of our members. Honourable members can be certain that I know how I came to be in this place and the responsibilities I have at this especially difficult time in our history as our people face far more than the usual problems of life.

Often the truth is harsh - it can be a bitter pill - but the truth is part of the cure, whereas lies only partially treat the symptoms while leaving the body and mind still unwell. I ask that what I say be read in context and the good intentions in my meaning be understood. As I speak this evening I am particularly cognisant that my maiden speech - I did say "maiden" as I am neither a purveyor nor a follower of political correctness; rather, I am one of its greatest opponents - is perhaps the first in many years to be made at a time when Australian military personnel are on active duty overseas. With that in mind it is appropriate to register my admiration and support for the brave men and women in uniform currently risking their lives in an attempt to bring peace to our region.

These soldiers, sailors and air force personnel, many of whom come from New South Wales, are conducting hazardous operations in a hostile environment. They deserve the highest level of support and a special place in our prayers. Regardless of the politics of any war or action such as East Timor, military personnel as individuals and units are entitled to our support. They do not question or judge their deployment - they simply follow orders.

I mention this because, while it is clear that Australians are very much in support of our involvement in East Timor, I am mindful of the fact that our role in the Vietnam War also began with considerable support. Just like the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn, my brother, Wayne, was one of the many who suffered the disgusting and inexcusable actions of those who did not distinguish between the politicians who gave the orders and those whose duty it was to follow them. We cannot be sure what East Timor will lead to, or when Australians may once again serve where some civilians may find reason to protest, so we must remember the past and damn those who offend the commitment and dedication of our military personnel.

The future is unavoidably linked to the past. In fact, I am firm in my belief that those who correctly interpret history have a window to the future. I place on the record some facts about my family, because we are all products of the things that surround us, the sights, the sounds, the experiences, the stories, the lessons, the individual values held by our families and the issues that are important to the people we respect. Those things shape who we are and what we will become.

I am the nephew, great-nephew, brother and son of men who fought for our country. We lost my great-uncle Reg in the first world war. My great-uncle Tom, in the same war and as a member of the 10th Light Horse, left his arm at Gallipoli. My great-uncle Harry of the Eighth Division died while a prisoner of war of the Japanese. My uncle Ted of the 2/16th served in the Middle East and New Guinea. My brother, Wayne, as a regular, did his tour of Vietnam in 1968 and 1969 with 35 Caribou Squadron. Even now, my nephew David, a commissioned officer in the 1st Brigade in Darwin, is preparing for deployment to East Timor to conduct security operations. I am proud of them all. Even those who died before I was born are still a part of me, for they are my family.

Understandably, I am especially proud of my father, Bill, who, as an air gunner in Hudson bombers won a Distinguished Flying Medal and the right to wear a United States presidential citation. My father was commissioned from the ranks, and on his seventy-seventh combat mission was shot down and captured by the Japanese. I think of him and speak of him as a son should. My family has always run to the sound of guns, and in my own way I do but follow in their footsteps. My mother, June, is
Page 1909
both a woman and lady. In the early 1950s, and only in her twenties, she achieved the almost impossible for her gender in those days - she convinced a bank to lend her a substantial sum to expand her small business into proper premises.

Both my sisters, Leslie and Carolyn, grew up to become successful people and loving parents. On this day 22 years ago, after a seven-year fight, my brave sister Carolyn was taken from us by Hodgkin’s disease. Though I often appear ungrateful, I am very aware of my good fortune at having been born into a wonderful family with parents who have always selflessly put my interests before their own. If not for my parents, I would not have had the success I have enjoyed on many occasions, and I only pray I will one day be as good as them and my brother and sisters.

Australian families everywhere have histories like mine and though they may not have the opportunity to enter such deeds on the parliamentary record, these stories, at least within their own families, should be told again and again. Our nation has been built on the strength of its families, and the enemies of the family are my enemies as well.

Often I have been asked whom I admire, who are my role models, who do I look up to? They are those who have done what I have not, who have endured what I have not and who have lived through what I will never have to, because of their sacrifice. If admiration be sought, let it be found where it belongs, at the feet of those who did what we did not. I am the second in my family to enter Parliament, my father’s younger brother, Ted Oldfield, being the first. This should not be considered as a pattern in my family for I, like my uncle before me, view this profession - if one can refer to it as that - as perhaps the most unfortunate of all.

This vocation called politics has been made lowly and despicable not so much by its intention but by the political parties and persona of those involved. Public representation should, alongside the defence of country, be among the noblest and most worthy pursuits of all, yet the lack of quality, decency and genuine purpose on behalf of people, coupled with self-interest, have brought politics into disrepute instead of elevating it.

The interests of political parties taking first place over all else is defended by the idea that it is good for the agenda, but often the parties’ agendas take priority over the decisions required for the benefit of our citizens, our sovereignty, democracy and cultural existence. Members of a political party should not be so set in their serfdom that time and again they vote against what they know is fair, what they know is right and what they know the people who elected them would want - indeed, need. This problem was illustrated in a recent maiden speech. The member said:

I am proud to sit in this House as a representative of the Liberal Party of Australia in coalition with the National Party.

I say to you I am proud to sit in this House as a representative of New South Wales. One Nation’s own code of conduct expects me to represent the people first, not the party. Only One Nation makes this understanding of true representation incumbent on its members. Already in my brief time in this Parliament a number of members have expressed to me what they really felt should be done, but how their party would never allow them to speak of such solutions.

Those of us with depth in our understanding must expose the deceit of those who represent their party’s interest rather than the people, our State and our nation. During my time in this place I will do what I can to promote casting one’s vote as a representative of the people, not the party. I will do what I can to encourage voting on issues in accordance with one’s beliefs and the genuine needs of the people of New South Wales, not the parties’ dictates.

Be assured, I do not kid myself about the level of difficulty in separating party vassals from party masters, however adversity has never impaired my willingness to give it a go. There is no such thing as an organisation that is great or good or decent. This greatness and/or decency results from the spirit and determination of individuals that make up that group and direct its organisation. The greatness and decency of individuals cannot be inherited; they can only be continued by dedicated new generations.

Always remember it is governments - and arguably the two-party system - that are responsible for the way things are in this State and this nation. It is government action or inaction that determines the state of our affairs. It is government policies that determine the make-up of our society, the size and power of our police force, the assistance we give to those in need and the incentives we give to those who would build.

It is government that determines the standard of our education, our safety on the streets, the taking of services from country towns, and how much farmers will be forced to pay for the water that nature causes to fall on their land. It is government that decides how our money will be spent, which
Page 1910
industries will be helped or destroyed, what hospitals will close and how long rapists and paedophiles will spend in gaol. Make no mistake, it is government that must take the blame for the ills that face us, if not for their failed policies, then certainly for the policies they have failed to introduce.

One Nation’s New South Wales policies have been detailed in the blue book and other documents. Those platforms are specific in principle but continue to evolve as appropriate. One Nation clearly supports the rural sector, job creation, the legitimacy of responsible firearm ownership, referenda and consultation. Our concept of punishment properly fitting the crime is obvious and we are committed to making it the criminals who live in fear, not the innocent.

One Nation strongly supports a people’s bank, such as the original Commonwealth Bank - an initiative of the Fisher Labor Government in 1911. Even if only in New South Wales, low-interest development funding could be a reality if only Labor had not forgotten its roots. Perhaps Labor and Liberal would both consider the benefits of such policies if so much of their donor base was not tied to the commercial banks.

Our organisation’s views on assistance and, in particular, our policy of all Australians being treated equally and the same have long been misrepresented. We have a very clear problem with the current policy of race-based assistance, and believe strongly in the proposition that no group in society has a monopoly on hardship of any kind.

In saying that, One Nation does not believe anyone in genuine need should lose the assistance a benevolent society should make available to those less fortunate. We simply make the point, and I will make it very clearly, that we do not support assistance on the divisive basis of race. We know that in all fairness assistance must be distributed in what is the only just and decent manner - on the basis of individual need.

While harmony and understanding are essential, I will not let pass this opportunity to include a comment on the ridiculous nature of what is put under the banner of reconciliation. To have reconciliation is to have restoration, as to reconcile is to restore. Both the word and the concept are wrong, because one cannot restore what has not existed. Non-Aboriginal Australians have never been together with Aboriginal Australians in any more of a fashion than we are now, and we should be aiming not to live as two peoples but as one.

We must have a fresh look at how to bring all Australians together and not just be separate groups living in the same land. We must do without the distorted view that paints Aboriginal history as anything other than it was: groups of people living on the edge of survival, where one day rolled into the next without difference or progress.

We must not continue to confuse what must be the logical priorities, for it is not so much the future of aboriginality or the preservation of that culture that should take priority; rather, what is important is the quality of life of those people as individual Australians. Even the benefits, such as special low-interest loans given to Aboriginal Australians, are intended not so much to help them but to buy them off, to shut them up, to placate them and keep them quiet. Governments toy with Aboriginals and their issues to satisfy the activist movements and elements of the media.

The lack of genuine, progressive policy is evident in the fact that, despite the countless billions spent, the predicament of Aboriginal Australians has not really improved. Throwing money at a fire will keep you warm for a while, but it will not change the weather. I am sorry for the way in which Aboriginal Australians have suffered, just as I am sorry for any suffering that may have been avoided, but no one group monopolises suffering, and guilt cannot be inherited.

Let us stop the arguments of the past, accept what is here, and together welcome the positives of a future as one people. It matters less what we have been and more what we are and will become. Let us promote being Australians today and tomorrow, one people, one flag, one set of rules, one nation united by our acceptance of each other and with a common goal for us all to live a better life together.

Perhaps an even greater issue of division and the breakdown of our potential for social cohesion is the assault by the policy of multiculturalism. Honourable members may have noted that I consistently say "acceptance", not "tolerance", for even more than reconciliation the word "tolerance" must be rejected and those responsible for its employment given dictionaries and relegated to less important tasks. To tolerate you is to put up with you, to endure your presence and to suffer its imposition. But to accept is to welcome, to be favourably receptive, to embrace.

We must as Australians live together as one people, and to do that requires acceptance - for to only tolerate leaves the door to resentment wide
Page 1911
open. We are all immigrants; we are all the descendants of immigrants, Aboriginal Australians included. But those who came to New South Wales and the rest of Australia in the periods of mass immigration following the Second World War came under the policy of assimilation.

The policy of assimilation catered well to the natural human desire to fit in - and the Greeks, Czechs, Italians and many other nationalities who desperately wanted to be accepted and to be Australians have contributed enormously to our country. However, multiculturalism tells people that there is no need to fit in. In fact, it divides us through the highlighting of differences. It dismisses the advantages of embracing a new life as an Australian and instead promotes the notion of simply bringing much of the life you wanted to escape with you.

The policy consequences of multiculturalism’s relationship with ethnic-related crime is very rightly a particular concern for the people of New South Wales. In the overwhelming majority of cases, when judged by obvious standards, the places most immigrants have come from fall short in terms of modern social development. We concern ourselves with democracy, freedom, lifestyle, justice, opportunity, public safety, and a whole range of rights which are virtually non-existent in so many other places. We fail to place the appropriate value on what we have to offer and, as a consequence, much of what has been given has failed to strike the right note of appreciation.

The fact is that people come to Australia to have a better life than their country offers, and the more we encourage multiculturalism the more we are making Australia like all the places people want to leave. Before the guardians of political correctness got their hands on Prime Minister Howard, he had a lot to say about the inappropriateness of multiculturalism, including this in June 1988:

I think it is a rather aimless and divisive policy and I think it ought to be changed.

Before I was elected as a member of Parliament my public profile was already considerable due to the attention which made me Australia’s best-known political adviser. So I have had an extraordinary level of contact with the media. I will make an observation of the propensity of some members of the media for selective treatment. Most recently, the case of New South Wales Senator Aden Ridgeway is the best example of the amazingly sympathetic and positive approach to reporting provided by large, especially print-related sections of the media who take up a cause and take up a side.

Just for expressing views deemed politically correct and in tune with the way sections of the media want the public to view life and its issues, Senator Ridgeway is profiled with such positiveness as to almost position him for sainthood. On the other hand, for expressing or supporting views the media does not agree with, others are treated as the inquisitors treated heretics. They delve into your past and try to discredit you. They portray you as evil personified, and therefore all you say, believe and represent must also be evil and, therefore, cleansed with fire.

I recognise that not all of the media are like this, but those who are most like this are so twisted that they fail to recognise or do not care about the cost of their deceit. Some who have taken a side have the courage and decency to acknowledge their slide from journalistic ethics. I am reminded of what Maxine McKew said:

As the new century loomed it was time to evaluate how the media covered news. The Hanson Phenomenon had raised some questions about fairness and objectivity.

For the most part the mainstream press roundly condemned Hansonism but one million Australians voted for her.

Maxine McKew went on to say:

The broader question is, are we so out of touch with mainstream thinking that we have to ask questions about ourselves?

I am grateful to journalists who try to report without taking sides, but I am sorry for those who serve masters with agendas that preclude fairness and truth. How many of these people would survive if they were the subjects of their own tactics? Senator Ridgeway, as we all know, will never face spurious and inappropriate allegations about his private life, hundreds of financially-based investigations, or read dishonest and inaccurate reviews of himself by people he has never met; nor will he have to stomach investigative reporting with the intention of creating a slur regardless of what the investigation may actually discover.

In fact, I suggest that Senator Ridgeway will lead a charmed and protected political life - the media will never come after him. My concerns and those of One Nation have been and are for all issues to be dealt with from a nationalistic standpoint - the interests of Australian people always coming first, second and third. That means proactive policy-based support for Australian ownership, Australian industries, business, import replacement
Page 1912
manufacturing, investment, social cohesion and equality, combined with the rights of individual expression.

Recent and clandestine treaties such as the multilateral agreement on investment [MAI] were, to a degree, exposed by One Nation as damaging to Australians. It is interesting to note that we who are often shallowly referred to as right wing were joined in the fight against the MAI by small, predominantly left-wing activist groups.

While the MAI may seem to be on hold, it is but one weapon of the multipronged attack on Australian living standards and way of life. The others must also be captured and put on public trial. The somewhat less known Lima declaration, embraced by both major parties since its inception in the early 1970s, has lain unseen as its agenda stripped Australia of jobs through policies that caused the export of much of our manufacturing. Whilst the Lima declaration was an unsigned document, adopting its aim of international redistribution of manufacturing, and hence international redistribution of employment, as an example, caused the closure of BHP in Newcastle, and the annihilation of manufacturing jobs in industries all over New South Wales and beyond.

The effects of the overall agenda, these days commonly called globalisation, sometimes internationalisation, can best be understood by the impact of the pre-emptive strike already felt in rural New South Wales and other regional and rural areas of Australia. It is particularly in rural and regional areas that the decline of all things Australian - production, manufacturing, industry, heritage and lifestyle and the loss of certainty and hope - slaps us in the face with the greatest clarity.

Citrus, pork, lamb and sugar have all felt the effects of losing reasonable protection, of inferior imports, or of the acts of other countries unwilling to do to their farmers what our governments do with a sneer and a kick. All our primary producers are left to compete with countries whose governments overcome the so-called level playing field through direct subsidies, quotas and, in many cases, import protections, just like the ones the Australian Government is removing.

Farming subsidies in America, Japan, Korea and the European Union often make up more than half of their farmers’ income. Other countries pull out all stops to maintain and support their rural industries, but our governments lack the same spirit and commitment. Using beef as one example, it must be noted that European Union beef subsidies have increased 33 per cent in the last 10 years. The average European Union beef farmer now gets 70 per cent of his or her income in the form of a cheque from their respective government.

In the race to devastate our own production, to destroy our own farmers, their families, all the associated jobs and community services, including access to health in country towns, Australia would easily win gold. That is a sad indictment on the new millennium and the coming year of the Olympics. Where once great Australians carved out a way of life that overcame the adversity of the elements - floods, drought, fire, disease and even isolation - we now witness their losing battle against the treachery of the people they elected to help them.

The actions of the Australian Animal Health Council, driven by the New South Wales Department of Agriculture, deserves special mention over its failure to address the issues of Johne’s disease. Its actions are destroying flocks, bankrupting farming families and pushing some to suicide, all through a program that is flawed and unnecessary. Nowhere else in the world has this disease been dealt with as it has in Australia. In New Zealand, where it is estimated that 75 per cent of sheep are infected with the disease, destroying the animals has been assessed as unnecessary.

Governments could do many positive things for rural development in New South Wales. One of the best examples is Parkes Inland Marketing Corporation [IMC]. This marvellous initiative, backed by 53 local councils, needs only $63 million for basic storage facilities and an airport that will allow fresh Australian produce the fastest possible means of export - gate to plate. It is estimated the IMC project will create 10,000 jobs for a cost equivalent to half the aid given each and every year to Indonesia, of all places. When the huge Olympics cost for New South Wales is considered, it is easy to see why rural New South Wales says, "The only bush that Sydney understands is Homebush."

The financial hardships, loss of protection and assistance, lock-up of land and water, the native vegetation Act, deregulation and the so-called National Competition Policy all make their contribution to what, you might ask. The bulk of the answer can be found in comments by a former New South Wales Premier who recently spoke of the corporatisation of the farming industry:

It was put the future would be characterised by increasingly de-regulated markets, globalisation of business, increasing scale of production and minimal government involvement.

Page 1913

To the economic rationalists and the international big money they serve, for them this future is a kind of heaven. For everyone else - ordinary people, workers, trade unions, small business people and most who aspire to be their own boss - the globalist’s heaven for them will be hell on earth. We once fought communism and its centralisation of wealth and power - a system where the smallest number of people controlled everyone and everything, and individuality and personal ambition was considered a danger to the State.

We now see the same social product emerging by way of transnational corporations - foreign owned, foreign resourced and supported by the judases of Australian public life. We now see the future for Australians as a kind of indentured consumer where, for the most part, opportunities will lie only in the chance to work for a foreign corporation, if indeed there is the chance to work at all. We must make more Australians aware of this creeping takeover tactic.

I have paid particular attention to the economic rationalists, their global agenda and the impact on the rural sector but, of course, it does not stop there. Globalisation will alienate Australians and, as more of the wealth is owned and controlled by an ever-decreasing percentage of the population, we will be delivered into a class-based society of such proportion that has not been seen in our history. Just as Labor has forgotten its leaders, such as Fisher and Curtin and their policy of a people’s bank, so too should the Liberals and Nationals be reminded of the position of Menzies and McEwan. Menzies said:

Rising material standards of life in a democracy cannot be adequately attained unless industries are developed, production increased and the resources of a nation expanded . . . An uncontrolled and unregulated free enterprise would tend to destroy the weak, impoverish the poor, and reduce that dignity of the individual man and woman, which it must be the purpose of democracy to create and enhance.

McEwan said:

Any economic system which prevents us from achieving the greatest measure of industrial progress is detrimental to our social welfare.

The wealth and power of transnationals is already eclipsing governments. Democracy will fall even further by the wayside as the engineering of a corporatised society removes the ability for individual action and success. Just as rural Australia will suffer from the stranglehold of transnationals and their virtual monopolisation of land, water and production, so will the cities experience the death of most small or owner-operated businesses. Petrol stations, corner stores, small supermarkets, hotels and most other retail and service businesses will succumb to the overwhelming control of distribution and an inability to compete financially.

The effect of globalisation on Australia, a small and easily monopolised country with a high standard of living, will be devastating for the vast majority of the population. Almost non-existent government intervention resulting from international treaties, free trade, domestically supported major party political policy, the breakdown of borders, the free movement of work forces and the simple power of money will cause wages and living standards to fall.

As our once proud State and this nation suffer through this restructuring of what was once our wealth and what was thought to be our future prosperity, we will experience the associated further increase in the circle that is poverty, crime, substance abuse and family breakdown. Globalisation will devastate our equality of opportunity and replace our once benevolent society with one of serf and master. Many know how much devastation is taking place even if, as yet, they know not why.

Our way of life has not faced a greater threat than globalisation as it is truly the unseen enemy. My concern is for the younger members of my family and other young Australians who will face and suffer these difficulties much more so than any of us. But I must believe that as we carry the battle now, there will be those among the next generation and the one after that who will rise up and repel this international disease of corporate takeover and centralised wealth.

In the face of seemingly insurmountable odds, when some of us feel we are fighting a losing battle, I am positive in my belief of the outcome for I am reminded of the many times Australians have fought losing battles right up until they have won. One Nation is a part of that fight and will be a part of that victory.

I refer now to the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust Amendment Bill. The Royal Botanic Gardens are an important part of the heritage of this State. They have significant environmental and recreational values. The people of New South Wales must know we appreciate these facilities, so we must not rush this debate.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [9.09 p.m.]: The Opposition was concerned that the Government was setting up circumstances in which all sorts of
Page 1914
nefarious developments would be possible in the Royal Botanic Gardens and its new extensions, including the Andrew "Boy" Charlton Pool, activities which the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust Amendment Bill is intended to cover. We were concerned that the scope of the bill was too wide. The Opposition will support the bill. I understand that in the fullness of time perhaps the Government will support amendments that review the clauses of the bill.

The purpose of the amendments is to tighten the scope of the bill and to make the users of the Royal Botanic Gardens and its environs more accountable. The bill is largely machinery in nature. I have been surprised by how excited some people have become about it. Normally such a bill would pass through the House fairly quickly. However, as we will discover in Committee, there are a significant number of amendments, and amendments of amendments of amendments, which are unusual in this House.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: They have become custom and practice.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: They are becoming custom and practice. Once upon a time in this House it was amazing to have an amendment accepted by the Government. Amendments will be moved to schedule 1, which deals with the granting of licences. The amendments seek to give the public more scrutiny of licences that will apply to the Royal Botanic Gardens. Although the Opposition is mindful of the fact that it is necessary to give the public greater access to these licences, we have no desire to infringe the general commercial-in-confidence principle for those who might wish to start new enterprises in the Royal Botanic Gardens.

We are prepared to accept amendments that allow for a level of greater consultation and greater public record, but we will stop short of allowing specific leases to be tabled in a way in which businesspeople might be prohibited or inhibited from expressing new ideas. People who enjoy the Royal Botanic Gardens and the Domain accept that they are not green space in its natural state. Therefore it is not inappropriate, given the location of the Royal Botanic Gardens and the Domain, that people will want access to services such as dining facilities, parking, et cetera.

The Opposition is not opposed to such services, but often such developments have been the subject of controversy. We need only refer to the controversies that surround the Centennial Park and Moore Park area, and the Parramatta parklands around Parramatta Park, which involves the lease given to the Parramatta football club.

I have no doubt that in due course we will hear interesting and passionate speeches about the development of a McDonald’s Family Restaurant. I accept that the community wants a say in where particular franchisees operate, but I will not join the cargo cult and get stuck into McDonald’s. As a person with a young family I have regularly made use of McDonald’s. I appreciate the service it provides. When my family was younger and we had limited access to baby-sitting facilities, McDonald’s was one of the places we would turn to almost for respite care because it was the only reasonably safe place for our kids to play while my wife and I enjoyed a bit of peace and quiet over a cup of coffee.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: And we met you there, too.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I have even met Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile at the Narellan McDonald’s. Sometimes I think honourable members forget. I do enjoy a cappuccino with some bruschetta and crčme brűlée in a nice restaurant. But I remember times when I was a university student and before that a young person spending my pocket money and greatly appreciated access to a service that was inexpensive, like McDonald’s.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: They didn’t have those places when I was a student. We got a can of baked beans. We took it home and ate it cold.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I am sure the honourable member, like me, went to whatever the equivalent was of the Paragon or the Olympia milk bar in whatever area he grew up in and enjoyed playing the pinball machines.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I couldn’t afford to go to the Paragon except when I got a job many years later. I thought it was luxury.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I accept that franchises, like McDonald’s or Hungry Jacks, raise concerns about litter. Nevertheless, I have accepted the fact that they do something positive in our community. Ten years ago I was a schoolteacher at Sarah Redfern High School at Minto. I am surprised at how the McDonald’s training program has turned many young people from that school into valuable managers with phenomenal business skills. They have gone on from serving at McDonald’s -

Page 1915

The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt: What has this got to do with the bill?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Some honourable members will move amendments that deal with McDonald’s. Those young people from Sarah Redfern have gone on to learn a great number of skills. I am not totally uncritical of McDonald’s, and nor am I here to endorse it. Nevertheless, McDonald’s and similar franchises provide a service in our community that is valuable but at the same time causes difficulties. I can see no reason why we should write laws that specifically exclude McDonald’s from operating in the Royal Botanic Gardens simply because somehow or another it is associated with American culture, or some other such rot. The development process for McDonald’s, like all businesses, must be open.

McDonald’s is expected to show in advance how its developments will impact on the community. McDonald’s, like all other developments, must compensate the community for whatever disruption it causes to the natural environment. The Opposition supports the general thrust of the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust Amendment Bill. We were unsuccessful in moving amendments in the other House. Although the Government refused them there I understand it has since come under some pressure from members of the crossbench and will now accept various versions of those amendments. I look forward to seeing the bill at the conclusion of this debate after it has been dealt with in Committee.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.18 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust Amendment Bill. I am aware that concern has been expressed that some of the provisions of the bill will be abused or exploited. We share that concern. We understand that public input can occur in various ways. If that is not successful, the foreshadowed amendments may fill that gap.

This bill will provide for a maximum 10-year lease term solely for restaurants and cafes and a maximum 50-year lease term for five specific land uses. Those land uses are spelled out on page 3 of the bill in the explanatory note. The first is the Domain parking station. This is a housekeeping provision in anticipation of the expiry of the current 50-year lease with South Sydney Council to 2008 under the separate Domain Leasing Act 1961. The second is the oil storage facility. The redundant Department of Defence oil storage facility next to Lincoln Crescent is subject to expressions of interest for its adaptive reuse and progress has been made in that direction.

According to a media report in the Daily Telegraph of 6 October the former secret oil depot is to be transformed; instead of holding thousands of litres of oil, there will be thousands of litres of Australia’s finest wines stored there. The two seven-metre high and 30 metre wide tanks will be transformed into a huge wine cellar to be named the Admiral’s Cellar. Therefore, it is essential that all oil is removed from the tanks, which I understand is not easy.

Following the State Government’s decision to lease the land, a restaurant, bar, wine-tasting and wine-sales centre and boutique wine marketing department will be incorporated in the bunker. It is pleasing that something built in war time can be transformed and used during times of peace. The third specific land use is the Eastern Distributor land bridge. The land bridge over the Eastern Distributor between the Domain and Woolloomooloo Bay rests on trust land at two points. The trust is required to enter into a 50-year lease with the Roads and Traffic Authority and a sublease with Airport Motorways.

The fourth land use is the Andrew "Boy" Charlton Swimming Pool and the fifth is Cook and Phillip Park. The trust has agreed to a slight realignment of St Mary’s Road and the construction of a pedestrian bridge linked to the Domain to facilitate vehicle and visitor flow. The arrangements will be formalised with a long-term lease. All honourable members would have noted the improvement in College Street, with the new swimming pool facilities replacing the old bowling green. The openness of the area leading to St Mary’s Cathedral allows the cathedral to be seen in its proper setting.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Wait until the spires are finished.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: The spires are gradually going up. It must be a difficult job to do that.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Each stone weighs 2˝ tonnes.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: One does not realise that looking at it from street level, but I watch its gradual progress every day. The bricks rest in a unique steel frame. The Christian Democratic Party has received expressions of concern from the Environment Liaison Office, which feels that this measure might be open to abuse and for that reason has proposed certain amendments. The Greens also have expressed concerns about the bill.

Page 1916

None of us would like to see McDonald’s Family Restaurants setting up in prime locations such as the Royal Botanic Gardens. McDonald’s is a legitimate business and in a democracy has a right to operate in suburban or country towns, but it must follow correct procedures and its developments must fit in with the general historic layout of the location. That is why I was concerned about the development of a McDonald’s restaurant in Anzac Parade near Moore Park. Vigilance is needed to find the right location for the development. The final approval should take into account environmental matters. Boards or trusts should not simply be left to make decisions in their own interests without also taking into consideration the environmental impact of a development. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill, with those reservations.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [9.24 p.m.]: I wish to make some brief comments to the bill. The scope of the bill was covered by my colleague the Hon. J. F. Ryan who, to use the analogy, squeezed it between two pieces of bread. He expressed his support for the bill quite adequately. We are indebted also to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile for his examination of the bill’s detailed provisions. The only contribution I wish to make is to remind honourable members of the almost supreme historic significance of the area of land under the control of this trust. First, the Royal Botanic Gardens, which although vastly modified from that which appeared to Governor Phillip when the First Fleet arrived, is almost a shrine of modern Australia.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Of course, Governor Phillip only arrived with my great-great-great-great-great grandparents.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: Is that so? Were they here to greet him or did they arrive with him?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: No, but I think they probably stepped ashore before he did, so in that sense they were here to greet him.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: They probably had to get their feet wet by pulling the longboat up onto the beach.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: They probably had to carry him ashore.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: Yes, that could be so. What an honour for them. If they were here now to look at the Royal Botanic Gardens they would certainly be delighted with the progress that has been made.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: There was a Government House before that one.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: Yes. I was talking about the landing site as the significance of the Royal Botanic Gardens. As the colony developed, grants of land were made, including the Royal Botanic Gardens, the Domain and areas set aside for public usage rather in the vein of the common land grant, which was a feature of English land tenure in Australia. The land in the Domain was for unspecified usage at that time - I dare say in the early days horses and cows were run on the Domain without any real concept of what it might develop into in the future. At one stage it seemed to be the centre of political agitation and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile referred to other modern usages which met the demands of a changing society.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Johnno Johnson used to be a Domain speaker.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I would have loved to have been there to hear his thoughts.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I listened to him there once. I thought, "Who is this silly old codger?"

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: At times I have had the same thought as he was about to make a contribution in the House, but on listening to him I have corrected that prejudiced view and admired what he had to say. I am sure that in those days when he was speaking in the Domain it would have been even better. In more recent times people think of the Royal Botanic Gardens as a developed garden, a superior type of parkland that is the source of recreation - passive recreation in the main - for the citizens of New South Wales.

The gardens are often frequented by Sydneysiders, but for many years country people valued the facility offered there. When their business in the city was finished they could wander through the beautiful gardens and enjoy views of the harbour. That has been preserved and curators over the years are to be congratulated on the way in which they have maintained the Royal Botanic Gardens.

I remind honourable members of the real purpose for which the Royal Botanic Gardens were first established. It was for their scientific value and for the study of the diversity of botany throughout the world. Over the years there were attempts, some successful and some not so successful, to establish a wide collection of species that could be studied
Page 1917
seriously, not just in the context of that happening in a lovely garden. When I studied agriculture at the University of Sydney the wonderful work in maintaining the herbarium collection was acknowledged. To those who do not know that term, it is a collection of dried specimens of plants from throughout Australia and from other places that enables identification to be undertaken.

Plants could be taken out, when appropriate, and species compared, not only for identification purposes but also for the examination of nomenclature as a formal study. The Royal Botanic Gardens have played an extraordinarily vital role. Over the years the trust has been extremely faithful. It has served the community well.

This bill has been introduced on the recommendation of the trust. Although some amendments have been proposed, honourable members on both sides of the House would agree with the common purpose of facilitating the trust’s role in maintaining the assets held in trust for the people of New South Wales. As I have indicated, the assets to which I have referred are of critical importance to the Commonwealth of Australia. This bill is an important though not controversial piece of legislation. Honourable members should recognise the significance of these wonderful community assets and congratulate the trust on the work that it has done while commending to the trust our future charge on behalf of generations yet to come.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [9.31 p.m.]: I will speak very briefly in support of this Government bill. In common with the Hon. D. F. Moppett I pay tribute to the way in which the Royal Botanic Gardens and the Domain have met the demands of a changing society over the past couple of hundred years, but particularly in more recent times. During the last few years many pressures have been exerted on the gardens and the Domain. They include large public events such as the New Year’s Eve fireworks, concerts in the Domain - that seem be going on all the time, sporting events and the pressures of mass tourism, particularly in the area of Mrs Macquarie’s Chair.

Among the jewels of Sydney is the area of the Royal Botanic Gardens and the Domain, which is managed very well but receives very little publicity, and the adjacent Government House, which is now open to the public. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the people who manage them. The bill is an amending bill, and fairly technical legislation in that it deals with specific amendments to the trust’s leasing powers. It provides for the maximum lease for specific purposes such as restaurants and five very particular land uses. It contains a more general provision about the grant of leases, easements and licences on similar conditions.

I am aware that concern has been expressed about the bill and that approximately 16 amendments may be moved. A perusal of those amendments reveals that they are within a short compass and that Government amendments will satisfy some of the concerns that have been expressed. Most of the five specific land uses proposed to be the subject of these leases of up to 50 years are either historical relics - such as the Domain parking station, whose 50-year lease is about to expire, and the old defence storage facility - or the land bridge over the Eastern Distributor, an area in which there has been a considerable improvement and which is important in the area surrounding the art gallery. The honourable member who preceded me in this debate mentioned the recent redevelopment of Cook and Phillip Park. This is a small but necessary bill dealing with the need to clear up the trust’s leasing powers. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.34 p.m.]: The Greens oppose this bill because it will facilitate yet more commercial exploitation of the Royal Botanic Gardens and the Domain. I have enjoyed listening to the contributions of honourable members because my academic background is in botany. Because of my background and also because of the many enjoyable years I spent there with my children and my parents, one of the loves of my life is the Royal Botanic Gardens. I enjoy any discussion about the gardens. I particularly enjoyed the contribution made by the Hon. D. F. Moppett because I realise that we have common agricultural interest. However, I would point out to him and to other honourable members that this is not a simple bill.

The bill encompasses many issues of considerable concern. As I said in my opening remarks, it will open up important areas to greater commercial exploitation. This is one more example of the lack of respect for the values of public ownership on the part of both the Government and the Opposition. The Royal Botanic Gardens and the Domain occupy a special place in the history of Sydney.

Prior to the 1788 invasion of Port Jackson, the Guringai people lived on that land. Farm Cove, the heart of what is now the gardens, was the site of the initiation ceremonies for both young men and women, including the kangaroo and dog dances. These first Australians developed a sacred relationship with what is now the Royal Botanic
Page 1918
Gardens. The Greens feel most strongly that their association with the land should be acknowledged in this place, particularly when we are discussing their land. It is a matter of great regret that the early European invaders were able to steal the lands and drive away the traditional owners. It is also a tragedy that, as this bill so clearly establishes, we have failed to learn from the Aboriginal custodians that the quality of these lands lasts only as long as they are treated with appropriate respect and reverence.

While never officially proclaimed, it appears that the Royal Botanic Gardens date from 1816, making them some of the oldest in the world. By 1820 they were well established, with new lands being added subsequently. The gardens substantially became what they are today under the long and productive period of directorship of Charles Moore from 1848 to 1896. Mr Moore is somebody to whom we are indeed indebted. Moore had to battle government interference, obstruction and penny-pinching, which reminds me of many of the debates that have taken place in this House. One assumes that Mr Moore would be quite at home in this Parliament. In the end result, he triumphed to oversee the development of a magnificent monument to the meeting of human culture and natural environment.

Over the past two centuries, the Domain has become the symbol of freedom of expression in Sydney. As a young girl, I was treated to much fine oratory on a Sunday afternoon and some that was not so fine. Such is the nature of public and free speech. Sydney’s culture of political dissent flourished on the Domain’s soil. While there are few speakers there today, the tradition lives on. Many groups, such as Residents Opposed to Polluting Stacks, Critical Mass Bike Rides, the Youth Justice Coalition and People with Disabilities, use the Domain and other public spaces of Sydney - public spaces that need to be celebrated and safeguarded - for their activities.

It is certain that, had Charles Moore lived to see the incursions into the park since the end of his term just over 100 years ago, he would have been deeply disturbed. Let us remember, as we now consider giving more of this land away, how much has already been sacrificed. The Cahill Expressway has cut a deep swathe through the heart of the Domain and has destroyed the tranquillity of much of the parkland. Public land has been pillaged for the purpose of creating a motorway and that has divided the land.

Many who are old enough would remember that once the Domain swept down to the gardens, which in turn swept down to the harbour. The wall of high-rise buildings along Macquarie Street towers over the western end of the gardens, overshadowing them in the afternoon. The parking station has degraded the eastern end of the Domain, leaving it treeless and flat - a geometry that adversely contrasts with the rolling hills of the gardens and the rest of the Domain.

Throughout these disastrous acts of vandalism one thing emerges: on too many occasions, private values have been allowed to triumph over the public good. This bill will be one further step in that direction, if we are unable to amend it. The Cahill Expressway is a monument to the madness of private transport. The damage to the gardens and the Domain resulting from the road compares poorly to the low-impact public alternative provided by the eastern suburbs railway line. The expressway is inefficient and environmentally damaging. It locks each commuter into his or her cocoon of steel and plastic, shut away from other members of the community.

Money buys a bigger, faster, newer vehicle. Poverty excludes many from the race and, if we go down that track, private values will triumph over public. On the other hand, eastern suburbs railway commuters share a fast and low-pollution trip, readily accessible to the elderly, people with disabilities, the young and those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged. As with this bill, the decision to build the Cahill Expressway represents a tragic failure by the Government of the day to cherish a public asset, allowing it to be treated as a commodity to be expended to save the whims of the powerful elite, such as the Roads and Traffic Authority and the road builders. Such planning crimes have disastrous consequences for the entire community.

The Domain and Royal Botanic Gardens, like all public lands, play a special role in the building of our community. Socioeconomic status and background matter nought in a public place; all have free access to those lands and all share common recreation and contemplation. It is those collective experiences that turn us from an economy into a society. Without them, we will be much poorer. Visitors entering the botanic gardens from the Opera House forecourt are greeted by a plaque which most eloquently expresses those values. It states:

Please walk on the grass. We also invite you to smell the roses, hug the trees, talk to the birds, sit on the benches and picnic on the lawn. This is your garden, and unlike most botanical gardens overseas, admission is free.

Page 1919

Beautiful sentiments, and sentiments which the Greens believe should continue to relate to the entire gardens and Domain area. This House should join with the author of the plaque and recognise the special, almost sacred role these lands play. The gardens and the Domain are surrounded by space for commercial activity. This enclave of quiet and calm must be protected. This bill seeks to weaken the public nature of these lands by facilitating further commercial exploitation. Nowhere, for example, does the bill insist that commercial activities in the Domain and gardens should be constrained.

The bill does not work to promote the objectives of the Domain and gardens, which can be summarised as maintaining and improving trust lands, increasing and disseminating knowledge, and encouraging public use and enjoyment by increasing educational, historical, cultural and recreational values of the lands. I have repeated those three objectives because it is essential to remember them and ensure that any legislation we introduce is in keeping with them. But this bill is not in keeping with those objectives.

The track record of both the Government and the Opposition in managing urban public land is extremely poor and shows little regard for those objectives. For example, both the Labor Party and the Coalition are implicated in the impending disaster at Moore Park, in which McDonald’s would like to build a fast-food outlet, despite opposition from local residents and the environment movement. That is the result of a highly suspect, secret deal.

When the public was finally notified, at the development application stage, 130 out of 131 submissions received by South Sydney City Council opposed the development. Yet the Government seems to lack the resolve to undo the previous Government’s mischief and put a stop to the establishment of a McDonald’s restaurant in such an historic area. Similarly, the loss of public space experienced across Sydney in the onslaught of ill-considered and poorly planned development such as Walsh Bay, Manly Dam, Pyrmont and Ultimo, illustrates a lack of understanding of, and sympathy for, the values of public property.

Part of the lesson of these planning disasters is that only the public will act to protect its property. It would seem that governments of any persuasion cannot be trusted whenever there is an opportunity to sell or lease public land for private use.

[Interruption]

The interjection by the Hon. D. J. Gay reminds me that if the Coalition were in power we would probably have a much worse situation. One of the gross delinquencies of this bill is its failure to open up the process of granting leases and licences to public scrutiny. The Greens note that the Government has accepted, albeit belatedly, the rights of the public to be consulted on the uses of their lands. However, the Government’s amendments to this bill would still fail to create a climate of complete openness. Leases would remain locked behind a veil of secrecy. The Government has revealed part of its intention for the botanic gardens and Domain.

More up-market than a McDonald’s restaurant, the boutique wine marketing centre, the banquet room and wine storage slated for the former Navy fuel bunker have nothing to do with the special values of the gardens and the Domain. They have little to do with the community’s enjoyment of those lands, rather they had everything to do with furthering the creeping privatisation agenda of the Government. Obsessed with balancing the budget, it has forgotten the very purpose of government. The bill will allow the facility, the former Navy fuel bunker, along with a number of other sites, to be leased for 50 years.

This is an extraordinarily long time to lock away public lands in private use and it would deny to the trust the flexibility to manage its lands in a way that best suits the community. Further, it would leave the public without any say in its asset for 50 years - that is far too long. The Government’s justification is weak. It suggests that 50-year leases are required to attract private capital to develop the sites mentioned in the bill, the Domain Park, the disused fuel oil installation, the Andrew "Boy" Charlton Swimming Pool, the land bridge over the Eastern Distributor and Cook and Phillip Park. However, most sites, including the land bridge and the swimming complexes, are already fully developed and do not require additional capital expenditure.

Large-scale development at any of the remaining sites would be highly undesirable and would conflict with the public interest. The Domain and the gardens should not be the site of intensive commercial development. The bill would also lengthen the maximum duration of leases on restaurants on trust lands, again without any rigorous justification. Further, the bill would weaken the restrictions on the granting of leases and licences on trust lands. The current legislation limits easements to public utilities such as water and gas reticulation, access to Government House and other purposes that would assist in the attainment of the objectives of the trust. Similarly, licences are limited to maintaining pipelines and other public utility infrastructure.

Page 1920

The bill would do away with all of these restrictions. Instead, it would allow licences and easements, as well as leases, for any commercial purpose that is not prejudicial to the objects of the trust. This is a much broader set of uses which in no way protects the public interest in the lands. Any weakening of legislation suggests our public lands will be compromised. Subsections (3) to (5) of new section 20A will reveal the actual driving force behind changes to this legislation. These provisions would force the Minister for the Environment to consult with the Treasurer in relation to leases. The Government’s agenda is exposed: it is the refocusing of the management of the trust's lands on commercial return.

Given the Minister’s seemingly unquestioning compliance with the whim and will of each of his departments, one might accept that Mr Debus needs a watchdog. However, it is symptomatic of the unhealthy power that the Treasurer and his department wields within this Government; it is the Treasurer who is given the job of riding shotgun on the big ticket decisions. This aspect of the bill is particularly worrying in light of the many as yet unresolved questions surrounding the Treasurer’s role in the privatisation of the showgrounds.

If the Government were to view the urban environment as anything other than a cash cow to be milked for campaign donations from large developers and for State revenue, it would have found a more appropriate mechanism for keeping tabs on the Minister for the Environment. It is true that the real value of this land to the community is not its ability to turn a profit.

Sydney is full of real estate that is devoted to generating financial returns. However, it is imperative that at the heart of our city we maintain at least one oasis of public value, one patch of serenity, one small libation to recreation, to scientific inquiry, to reflection and to calm. While this bill proves that the Government is blind to those values, there are many in the community with the foresight and generosity to spend their time and energy to defend the Domain and the trust.

The 6,000-strong friends of the Botanic Gardens have worked tirelessly to protect those lands from exploitation. Jeff Angel from the Total Environment Centre and Dan O’Sullivan, the new environmental liaison officer, took the trouble to write in support of amendments to the bill to improve the protection of the public and natural values of the land and to institute public consultation on leases, licences and easements. The Greens will move amendments with the purpose of achieving those outcomes.

The honourable member for Bligh, Ms Clover Moore, has battled for many years against inappropriate and damaging developments not only in the gardens and the Domain but in Moore Park, the showground and throughout the inner city. Her service to the protection of the urban environment deserves far greater recognition. The bill in its current form would damage the special values for which those good people are fighting. The Greens oppose that outcome and will move a number of amendments to the bill aimed at supporting their campaign to save Sydney’s heart.

The Hon. D. T. HARWIN [9.51 p.m.]: It has been interesting to hear just how special the Royal Botanic Gardens and the Domain are to individual members of this House who have spoken in the debate. Ms Lee Rhiannon talked about values that were special, almost sacred, when referring to the gardens and the Domain. Certainly from my own perspective as a worker in the central business district for many years, as a ministerial adviser and as a local resident I would merely add to those comments my concern about what happens to the Royal Botanic Gardens and the Domain and refer to some of the issues at stake in this debate of which we need to be conscious. In 1989 when I was a very young staff member the Hon. Tim Moore asked me to be a ministerial adviser.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Did you work for him?

The Hon. D. T. HARWIN: I did. One of the areas he asked me to advise on was the Royal Botanic Gardens and the Domain. I particularly recall my time there and the great privilege it was to work with members of the trust and the trust staff. I found them extremely professional and dedicated. In particular during the time I worked with Tim Moore on gardens matters we believed it was vital to stress not only the importance of the gardens and the Domain to the people of Sydney, but also the conservation value of the gardens in the wider context of environmental policy issues in the State.

The gardens certainly play a very important role in that regard. In the seven years I worked in the city the gardens were often a sanctuary during lunchtime. It was a wonderful experience to leave the city office block and walk through the gardens to clear one’s mind and get on top of issues; to try to put some of the troubles and travails of the workplace behind one while contemplating the gardens adjacent to the city. It is a great privilege for all people who work in the CBD.

I suppose my perspective on the gardens is enhanced also by virtue of the fact that for seven years, until last Friday, I was a resident of East
Page 1921
Sydney and Darlinghurst. The importance of the Royal Botanic Gardens, the Domain and that whole precinct to the residents of the CBD and the inner eastern suburbs is often not understood. In a historic built-up area that does not have many parks, the gardens and the Domain are a very special place for us.

The capacity to be able to walk through the Domain and gardens, and to swim at the Andrew "Boy" Charlton Pool, are forms of recreation extremely important to Sydney residents. The honourable member for Bligh in the other place said that it really does matter to residents of the inner east what happens with the Royal Botanic Gardens and the Domain, and I suppose I bring that perspective to the debate as well. As the Hon. D. F. Moppett and Ms Lee Rhiannon mentioned earlier in the debate, the people of Sydney, and indeed the nation, owe a debt of thanks to a number of very far-sighted people.

Honourable members will have heard that Sydney, unlike cities such as Adelaide and Melbourne, was not a planned city. Sydney just grew bit by bit from the shores of Sydney Cove southward, eventually eastward, westward and northward. The earliest administrators of the colony of New South Wales set aside an enormous area right beside the settlement where special purposes could obtain.

It is well known that in the earliest years of the colony, from July 1788 in fact, Sydney was a farm, until the infertility of the soil became apparent and the farm was moved to Parramatta. From the earliest days of the administration of Governor Phillip, after the farm was abandoned and moved to Parramatta, the purpose of the gardens was established and that purpose has endured. The much-maligned Governor Bligh was a keen gardener. Honourable members also owe him a debt because, apparently, he started the road system in the Domain and made himself very unpopular at the time by reclaiming land that had been gradually usurped from the Domain for government purposes.

In fact, Governor Bligh did us all a favour by giving back to the public the land that others tried to take from us. If only it were the case that administrations in subsequent years had been as far-sighted as he. Finally, Governor Macquarie made a spectacular contribution to the gardens in the years of his administration of the colony, just as he did in so many areas. Of course, the name of his wife has been given to a very prominent landmark in the Domain and also to a road that runs through the Domain.

A number of concerns that honourable members have expressed in this debate principally concern the issues of community consultation, commercial exploitation and the further alienation of land from the gardens for other purposes, all of which are valid concerns. The experience of the gardens over the past two centuries of their existence - I think Ms Lee Rhiannon referred to a number of incursions into the gardens of various developments such as the Cahill Expressway and the eastern suburbs railway, to name but two - demonstrates that those fears are justified.

We have to be conscious of that in this debate and in our consideration of whether the proposed changes are appropriate. In passing I note that one of the incursions into trust lands, into the gardens, that I know the trust would prefer had not happened is the extremely regrettable and disgraceful development on the site of the Sydney Conservatorium of Music. I know from my time working with gardens staff how keen the trust was to acquire the Sydney Conservatorium of Music as a visitors centre. Given the historic nature of the conservatorium, it would have been most appropriate if it had been incorporated into the Domain and the Botanic Gardens.

The Government offer to the Conservatorium High School of an opportunity to move to the Sydney College of Arts precinct, Kilbride, at Rozelle Hospital would have been a wonderful way to return the conservatorium back to the Royal Botanic Gardens Trust as a visitors centre that would have been accessible to all the people of Sydney. Given that the original role of the conservatorium was Governor Macquarie’s stable, that would have been a wonderful outcome.

The current desecration of that site by the Government is a disgrace, and underlines the Government’s lack of qualifications on heritage matters. The Greiner and Fahey governments proposed bringing the conservatorium back under the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust, but this Government has abandoned that proposal, and it will wear that decision for a very long time.

The Opposition will not oppose the bill. As the Minister said in his second reading speech, it is desirable to have a longer-term framework for investment and redevelopment of degraded sites such as oil tanks and the Eastern Distributor, and those sorts of concerns are addressed by the bill. The Opposition welcomes that.

The Committee will consider some 16 amendments. I will want to hear from the movers of
Page 1922
those amendments that they are constructive and that they will not hamstring the trust from doing the best job it can in looking after the gardens. The Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust is never at the politically attractive end of budget negotiations. It always struggles to get the funds it needs to do its excellent conservation work and to maintain its gardens and parks for the people of Sydney. It is always easy to overlook the trust’s needs.

I am concerned to ensure that any amendments that are moved will not hamstring the trust and will not place a burden on it that it will not be able to meet from its existing resources. I worry that it will not get the supplementation it will need to be able to deal with any extra responsibility it is given. I will listen to the debate with interest. I am sure all members of this House view the gardens as a wonderful part of the birthright of the people of Sydney and the State. I know we all enter this debate with the best of intentions to ensure that the integrity of the gardens is upheld. In that light, I will not oppose the bill and I look forward to debate on the amendments.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON [10.04 p.m.]: A few weeks ago, by courtesy of Mr John Walz, we had at the entrance to the parliamentary dining room a magnificent specimen of the State floral emblem, the waratah, in full bloom. Mr Walz is a disciple of this magnificent, beautiful floral emblem and is promoting it for all it is worth. There is little doubt that if the good Lord, after his masterpiece in making man and woman, had made nothing else but the waratah, I would have considered that his work was done.

In bloom the waratah is a glory to behold. If we take sufficient time and devote a little money to promoting our State floral emblem, it will be in bloom at around the time of the Olympics. We are one of the only States or nations that cannot show visitors its floral emblem. Admittedly, the waratah only blooms for a short while but in bloom it is glorious.

I would like to see the garden in front of Parliament where the Governor Macquarie statue is located devoted totally to waratahs. I would like to see waratahs on our roof gardens. I would like to see every one of our public buildings and St Mary's Cathedral adorned with waratahs during the Olympics. Fill them to the brim with waratahs. I would like David Jones to put on one of the magnificent displays it usually puts on at its spring floral festival. I appeal to the trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens to put a bed of waratahs in an appropriate place in the Royal Botanic Gardens.

I would like to see a waratah grown in every home in the State where weather permits. I am absolutely astonished at the number of people, including members of this House, who think that the large Gymea Lilies at the back of the Parliament are waratahs. Last week one member said that to me. I commend John Walz for his marvellous gesture in providing that marvellous specimen at the entrance of the parliamentary dining room a few weeks ago.

The waratah has bloomed in this nation since time immemorial. There is little doubt that it is the most magnificent flower when in bloom. I appeal to the trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust. I know that there are a considerable number of waratahs at Mount Annan, but there is only a limited number in the Royal Botanic Gardens. The waratah is our State’s floral emblem; let us take pride in it.

The Hon. I. COHEN [10.10 p.m.]: I shall speak briefly on this bill as Ms Lee Rhiannon has covered most of the Greens’ concerns. However, I have some concerns about the bill, in particular the increase in the duration of leases on trust lands and the length of time that restaurants will be locked into leases. Of particular concern are the 50-year leases for the Domain parking station, the disused fuel oil installation, the Andrew "Boy" Charlton Swimming Pool and the land bridge over the Eastern Distributor.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: What about the Olympic tickets?

The Hon. I. COHEN: Olympic ticketing has nothing to do with this bill. However, on the question of whether there should be an inquiry, I voted according to what seemed reasonable. There is more to the Olympic tickets issue than pursuing a cheap political advantage, as the Opposition is doing. I have examined the issue. There will be a proper inquiry into the matter, and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile will be on the committee conducting that inquiry.

There is a difference between investigating a matter and looking at cheap political issues. I remember talking to the Hon. J. H. Jobling more than four years ago, in 1995, about the Olympic Co-ordination Authority Bill. At that time both the major parties voted to fast-track the Olympic development. The ticket issue is the end result of that fast-tracking. Members opposite supported the Government on that legislation.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You don’t want to find out what happened to the tickets.

Page 1923

The Hon. I. COHEN: I certainly do, and I support the establishment of an inquiry. Members opposite are scoring cheap political points. Who are suffering as a result of that fast-tracking by the major parties? The people of New South Wales are suffering because of the shenanigans of the Opposition in supporting the Government in 1995.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Did you apply for tickets?

The Hon. I. COHEN: No, I did not apply for any tickets. I will not get any tickets, and I am not looking to attend the Games. Basically, for members opposite to belatedly have a conscience about rightful governance and the direction of Olympic ticketing in New South Wales rings hollow and political. They are more interested in salvaging their crashing public image and their polling in the community than looking at the issue.

[Interruption.]

I put it on the record that Graham Richardson should quit or the Government should sack him. I have asked the Minister for the Olympics to sack Mr Richardson but he has refused to do so.

I am concerned about the way the Domain and the botanic gardens will potentially be developed. It is worth looking at the new pool development at Cook and Phillip Park. The new complex will appeal to some people. The pool, which is underground next to St Mary’s Cathedral, is highly chlorinated and very modern. There is a large walkway for people using the cathedral. Some people might say that it is progress, but others wish to walk through the gardens down through the Domain to Andrew "Boy" Charlton Swimming Pool, where they can swim not in highly chlorinated water but in a mixture of saltwater.

The walk through the Domain to the pool is delightful and the pool is beautiful with a certain reclusiveness, allowing people to get away from the hustle and bustle of the city. I have been told that there is a significant amount of concrete cancer at Andrew "Boy" Charlton Swimming Pool and improvements will have to be made. I hope the development will not change the character of Andrew "Boy" Charlton Swimming Pool, which is important historically and wonderful aesthetically. As a long distance swimmer I love to go to this superb place on occasions when I get the chance.

As previous speakers have said, it is proposed to construct a wine cellar in the fuel depot in an area that has already lost its natural character. If infrastructure is to be developed in the Domain, can that development be linked to the State Library? Do we have such a surplus of public areas that it is appropriate to make the disused fuel depot into a wine cellar? I am concerned about that. A 50-year lease on the Domain parking station could radically change the nature of the area for future generations.

Under this bill the Minister for the Environment will consult the Treasurer on the leases. That is of concern in terms of focusing on changes toward commercialisation of the area rather than on its recreational, scientific and serenity values. Given the Treasurer’s general habits, perhaps he will gallantly defend the burnt matches next to the Art Gallery. I might be wrong but I understand that they are art pieces by Brett Whitely.

I am concerned that the drive for commercialisation will result in the quality of the area being downgraded. As has been said, the botanic gardens are free of commercialisation; people are free to walk in the gardens. Certainly, the Friends of the Botanic Gardens have worked long, hard and successfully to maintain a high-quality public asset where people can wander freely.

The botanic gardens and Domain are wonderful. As previous speakers have said, the area literally drips with the history of Sydney, with regard to not only the events that have been held in the Domain on Sunday afternoons for many generations but also the serenity value of the botanic gardens and the Domain. It would be a tragedy if those areas were exploited commercially.

I ask the Government to reconsider the decision to construct a wine cellar in the disused fuel depot, and perhaps to add that development to the State Library or the Art Gallery. I hope that in the future people will not have to pay to enter any of these public areas, which belong to the people of Sydney.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [10.17 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats are concerned about the creeping commercialisation of public assets and the lack of community consultation in some Government decisions. We believe that this House must act as a watchdog, but that it should not bark at shadows. The fundamental aim of the bill is to open up areas under the auspices of the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust to further commercial activities, in order to save money. We are concerned that the Government will correspondingly reduce its allocation to the trust, and naturally we would not support that in any way.

Page 1924

The bill seeks to extend the maximum lease term for restaurants and cafes from eight years to ten years and to provide for a maximum 50-year lease term for five specific land uses: the Domain Parking Station, the oil storage tanks, the Eastern Distributor land bridge, the Cook and Phillip Park pedestrian bridge link and the Andrew "Boy" Charlton Swimming Pool upgrade.

There are several proposals as to how these sites could be used, and some are a bit more worrying than others. The most likely use for the oil storage tank is a massive wine cellar. In the Daily Telegraph of 6 October this year the Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Bob Debus, stated that the redevelopment would make the site accessible to the public and provide a commercial wine-tasting venue in the heart of the city.

He also said that it would provide significant payments for the Government. The last comment that he made is obviously of great importance to the Government, as there would be a variety of ways in which that space could be opened up to public access. The wine cellar could have some cultural value in showcasing important New South Wales and Australian industries. However, it sets a dangerous precedent for the commercial exploitation of other sites under the trust’s authority. For that reason tenders must be open to public scrutiny, and winning tenders should not be granted 50-year leases.

The Domain car park has been leased by South Sydney Council, but that lease expires in 2008 and the council is investing very little in the maintenance of that site. The fundamental point is that if we grant 50-year leases to commercial operators we greatly reduce both the trust’s and the public’s ability to influence the way in which the leases operate.

For those reasons I largely agree with the amendments foreshadowed by my Greens colleagues, but I propose some significant changes. Their amendment No. 6 seeks to restrict leases on scheduled sites to 10 years as opposed to the Government’s proposed 50 years. I can see arguments for both positions. The Greens are concerned to ensure that the public and the trust have sufficient input and influence over the way in which these sites are used.

The Government is concerned to ensure that companies who invest large amounts of capital into particular ventures are given security of tenure. However, I believe that we must discriminate between the five scheduled sites. I cannot see much of a problem in granting 50-year leases for the Eastern Distributor land bridge, the Cook and Phillip Park pedestrian bridge link and the Andrew "Boy" Charlton Pool upgrade. However, we should limit to 25 years the leases for the Domain parking station and the oil storage tanks. Those two sites are the most likely to be exploited for commercial purposes. For that reason the Government must ensure that the lessees are accountable to the public and the trust.

The Domain parking station is old. No-one could predict what technology would be necessary in 25 years time, given the changes in transportation. If the oil storage tanks were developed as wine cellars, no doubt they would have their return calculated over a 25-year period. If they were a success after 25 years I am sure that the Government would regard the next 25 years as a bonus. I can imagine that lease being sold after 25 years for a much greater amount than the original lease. That is not necessary.

I believe that both those leases should be for 25 years. Public consultation is essential to ensure that lease proposals have public support before the trust agrees to them. Greens amendments Nos 7 and 8 are essential to ensure that that occurs. Greens amendment No. 7 stipulates that all proposed leases must be advertised in mass circulation newspapers, that the terms and conditions of the leases be made available for public comment before being signed, and that public comments should be received and taken into account. That provision seems to be necessary to prevent any more backroom deals like the one that resulted in the establishment of McDonald’s restaurant at Moore Park.

Greens amendment No. 8 requires that the annual report contain draft decision criteria for determining licences and easements and that public comments be received and taken into account. That means that licences for weddings and the like will not be held up by cumbersome bureaucracy, but that the public will still be afforded an opportunity to have an input into the process. In short, I support Greens amendments Nos 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8.

I have a document from the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust which was faxed to me by Meryl McCracken. It sets out the cultural policy or guidelines for the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust and emphasises the philosophy of the gardens and the criteria that I believe this bill supports, in that it will give the trust discretion to comply with this bill in the terms of its policy. I seek leave to incorporate that document in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Page 1925

______

A CULTURAL POLICY FOR THE ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS AND DOMAIN TRUST - GUIDELINES

OBJECTIVES OF THE CULTURAL POLICY

The broad objectives of the Trust’s cultural policy are that every cultural activity on Trust lands:

•is directly relevant to, and/or does not in any way conflict with, core activities and mission
•regardless of whether it is of mass or minority appeal, is of an appropriate standard for the particular type of activity
•enhances or broadens the appeal of Trust lands as spaces which belong to all the people of NSW
•contributes to making the Gardens an integral element in the cultural life of the State.

CRITERIA FOR CULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE GARDENS

It is recognised that the three Gardens, the Domain and the National Herbarium have their own distinctive characteristics. However, it is possible to have a set of criteria that can be applied to all, although some criteria may be more appropriate to some sites than to others. The criteria have been framed as a checklist of questions that can be applied to every proposal. They are equally applicable to the Gardens’ own cultural programs, activities and events.

These questions are not mutually exclusive and in some cases may be seen as either/or propositions.

Relevance to our core activities

•Is the proposal relevant to, and would it widen knowledge of any of the following:
- botany
- horticulture
- environmental education and awareness
- conservation
- biodiversity?
•Does it have specific historical, educational or promotional value?
•Does it address contemporary ecological issues?
•Does it conflict in any way with core activities? For example, by:
- promoting a message that could be at odds with Gardens’ objectives
- having subject matter or content which is superficial, inappropriate, detrimental or irrelevant to the Gardens and their work.
•Would it have an adverse impact on greenspace, for example by alienation of parts of the Gardens for substantial periods, or longterm damage?
•Does it address Government priorities and objectives?
•How does it contribute to recreational enjoyment and/or celebration?
•What financial returns are likely, and what is its commercial relevance?

Quality of proposal

•Does this proposal have a high intrinsic level of aesthetic, artistic or intellectual value?
•Is it original, innovative and different?
•Does it have the potential to be genuinely entertaining?
•Are the personnel involved - at both creative and administrative levels - experienced in producing work of a high standard in this field?
•Is it an expression of indigenous or multicultural arts?
•Would it provide effective on-site interpretation?
•If it is an event of potential mass appeal, is it of an appropriate standard for its type?
•Has sufficient attention been given to the target audience for this proposal?
•Is the proposal thoroughly planned, budgeted and well documented?
•What is the pricing structure, if any, for entry?
•Does it allow sufficient lead time to ensure a quality event?
•Are sufficient funds available to ensure a quality event?
•Are there sponsorship opportunities?
•Is there any potential for significant financial loss on then part of the Gardens, for example as a result of poor public response or damage to the fabric of the Garden?
•Is there likely to be an adverse public reaction to the staging of this event?

Enhancing the appeal of the Gardens

•Would this proposal showcase the Gardens in a way likely to bring in new visitors?
•Would it reinforce a positive image of the Gardens and contribute to broadening its appeal?
•Does it present a marketing opportunity for the Gardens, in positioning, image-building or merchandising?
•Is it appropriate to the demographic which makes most use of the Gardens, or could it alienate regular users?
•Is it particularly relevant to the community/region in which the Garden is situated?
•Are there opportunities for outreach, such as touring spin-offs, publishing or online possibilities?
•Does it reflect the symbolic meanings, celebratory nature, and cultural and heritage values of the site?
•Is it site-specific or site relevant?

Affirming the Gardens’ cultural role

•Does this project present an opportunity for productive links with other leading cultural institutions (including curatorial support)?
•Is there potential to collaborate with the cultural programs of local government?
•Does it have the potential to build/reinforce an image of the Gardens as a cultural centre where a wide range of activities happens?
•Does it offer increased access to the arts?

Impacts

•Does it result in any longterm damage or irreversible changes to the site?
•Is its physical position appropriate and accessible?
•What level of resourcing is required from the Gardens - physical, staff, financial

DECISION MAKING

All proposed major cultural events and activities need to be referred to the Gardens’ Arts Advisory Panel. This panel

Page 1926
consists of staff representatives from the Gardens, a member of the Trust, an external expert appropriate to the particular cultural or artform being considered, and local experts/stakeholders as necessary.

The Panel advises the Director, Executive and Trust on the suitability of cultural activities or events for all Trust lands. The Panel advises on matters of artistic taste and merit, and provides comment and advice on context, suitability, risk management, and potential contentious issues.

The Panel meets as necessary to consider any proposals and will undertake site visits as necessary.

______

With those provisos and my reference to the foreshadowed Greens amendments as to time restrictions, I support the bill.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [10.25 p.m.]: I echo the comments of other speakers about the alienation of Domain and Royal Botanic Gardens land over the years. The worst violation ever of the Domain and Royal Botanic Gardens was the Cahill Expressway in 1959 - 40 years ago. In the previous session of Parliament the Premier and I discussed the land bridge and he promised me that he would cover over the scar between the library and the art gallery - the Cahill Expressway - during this term of government.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Did you get it in writing?

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: He has three years to go. I did not get it in writing. It would be no use if I did get it in writing because I do not expect him to fulfil his promise. None of his promises has been kept. It would be culturally and culinarily inappropriate to locate a McDonald’s restaurant in the Domain, the Botanic Gardens or any public space. Those restaurants are ruining the health of our children and our nation with their appalling food.

I wish that the McDonald’s chain had never come to Australia. When McDonald’s restaurants open in country towns they purchase all their supplies from outside the towns, and all the local suppliers and restaurants go out of business. They are appalling places and we should not have them anywhere. The day that we get rid of McDonald’s will be a fine day.

I asked the Minister earlier whether there would be an improvement in the landscaping at the Domain parking station. I have been told that for the next tendering process, improved landscaping will be a strict requirement of the tender document. I hope that that awful flat spot above the parking station, which is no use to anybody, will be converted into a garden, complete with trees, landscaping and walking spaces.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: It was not in very good shape when the parking station was built.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I look forward to it being restored to a semblance of its natural landscape. Years ago in this House I placed on the record my concerns when Milo Dunphy - who must be rolling in his grave with this Government’s decisions - who was lobbying me about the problem of allowing the oil storage facility to be leased. It is obvious to us all that the oil storage facility has to go, and that the site has to be leased. I do not think it is of great import whether the lease is for 10, 20, 30 or 40 years. Irrespective of the term of the lease, the lessee will have to landscape the site in a similar fashion to the Domain parking station and, once again, that area will be greatly improved and restored to its botanic garden-like status.

I am pleased to be able to say that improvements are occurring. I do not have enormous concerns about the leasing term. I do not believe it will cause the problems that members have been concerned about. We need a decent term of lease for these areas so that the landscaping can be done properly, money can be invested, and the land can be returned to its original status. I hope that the Premier honours his promise. I would be surprised if he fulfilled his promise to me that during this term of government he will cover over that great scar caused by the Cahill Expressway. I will not hold my breath waiting for that.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [10.28 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members who have spoken in this debate. A number of members acknowledged the historical significance of the Royal Botanic Gardens and the Domain. A number of speakers referred to their memories of the Domain. I have memories of my father taking me to listen to speakers in the Domain when I was quite young.

I agree with what honourable members said about some speakers in the Domain being good and some speakers being not so good. When I visited the Domain to hear those speakers it was not as it used to be in earlier years; I would have heard only the last of the speakers before the practice of soap-box speaking died away.

Page 1927

I also thank honourable members for their positive comments about the excellent job the trust undertakes in protecting and improving its lands and community access to those lands. I will not spend a long time responding to the issues raised in the second reading debate because the bill will be dealt with in Committee and a series of amendments will be moved by the Greens and the Government. The issues can be dealt with in detail at that time.

Two speakers indicated that they regard the bill as a deviation from the current situation with regard to trust lands. The Act already provides for the trust to enter into leases that are not prejudicial to its objects. Principal changes made by the bill provide for a maximum 10-year lease solely for restaurants and cafes. There is provision for leases for a maximum of 50 years for five specific land uses which are spelt out in the bill. One use relates to the Domain parking station, which already has a 50-year lease, but that is under a separate Act.

The other matters that could involve a 50-year lease are the oil storage tanks, the Eastern Distributor land bridge, the Cook and Phillip Park pedestrian bridge link and the Andrew "Boy" Charlton Swimming Pool upgrade. The Boy Charlton pool is not currently on trust land but there may be a need for a lease for subsurface support.

A number of members spoke about the historic significance of the Royal Botanic Gardens and the Domain and said that they would not want the bill to contain anything that would undermine their historical significance. The trust is unable to undertake any building or rebuilding without the approval of the Heritage Office and a development application which requires public consultation before approval. This provides protection of the heritage significance of the gardens and the Domain.

The bill does not set any dangerous precedent for exploitation, as suggested by some speakers. Clearly, the trust’s objectives provide for additional visitor, recreational, educational and cultural uses. So the provisions of the bill are clearly in line with the trust’s objectives. I foreshadow that the Government will move a number of amendments in Committee which will address the concerns raised by honourable members about the process for public consultation in regard to the granting of leases and the dissemination of information on the criteria by which the trust determines grants of licences and easements.

The Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust has asked the Government to move these amendments. I make clear that they are restricted to specific changes that are necessary to continue an effective and efficient administration of the gardens.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills received.

Leave granted for procedural matters to be dealt with on one motion without formality.

Motion by the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt agreed to:

That these bills be read a first time and printed, that standing orders be suspended on contingent notice for remaining stages, and that the second reading of the bills be set down as orders of the day for the next sitting day.

Bills read a first time.

The following bill was returned from the Legislative Assembly without amendment:

Drug Court Amendment Bill

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [10.35 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN [10.35 p.m.]: I recently received a letter from the honorary secretary of the New South Wales Country Women’s Association Liston branch asking for assistance with a problem. It is not of the branch’s making; it involves governments and cross-border issues. It is a fallout of living in a federated system. We glibly call it a cross-border problem but it has serious consequences for the residents affected by the cross-border silliness, as I call it. The letter states:

Page 1928

We of the above association wish to ask you help in reinstating the people of Liston and the hamlets around to the use of the services available at the Stanthorpe Hospital.

You will be aware of the change in policy of the Queensland Health Department in disallowing other Queensland residents the use of Allied Health Services in its hospitals.

We have been unable to use the Dental Clinic and to get our spectacles through this hospital.

Glen Innes is our nearest venue for Dental appointments on two days a week but Tamworth 3 to 4 hours drive away is the closest for emergencies.

One of our elderly residents who would normally have changed her spectacles via a form presented to the relevant optometrist here in Stanthorpe was sent from here to Tenterfield to Toowoomba to Casino. Some pensioners have not got the facilities or capabilities for this sort of travel.

We are right on the border with Queensland, some of us only 1 to 2 klms across, we shop in Stanthorpe, Warwick or Toowoomba. Our electricity, telephone and postal services come from Queensland and from there also we use the churches, sports, various clubs and other entertainments.

Our children go to Queensland Kindergartens, the State Primary and High Schools also the private Schools in Stanthorpe, Warwick and Toowoomba.

As we are all Australians will you please help us to access adequate health facilities.

Yours hopefully

It is signed by Mrs Mary C. Funk, Honorary Secretary of the Liston Branch of the New South Wales Country Women’s Association. The Liston and Legume communities are close to the Queensland and New South Wales border and suffer problems with cross-border services. One problem was obtaining pink slips for cars. Everyone had to drive three to four hours to a New South Wales town to obtain those slips even though 10 minutes away in Queensland was a garage whose proprietor could assess cars for pink slips.

However, the people were told that only New South Wales accredited businesses could provide pink slips to register cars. I managed to help resolve that issue a few years ago by working with the Roads and Traffic Authority so that the Queensland garage just across the border was accredited to issue pink slips for cars registered in New South Wales. It is obvious that some problems can be resolved administratively. When confronted with problems we are often told that legal problems prevent a simple solution when that clearly is not the case. Rather, it is purely administrative policy that prevents services being provided.

I became aware of the present health issue a few years back and helped to resolve it. Patients were able to access acute care and emergency care in Queensland hospitals but could not receive the associated allied health services. Through various procedures we managed to negotiate a change in the process, but the issue has now returned to square one. Patients must travel three to four hours to receive these necessary medical services at Tamworth and other hospitals, even though Stanthorpe is the relevant area for these communities.

It is almost as if we have to reinvent the wheel: the problem was resolved but has reverted to the initial state. I have asked the New South Wales Minister for Health to approach the Queensland health Minister and the Federal health Minister to try to resolve the issue. It is not an isolated problem. It happens at all State borders, but is more prevalent with health issues. The biggest problems always surface with health issues. The key issue is funding and under the Medicare agreement hospitals should provide the services.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [10.40 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House a matter of great concern to me as a former pharmacist. I refer to the growing practice of mail order pharmacy. The practice involves doctors, including those employed by government bodies, recommending to their patients the use of mail order companies to receive their drugs, particularly those patients who reside in regional areas. Such recommendations are being made to obtain a wide range of medications, including schedule 4 drugs that are known to be subject to abuse, and/or doctor shopping, and even schedule 8 narcotics such as Ritalin.

The Pharmacy Guild of Australia has raised with me a number of practical concerns on this issue, and I should like to note on the record some of those concerns. First, there is no certainty that the patient is a real person, so the scheme is open to misuse and abuse. Second, there can be no certainty that the right patient will get the right medication at the right time. Third, the onus is completely on the patient to seek advice by contacting the supplier and asking the right questions with regard to dosages and other issues.

Fourth, the patient will have to wait three or four days - or sometimes, if the patient resides in outback New South Wales, up to a week - for the medication to arrive. Fifth, there is no way of knowing what happens to a drug after it leaves the warehouse. In a climate such as ours it could be subjected to extremes of temperature, delays in
Page 1929
delivery, or even pilferage. I am concerned that this practice will erode the network of professional regional pharmacists that has developed over the years in regional New South Wales.

Community pharmacists frequently know their patients well, and indeed, under the system that is currently employed by New South Wales pharmacists, pride themselves on being able to keep track of their state of health through sharing confidences and reviewing medications. A pharmacist is also able to provide face-to-face advice to patients regarding dosage requirements and other instructions, thus supplementing the advice of doctors in the taking of drugs - something that does not and cannot occur if a mail order pharmacy is used.

The practice of bypassing face-to-face contact with a community pharmacist magnifies the potential for overuse or abuse. This is particularly true with the dispensing of narcotics, schedule 4 drugs or schedule 8 drugs. Mail order pharmacy has been banned in all but two countries in the European Union because of the perceived dangers and the dangers that have occurred in dispensing in that way. In one case in the United States of America drugs were stolen from a mail box by teenagers, one of whom died as a result of ingesting the drugs.

Whilst I am not opposed to dispensing by mail where it is essential to get drugs to people in outback regions - and, indeed, it happens quite successfully - there is usually a strong relationship between medical practitioners, their patients and the pharmacist who supplies drugs to that region. Remote area dispensing has existed successfully for many years and must continue to operate. However, we must protect the standard of professional practice maintained by community pharmacists and ensure that it is not compromised by the increasing development of mail order operations.

I call on the Government to oppose the continuing spread and growth of mail order pharmacy, which will undermine the community pharmacist as an essential part of the health service and the economy and infrastructure of New South Wales, and has the potential to deny isolated communities the essential service that they currently enjoy and have every right to enjoy.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [10.45 p.m.]: I wish to raise a problem that has been occurring for some time, and certainly is not being resolved: that of unproclaimed legislation. Unproclaimed legislation results from a decision of the Executive Government not to proclaim the decisions and conclusions of this Parliament reached after a vote. Such an Executive decision means that the Parliament’s decisions and votes will not take effect. That is an arrogation of the power of this Parliament to the Executive.

The most recent example of this relates to section 61 (6) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Bill. That section allows an appeal to a court against a decision made according to the American Medical Association disability guidelines. That section, which attracted a great deal of attention, was referred to as the Sham-Ho amendment. On 23 September the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer gave this House reasons why that section of the bill had not been proclaimed. That was interesting, because rarely has any justification been given for non-proclamation.

So, in a sense, it might be called progress that reasons for the non-proclamation were given. An article in the Law Society journal Caveat drew attention to the fact that the Act as passed could be appealed, and that legal mechanism allowed may increase costs or, dare I say, inconvenience the insurance companies. The Caveat article was somewhat misquoted in the sense that the reference was to a letter from the Hon. P. J. Breen to Caveat, rather than an opinion of the legal profession itself, although the letter formed part of the discussion in the article. It was suggested that the Hon. J. S. Tingle may have changed his vote because of some discussions in the House.

The point was whether some journal should inform its members in this way or whether its members should use the journal to comment on legislation. That is surely the entitlement of the members and the journal, but it should not result in the Government retrospectively changing the law by not proclaiming a bill. As to speculation on whether members may have changed their vote in response to certain forces, pressures or beliefs, every day in this House honourable members change their votes due to lobbying, conclusions or expectations.

However, at the end of the day we must respect the majority decision as part of respecting this House. We cannot second-guess the votes of honourable members and their motives for those votes. In the end, what is decided is decided, the words of the resolution are written, and that is the law. That is what the Parliament wanted, and that is what the Executive must give expression to. That is the job of the Executive; it is not to arrogate from the Parliament power that is vested in it. I have a list of unproclaimed bills as at 8 September.

Page 1930

Some of those bills are recent and may have been proclaimed since publication of the list. If that is so, their non-proclamation could be merely due to administrative delay. However, the fact that such a large number of bills, going back for a number of years, have not been proclaimed in their entirety or in part is, I believe, an arrogation of democracy. It becomes very serious if the Executive simply picks and chooses which of the Parliament’s decisions it will make law.

I will not let this issue rest. It is an important issue of who is running the country. It is part of the issue of open government and accountability to Parliament of a handful of people who dominate the Executive. I have said before that I believe the lower House - where the Government has 43 per cent of the vote, 56 per cent of the seats and 100 percent of power - is in fact a rubber stamp; and that this House, where the Government has 37 per cent of the vote and 38 per cent of the seats, is far more representative of democracy.

The Government is going to have to get used to the idea that democracy means getting 50 per cent of the votes and standing by the decision of the Parliament whether or not it likes that decision. That is what democracy is all about. That is what I will be fighting for in this House. Unproclaimed legislation is a symptom of a system that needs change.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [10.50 p.m.]: Tonight I wish to speak on a subject about which I have spoken in the House before, that is, the alarming levels of youth suicide in Australia, in particular in western Sydney. I draw attention to a project carried out by a research team headed by Ms Anne Fry, senior lecturer in mental health nursing at the University of Western Sydney, Nepean, who was awarded $160,000 under the national youth suicide prevention strategy to tackle the specific problem of youth suicide in Sydney’s west.

The efforts of Ms Fry and her team in obtaining a share of the research money and carrying out the project are to be applauded. This again demonstrates that the University of Western Sydney, with its three parts - Nepean, Hawkesbury and Macarthur - is a fine university. It also shows the importance of Federal research funding if universities are to continue to carry out their proper roles. I refer to an article that demonstrates statistics and findings and which resulted in this project being undertaken. In 1997 a dreadful total of 510 young Australians, 417 males and 93 females, aged between 15 and 24 took their own lives. The levels of suicidal behaviour and depression are particularly high amongst young people in western Sydney compared to the New South Wales State average. It was that statistic which caused this project to be developed.

The Blacktown youth suicide prevention project was carried out in conjunction with the Blacktown city mental health service and focused on the Blacktown local government area. Ms Fry said that the Blacktown local government area was targeted for three main reasons: the high number of young people attempting suicide, the prevalence of risk factors and the number of identified gaps in the delivery of associated support services. The study was carried out over a 12-month period in 1997 and 1998.

I shall not give all the details of the study but I wish to draw attention to a couple of points. The study found that young people who were considered to be low risk and who were not mentally ill or suffering from a history of sexual or physical abuse, as a result of the perceptions received very brief follow-up and were referred to other agencies, whereas young people who were identified as being mentally ill or suffering from the effects of sexual abuse were efficiently linked into a myriad of appropriate services.

Importantly, the project developed plans to combat the identified gaps in services. Monitoring each person after his or her departure from hospital for instance over the next six months and assessing them again not only revealed considerable evidence about the problems faced by these young people but that the monitoring resulted in a significant decrease in depression, suicide and disability. The actual monitoring program showed a marked improvement.

Unfortunately, a number of the group members were unable to be located after six months due to the transient nature of their lives. For those young people re-presentation rates remained high. Of those who were unable to be located after six months, 11 re-presented with self-harming behaviour. Not surprisingly, there was a trend for this group to be unemployed and more depressed and to use a more violent means of self-harm.

Much more could be said about this ongoing project and contact numbers are available. It seems to me to be an important use of the skills of the staff of the University of Western Sydney. It is another tribute to the way in which the University of Western Sydney has so carefully plugged into the area in which it resides and plays such an important
Page 1931
role in the areas of health as well as a range of community services.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [10.55 p.m.]: This morning I attended the launch at the Museum of Contemporary Art [MCA] of eight artworks commissioned for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Collection. The guest speakers on this occasion were Hugh Watson, the group general manager of the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games [SOCOG] and the newly appointed director of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Elizabeth Ann MacGregor, who not only spoke but also exhibited representative prints from each of the artists.

The Sydney Olympic Fine Art Printer Portfolio provides the opportunity to showcase the work of eight Australian artists: Gordon Bennett, Brian Blanchflower, Louise Forthun, Fiona Hall, Bea Maddock, the late Queenie McKenzie, Imants Tillers and Guan Wei. Deborah Hart, who has written about the collection, has stated that at a time when many people from around the globe are coming together for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, the artists convey ideas of journeying across space and time, of questioning who and where we are in the world, of crossing bridges, countries and centuries, and of finding real and imaginary meeting spaces.

The artists are a very representative group. For example, Gordon Bennett, who exhibited his work titled Home Décor (Counter Composition) Black Swan, was born in Monto in Queensland. He works in Brisbane. He has won awards from and has lived in many areas around the nation. Brian Blanchflower was born in Brighton, England, in 1939. He migrated to Western Australia where he still lives and works. Following his arrival in Western Australia, he lectured in printmaking and travelled extensively throughout the world. His work is titled Nocturne.

Louise Forthun’s work is titled The Red Bridge. She was born in Port Macquarie, New South Wales, and currently lives and works in Melbourne. In 1979 she entered the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology where she completed her Bachelor of Arts degree in painting. Fiona Hall’s work is titled Bloodline. She was born in Sydney and currently lives and works in Adelaide. Between 1972 and 1975, she had undertaken a painting diploma at the National Art School, Sydney.

Bea Maddock was born in Hobart, Tasmania, and her work was titled Gathering. The late Queenie McKenzie grew up among the Gija people and spent most of her adult life working at the Old Texas Downs Station as the camp cook. Her work was titled The Gija People. Imants Tillers, who was born in Sydney of Latvian parents, exhibited work titled The Year Two Thousand. His action is extremely well known at the MCA. He lives and works at Cooma. Guan Wei was born in Beijing. His work is titled Under the Southern Cross.

It is patently clear that Australia has a very representative group of artists from indigenous and ethnic backgrounds. They have come together in a collection of eight magnificent works to reflect the contribution of such people to the art of multicultural Australia as we enter the new millennium.

The Hon. I. COHEN [11.00 p.m.]: I wish to speak about the Alternative Waste Management and Practices Inquiry. My information comes from a submission to the inquiry by Janette Neave, who is the waste campaigner with the Total Environment Centre. The Alternative Waste Management and Practices Inquiry could be our last chance for a decade to rectify the significant waste management problems in the greater Sydney region. The purpose of the inquiry is to investigate current and emerging waste management technologies and practices, taking into account the principles of ecologically sustainable development.

Environmental groups are particularly concerned about the establishment of mega tips in city and country areas for Sydney’s waste, and are focusing on environmentally acceptable technologies and policy tools. It is relevant that four million tonnes of waste per year is disposed as landfill in the greater Sydney region. Tony Fry, in Green Desires: Ecology Designed Products, explained the main problems with waste management today:

In the main it is still true that the way industry produces has a negative environmental impact: the amount of energy consumes the kinds of materials it uses; the nature of the chemicals it employs; the type of airborne emissions it produces, the solid and liquid wastes it generates - all of these often cause deep ecological damage.

The main impacts from landfill operations are: leaching of pollutants via water emissions; greenhouse gas impacts from landfill gases; a contribution to local and regional smog production; plant disease risk to local agricultural industries and its flow-on effect on tourism; threat to flora and fauna; minimal use of resources; lack of job
Page 1932
creation; and the creation of a resource inefficient society.

Demographic and historical data shows that as socioeconomic rates improve consumption increases. Consequently, landfill rates increase with a higher generation of waste. Landfill rates are increasing in Australia. A sustainable approach to waste management should be implemented. At present, there is little development of additional industrial capacity to absorb secondary materials to the economy. Although recycling schemes for dry recyclables have improved, landfilling remains the predominant disposal point for materials emerging from the materials economy. Under the present system this is likely to continue.

The greatest issue is sustainability. Landfilling waste is inconsistent with ecologically sustainable development and must be phased out in favour of greater waste reduction through improved industrial practices. The change can be led by government through incentives, sanctions and extended producer responsibility. New strategic interventions are needed. At present, too many waste management programs and infrastructure are focused at the end of the economy where wastes are presented for treatment and disposal.

In place of landfilling, what options exist? A range of viable and world proven technologies and practices with positive environmental outcomes are available to the greater Sydney region. The current system consists of landfill, kerbside recycling and no energy recovery. Alternative systems have been proposed and evaluated by the Total Environment Centre report No. 1 for the waste management inquiry. The alternatives include: landfill, kerbside recycling and energy recovery at landfill; and mass burn for energy recovery, kerbside recycling and landfilling of residue from mass burn activity.

Other alternatives include: gasification for energy recovery with residues of processing to landfill and kerbside recycling; and mixed waste composting for production of recyclable organic materials, wastes with landfilling of residues from the composting process, energy recovery from landfill gases and kerbside recycling. Not all of these alternatives will be viable for the greater Sydney region, but they demonstrate the diversity of options that must be investigated by the inquiry to make the present waste system a more ecologically sustainable one.

Financial costs are a key determinant of decisions and choices in waste management technologies and practices. Through formal decision analysis, it should be possible to explore trade-offs between economic, environmental and social objectives. Through these processes, barriers to waste reduction must be overcome. Social, cultural and economic barriers, resistance to change and problems with co-ordination must all be addressed in a new strategic approach to waste management. Such a strategic approach is absolutely necessary if Sydney is to overcome its addiction to mega tips and become a sound, futuristic developer of waste technology so that we have balance in our consumer society.

Motion agreed to.