Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 14 December 1995, Corrected Copy)

The Chairman of Committees (The Hon. Duncan John Gay) took the chair as Acting-President at 9.00 a.m.

The Acting-President offered the Prayers.


Motion by the Hon. R. D. Dyer, on behalf of the Hon. M. R. Egan, agreed to:

That Mrs Gardiner and Mr Lynn be discharged from the Select Committee on Hospital Waiting Lists and Mr Samios and Mr Moppett be appointed as members of the Committee.

Motion by the Hon. R. D. Dyer, on behalf of the Hon. M. R. Egan, agreed to:

That on Thursday 14 December 1995 Government Business take precedence of General Business.

Petition praying that the current water flow conditions and the riverine environment in Summer Hill Creek near Orange be preserved, and that the removal of effluent/water from that catchment to the Cadia Gold Mine near Orange be prohibited, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.


The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [9.08], on behalf of the Hon. J. W. Shaw: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

Mr President,

The objects of the Bill are to abolish the status of certain lands as flora reserve under the Forestry Act 1916; to revoke the dedication of certain lands as State forest, including parts of national forests, under the Forestry Act 1916, and to revoke the dedication of certain lands as nature reserve under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

Mr President,

Once the provisions of this Bill come into force, the lands so affected will be available for addition to the national parks network.

The Bill is an important legislative component of the Government's major program of nature conservation and forestry reforms.

The Bill is part of the Government's program to give effect to its commitment to create 24 new parks and reserves in its first year of office. These parks and reserves are a first significant step in the Government's plan to create a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system for New South Wales. Such a reserve system is fundamental to the conservation of the biodiversity and landscapes of the State and to a long-term viable future for the timber industry.

Mr President,

The Bill provides for the revocation of certain State forests that are also designed as national forests and for the revocation of certain flora reserves. The Forestry Act 1916 requires that national forests and flora reserves can only be revoked by an Act of this Parliament.

Certain nature reserves will also be revoked by the Bill to permit their incorporation into new and existing national parks. This is primarily a house keeping matter that will more effectively integrate the management of these reserves into larger national parks.

Mr President,

An area of 3,980 hectares of Beaury State Forest, including part of Beaury National Forest, will be revoked for inclusion in Tooloom National Park. The national park is located in the Koreelah Range, near Urbenville, on the far north coast. This area incorporates both rainforest and eucalypt forest and protects the widest range of kangaroo species found anywhere in the State.

Part of Tooloom Scrub Flora Reserve will also be incorporated into the Tooloom National Park. The Flora Reserve is in two parts and consists mostly of rainforest. It provides habitat for a wide range of endangered plants and animals found only in northern rainforests. Tooloom National Park will have a total area of 3,980 hectares.

Mr President,

Parts of the Richmond Range and Toonumbar State Forests, including part of Richmond Range and Toonumbar National Forests, will be included in Toonumbar National Park. This national park is located in the Richmond Range, east of Urbenville on the far north coast.

This national park consists of rainforests, with significant areas of old growth eucalypt forest. Dome Mountain and Murray's Scrub Flora Reserves will also be revoked and included in the Toonumbar National Park, giving the park a total area of 5,750 hectares.

Mr President,

In the Tweed District, 450 hectares of the Nullum State Forest, within the Nightcap National Forest, will be incorporated into the Mount Jerusalem National Park. The national park will protect an outstanding area of rainforest and eucalypt forest, including old growth blackbutt forest that supports large numbers of tree,dwelling animals.

Mr President,

South of Coffs Harbour, about 73 hectares of Pine Creek State Forest will be revoked and added to Bongil Bongil National Park. The land consists of the Bandwagon Flora

Page 4946
Reserve which incorporates one of the largest remnants of littoral rainforest on the New South Wales coast. The addition also includes a long frontage to Bandwagon Creek and the coast.

The Bumberry Flora Reserve, within Bumberry State Forest, will be revoked and included in Goobang National Park. This national park incorporates most of the Hervey's Range, east of Parkes, and is the largest remaining area of forest in the south west slopes region of the State.

This national park will protect box and ironbark forests with heath, mallee and cypress pine forest also included. Curumbenya Nature Reserve will also be incorporated into Goobang National Park giving the park a total area of 42,338 hectares.

Mr President,

North of Lithgow in the Western Blue Mountains, Pantoney's Crown Nature Reserve will be revoked and incorporated into Gardens of Stone National Park. This addition of 3,230 hectares will rationalise the boundaries of the national park, which adjoin the nature reserve on three sides.

Cudmirrah Nature Reserve, near Sussex Inlet on the south coast, will be incorporated into the adjacent Cudmirrah National Park. This nature reserve consists mostly of coastal heath and has a beach frontage of approximately two kilometres.

Gurumbi Nature Reserve, near Jervis Bay, will be revoked and incorporated into the New South Wales Jervis Bay National Park. This nature reserve includes heathlands that are vital habitat for several endangered species including the eastern bristle bird. This addition will link the New South Wales national park with its counterpart in the Commonwealth Jervis Bay Territory.

Mr President,

As I have said, this Bill will revoke certain State forests which are also designated as National forests and flora reserves created under the Forestry Act 1916, and certain nature reserves created under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. These lands will then be incorporated into new or existing national parks.

Mr President,

I now come to the details of the Bill -

Clause 3 abolishes the flora reserves known as Dome Mountain, Murray Scrub, Bundagen and Bumberry and part of the flora reserve known as Tooloom Scrub.

Clause 4 revokes the dedication, as State forest, of parts of the State forests known as Bumberry, Beaury, Nullum, Pine Creek, Toonumbar and Richmond Range.

Clause 5 revokes the dedication of the nature reserves known as Cudmirrah, Pantoney's Crown, Curumbenya and Gurumbi.

Schedule 1 specifies the notices, setting apart areas of State forest as flora reserve, that are to be revoked by the proposed Act.

Schedule 2 specifies the areas whose dedication as State forest is revoked by the proposed Act. The areas include areas declared to be national forest.

Schedule 3 specifies the areas whose dedication as nature reserve is revoked by the proposed Act.

Mr President,

The initiatives contained in this Bill, together with other actions currently under way, will create 13 new national parks and other reserves by the end of this parliamentary session.

Approximately 79,000 hectares will be added to the State's conservation reserve network, conserving ecosystems as varied as subtropical rainforest, coastal heath, estuaries, tall forests and western open woodlands.

The new parks and reserves will make a significant contribution to a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system in New South Wales and to the conservation of our diverse and unique wildlife and landscapes.

Mr President,

I reiterate the Government's commitment to significantly expanding the conservation reserve system throughout the State. The creation of 24 parks and reserves in our first year is a symbolic, as well as a practical expression of that commitment.

Mr President,

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [9.08]: On behalf of the Opposition I indicate that it will not be opposing the Forests and Reserves Revocation Bill. When Government Notice of Motion No. 3 is announced at a later stage we will not be opposing that in a formal sense or attempting to defeat the motion. This bill and Notice of Motion No. 3 need to be considered together because they effectively are a package designed to give effect to the Government's stated intention of creating a number of new national parks in New South Wales. To do this the Government has introduced this bill, and because of the nature of the Forestry Act it was necessary at the same time to introduce a notice of motion to alter the boundaries of existing forest areas. Although the Opposition will not be opposing the bill, it is very concerned at the way in which the Government has gone about securing its stated objective of creating these new national parks. The whole process has ignored the necessity for proper community consultation, although I recognise that many areas involved in both the bill and the notice of motion are well known to elements of the conservation movement and certainly known to the forestry industry, which will also be affected by these measures.

In the creation of national parks, there is a much wider range of interests than just the two groups I have mentioned. It would be a matter of general regret that national parks would be established in this way to simply fulfil a vague, although not misunderstood, election promise to create up to 24 national parks. We need to consider that national parks have been a feature of civilised societies only over the last century. Many people would recognise that credit is often given to President Theodore Roosevelt of the United States - the earlier of the two Roosevelts - who proclaimed the first national parks in America. He was a hunter and shooter and his identification with bears gave him the affectionate nickname by which he has been known ever since - Teddy Roosevelt. The journalistic licence of the day caused him to be referred to as "Teddy Bear Roosevelt".

Australia has been at the forefront in establishing land set aside for public recreation in national parks; we have a very proud record. The prime example of this in New South Wales is the Royal National Park south of Sydney of which we can all be proud. In the circumstance of no national
Page 4947
parks, one could applaud the early moves to simply identify areas of prime significance because of not only their geographical and geological features, but also their significance to major populations centres. The Royal National Park was set aside near the then growing city of Sydney for its future recreational needs.

We are a long way down the track now, and no-one could say that we are devoid of national parks or that we are in an extreme position and we need to expand the system of national parks. If that view were accepted, it would be a very proper process to involve public consultation regarding proposed national parks, the plans for which should be put up for public exhibition. It is certainly within my imagination that as a result of public consultation the Government's proposed boundaries - those before the House, for example - may be expanded. Areas may be added and other areas, identified from the original maps, may be less appropriate. Broad agreement could be reached that some areas be excised from the draft maps.

We also need to observe that the Government has at its disposal an organisation set up to examine matters like national park boundaries, the impacts they may have on the community and their intrinsic value. I refer to the Resource and Conservation Assessment Commission - RACAC. This process has been completely circumvented. We are presented with two measures which go together; namely, the notice of motion which we shall deal with and the bill before the House. As I said earlier, the necessity for the two measures is that under the Forestry Act the revocation of forests requires legislation as does the revocation of nature reserves. Flora reserves relate to the Forestry Act, and nature reserves are set up by the National Park and Wildlife Act, whereas alterations to the boundaries of forests can be achieved with the agreement of both Houses of Parliament.

Although I said that the Opposition would not oppose this bill, it has some very grave concerns about the impact of these two measures. Undoubtedly, the timber industry generally in New South Wales - from harvesting and processing to the sale of timber products - has been under a sustained attack for a number of years. The point uppermost in the minds of Opposition members in dealing with a number of bills - I will be expressing similar sentiments on the threatened species bill - is that the New South Wales industry wants certainty above everything else. That is rather sad because the largest sawmilling companies - which probably account for a great deal of the consumption of forest products and basic resources, and produce the most substantial part of the marketable timber at the end of the process - require that certainty so that they can make investment decisions to shift operations into other States. That is a matter of great concern.

In the ongoing debate about resource certainty for the timber industry, I previously made the observation that sawmilling equipment manufacture, which is largely centred in New South Wales, has been booming. Its fortunes are almost inversely proportional to those of the users of the manufactured products; that is, the sawmills. Manufacturers of sawmilling equipment have received substantial orders from Victoria and Tasmania. Basically, we are driving from New South Wales into other States a once thriving industry. I refer particularly to the industry based on native eucalypts associations. In years to come we will regret these changes in New South Wales. In the broader conservation picture, which the current and future Commonwealth governments will pursue, it will be acknowledged as a matter of deep regret that this industry could have been sustained in New South Wales without interfering in any way with conservation objectives commonly held throughout the community.

The Government, when considering these moves, left out the timber industry altogether. I mentioned earlier that larger organisations are able to shift their operations, but this will be the end of the line for many smaller, family-owned operations. That is a matter of great regret. Some of the larger companies will probably be able to diversify and go into some other industry but, at the end of the day, we have to take into account the effect that this legislation will have on small communities which rely on the economic activity based around their sawmills. We know that we cannot simply stop the clock. The saw milling industry was once an extremely decentralised and dispersed industry. Many mills would operate on site where the logs were felled and, at most, there would be small settlements around them. Over the years they have tended to aggregate, depending upon resource availability, and to concentrate in towns where families of workers have been able to enjoy the benefits of available facilities. The Government's moves represent a dramatic attack on the forest industry in New South Wales. One area which has not been mentioned in this bill - an area which has been the subject of a great deal of controversy and which has received much attention from honourable members - is Coolah Tops.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: That is not in the bill.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: That is exactly what I said earlier. We should be tolerant of the fact that honourable members have been trying to cope with a substantial workload over the last few days. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones might not have heard my introductory remarks concerning Coolah Tops. I said earlier that it was not mentioned in the bill. Let me remind honourable members of the reason for that. Because of the controversy surrounding this issue it was sent to the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council, or RACAC. It is now in a suspended state. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that the Forest Products Association took the grievances of Morrison's mill at Coolah to the Land and Environment Court.

Page 4948

That court said that, whatever the merits or demerits of the case and because of lack of community consultation, the Government had the power to make such pre-emptory decisions. The Land and Environment Court did not have sufficient jurisdiction to consider the impact that that decision would have on the sawmill or the community surrounding it. The Land and Environment Court in this instance had no jurisdiction to consider the conservation values and other arguments either for or against the sequestration of forest areas available to the mill at the time. I understand that the matter is subject to an appeal. That might be another reason why Coolah Tops has not been included in the bill. I commenced my speech by referring to Coolah Tops because it is probably the best known example of how a total package of decisions can have a devastating impact on particular communities. I said earlier that the forest industry was a fluid industry. My local village of Quambone had a sawmill.

[Interruption]

Yes, he did. But when he got there the sawmill was closed. It had been closed for some time. I want to refer in particular to the cypress pine industry as it is an important manufacturing industry for western New South Wales. Most honourable members would realise that there are not many alternatives when one is looking at the value adding of primary produce in western New South Wales, for example, the processing of cypress, callitris glauca, and other related species - a valuable resource in the western part of New South Wales. The bill makes provision for the setting aside of a substantial area of valuable cypress, essentially to form the Goobang National Park, east of Parkes, in the Hervey Ranges.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: State Forests does not mind that.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: To a certain extent a lot of these matters are Hobson's choice. We have to accept that this Government has made certain decisions about areas that it believes are more important. State Forests is probably bending itself to the Government's will, which is quite proper. But we in this Chamber have to consider the broader implications of decisions that have been taken by the Government. I believe that this package of measures will have a devastating effect on a large number of sawmills right across New South Wales. It will certainly close a number of hardwood sawmills up and down the coast.

[Interruption]

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones often asserts that, somehow or other, there is a magic pudding in all this, that we can keep on slicing it up and that it keeps regenerating. The Opposition is deeply concerned about the future of these operations and the communities that depend upon them. My best advice is that there will be substantial contraction of the saw milling industry. I recognise that this matter has been debated on many occasions. We have seen a series of interim bills for the protection of fauna and the protection of the timber industry. At times honourable members have debated, quite fiercely, what impact conservation measures will have on the timber industry.

In my view this issue has been overblown by certain conservation elements who are determined to fight tree by tree and compartment by compartment. They are not taking into account the situation of the forest industry in New South Wales and along the eastern ranges of the continent. Adequate areas have been set aside to represent ecological systems which are important to us. We must reserve extensive areas for future consideration - areas that contribute in other ways to our environment and which are not scientifically measured at present. We all want to see areas of our nation covered with pristine forest. The question is to what extent does pristine forest exist and whether organisations like the forestry service have been good stewards of conservation forests in the past.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: They have not.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: The Hon. R. S. L. Jones will have his chance to speak. I maintain that such organisations have been good stewards. In some areas attitudes have changed, but professional foresters in government service who have been charged with the stewardship of forest reserves over the years have done a very good job. An example is the Pilliga State Forest where government services have been not only the custodians of timber reserves but also wonderful stewards of the forest's conservation values. It has been made more available for the public to enjoy and to learn about its values. Substantial areas mapped out as State forests within the contentious eucalypt forest along the Great Dividing Range in which the timber resource is unavailable for commercial development are set aside, as are other areas that are adjacent to watercourses and flora reserves. A number of people would argue that flora reserves managed by the forestry service are better managed from the point of view of conservation and access to the public than are similar unidentified examples managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. I am not casting aspersions on the National Parks and Wildlife Service, because it may not have adequate resources.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: There is a cost.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: There is a cost. If areas set aside for non-commercial use are to be supervised, history shows that such supervision is best effected when there is an identified commercial interest. Returns from tourism or the sale of renewable resources in part of a forest can be used to maintain conservation-value forest. The management of State forests has been well balanced to meet a range of community objectives and aspirations for forested areas.

Page 4949

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: We need more private forests.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: The Hon. R. S. L. Jones has made an interesting comment. To sustain interest in private investment in forests it is necessary to maintain a viable timber industry. No-one will be interested in long-term investment in the plantation industry if there is no sawmill at the end of it. I will not digress too much, but a sawmilling industry is essential to take advantage of the products of private plantation forests. It is unlikely that plantations in the immediate future could fill the void created by the removal of access to native forests. Investors will assess the milling of hardwoods in New South Wales as a declining industry. Why would they invest in eucalypt plantations? Plantations of exotic species and softwood pine, in particular, are another issue altogether. They have different end product usage and do not address issues that have been raised in this debate.

The Opposition does not propose to pursue the amendments moved and debated in the lower House to send this program to the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council. The matter, together with related measures, needs to be settled as soon as possible. The Opposition wants to make sure that before the end of this year a clear signal is given to the timber communities and the sawmillers, though it is a pretty dismal signal. In the interests of providing stability and certainty it is not the Opposition's intention to move the amendments. I could name the communities on which these proposals will have an impact, but it would be more appropriate for me to do so when the House deals with the revocation of the dedication of part areas of State Forests. Specific towns will suffer a devastating blow.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Which ones?

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I said I would speak about that later. Coolah has been mentioned. Some of the larger towns will suffer devastating economic effects from this precipitate action of the Government. The Opposition is concerned that due processes have been ignored. It would have been preferable to exhibit the maps publicly to solicit comments on the appropriateness of the areas and whether they could have been expanded. Some may have been considered inappropriate for inclusion in a national park. There is no real urgency about this matter. The only justification for it is the Premier's desire to emulate his predecessor by announcing before Christmas his gift of a badly wrapped package to the people of New South Wales. It will be a miserable gift to families associated with the sawmilling industry and the towns involved.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.38]: I must apologise to the people of northern New South Wales, where I have spent considerable time of late. The wet subtropics campaign was launched a couple of weekends ago by the Hon. I. Cohen. I also made a speech, as did Harry Woods, the member for Page. I am sure that Neville Newell would also have liked to be present. The wet subtropics have the highest biological diversity in New South Wales, second only to the Queensland rainforest. New South Wales has lost most of its northern wet subtropics, not because of the logging industry but largely through clearing of the big scrub.

Approximately six or seven months ago a single specimen of a species called elaeocarpus minyonioides was discovered on the shores of Rocky Creek Dam and it was proposed to drown it. When the mayor, John Crowther, was interviewed on television - unfortunately for him - he said, "It is only a tree." People were feverishly taking seeds and cuttings from the tree before the level of Rocky Creek Dam was raised to reproduce the specimen. A stand of about two dozen specimens of the same species was located a few weeks ago in compartment 61 in Nullum State Forest. State Forests allowed the area to be logged and destroyed at least half of that stand. This magnificent forest was ravaged. I am not sure precisely how many plants are left.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Have you looked in any other areas to find those species? Can you say categorically that those species do not exist in other areas which are set aside, such as national parks or forest areas that are unavailable for logging?

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: No, I cannot say categorically.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: There is no continuity in your logic.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: There is continuity. The honourable member is absolutely correct that there has not been adequate study of logged forests. There may be other specimens, and that would be wonderful. We would then know what we were losing. We may discover unique species that may be lost in the logging process. We will never know how many were lost in the clearing of the big scrub. A scientific study should be undertaken and the process should have been much more open. I agree with the honourable member that more time should have been allowed for scientific study before compartments were picked at random and added to the national park system. We have a duty to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren and to the species that may be lost to ensure that we save the best bits of this State. The honourable member must agree with that. Some of the areas are within flora reserves, and I acknowledge that State Forests manages those flora reserves well.

State Forests has attempted to manage the forests correctly but has been put under tremendous pressure because of the need for the resource. Boral has put tremendous pressure on this Government and previous governments. It has mopped up something like 80 per cent of the
Page 4950
northern resource and has deprived the small sawmillers of that resource. I wonder how such a contract was ever signed. I understand that a representative of Boral, Tony Berg, is having discussions with the Government in an attempt to renegotiate the contract to give a fairer share of the resource to small sawmillers.

Many more jobs are involved in small sawmilling operations than in this multi-national organisation, which have computerised sawlog operations throughout the mill. The company does not pay much attention to types of trees when it logs a forest. Friends of mine in the industry make sure that they get the very best of those resources. They go into the forest after Boral and make more money per hectare than Boral by using the logs properly. Boral rapes the area and leaves some of the best logs lying on the ground. The company has a very fast operation. It has a large capital investment and does not have time to treat the logs the way they should be treated in order to get the best value from the resource.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: You ought to ask your friend who asserts that to check his facts, because it sounds like a lot of rubbish.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: These friends of mine are small sawmillers who are making good money. Some of them have set up mills in the past two years, and they are doing quite well.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: What are they cutting?

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: One of them is cutting acacia melanoxylon.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: For what?

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: For the finished product; for tourist products. This logging operation makes $10,000 a tree. They have bought a private forest. They take logs left on the forest floor from logging operations, and they are making a fortune, because they are careful. They are green loggers, green sawmillers, who leave the canopy intact. They do rape huge areas, as Boral does.

The ACTING-PRESIDENT: Order! Members should refrain from interjecting. The Hon. D. F. Moppett, who has just completed his contribution should listen to the contribution of other members.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: If State Forests was not under pressure and if forests had not been destroyed at such a rate over the past 200 years, we would have a sustainable industry. We are moving towards that and it is very painful. Some small sawmillers are going out of business, but others are commencing because they are much smarter. They are adding value to their timbers and making a lot of money by turning the wood into high-quality furniture timber, not just fence posts and cross timbers for electricity companies. It is possible to get the same value from fewer trees by using them more carefully. We have not valued our timbers over the past few years. The little place in Manly that I have had for 30 years has cedar throughout. It has cedar architraves and even cedar fence posts. Cedar was used for everything. Our cedar forests were almost destroyed, and we are now working our way through some of our finest timbers, unaware that these too will disappear.

It is now impossible to obtain some of the timbers that were used in the construction of my house up north. The house was built only 15 years ago, but one cannot get the same timber. We have been very careless with this precious resource, and that is the tragedy of the commons - to use a well-known phrase. Timber is regarded as a common resource that should be harvested as quickly and as cheaply as possible. It is a resource that has not been managed properly. We are fighting for the last remnants of the truly magnificent old-growth forests. Byron shire councillors passed a motion recently asking the Hon. I. Cohen and me to beg the Government to add compartments 55, 62, 59, 60 and 61 to the Mount Jerusalem National Park. The last known stand of elaeocarpus minyonioides was located in compartment 61. We wrote to the Premier, Pam Allan and Kim Yeadon and met with them, but they refused to give us one more stick, one more leaf or one more koala; not one more fern, not one more fungus, not one more insect will they give us in the national parks. They will not budge an inch.

The promise the Government made was a far greater promise than the promise it says it has fulfilled by the Forests and Reserves Revocation Bill. The logging industry has had a magnificent victory. It got virtually everything it wanted. When my colleagues and I went to the Premier, the Premier went to Pam Allan, Pam Allan went to Kim Yeadon and Kim Yeadon, through State Forests, said, "No, you cannot have it." The Government would not add one extra leaf to the national park. The Hon. I. Cohen, the Hon. A. G. Corbett and I first wrote to Pam Allan on 22 November and sent a copy of the letter to Kim Yeadon. We expressed concern about a number of areas covered by the Forests and Reserves Revocation Bill. I will not go into that letter at length because I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House. After all, we have had a fairly exhausting session.

We noted that mining interests in the Abercrombie River National Park impinge upon the complete reservation of Crown lands and that exclusion of those areas is of major concern. We expressed concern also about the Government's proposal to establish Ben Halls Gap as a national park rather than as a nature reserve and said that additional lands to the north-west, leasehold land dedicated as State forest, should also have been acquired. The environmental trust funds could have been used for that purpose. I spent eight years fighting for the establishment of Bongil Bongil National Park. Eventually the Government acquired the best land for that national park - the proposal
Page 4951
even had the support of the local member, Andrew Fraser. However, some of the best parts of the Pine Creek State Forest, where vast areas of prime koala habitat were illegally cleared, should also have been added to Bongil Bongil coastal park. Some areas contained old plantation timber, but others did not.

We have been waiting some months now for the National Parks and Wildlife Service to take legal action, but to this point it has done nothing. The addition of parts of Pine Creek State Forest would unquestionably have received support from the local community. We noted that Cudgen Nature Reserve is a core area and additions of freehold land to the west will be considered. We supported the addition of Crown lands to the north, subject to satisfactory resolution of Aboriginal interests. We expressed major concern about the Demon Nature Reserve proposal and pointed to the more significant nature conservation values to the south and outside the Timbarra goldmine proposal.

We said that areas in Malara State Forest and nearby vacant Crown land should have been included. The boundaries of Demon Nature Reserve were drawn on State Forests maps. The Government claimed there were no boundaries and therefore our proposals and their promises were flexible. In other words, "As long as we give you national parks in name, we give you national parks and fulfil our promise." There were two lots of boundaries that I am aware of. State Forests had drawn boundary lines around future national parks and the National Parks and Wildlife Service had its own boundaries. We expressed concern about the Eurobodalla National Park, which will be inadequate unless Crown lands identified as part of the current plan are added.

We noted that existing smaller areas of high-conservation and low-economic value State forests near Mummuga and Brou Lakes should be added. We are happy with the Goobang National Park but asked that the best areas of adjoining council land be added. That proposition has local council support, as the Hon. D. F. Moppett would be aware. There has been enormous conflict in Mount Jerusalem National Park of late, with demonstrations and visits by local councillors. I believe the Hon. I. Cohen visited the park. It is a magnificent area with some of the best forest in northern New South Wales and possibly Australia.

National parks make money. By leaving these incredible forests standing the Government can create more jobs and make more money by encouraging tourists from Australia and overseas to visit them. We failed to budge the Government. I say sorry to the people of northern New South Wales. We tried very hard. We sat down with National Parks and Wildlife Service people, looked at their maps and went through the compartments urgently required for national parks. There were clear lines on the maps. The parks fall well within the proposals put by the National Parks and Wildlife Service to Ministers Pam Allan and Kim Yeadon.

But Kim Yeadon won hands down. Time and again he approached State Forests, which said, "No, you cannot have it". After sitting down with the National Parks and Wildlife Service people, who had the maps that reflected the Government's promise, we gave the Minister, Kim Yeadon, and the Premier's Office a list of compartments and asked for the additions. These were not random additions to national parks, a sort of Greenie wish list. They had been studied by National Parks and Wildlife Service scientists, who believed the additions were essential. Compartments 55, 59, 60, 61 and 62 of Nullum State Forest were to be added to Mount Jerusalem, but I regret to say that we got none of those. A letter of 12 December from Kim Yeadon said that compartments 55 and 62 in Nullum State forest will not be logged until they are examined by the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council - RACAC. He seems to think that is an automatic addition to the national park, but of course it is not. All the deferred areas are going through RACAC anyway. Some areas will be logged, some areas will not. The whole issue will be resolved, I hope, in a few months.

The Hon. J. M. Samios: What is the effect of the Minister's letter?

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: The letter we received on 12 December is addressed to the Hon. I. Cohen, the Hon. A. G. Corbett and me. It is a response to our having given the Minister a list of compartments in various northern proposed national parks and nature reserves. In the Minister's letter he referred to 11 compartments out of 55. The nine compartments identified in Yabbra State Forest are some of the best areas - 168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 179, 182, 183 and 184; and two compartments, 55 and 62, are identified in Nullum State Forest. The Minister said in his letter that these areas will not be logged until adequate assessment of their conservation values is made by the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council. We were under the impression that all the deferred areas would be examined by RACAC to determine which should be kept for the CAR reserve system. The letter has changed nothing.

That occurred after extensive negotiations with the National Parks and Wildlife Service in an attempt to fulfil the Government's promise and commitment, which had been watered down again and again. The Hon. D. F. Moppett should not complain because his friends have won an enormous victory. We have secured only the tiniest core areas, some of which are national parks in name only. I walked through Yabbra with a scientist, the Hon. I. Cohen, the Hon. A. G. Corbett and several other people who know about scientific and flora and fauna values. There I saw my very first koala in the wild. That would not be a new experience for those who have seen many koalas. Koalas are two a penny to some people. Since then I have seen two koalas and three dead ones, including one killed in a logging operation on a compartment that had been on Paul Keating's high conservation value
Page 4952
list. We found the dead koala at the foot of a tree. In compartments 164 and 165 we saw our first pair of sooty owls, which are fairly rare. Sooty owls are so scarce that I doubt whether other honourable members would have seen sooty owls. I wrote about those compartments to the Premier in August.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: You have made many selective references to letters. Would you be prepared to table those letters?

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I am happy to table the list of compartments if the honourable member wishes, but I would have to seek permission from my colleagues the Hon. A. G. Corbett and the Hon. I. Cohen to table the letter. It would be remiss of me to do otherwise. I seek leave to table a two-page, undated, document listing compartments in various forests wanted by the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Leave granted.

Compartments 164 and 165 of Yabbra State Forest, which is an ecotone and eucalypt forest area, contain some magnificent trees. I have photographs of the Hon. I. Cohen and the Hon. A. G. Corbett and his son standing before gigantic trees. Most people in New South Wales have not seen such gigantic trees. Their diameters would be greater than the width of the table in this Chamber. We did not know how old they were - perhaps 300 years, 500 years.

The Hon. J. M. Samios: Like Californian redwoods.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Yes, but not as tall. They were brush box, in fact, and they were within the ecotone.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Brush box are not eucalypts.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: No, this was in the rainforest portion. But when brush box is in a forest area State Forests no longer regards it as rainforest; its status is changed to ecotone. Compartments 164 and 165 are slated for logging, even though I appealed to the Premier, after we had been through it, at least to save these two magnificent compartments. We also listed a few other compartments - not too many. The Premier referred a matter back to Kim Yeadon, who took the trouble to walk through the compartments, then said, "No, they're going to be logged." Compartments 185, 164, 165 and 186 in Yabbra are still slated for logging, regrettably. They were proposed for addition to Yabbra National Park. They were on the map prepared by national parks in consultation with their scientists as the best areas in Yabbra, which they wanted to conserve for future generations of Australians. The ecosystem of at least four compartments will be badly damaged by roads being put through rainforests to get at eucalypts in the area.

Although those compartments could not be saved, we received a promise that some compartments would not be logged. We asked for areas to be added to Toonumbar National Park. I do not need to read the numbers of the compartments because they are on the list which has been tabled. There were eight compartments involved - two from Yabbra and six from the Richmond Range State Forest. Not one of those has been added. We asked for areas to be added to Mount Nothofagus Nature Reserve, which has World Heritage values. These were from the Donaldson State Forest. Two compartments, 50 and 51, which are flora reserves were not added. None of the other four compartments was added as a result of our entreaties.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: But if they were flora reserves why would you want them incorporated?

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: When we started the negotiations we were offered - off the record you might say, but now on the record - the flora reserves because they were not going to be logged anyway. That was a kind of sop. But we wanted the areas which were at risk, the high conservation value old-growth forest. On 22 November the Minister said in the lower House, "We are out of high conservation value old-growth forest. We are out of wilderness." That is simply untrue. This Government is not out of high conservation value forest or wilderness areas. The claim has been repeated like a mantra by the Minister, supported by the Premier and presumably the Minister for the Environment. I do not know whether they believe what they are saying.

I find it difficult to believe that the Hon. Kim Yeadon believes what he is saying, because he has walked through the compartments. He knows the high conservation value old-growth forests which are to be logged. Why does he try to fool the people of New South Wales by repeating the mantra when it is not true? We are going to lose significant areas of high conservation value forest in the north and the south and in the south-east forests. Some magnificent areas will be trashed under this Government's policy of so-called pulling out of high conservation value forests. The Government should tell the truth and say that it is going to log some high conservation value forest because of the compromise with the loggers. It should tell the truth about it, because the lies will come out eventually.

The Hon. J. M. Samios: Have you asked the Minister about this in writing?

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I have asked the Minister in writing. We have had extensive discussion with the Minister about his repeated mantra and I have told him repeatedly that he is not pulling out of high conservation value forest. He has the list of compartments. He has received submissions from me, the Hon. I. Cohen, the Hon. A. G. Corbett and various conservation groups and scientists who know what they are talking about - they have all walked through these areas.

Page 4953

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: But you refuse to acknowledge that areas with those sorts of high conservation values have already been set aside.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Some have.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: But you never come from that perspective; all you do is keep identifying more areas within the forestry resources that have to be locked up.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: State Forests has these areas on its maps. It knows that they will become national parks. We have to conserve the best of what is left while ensuring that there is a sustainable forest industry. I have been pushing for three years for legislation to be introduced to give security to those who put in plantations - harvest security. We keep stumbling on that question too. Someone at State Forests is perverting the original intention of my suggestion to the Hon. George Souris at an estimates committee three years ago. I said, "What you need is plantation security so that people can put forests in the ground and be sure they can log them in 30 or 40 years time." He turned around to Hans Drielsma and said, "Prepare the legislation." They prepared the legislation but it was faulty. We tried again to get it right, to ensure that the legislation covered areas that could be cleared in the meantime and then planted out and considered to be plantations. This is exactly what has been happening.

Old native forest - not necessarily magnificent old growth - has been cleared for plantations. We want to avoid more clearing of forest. We want to use clapped out dairy country whose productivity has declined by 75 per cent in the last 50 years through overuse by cattle. It is being converted into plantations, bit by bit. I hope the Minister will listen to us this time and amend the legislation to ensure that only clapped out, tree-cleared country is used. We do not want harvest security used as an excuse for clear-felling, which is what is being done by State Forests. We do not seem to be able to get through to the Minister. We want plantations on cleared land expanded rapidly to provide a future resource. We will not have to wait 30 or 40 years; there will be thinnings in about 15 years.

I have trees on my property which are 15 years old and they are magnificent: they are almost big enough to be logged now. They could already be used for fence posts, although that would be a lower value use. Even after 15 years they could be commercially harvested because in the north, with high rainfall and good soil, trees grow rapidly. We want plantations established in the most suitable areas on previously degraded land. We also asked that Cambridge Plateau National Park have some flora reserves and some high value rainforest areas added to it but the Government refused. We asked for the Mount Clunie Nature Reserve, which has World Heritage values, to have certain compartments added - 32, 35, and part of 39 - and the Government refused. So we were spectacularly unsuccessful in getting one more stick, one more leaf, one more hair of a koala added to the national park system. I apologise to the councillors who voted the other day for those additions but, believe me, we did try.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Unlike under the previous Government, when you got heaps.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Now the Opposition has had a significant change of policy, a shift in emphasis - realising that conservation and the environment are mainstream issues; and I note the change in cooperation in most Liberal and National Party members - it is outflanking and outmanoeuvring the Australian Labor Party. On the other hand, the ALP is watering down some of its policies such as State environmental planning policy 46 and allowing four-wheel drivers to use 2,500 kilometres of tracks. I hope no new tracks are being opened up. Labor has watered down its national park policy to the bare minimum. Its coastal policy is not working at all.

Of the 19 promises made by Pam Allan before the election to stop development, how many have been kept? Almost none. I wrote to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning and asked him about development in the areas, and he advised that activity in only two of those areas had come to a standstill. We knew before the election that most of the development in those areas would go ahead anyway, so they were empty promises. The coastal policy of the coalition Government was not that great, but this Government's coastal policy is no better; there is no difference. The coalition is playing clever politics. The Labor Government is under pressure federally to water down some of its green policies. It is trying to maintain three of its country seats. On the other hand, the coalition knows it will not lose country seats; it will gain city seats and is moving to capture the green vote and green preferences.

It would be bizarre if, as a result of this clever policy shift by the coalition, the two northern Federal seats of Richmond and Page were won by the National Party on green preferences. The Australian Democrats have been trying to play the middle game to have areas added to national parks, and have been spectacularly unsuccessful. Pam Allan promised us the Goonengerry koala sanctuary before the election. I have been urged by groups up north to push for this sanctuary. State Forests has won that battle too; the Goonengerry koala sanctuary will be logged. People who live in those two marginal Federal Labor seats will be devastated when they find that out.

They will be devastated when they find out that Ian Cohen and Richard Jones were spectacularly unsuccessful in having one more stick, one more leaf or one more ant added to the national parks system. The Government is too afraid of losing the redneck vote. It will bow to the redneck vote and add nothing to what it has already done, which is the bare minimum. The Government has
Page 4954
gone about it the wrong way. In the meantime, the coalition is gathering up green preferences all over the place, and will probably reap the harvest. Yesterday the coalition put pressure on the Government with regard to the greenhouse gas emission strategy. Again that was clever politics. The same situation applies with the threatened species legislation. Once again the coalition has outgreened the ALP. The ALP should be careful. It takes green preferences and Democrat preferences for granted - I am talking about small-g green as well as capital-G green - but it should not.

People expect more of the Labor Government. They expect it to be green, and they are surprised when they discover that the coalition is outgreening the Labor Party. I have tried to save some of the very best areas - areas I have walked through, areas that I am familiar with. I have tried to have the rainforest nearest to where I live added to the national parks, but I could not add even my own backyard. Not one more ant, not one more butterfly, not one more leaf, not one more blade of grass was I able to add to the national park system. I am very upset about that.

The Hon. I. COHEN [10.13]: A great deal of what the Hon. R. S. L. Jones said is of considerable significance. However, it is important to put on the record the other side of the story, because this is a sad state of affairs. I congratulate the Hon. D. F. Moppett and the National Party, which has achieved more under this Labor Government than it would have been able to get away with under a coalition government, either deliberately or by a set of coincidental circumstances.

Those who support Labor, as I have on many occasions, have to look at the reality of what is happening in the forests today. The truth is that Labor has sold out on forest policy. As the Sun Herald stated a few days ago, I have supported Labor on most, if not all, important issues. I came to this House with an attitude of cooperation and support for the Government, and that has been my primary objective. But the Government has lied. I said in my speech on the Timber Industry (Interim Protection) Act that I was disappointed in the Government. I shall read a few points of Labor's nature conservation strategy. I can understand why the Hon. Jan Burnswoods has been dazzled by the propaganda. The executive summary states:

The ALP's Nature Conservation Strategy will ensure NSW can effectively meet the biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management challenges of the beginning of the 21st Century.

I strongly disagree, not simply to be politically difficult or to make political mileage but because it is not the truth. Labor's nature conservation strategy further states:

The policy provides for an integrated appreciation of the status and significance of the biological diversity of New South Wales, establish effective processes for ecosystem management, ensure the sound and sustainable management of biological diversity, ensures the national park system is expanded and better managed, and provides the scope for the community to appreciate, experience and enjoy the unrivalled natural splendour of our unique continent.

The reality is devastating. It leaves me with a feeling of sadness. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones apologised to the people of northern New South Wales. I have the same sentiment, but I also congratulate them on - despite the rhetoric of the Government - not just sitting in their relaxed northern New South Wales homes. Rather, they have gone out into the forests and made a stand against the Labor Government's destructive initiatives, and they have made a stand on biodiversity and conservation that has been overstepped. The Labor Government is proceeding in the worst possible manner. I am talking of a biological national emergency. The Hon. Franca Arena told me of her wonderment when she saw an owl recently in her local area. Labor's nature conservation strategy also states:

A New South Wales Biodiversity Survey will be established with the responsibility for inventorying, mapping, and monitoring biotic resources, performing research on species, populations and ecosystems, and providing the scientific and technical assistance for the sustainable management and protection of biodiversity.

That is a quote from the Labor Party's pre-election material. In reality, the Labor Government is not protecting that biodiversity.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It is just pretending.

The Hon. I. COHEN: It is a pretence, it is window dressing, a smokescreen, mirrors to convince the general population without seriously addressing one of the most vital issues for our time and for the future.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Some members on the government side of the House are all right - those on the left. The right wingers are no good.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I agree with the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti. Throughout the Labor movement, and in the Parliament, there is the belief that the right wing has trashed the forests and is trashing the sentiments of its own party. As conservationists, we were not searching for money. The Forestry Restructuring and Nature Conservation Bill provided significant finances for the industry with respect to restructuring. We let those moneys go. We acknowledged the importance of maintaining a viable timber industry, as I have said before in this House. The conservationists had nothing to gain with respect to finance. They just wanted preserved those precious areas, those special pieces of biological significance, those wonderful and irreplaceable forests that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones mentioned before at Yabbra.

In that forest was an old strangler fig - it was far wider than the table in this Chamber. It was hollow because it had grown around an immense old
Page 4955
brush box that was possibly 700 or 800 years old. The Hon. A. G. Corbett was also there. More than a dozen people were able to fit inside this massive tree and climb to the top of it. It was a wonderful, natural observatory. From the top of that tree we had a view of the entire canopy of the forest - a forest that is going to be logged. Because there is brush box in that forest, State Forests says it is therefore a loggable, premerchantable - or some such gibberish - forest. That forest will be logged because State Forests considers that it is not rainforest. But it is rainforest. This issue has been debated since the early 1980s, but State Forests now holds sway in this significant area - and the forest is still marked for logging. The Labor Party says it is a green government. Its perspective of what it is to be green is different from mine. I am happy to stand here and be called a green extremist, or whatever the Opposition may like to call me. But if the Labor Party is green, I do not know where I am in the political spectrum. It could be said that I am lost, dangling over the edge somewhere, hanging onto the tree root of some endangered species, in a deep cutting of a forestry track, with the blade of the bulldozer descending fast upon me. I make this statement to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, who has been keen to call me a watermelon.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Yes, you are a watermelon!

The Hon. I. COHEN: If I am a watermelon, pithy and seedy I will be. I have the luxury of representing a constituency that has the opportunity, like a ripe watermelon, to maintain its ideal. We have stuck with what we have been espousing for a long time now. That is one of the few honours that I have as I stand in this House and lament the loss of biodiversity and species. The object of this bill is to revoke a number of flora reserves, State forests and nature reserves. Although unstated in the bill, the intention is to reserve or dedicate these lands as national parks, nature reserves or flora reserves. National forests and nature reserves require revocation by an Act of Parliament. State forests, State recreation areas and Crown reserves need only be notified to each House of Parliament where a motion of disallowance may be resolved. Separate action is being undertaken concurrently with the proclamation and gazettal of the bill as an Act. I refer to the areas affected. Schedule 1 revokes flora reserves in the Richmond Range State Forest, in the Pine Creek State Forest and the Hervey Range. The revocations will allow the establishment of the Tooloom and Toonumbar national parks, additions to Bongil Bongil National Park and part of Goobang National Park.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Bongil Bongil is the Hon. R. S. L. Jones's. The Liberal Party established Bongil Bongil.

The Hon. I. COHEN: It belongs to more than just the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and the Greens. Unfortunately in Bongil Bongil there is an ongoing dispute with State Forests because it regards the area as able to be logged. There is a prime koala habitat in that area. We are establishing national parks without protecting other core areas. State Forests has control, it is ruling the roost.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: The Hon. R. S. L. Jones had a number of wins under us.

The Hon. I. COHEN: He had minor wins - but not enough. Schedule 2 revokes national state forests at Hervey Range, Bumberry, Richmond Range, Nullum State Forest and Pine Creek State Forest. These will form part of the proposed Goobang National Park, Tooloom National Park, Mount Jerusalem National Park and Bongil Bongil National Park. Schedule 3 revokes the Cudmirrah National Park, Pantoney's Crown Nature Reserve, Curembenya Nature Reserve, and Gurumbi Nature Reserve for additions to Cudmirrah, Gardens of Stone, Goobang and Jervis Bay national parks. The bill represents a substantial first step in the Government meeting its election commitment to establish 24 new national parks in its first year in office. The following national parks will be established either through the bill or other action of the Government.

The Government proposes, by schedules 1 and 2, to concurrently proclaim the areas described in the bill as national park or nature reserves. The areas affected include the Richmond Range, which borders the Focal Peak volcano system and includes rainforest areas of high conservation significance, such as Murray Scrub, Dome Mountain, Mount Clunie, Mount Nothofagus, Tooloom Scrub, Yabbra Scrub and Cambridge Plateau. Under the Government's bill core areas have been included only for Murray Scrub, Dome Mountain and Tooloom Scrub as the Tooloom and Toonambah national parks. Each of those core areas forms part of the formal proposals by the National Parks Association of New South Wales developed by Dailan Pugh in 1986. Unfortunately, it is not enough. It is hardly sufficient to create a viable reserve system. This is yet another example of window-dressing. It is not a case of the greens wanting all; I am talking about the tiny remnants; little pieces of confetti on the map; tiny elements of past glory.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: I do not know about window-dressing, but in dressing this log the Government has headed you for the scantling dump.

The Hon. I. COHEN: It shows the Government for what it is, part of the timber industry. The Hon. D. F. Moppett is to be congratulated for his successful efforts in supporting his constituency. I understand and appreciate that. However, as the Hon. D. F. Moppett would know, the Government was elected on another platform. The Focal Peak volcanic region, along with the Mount Warning volcanic region, forms the evolutionary hub of the wet subtropics. This House has been constructed with magnificent timbers. I ask members to think about where the timber came from. They should reflect on the value of these
Page 4956
ecosystems. They should think about how Australia, with its fauna, is placed in the world, in terms of value, for future generations.

As I have said, the Focal Peak and Mount Warning volcanic regions form the evolutionary hub of the wet subtropics. It is an area of high speciation with numerous endemic species. It has evidently acted as a major refuge through past climatic upheavals and represents one of the three principal centres of Australian biodiversity. Despite numerous recommendations for reserves to be created in the south-western sector of the wet subtropics heartland since 1978, it still has one of the worst forest reserve systems in Australia. This sector is finally being considered by the New South Wales Government for reserves as part of the Richmond Range National Park, which was promised by Australian Labour Party, although it is now apparent that it has no intention of honouring its pre-election promise.

Before it was elected to government in March 1995 the Australian Labor Party's nature conservation strategy promised that the Richmond Range National Park - specifically including Tooloom, Murray Scrub, Dome Mountain, Cambridge Plateau, Yabbra, Mount Nothofagus and Mount Clunie - would be established within 12 months of gaining office. These promised parks - along with Dairy Flat, Captains Creek, Rocky Waterholes Creek, Bundoozle, Cherry Tree, Mount Pikapene, Wilsons Peak and Acacia Plateau - encompass six of the core rainforest areas in the south-west wet subtropics. Under a Labor government a native forest at Mount Pikapene is now being cleared for plantation. That is a tragedy.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: What sort of plantation?

The Hon. I. COHEN: It is a native forest plantation. For many years the conservation movement has pleaded - and it has received a great deal of sympathy from members of the National Party and others representing rural electorates - that plantations are needed, but plantations should be put on degraded, bare farming land to give that land a renewed lease of life and to give the farming sector and the rural community an opportunity to enjoy a viable economy and to provide jobs in perpetuity. However, in this area substantial native forests are being cleared so these plantations can be established. That is totally against the spirit of the policy of the Labor Party that was supported by the conservation movement. That support led to the Labor Government scraping in by one seat at the last election on Green preferences. The promises of the Labor Party were then bulldozed into the ground.

The Hon. J. M. Samios: Are you reading from the policy?

The Hon. I. COHEN: I am reading from notes from the conservation movement on those specific areas. Instead of honouring its promise the Australian Labor Party intends to establish only most of Tooloom as the Tooloom National Park, and the Murray Scrub and part of Dome Mountain as a greatly reduced Toonumbar National Park. The promised core rainforests in Cambridge Plateau, Yabbra, Mount Nothofagus, Mount Clunie and the balance of Toonumbar are not intended for reservation. State Forests has been allowed to establish the boundaries rather than the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Meanwhile during the next seven months it intends to log key parts of proposed reserves in the region: compartment 73 of Beaury State Forest at Tooloom; compartments 254 and 256 of Toonumbar State Forest at Toonumbar; compartments 164, 165, 176, 177, 185 and 186 of Yabbra State Forest at Yabbra; and compartments 48 and 49 of Donaldson State Forest, Border Ranges, Mount Nothofagus.

As an interim measure it is proposed that the core areas of Toonumbar, Cambridge Plateau and Yabbra be established as national parks and two of the core Border Ranges areas, Mount Nothofagus and Mount Clunie be established as nature reserves. These should only be regarded as foundation areas to be added to later. The rest of the reserve proposals in the region should be placed under moratoria until reserve boundaries are finalised. The Greens say that the area should be protected now. The area should be studied to ascertain whether the position taken by the conservation movement on these matters is accurate. We have tried to deliver this information to the Government, but the destruction will go ahead before these areas can be secured for future generations.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones has mentioned that the proposed Mount Jerusalem National Park is on his doorstep. It is close to my area, comprises parts of Nullum State Forest and forms part of the remnants of the wonderful Mount Warning caldera, a cradle of ecosystem development, the tiny remnants of which remain a faint whisper of past ages. The destruction of this area would be similar to the destruction of a dinosaur that appears out of nowhere and is destroyed because people do not appreciate what it is and believe it may be dangerous. These areas provided food for dinosaurs, and the conservation movement is attempting to preserve the area at this late stage.

The issue concerning Mount Jerusalem and Blackbutt Plateau is a longstanding one for the National Parks Association and the local Wilsons Creek action committee. The new areas legislation of the honourable member for Manly in the lower House includes compartments 52, 58 and 62, although it is recognised that compartments 59 and 61 are important additions. The Government's proposal excludes compartments 55 and 62 otherwise providing an effective link to the Nightcap National Park. The Nightcap National Park was established after efforts of the movement in the early 1980s. There is now a new proposal, yet a corridor needs a relatively small area to be protected. That would create a viable sustainable
Page 4957
system that would buffer and protect Nightcap National Park. The Government has refused to do this.

The area contains a particularly diverse range of habitats from lowland subtropical rain forests to high altitude heath. The physical isolation in much of the area discourages human activity. The complex topography and high rainfall protect the area from the natural intrusion of fire, which has resulted in blackbutt forests of a structural type not found elsewhere in the region. It has a high proportion of endangered plants and animals, including the rufus scrub bird, the powerful owl and the sooty owl. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones and I viewed the sooty owl in the middle of the night. It was magnificent to see the dark grey of the face and the lighter grey of the plumage. The sooty owl will be seen by perhaps a handful of people; it is on the endangered species list. If it was in a glass case in a museum people would come from all around the world to view it. Unfortunately the present policies of the Government mean that it is debatable whether it will survive at all. That is a tragedy.

Albert's lyrebird, small leaved hazelwood, Byron Bay acronychia and coral lichen are of local, state and national significance, if not international significance. The area has more than 200 species of native plants of particularly high conservation value. The outstanding features include the largest remaining pristine sample of a valuable commercial forest type, forest undisturbed by forest fire for many years, an important refuge for wildlife disadvantaged by logging operations, and one of few locations for the eastern pygmy possum in northern New South Wales. The highly diverse bird fauna supports many plants found only in that region.

The Labor Government proposes that a small and isolated national park in the Byron shire will be known as the Mount Jerusalem National Park. The bill to create this park and other national parks, which is now before the Legislative Assembly, is likely to go ahead in its present form. The Nullum State Forest, with its spectacular views over the Byron and Tweed shires, has been the subject of considerable controversy for some 10 years since the Wilsons Creek action group mobilised to prevent construction of the Nevasae Road into the Blackbutt Plateau area. In those early days I saw pictures taken by that action group of massive landslips. The steepness of the area means that it should never be logged. We need to take note of the degradation that is caused by logging in steep and inappropriate areas.

The Greens support logging in appropriate areas, but logging should not be permitted in these compartments. Soil and water conservation is practised in other areas, and State Forests has been taken to court for logging in areas like these. More recently, compartment 61 of Nullum State Forest has been the site of non-violent protest action about State Forests permitting logging in forests of high conservation value. State Forests standard of forestry is appalling. I have seen that area, and the damage is outrageous. Those operations resulted in 57 rare trees being logged. Earlier the Hon. R. S. L. Jones mentioned elaeocarpus mignon. The area should have been protected, and it was tragic to see the devastation after the trees had been destroyed.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: How many specimens were knocked over?

The Hon. I. COHEN: I believe 57 specimens of that one species were knocked over. Compartment 61 in Nullum State Forest, including the areas already disturbed by State Forests, is known to contain the following inadequately conserved forest types: No. 36, moist blackbutt, 1 per cent to 10 per cent being reserved in the zone; No. 119, scribbly gum and bloodwood, zero to 1 per cent being reserved in the deferred forest areas. Twelve species of schedule 12 endangered fauna have been recorded in or near compartment 61 of Nullum State Forest. As I mentioned earlier, these include the sooty owl, the marbled frogmouth, the glossy black cockatoo, the wompoo fruit dove - I would love members to hear this bird's magnificent call - Albert's lyrebird, the koala, the yellow-eyed cuckoo shrike, the white-eared monarch, the little bentwing bat, the golden-tipped bat, the pouched frog, and Loveridge's frog. Compartment 61 contains 11 rare and threatened Australian plants.

The addition of compartment 62 is especially important as the area is closest to the existing Nightcap National Park and would form the wonderful buffer I mentioned earlier. Goobang National Park, which has an area of 30,546 hectares, is a State forest and is the largest of areas to be reserved. It includes the Wiradjuri National Park proposal. The Government is to be commended for establishing this park. The area will provide a much-needed inland national park for the residents of Parkes, Forbes and Dubbo. The range stands above the surrounding country and is already being used for recreational pursuits by many people. Its rock type, altitude and aspects give it a good range of representative vegetation, and bird and animal life. The reservation of the area would also relieve the pressure on existing inland parks, particularly the Warrumbungles to the north.

A proposed national park in the Hervey Ranges has been a topic of discussion for at least 15 years. A proposal produced by Errey and Errey in 1975 suggested that the Hervey Ranges be dedicated as a national park as it would alleviate visitor pressure on the Warrumbungle National Park. It is close to other tourist attractions: the Western Plains Zoo, Burrendong Dam and Lachlan Vintage Village. The area has a range of natural features. Recommendations by Errey and Errey have not been heeded, and that has resulted in the conversion of some portions of Crown land to freehold. These portions would have been logical extensions to the proposed national park, or possibly would have been part of the nomination. The present proposal
Page 4958
was suggested by the Lachlan Valley branch of the National Parks Association of New South Wales. After consideration by the National Parks Association State council, the association decided that this proposal was worthy of further investigation. The area under consideration has been intensively investigated by Neville Schrader, and lists of flora and fauna have been assembled over 15 years. These lists will form the basis of the flora and fauna lists presented in the nomination. This is a very important area, but the proposal goes only part of the way. The Greens are pleased with the proposal so far.

The Bongil Bongil National Park involves the addition of Bundagen Flora Reserve as part of Pine Creek State Forest, including some creeks and so on, and the future purchase of private land to the north. Action is proceeding for gazettal of Crown land in conjunction with the revocation of the flora reserve and State forest. The National Parks and Wildlife Service should be given the opportunity to bring the land at Bongil Bongil with the core koala habitat into the national park as well. Abercrombie River National Park, an area of 19,000 hectares, lies approximately 40 kilometres south-west of Oberon. The area covers a range of geology and altitudes resulting in a variety of vegetation communities. The fringing forests of river oak along the Abercrombie River and major creeks are of special interest as such forests are poorly conserved and are considered to be under threat. The river provides habitat for platypus, eastern water rats and native fish. The area the subject of the proposal is known to contain diverse avifauna and a large population of wallaroos. Gorges along the Abercrombie River have the qualities of a wild and scenic river.

Cudgen Lake Nature Reserve is located on the far north coast east of Murwillumbah, and it will protect an important coastal lake and wetland system. As it comprises about 464 hectares, Cudgen Lake Nature Reserve is part of the largest remaining remnant on the Tweed coast. The area and nearby properties contain the highest number of healthy koalas recorded in New South Wales and, as such, adjacent areas warrant addition. The lake and associated wetlands provide habitat for fish and water fowl. The area is diverse floristically and supports eight rare or endangered rainforest plants and 12 plants of regional significance. It includes littoral and subtropical rainforest, eucalypt and swamp forest and woodland, dry and wet heath, sedge land and reed beds within the lake, and mangrove. In addition to its value for koala conservation, the area provides important habitat for many vulnerable and rare animals such as osprey, which is now starting to return to the northern regions. For some time it seemed the osprey would disappear under the onslaught of development, but it is now re-emerging, and that makes the conservation of these areas much more important. The area also provides important habitat for the white-eared monarch and the long-nosed potoroo.

The proposed Ben Halls Gap National Park comprises 2,504 hectares. The proposed area is located 60 kilometres south-east of Tamworth and is part of the Liverpool Range. It contains a mainly undisturbed, tall, high-nutrient, old-growth eucalyptus forest. Stands of messmate and mountain gum are important due to their relative rarity and poor representation in conservation reserves. The area should be a nature reserve, but the Government is determined to establish the area as a national park contrary to the expressed with of the local community. Members on the crossbenches have been subjected to a great deal of lobbying to maintain this area as a nature reserve. The Castlereagh Nature Reserve, which is located in western Sydney, is to be established over the Castlereagh State Forest, which comprises 492 hectares. The Government is to be highly commended for this action. The area is one of the largest remaining areas of rare natural Cumberland Plain vegetation associations, and at least six rare plant species and regionally rare mugga ironbark and woolly butt are found in the area. The Greens thank the Government for establishing that reserve.

The Eurobodalla National Park is on the south coast south of Batemans Bay, and comprises 2,180 hectares of Crown land and coastal lands acquired by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. It covers approximately 30 kilometres of coastline. This area of magnificent coastal headland and lakes contains areas of interest including Bingie Bingie Point, the dunes adjacent to Coila Lake, and coast fronts near Lake Brou and Lake Tarourga. The park has three nationally rare or threatened plants and provides habitat for endangered animal species, such as the long-nosed potoroo, the white-footed dunnart, the little tern, the pied oyster catcher and the hooded dotterel. The Demon Nature Reserve is located east of Tenterfield on the scenic Demon fault. The area comprises nearly 1,000 hectares and is located on the Timbarra Plateau. It is rugged country comprising mainly steep slopes and narrow gullies. Although the proposed boundaries for this reserve are not supported, the area still has some conservation value. Community opposition to the proposed Timbarra goldmine may not be sufficient to protect the area and have the area properly conserved.

This Government was elected in March 1995 on the promise - and this promise is reflected in its nature conservation strategy - that it would establish Demon National Park. Instead of establishing the promised park, the Government intends to establish a small nature reserve over the steepest block of forest in the area. Only a fraction of the Timbarra Plateau is included within this totally inadequate reserve. To the south-east of the proposed nature reserve is an area of State and national significance. Eighteen schedule 12 fauna species are recorded as being present in the area, and a further 10 species are listed as possibly being present in the area. Two species, the Hastings River mouse and the brush-tailed rock wallaby are listed nationally in schedule 1 of the Endangered Species Protection Act as endangered and vulnerable respectively.

Page 4959

Of most significance are three endangered owl species in one vicinity; an apparently healthy population of tiger quolls; the occurrence of three psuedomys, or native mice species, including significant populations of the Hastings River mouse and eastern chestnut mouse; populations of at least three endangered macropods, including a significant population of the brush-tailed rock wallaby; the eastern free-tailed bat; and the yellow-bellied sheathtail bat. This area also contains nationally and regionally significant populations of three rare plants, with very restricted ranges. Eucalyptus olida is a species of considerable commercial value. It is a source of important volatile oil, thus it is of considerable genetic importance. There are also significant occurrences of rainforest and sedge lands which are not represented in the current proposal.

It does not take much to work out why the Government excluded areas with the most outstanding conservation values and chose instead the steepest and most useless land on which to establish the reserve. It is because of mining interests. A company wishes to establish a goldmine encompassing part of the area of greatest conservation significance. The goldmine, which will operate over a period of four years, will destroy part of the area of greatest significance on the plateau. It will destroy also critical habitat for a variety of rare and endangered species and leave behind giant dams of cyanide and other poisons to leach into the region's water supply. Other parts of the plateau are also Crown land, but this Government does not want to include them in the park because they may be logged or possibly mined in the future.

It is evident that the Government, in choosing the site for the Demon nature reserve, picked the most useless land, that is, unloggable land with no mining prospects. The farcical boundaries proposed by this Government are not supported. It is tragic that these proposals have been put forward by a Government which purports to have green credentials. If the Government does not ensure that these areas are protected it will impact severely on the proposed Demon National Park. The endangered species list to which I have referred was prepared after proper scientific investigation and studies. It was not prepared by the conservation movement. This asset should be enjoyed today and preserved for future generations. I referred earlier to eucalyptus olida which contains volatile oils. Honourable members can imagine the value of that tree to the scientific, medical and research community.

The areas to which I have referred will be subjected to logging and goldmining operations. Honourable members would be aware of the tragic destruction of wildlife, in particular birds, as a result of the north Parkes goldmining operations. To date the destruction of wildlife has not been properly documented. A repeat of the destruction that occurred in Malara State Forest would be an indictment by this Government. This Government will go down in history as an environmental vandal if the Demon National Park area is destroyed. Cape Byron Nature Reserve, which comprises the former Cape Byron headland trust reserve, is the easternmost point of the Australian mainland. The nature reserve features heath land, littoral rainforests, rocky headlands and several coastal beaches.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: We know it well.

The Hon. I. COHEN: We know it well. We have walked over the area many times. The protection of this area must not be compromised. It seems that the Government is hell-bent on creating some sort of reserve area that will look good. It is not looking seriously at an overall plan for the Cape Byron area. There has not been adequate consultation with the local community and Aboriginal people in the area - a matter that the Government should take on board. Under the National Parks and Wildlife Act national parks are defined as spacious areas containing unique or outstanding scenery or natural phenomena, whereas nature reserves are defined as areas of special scientific interest containing wildlife, natural environments or natural phenomena. Nature reserves are established to provide specific protection rather than recreation, hence they have a higher conservation value. I support the preservation of these reserves. They should not be included in national park areas. The Government is proposing to add Cudmirrah nature reserve to Cudmirrah National Park. The area, which is little used, provides some pack-camping facilities close to the beach.

This important area is linked to the neighbouring Conjola State Forest. There is scope for surrounding State forest areas to be added to Cudmirrah National Park without the need for the revocation of nature reserves. If surrounding State forest is to be included in the national park it would be reasonable also to include Cudmirrah nature reserve. Negotiations between the National Parks and Wildlife Service and State Forests have established that 3,000 hectares of State forests could be added to the national park at this time, in addition to the lake bed and waters of Swan Lake and Crown land east of the current park. Shoalhaven council is proposing to establish a tip near Bendalong in Conjola State Forest which would severely compromise the neighbouring national park and nature reserve. This should not be permitted. Part of Conjola State Forest is also subject to logging under the National Parks and Wildlife Service current schedule of works in the area. Members on the crossbenches sought a commitment from the Resource Conservation Assessment Council, or RACAC, to review these areas as part of its comprehensive regional assessment process. The addition of these lands is essential. However, the Minister said:

. . . the Government is not prepared to revisit the DFA process for these compartments. They will however, be included in the comprehensive regional assessment (CRA) process.

Page 4960
I find that difficult to understand as submissions were made, up until the deferred forest area stage, seeking interim protection. Members on the crossbenches made this request prior to the decision being made on 22 September. At this stage we cannot put at risk the small but significant Cudmirrah nature reserve until the balance of Cudmirrah and Conjola national parks has been resolved. The Government is proposing to add Pantoney's Crown nature reserve to the Gardens of Stone National Park. Pantoney's Crown nature reserve links the Airly Creek section of the Gardens of Stone National Park in the west with the Woolpacks section of the national park in the east. The nature reserve will protect peregrine falcon nest sites on Pantoney's Crown from the disturbance associated with increased visitor use if it is made a national park. Isolated spinifex grass is to be found on the extreme north-western flank of Pantoney's Crown, the most easterly occurrence of this grass in New South Wales, if not Australia. Increased visitor use associated with national park status could also lead to the damage of this plant by overburning or other disturbance.

National park status would not be appropriate for Pantoney's Crown, given the reserve's limited opportunities for vehicle-based recreation or visitor facilities. The western flank of the nature reserve has no permanent water and there are no sites in the reserve that would be suitable for development of vehicle-based camping facilities. I oppose the conversion of this nature reserve to the adjoining national park. Whilst the conversion of the Curumbenya nature reserve to national park would help add to the size of the national park, the revocation is neither needed nor desirable. The nature reserve is to the south of the proposed park, and management of the national park would be complemented by the area retaining its nature reserve status. The Gurumbi nature reserve has a similar problem to that of Cudmirrah nature reserve. In the absence of a substantial completion of the Jervis Bay national park, there is little point in making the area a national park.

The following national parks estates under the Government's policy are yet to be created. South-east forests, adding 40,000 hectares to existing parks, is currently subject to intense investigation by the National Parks and Wildlife Service to protect best areas. Under the revised deferred forest area the opportunity exists to protect significant areas. However, the park is to be established in one year. It had always been expected that the areas specified in the bill introduced by Clover Moore would form the park. This park is not being dealt with at this time, and is likely to be one of the last parks established. It is unlikely to be established by March 1996 if Parliament does not sit until April. Yamba has not been advanced as part of the current round of national park declarations, and forms an addition to Yuraygir National Park. Solitary Islands and Jervis Bay marine park awaits marine park legislation. Warrell Creek is located between Nambucca Heads and Scotts Head. The area is not likely to be dedicated until February or March next year at the earliest.

Maroota National Park is not included in the current round of declarations of new parks. Located on the north-west outskirts of Sydney, this proposed park has been referenced by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, and is supported by all sides of politics. Baulkham Hills Shire Council also supports reservation of the area. The proposal has strong community support. The area contains important Aboriginal sites and significant habitat. The Government must first overcome objections from the Department of Mineral Resources, which has an interest in permitting natural gas exploration. The Berowra Valley park will protect a major wildlife corridor between the Marra Marra Nature Reserve and Muogomarra National Park. Billinudgel Nature Reserve is dependent on the purchase of the land currently under negotiation with the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Dharawal, south of Campbelltown, comprises the Wedderburn koala colony, the Ohares Creek catchment area and part of the Cataract catchment at Loddons plains. The area is threatened by an extractive industry and a rifle range development. It should also comprise the former Wedderburn State Forest, subject to the determination of the Aboriginal land claim for the area. The area should be a nature reserve, but is currently indicated as a State recreation area. Dinghi should comprise the Torrington Crown reserve and the Torrington State Forest. The area is indicated as a State recreation area. However, it should form a national park with wilderness declared over it. Sara River additions to Guy Fawkes National Park are unlikely to be resolvable by the Government due to competing mining and logging interests. Stockton Bight should be a State recreation area, for it has limited conservation value as a result of extensive mining and four-wheel drive use in the area. However, it has some important remnants, hence protection under the National Parks and Wildlife Act is warranted. A higher priority for the area are the substantial additions to the nearby Tomaree National Park.

The Greens support the thrust of the bill. However, in light of the current inclination of the Government to promote recreation over conservation, we oppose the addition of schedule 3 to the bill. It is a sad state of affairs, having worked for so long and so hard hoping the Government would protect our forests, that members of the community are back in the forests. Only a week or so ago I officially launched the save the wet subtropic campaign at a protest in the Nullum State Forest. The Caldera about which I spoke earlier is an area of wonderment because of its ecosystems, but is still the site of a major forest dispute. However, I am pleased to say that blockades have stopped all logging in the Murwillumbah management area. Blockading will continue and people's action in the forest will
Page 4961
continue while there is a gap between statement and reality, a gap that has to be filled by the actions of people who are not there to earn money, who are not there to create their own personal empires, but who are there with the ideal of protecting the forests.

That type of confrontation will be a running sore for the Government in the lead-up to the next Federal election. The Government would be well advised to listen to the pleas of members on the crossbenches and the conservation movement: pleas that so far have fallen on deaf ears. These areas of vital significance and unparalleled beauty, containing significant flora and fauna, will be much used by visitors to New South Wales coming to the Olympics when the international focus on this State will be strong. I understand that in the north of the State many national parks are being downgraded; they are being loved to death. Visitor usage of them is high. These areas are a resource for the future and they will be available for the enjoyment of future generations. The scientific facts have been placed on the table. I hope that the Government - and if not the Government, the coalition - will seek to protect nature reserves from any further degradation and support the Greens and the other crossbenchers in their attempts to introduce some sanity into this debate, to get away from media rhetoric and to take into account factual scientific information which shows that these forests should be properly protected.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [11.06]: The Call to Australia group is pleased to support the Forests and Reserves Revocation Bill 1995. The objects of the bill are:

(a) to abolish the status of certain lands as flora reserve under the Forestry Act 1916, and

(b) to revoke the dedication of certain lands as State forest (including parts of national forests) under the Forestry Act 1916 and

(c) to revoke the dedication of certain lands as nature reserve under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

I note that in his second reading speech the Hon. Kim Yeadon, the Minister for Land and Water Conservation in the other place, referred to the Parliament's endorsing the Government's $60 million industry restructuring package, which Call to Australia strongly supported. The Minister stated that it would provide for retraining, relocation and redundancy, and that it paved the way for a newly revitalised timber industry. He also stated that the bill would become the basis of one of the most significant expansions of the national parks system this State has seen. The Government is seeking to balance the two competing interests of nature conservation and forestry reform. The coalition sought to address that responsibility when it was in office, and the Labor Party is now seeking to maintain that balance, which is something the Hon. I. Cohen has difficulty understanding.

Governments have to govern for the whole of New South Wales. They have to represent all interests, not just the interests of the Greens. Governments have to balance the interests of those who are justifiably concerned about the environment with those who are concerned about jobs: jobs equal families; families equal communities; communities equal towns - they are all part of the total environment in New South Wales. All those concerns must be taken into account. As the Hon. I. Cohen was speaking it occurred to me that we should be grateful that Green politicians were not on the First Fleet. I am sure they would have got off the boat, objected to the clearing of the land for the first settlement at Farm Cove, and probably would have ordered the First Fleet back to England. Their attitude would have been: you cannot cut down a tree; you cannot change the environment; leave it as it is. If that had occurred, Sydney probably would have become a French colony, because La Perouse was sailing around Australia's shores, seeking to claim territories for France. As all honourable members know, a monument has been erected in his honour at La Perouse.

Australia may have been a French colony. Honourable members know that the French had brutal colonial policies, much more extreme than the British. If this were a French colony the French nuclear tests may have been conducted in the Blue Mountains or in the Snowy Mountains or at Broken Hill. I wonder whether the Greens would have been happy with that alternative. The Hon. I. Cohen, as a representative of the Greens in this Parliament, has very cleverly identified the conservation movement with the Green party. Many conservation groups have been established in local communities and many sincere conservationists work for those local groups, a number of them Call to Australia supporters. They did not realise that somehow they had become part of the Green political machine.

An environment day was held in the area where I live. No Labor, Liberal or National Party politicians were present, but during the course of the so-called non-party event the Green candidates were introduced to the gathering. It was a de facto political rally. Many of those present were concerned about the environment but were not supporters of the Greens. The Greens have developed a clever strategy and the Hon. I. Cohen signalled that when he threatened the Government. Towards the end of his contribution he said that his members were back in the forests, setting up the blockades. He suggested the Government needed to be careful in the lead-up to the Federal elections. I do not believe it is a conservation campaign; it is a political campaign. Every political party is free to develop strategies and policies, but there is an element of dishonesty in the way that the Greens are exploiting the environment issue for political purposes. They imply that no other political party is concerned about the environment.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: They almost put the National Party back into office in Queensland.

Page 4962

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: That is right. They are exploiting the issue. As the Hon. I. Cohen said, they are in the forests, manning the barricades and setting up the blockades. They exploit the fears of the young, students and others, who become their political cannon fodder. This was illustrated only this week in Tasmania. Bob Brown got himself arrested by putting on a stunt. He was told not to return to an area, which is normal procedure, but he will not accept the court's order and so is confined to prison. He created a media event and received television coverage across Australia. This is all part of the Green political campaign.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You are not bad at media events.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: Yes. I understand that at one point they studied some of our tactics; it is a problem. One cannot stop people from copying one's ideas. The community should be aware of what is going on, and I hope the media will present a balanced picture of these events and portray the Greens as a political party with specific aims and policies. The Greens and the conservation movement are not one and the same, but the Greens have cleverly sought to develop that idea as a political base for their operations. In his second reading speech in another place, the Minister for Land and Water Conservation said that the bill is an important legislative component of the Government's major program of nature conservation and forestry reforms. The bill is part of the Government's program to give effect to its commitment to create 24 new parks and reserves in its first year in office. These parks and reserves are a first significant step in the Government's plan to create a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system for New South Wales.

Such a reserve system is fundamental to the conservation of the biodiversity and landscapes of the State, and to a long-term viable future for the timber industry. The Government can no longer engage in rhetoric, as it did when in Opposition. In government it has to balance the interests of the environment against the needs of families and the creation of jobs. The Government believed it had an understanding with the Greens and some of the crossbench members, and that there was an attitude of cooperation. The Government believed it had reached a point where the threat of confrontation had been removed; that there would be no blockades or barricades. No sooner is agreement reached than the Green movement makes fresh demands. They want more and more.

One wonders whether there will be an end to the demands of the Greens. They appear to be emotionally attached to every tree, every shrub and every piece of grass. I am not questioning their sincerity, but I believe there is a political motive behind these emotive arguments, especially the attempts to attract young people to the group. Honourable members have no doubt seen the set-up in shopping centres with chairs and tables and large photographs of forests, manned by volunteers handing out photocopies of letters to be sent to members of Parliament. It is a very clever mobilisation of the general public. Young people in particular want to save a tree and save the forests, and the Greens recruit such people.

The bill will provide for the revocation of certain State forests that are also designed as national forests, and for the revocation of certain flora reserves. The Forestry Act 1916 prescribes that national forests and flora reserves can be revoked only by an Act of this Parliament. That is the reason we are dealing with this legislation today. Certain nature reserves will also be revoked by the bill, to permit their incorporation into new and existing national parks. This is primarily a housekeeping matter that will more effectively integrate the management of these reserves into larger national parks.

I will not go through all of the areas that have been set aside but I would ask the Government for an update on what is happening in the Coolah forest region. It is not mentioned in this legislation but there is genuine concern about timber industry jobs in that area. Perhaps the Minister could indicate where that area fits into the Government's future planning. A number of areas are being developed for inclusion in Tooloom National Park, which incorporates both rainforest and eucalypt forest and protects the widest range of kangaroo species found anywhere in the State. One might think, from listening to the Hon. I. Cohen, that the legislation contains nothing good and makes no attempt to protect wildlife and plants. The Tooloom National Park provides habitat for a wide range of endangered plants and animals found only in northern rainforests. Tooloom National Park is a major development and will have a total area of 3,980 hectares. Another major development is the Toonumbar National Park which is located in the Richmond Range.

This measure will protect rainforests where there are significant areas of old-growth eucalypt forests. Dome Mountain and Murray's Scrub flora reserves would also be revoked and included in the Toonumbar National Park, giving the park a total of 5,750 hectares. An area of Nullum State Forest, within the Nightcap National Forest, will be incorporated into the Mount Jerusalem National Park. The national park will protect an outstanding area of rainforest and eucalypt forests, including old-growth blackbutt forests that support large numbers of tree-dwelling animals. The Hon. I. Cohen spoke emotively about a large tree that is about to be logged. My understanding, after visiting the forests and examining the forest regulations, is that the very large trees are not logged but are set aside by forestry officers who place ribbons around trees which must be protected and cannot be logged. This practice occurs in areas where logging is permitted. The forest is not clear-felled; not every tree is removed. That is a misrepresentation and part of the Green's emotive exploitation of this environment issue.

Page 4963

About 73 hectares of Pine Creek State Forest will become part of the Bongil Bongil National Park. The land consists of the Bandwagon Flora Reserve, which incorporates one of the largest remnants of littoral rainforest on the New South Wales coast. The Bumberry Flora Reserve, within Bumberry State Forest, will be revoked and included in Goobang National Park. This national park incorporates most of the Hervey's Range, east of Parkes, and is the largest remaining area of forest in the south-west slopes region of the State. This national park will protect box and ironbark forests, with heath, mallee and cyprus pine forest also included. North of Lithgow, in the western Blue Mountains, Pantoney's Crown Nature Reserve will be revoked and incorporated into the Gardens of Stone National Park, an additional 3,230 hectares.

The Cudmirrah Nature Reserve, near Sussex Inlet on the south coast, will be incorporated into the adjacent Cudmirrah National Park. This nature reserve consists mostly of coastal heath and has a beach frontage of approximately two kilometres. Another nature reserve will be revoked and incorporated in the Jervis Bay National Park. Approximately 79,000 hectares will be added to the State's conservation reserve network, conserving ecosystems as varied as subtropical rainforest, coastal heath, estuaries, tall forest and western open woodlands. I understand that environment groups support the legislation, as does the Forest Products Association, representing the forestry industry. The proposed legislation represents a good middle pathway that has been developed by the Government. Call to Australia supports this sensible, rational approach.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.25], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions in support of the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.


The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.26]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The object of the Bill before the House, which amends the Miscellaneous Acts (Planning) Repeal and Amendment Act 1979, is to clarify the legal status of development consents, approvals or permissions that have been issued prior to the commencement of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

In particular the proposed amendment will make it clear that any consent, approval, or permission which was in force immediately before 1 September 1980, that is, the date upon which the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act commenced operation, is taken to be a development consent within the meaning of that Act.

The need for the proposed Bill arose as a result of a recent decision of the Land and Environment Court in the case of Winn v The Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife and RZM Pty Limited.

In that case RZM was undertaking sandmining under consents issued by the local council prior to the commencement of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

The company in undertaking this mining activity was issued with a temporary licence by the Director of National Parks and Wildlife to take or kill endangered fauna. A temporary licence may be granted under section 92B(11)(a) of the National Parks and Wildlife Act and operates for 120 days.

Under this section there is no need for the applicant to prepare a fauna impact statement or for the licence application or fauna impact statement to be exhibited provided the activities which a licence may authorise to be undertaken are essential to the carrying out of a development in accordance with a development consent within the meaning of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

The Court held that, for the purposes of section 92B(11)(a), consents which were issued to RZM prior to the commencement of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, were not consents within the meaning of that Act. The practical effect of this decision is that the temporary licence granted to RZM is invalid.

When section 92B(11)(a) was inserted in the National Parks and Wildlife Act, it was intended that it apply to consents granted before and after the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

As Honourable Members may appreciate, this is clearly an unsatisfactory position and makes a mockery of the longheld view that development consents, permissions or approvals granted under a former planning scheme which operated before the commencement of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act are considered to be consents granted within the meaning of the Act.

The suggestion that they are not is too illogical to contemplate bearing in mind that under clause 7 of Schedule 3 of the Miscellaneous Acts (Planning) Repeal and Amendment Act 1979 consents granted under a former planning scheme are expressly preserved.

For this reason Honourable Members will appreciate that the proposed Bill is not intended to do anything more than merely legislate to preserve the longheld view in planning law that consents issued prior to the commencement of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act are consents within the meaning of that Act.

As outlined to Honourable Members earlier the need for this legislation has only come about as a result of the recent decision of the Land and Environment Court which has left the status of such consents in a state of uncertainty.

This amendment will reconfirm the legal status of consents issued prior to the commencement of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and will create certainty with respect to such consents.

Members will be aware that an amendment was moved in the other place to correct a typographical error in the Mining Lease numbers. This amendment was carried unopposed.

Page 4964

I urge Honourable members to support the proposed amendments to ensure that all development approvals, consent and permissions issued prior to the commencement of the Environmental Planning and Assessment act are properly accorded the status of valid development consents within the meaning of the Act.

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [11.27]: The Opposition does not oppose the bill as it largely overcomes a problem that has arisen as a result of a recent decision in the Land and Environment Court in Winn v The Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife and RZM Proprietary Limited, better known as the RZM case. The legislation seeks to overcome a difficulty that has arisen as a consequence of that decision, which has thrown in doubt the status of development consents issued prior to the introduction of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in 1979. Judge Bannon held that a development consent granted prior to the commencement of that Act is not a development consent within the meaning of that Act. That decision threw the sandmining activities of RZM at Tomago into doubt. But there could be much broader implications for many other industries throughout New South Wales. The Opposition, mindful of those broad consequences, is concerned about the ramifications of the decision.

The bill will validate consents made prior to 1979 which allow the taking and killing of endangered fauna. The endangered fauna the subject of that case were koalas. The bill affords protection to industries that have otherwise received valid consent to undertake developments in an area where there might be endangered species that need protection. The Government has had to weigh the effect of the decision on endangered species against the needs of industry and development, particularly where industry has been given a legitimate right to so conduct its affairs. The decision following the RZM case could not have been an easy one for the Government, but I can understand the Government making that decision given that up to 150 jobs at the Tomago mine site would have been lost.

Statistics published in the Newcastle Herald indicate that if the operation had closed down, seven jobs would have been lost immediately, 33 more jobs would have been eliminated before Christmas, and 100 to 150 jobs would have gone at RZM over a further short period. If RZM had closed down its operations, the consequences would have been felt throughout that region. Welding rod manufacturers, who rely entirely on RZM as the sole supplier of raw materials in the Newcastle region, would also have had to close down. The decision could have affected 150 families, and perhaps 100 more families reliant on the welding rod industry. Such a decision would have a cumulative effect. I can understand the difficult position of the Government in finding a balance. It would not have taken the decision lightly.

I turn briefly to discuss sandmining in the region. Port Stephens is probably the most significant sandmining area within New South Wales. The Hunter coast is the centre of a $100 million sandmining industry. For at least 30 years sandmining has been extraordinarily controversial across Australia, but it provides important raw materials to the construction industry and many other industries. We have all heard that some American spaceships have been coated with products derived from Australian sand, some of which would have come from the Port Stephens region. There is a problem with a reduction in raw materials: the Sydney region has had its construction sands largely mined out. Of particular importance in the area of the Tilligerry Peninsula and the area around Tomago is the provision of raw materials for the manufacturing of glass and, in particular, coloured glass. That area provides for almost all of the State's glass needs.

I presume that at some stage today we will talk about the Waste Minimisation and Management Bill, which may require a minimum production of glass milk bottles. We cannot have it both ways: if we are to have glass bottles the glass must come from somewhere. Even recycling 100 per cent of the glass into cullet, there cannot be expansion without raw materials. Tomago provides much of the raw material for glass production, a most significant industry. The rutile and zircon concentrate from the area represents about $40 million to the region each year. I am conscious of the need for jobs in the Hunter region. Everybody knows my background and my strong support for Newcastle and the Hunter region. I could not have supported something that would have lost hundreds of jobs to the region. An industry worth up to $100 million is at risk. On the other side, I am very conscious of the koala colony issue. It is a question of balance. An article in the Newcastle Herald of 21 November from Terry Smyth states:

The amount of prime koala habitat affected by mining is very low and the intention is to restrict that as much as possible then to rehabilitate using plant species that will favour colonisation by koalas.

It is not easy for courts to decide these matters. The Opposition will not oppose the bill.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [11.33]: On behalf of the Australian Democrats I oppose the Environmental Planning Legislation Amendment Bill, which could be termed "let us allow them to kill koalas for Christmas". This is the result of a successful court case by Tim Robertson on behalf of Paul Winn. Koalas will indeed die as a result of this legislation passing. The handful of jobs involved could be transferred to Clybucca very quickly because there is another operation that the company could move to straight away. So no jobs would be lost. Koalas traditionally seem to have no place in the Government's thinking. Not even under the threatened species bill are they adequately protected; nor are they in the forests, where they are dying. As I said, I found a dead one the other day - as a result of logging. Koalas take second place to jobs, which could be transferred.

Page 4965

The RZM company is totally Japanese owned. It has been mining the area for some time. One of the issues that brought me into politics in 1971 was the 100 per cent foreign owned Mineral Deposits Limited destroying Myall Lakes, the area which is now Myall Lakes National Park. That is what dragged me from my lucrative employment at the time to enter the environmental field and politics. This is a familiar story which has been going on for a very long time. We managed to persuade Robert Askin to turn the Myall Lakes area into a national park. Now that area is gradually recovering from the damage caused. The area under consideration is one of the best coastal areas in New South Wales. Is it always the same: the best areas get the most damage.

RZM mines mineral sands by wet dredging the Tomago sand beds at Port Stephens, which are Crown land reserved for water extraction. The sand beds are part of Newcastle's water supply. They are especially necessary during drought, when they become Newcastle's principal water supply. RZM has already mined about 400 hectares and wants to mine another 230 hectares of the sand bed aquifer. Two-thirds of the area is old-growth forest and woodlands. Its mining leases expire in 2015 and were renewed by the Minister for Mineral Resources in July this year in breach of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. RZM is clear-felling swamp mahogany, broadleaved paperbark, drooping red gum and smooth barked apple forests and woodlands. Less than 6 per cent of these types are reserved in New South Wales. The goal adopted by the New South Wales Government for reservation of these types is 15 per cent, which makes a joke of that policy.

The forests and woodlands are core koala, squirrel glider and endangered bat habitat. This area has the highest density of koalas - one to two hectares per koala - of any land in New South Wales: it is the most important koala habitat in the State. But it is more important to mine than it is to allow koalas to survive, even though the company could move to Clybucca tomorrow if it wished to. The area currently mined is displacing a breeding population of koalas, one of which is being radio tracked. Others are dead. The Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife, who I believe should resign, has issued two illegal fauna licences to permit the cleaning and mining of about 60 hectares of the sand bed aquifer. Only 34 per cent of the mining area is subject to re-mining; the remainder is old-growth forest. We have correlated koala scat counts with the mining site and the small area preserved from mining by the National Parks and Wildlife Service licence. The koala activity on site is only in the mining path and not in the reserve area.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service licence was not only illegal; it was issued contrary to expert advice from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. This was denied by the Minister in a press release. I have read the CSIRO advice and quite clearly it did not advise the issuing of the licence. RZM commenced deep mining to the bottom of the aquifer in 1990. This has increased acidity and released huge quantities of iron and aluminium into the ground water. Part of the aquifer is now too polluted for drinking water and the contaminated waters are now migrating to non-mined parts of the aquifer. RZM and the Hunter Water Corporation experts agree that the damage is irreversible in the medium term. It is expected that the aquifer will remain polluted for between 40 and 120 years, which is really long-term damage for a very short-term return. Before any New South Wales Government approvals can be granted, an environmental impact statement must first be obtained under part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. RZM has not prepared an EIS for its current mining operations. It holds an old consent issued by the local council before the advent of the New South Wales environmental planning system.

The council did not consider any information on the environmental impacts of mining the aquifer before granting its consent. We are moving today to change the Act retrospectively - 15 years retrospectively - to make something legal which has been illegal for all these years. RZM Proprietary Limited does not hold a pollution control licence permitting it to pollute the waters of the Tomago sandbeds or the waters of its dredge ponds in the course of its mineral sandmining operations. It is now established that the deep mining by RZM of the sandbed since 1990 has released substantial quantities of iron to ground water. The dredge pond waters have been polluted by suspended sediment and both waters have been acidified. These vegetation types are on Crown lands that are not adequately reserved according to criteria now accepted by Commonwealth and State governments as desirable objectives for native vegetation reserves.

In northern New South Wales only 5 per cent or 6 per cent of melaleuca and E.robusta forest types are reserved. That is about one-third of the 15 per cent required by government policy. The Tomago sandbed aquifer has been used as a major source of potable water for the city of Newcastle since 1939. Pumping operations between 1939 and 1971 resulted in a steady but manageable increase in the concentration of dissolved iron in the ground water. In 1971 the average iron concentration was four milligrams per litre. RZM began mineral sandmining in 1972. That is not mining for sand but for minerals; the Hon. Patricia Forsythe seems to have got it wrong. Initial mining operations extended to a depth of approximately nine metres.

The initial effect of mining was to raise the iron concentration to 10 to 20 milligrams per litre. This increase in concentration occurred in the three to four years immediately following mining. Concentrations fell to about four milligrams per litre after 15 years. Re-mining of some previously mined areas began during the 1980s and resulted in
Page 4966
a further increase in iron concentration. Concentrations reached 20 to 40 milligrams per litre two to four years after mining and 40 to 70 milligrams per litre four to seven years after mining. In 1989 RZM began mining the sand, extending to the base of the aquifer at -10 to -15 metres AHD. The basal sands are physically and chemically different from the overlying sands, being finer grained and containing iron in chemically reduced form as sulphide, the latter being reflected in their grey colour.

The magnitude and timing of the impact on existing abstraction points are clearly significant management issues for Hunter Water Corporation. Equally clearly, the very existence of high dissolved iron concentration generated by deep mining will provide a serious constraint on the way that the aquifer is utilised in the future. It is clear that mining activities have been conducted in such a manner as to cause a detrimental effect on the aquifer. The people of Newcastle are paying for mining with polluted water. I have a chart, which I will not ask to be incorporated in Hansard, which shows a gigantic increase in iron concentration in the ground water. It is most unfortunate that the Government should move so swiftly to push this legislation through to allow the killing of koalas before Christmas, because of jobs that could be displaced to a similar operation at Clybucca.

It is shocking that the Government can pass legislation in only a few days to allow the killing of koalas, when it has moved so slowly to prepare the threatened species legislation, which has taken over nine months to organise. The Government clearly has no commitment to endangered species, endangered forest types, or the coast. It makes a joke of its stated conservation policy. It will be condemned by all those who care about our endangered flora and fauna and about our coastline. I am sure the Government will feel the sting in the local media and from local voters at the next election. It is absolutely outrageous that the Government has moved so quickly to introduce this bill. The Australian Democrats are utterly opposed to this retrospective legalisation of what has been an illegal activity.

The Hon. I. COHEN [11.44]: Like the previous speaker in this debate, I am appalled by the activity of the Government. There has been a strong campaign on this issue and local conservationists in the region have been appealing to the Government for some time. There has been a sandmining industry on the east coast of New South Wales for many years. In the Byron area some years ago we saw the industrialisation of our coast. Over 90 per cent of our coastline has been rearranged and damaged, changed by industrial processes, and the main culprit has been the mineral sandmining industry. The type of sandmining that is carried out in the Tomago sandbed is having effects in a number of areas. One is the effect on the core koala habitat. The other is that mining goes down to 18 metres into the sandbed. Mineral sand mining is a dirty process. A large dredge digs a hole and a substantial pool is bulldozed in the ground. The ground water takes in sand deposits at one end and spews the slightly radioactive tailings out the other end of the dredge and mineral sands are processed, including zirconium, titanium, and small quantities of gold. The resource is not rare.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: They can move it to Clybucca.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I would suggest even further afield, because there are adequate resources inland, in South Australia. It is purely an economic decision in terms of transporting material, which would add to the cost and decrease profits. Sandmining results in the destruction of core environment areas. Because the dredge goes down 18 metres, it reaches the aquifer. There was debate in the House recently in relation to camping and bushwalking in areas that Sydney draws its water supply from. A major industrial event is taking place in the resource of the Hunter Valley water supply, and it has been completely ignored. If people win a case in the Land and Environment Court to stop this type of work, they will still lose because of this retrospective legislation and there will be a special pre-Christmas koala-killing present from the supposedly conservation-minded Government. That is bloody-mindedness, protecting the mining industry in this State, and protecting jobs which could and should be moved elsewhere.

The conservation movement has made many applications, and scientific evidence has been presented. The koala colony is not the only thing that is important. It is extremely close to the high population area of Newcastle. That area needs this type of resource. These areas should be dedicated as national parks or nature reserves that people can enjoy. One of the major reasons for the development of the tourist industry in this State is overseas tourism. Tourists come to this State to see the koalas that the Government is now seeking, by retrospective legislation, to destroy. It is a farce, it is a tragedy, and it should not be allowed to proceed. A few months ago I thought that reason would be the result of the many applications by the environment movement to stop destruction in this area. Reason did prevail through the decision of the Land and Environment Court, and now, in a bloody-minded action, the State Government is rushing through this legislation.

The Greens oppose the legislation and hope the Government will see reason. It seems to be hell-bent on supporting industries without considering alternative opportunities. This industry has been destroying our coastline for many years. I refer again to the industry that operated at Byron Bay. It is an outdated and outmoded industry that wrought great destruction in the past. Now many areas are gaining greater benefits from conservation and tourist potential than could be achieved by mining. I wonder how much support that section of the mining industry is giving the Labor Government. I
Page 4967
cannot see any reason for this happening, unless it is a dirty, backroom deal. The area contains a magnificent example of melaleuca, and is worthy of protection with or without the koala habitat. Once again, there has been a dirty, backroom deal and the courts have been ignored, the conservationists have been ignored and the people of New South Wales have been ignored. One of our national emblems has been the subject of a dirty, backroom, Labor deal. It is absolute hypocrisy that the Government is talking about conservation and protection and is allowing this bill to go through. The resource is available.

These very sensitive areas will not be available in the future. Once they are gone that is it: they will not be viewed, enjoyed or appreciated by future generations. This is the last of those types of areas. The Government wants to give less protection to the koala, which is on the vulnerable list. The sandminers, once they have wrought destruction, will pack up and move their equipment to another area - be it Clybucca, or interstate, or out west where there are substantial resources. There would be far less impact in the western desert areas than in the sensitive coastal areas. They refuse to do so. They will mine to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, destroy the whole area, move to another region, probably dump the workers and have absolutely no regard for the situation. The great losers are the environment, the koalas, the people of New South Wales and future generations.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [11.52]: Call to Australia supports the Environmental Planning Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill will amend the Miscellaneous Acts (Planning) Repeal and Amendment Act 1979 with respect to the effect of certain consent approvals and permissions granted before the commencement of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. This urgent piece of legislation has been introduced because of the decision of the Land and Environment Court in the recent case of Winn v The Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife and RZM Proprietary Limited. The decision has thrown doubt on the status of the development consents issued prior to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Judge Bannon held that a development consent granted prior to the commencement of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act is not a development consent within the meaning of that Act.

This throws doubt on the status of consents issued prior to 1979. I emphasise, it relates to all consents issued prior to 1979, not just this particular local sandmining project. This decision could have a damaging impact on many projects in New South Wales. This bill proposes to amend the Act so that a number of operations which use consents issued prior to the commencement of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act are protected. This is not a change in policy, rather a clarification of the legislation. It confirms the intent of the original legislation which was put in doubt by the decision of the court. Quite often legislation such as this has to be introduced as a result of a court decision. This is not a new policy, it is simply maintaining the existing situation. Call to Australia supports the bill.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [11.54], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. This bill removes any doubt that the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act applies to development consents granted prior to the commencement of that legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Royal assent to the following bills reported:

Police Service Amendment Bill
Children (Care and Protection) Amendment Bill

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.57]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Government Pricing Tribunal was established in 1992 by the Government Pricing Tribunal Act. That Act gives the tribunal the primary functions of determining the maximum price for monopoly services provided by Government agencies and of reporting on the pricing policies of those agencies. Both during the 1995 general election campaign and in my June 1995 financial statement the Government announced that the role and functions of the tribunal would be broadened to include new areas of pricing review and regulation. This bill will amend the Government Pricing Tribunal Act to give effect to those foreshadowed changes.

The Act will be amended to enable the tribunal to conduct investigations and make reports on matters with respect to pricing, industry and competition referred to it by the Government. The tribunal's role will be modelled on that of the Commonwealth's Industry Commission, although whilst the Industry Commission has the power to inquire into and report on matters relating to industry, its role is purely advisory. Similarly, it is proposed that when inquiring into matters referred to it by the Government, the tribunal will also have an advisory role. I refer honourable members to the second reading speech in the Legislative Assembly for a detailed explanation of the bill, and I commend the bill to the House.

Pursuant to sessional order business interrupted.

Page 4968


The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. Has the tourism industry attacked a pessimistic report by a Treasury official that the Sydney Olympics may not generate a tourist boom? Do you, as Treasurer, support this view of your official?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: As the Opposition will be aware the Government is, and indeed was when in Opposition, a great supporter of Sydney's bid for the year 2000 Olympics and is enthusiastically preparing for the 2000 Olympics, which we intend to make the best Olympic Games the world has ever seen. I have said on many occasions that I see our Olympic bid more as a matter of national pride and international obligation than simply a commercial undertaking. The work which has been done to estimate the economic impact of the Games, most notably the KPMG Peat Marwick report, shows a significant economic benefit to the State nevertheless. However, as former Premier Nick Greiner pointed out, we should not regard the Games primarily as a commercial venture, nor be carried away by a belief that the Games will provide some sort of economic bonanza.

That is not to say that the Games do not have a tremendous economic potential for Sydney, New South Wales and Australia. I believe the real economic impact of the Games for us will come by virtue of the fact that they will provide a unique opportunity to reposition Australia's economic and business image around the world. There are few countries in the world that stand to benefit from an Olympic Games as much as Sydney and Australia. Some of our bigger city cousins around the world, for example, New York, London, Paris, would probably not benefit economically as much from the corporate image advertising effect as Sydney will, simply because Sydney is not in their league. I believe there are enormous economic opportunities and potential if we get it right and use the lead-up period to the Games, the Games and the period after the Games to project to the world that we are a sophisticated, modern economy, that we have very sophisticated financial and professional services, that we have an information technology infrastructure that is as good as anything in the world and that we have a very highly skilled work force.

The Hon. Franca Arena: We are a multicultural society.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will come to that in a moment. We are an ideal city in which the world can do business, particularly the international firms that are looking for a gateway for an entry into the fastest growing region of the world - the Asian-Pacific rim. During the past few years Australia has been fortunate to attract more than 130 international firms to locate their regional headquarters here as a base for their business in Asia. Fortunately Sydney has captured almost 70 per cent of those companies. This illustrates a vote of confidence in Australia by international business. One of the great advantages that we have has been mentioned by the Hon. Franca Arena: because we are a multicultural city we are also a very multilingual city.

If companies want to do business with the world, particularly with the Asian region, there is no better place than the most multilingual city on earth, Sydney. This is why American Express set up its regional centre in Sydney: its customers in Bombay can dial a local telephone number in Bombay and the phone will be picked up here and answered by someone speaking the local language. The same applies to customers in Bangkok, Kuala Lumper, Hanoi, Peking, Singapore or Hong Kong. If these companies want staff who can speak the languages of the region, they know they get them in Sydney. That is a great tribute to the far-sightedness and vision of the late Arthur Augustus Calwell, Australia's first post-war Minister for Immigration.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: Is that the white Australia policy?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. Virginia Chadwick has made a very valid point, but it is a fortunate irony that from that era, when Australia was very insular and isolated, we have travelled the multicultural path and are now not only a fabulously multicultural nation but also, because of that, very much a multilingual nation, with Sydney a particularly multilingual city. The Olympics provide a world focus on Sydney that is an opportunity that is extraordinary, and that is where the benefit will come from. It is important that we remember the warning of former Premier Nick Greiner, who, in saying that the Olympics themselves would not be an economic bonanza, was giving us a proper warning that we should not get carried away with a cargo cult mentality. I am sure the Olympics not only will be the best the world has ever seen but will be a tremendous economic boom to Sydney and Australia, provided we get it right and use the opportunity to sell ourselves to the world.


The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I have a supplementary question to the Treasurer. In light of the significance of tourism to the State's economy, have you caused an official assessment to be undertaken by Treasury which will clarify the official's assessment, because his statement has cast a cloud over tourism growth in this State and because your failure to distance yourself from the official has caused it to be interpreted as an official view of the Government?

Page 4969

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Don't be silly! The Leader of the Opposition is exaggerating the impact of a paper produced by a Treasury official. I believe in an open and free society, I am not a Stalinist. I am not going to pillory people.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: Don't you understand how sensitive the investment market is to this?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Opposition is always opposed to free speech and to people expressing viewpoints that they do not agree with. We are not going to cop the sort of Stalinist approach that the Leader of the Opposition would impose on us.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: Don't you realise the investment market will interpret your remarks as supporting the Treasury official?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, I have made my views very clear: that Sydney will provide the best Olympics the world has ever seen and we are going to make sure we benefit economically and commercially. The Olympics are one of the most global events in the world. We should not see them primarily in dollar and cent terms - to which the Tories opposite reduce everything. First and foremost, we are interested in staging the best Olympic Games ever seen because we are good world citizens. We are one of only two countries that have participated in every Olympic Games held since 1896. We have a tremendous opportunity and obligation, in the greatest city on earth, to ensure that we host the best Games ever.


The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Further to the Hon. D. F. Moppett's question in the House this week regarding homeless men in Lithgow, is the Minister able to indicate the position in relation to this important issue?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I thank the Hon. Franca Arena for her question.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: I asked it.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: And I thank the Hon. D. F. Moppett for his original question. In the lead-up to Christmas, I am happy to be sufficiently bipartisan to acknowledge that the Hon. D. F. Moppett had a role as well. The Hon. D. F. Moppett raises a matter that has not been drawn to my attention by any other source. Undoubtedly, the Department of Community Services has a commitment to work with the community to provide services where a need has been identified. However, accommodation for homeless men is an issue which the Lithgow community has neither identified nor drawn to my attention. The area planning meetings held with service providers of Lithgow in June of this year did not identify accommodation for homeless men as an issue. I am happy to give the Hon. D. F. Moppett a commitment to investigate the need for a service of this type in Lithgow within the next three months. If a need is identified, the department will work with the Lithgow community to explore options to meet this need. However, in case the honourable member believes we have somehow neglected the Greater Lithgow local government area, I am happy to inform the House that the Department of Community Services is providing funding of almost $600,000 in the 1995-96 for services in that area.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question is directed to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Police. Why am I yet to receive an answer to my question of 16 November relating to the purchase of bullet-proof vests for police officers? Has the State Coroner found that the gunmen involved in the Crescent Head tragedy fired in excess of 20 rounds at the police officers killed? Is the New South Wales Police Service considering purchasing bullet-resistant vests that are capable of stopping only one bullet, not multiple rounds? Will the Attorney ensure that the Police Service is provided with sufficient funding to purchase vests which offer the same protection from high velocity rounds as those available to the State Protection Group?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Obviously the member raises a significant question. I do not know why an answer has not been forthcoming from the Minister for Police, although it may be that some detailed attention needs to be given to the matters raised. I will chase the matter up with Mr Whelan, and ensure as far as I can that an answer is given as soon as is practicable.


The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I address my question to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. What was the rationale behind the Government's decision to postpone the introduction of reduced charges for heavy vehicle registration until 1 July 1996 as opposed to the planned introduction on 1 January 1996?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: This matter was dealt with thoroughly when the legislation was before the House only a few weeks ago.


The Hon. PATRICIA STAUNTON: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Further to a question asked
Page 4970
in this House on Monday of this week by the Leader of the Opposition, could the Minister identify for the House the situation in relation to Canterbury Hospital?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I thank the Hon. Patricia Staunton for her question, and I acknowledge the close and long-standing interest she takes in medical services, hospitals and nursing. I am happy to inform the House that construction of the new inner west Hospital on the Canterbury Hospital site is on target, with demolition of the old buildings due to commence early in the New Year. Obstetrics and surgery will be temporarily relocated to other hospitals within the Central Sydney Area Health Service area during construction, which will mean that the new hospital will be opened to the public between six and nine months earlier than was previously expected. These arrangements for service delivery during the construction period will ensure that patients are not subject to undue noise and discomfort, and that the project will deliver a significantly better facility for the community.

Central Sydney Area Health Service is currently making arrangements with Concord Hospital to open a vacant operating theatre suite and a vacant ward to provide access for Canterbury doctors and their patients. Negotiations are under way with King George V Memorial Hospital to accommodate obstetric patients. The emergency department will continue to operate a 24-hour service from the site, supported by a medical ward and the relevant diagnostic and treatment services. Outpatient services, including those for anti-natal and post-natal patients, will remain on the Canterbury site during the development period, as will the aged care and rehabilitation unit and associated therapies. The plan allows for demolition to take place now, and will result in both a faster program and a much better design solution.

The new plan, which is still in the concept design stage, will provide Canterbury with not only a much better hospital but also a public building of which the community can be proud. The latest design takes full advantage of the slope and area available on the site. The shape of the building will enable ease of access to the emergency unit and ambulatory care and community health services. The new inner west Hospital, to be built on the Canterbury Hospital site, will be part of an integrated network of health services in the Central Sydney Area Health Service. It will ensure that all inner-western Sydney residents have improved access to a range of district level services.

The planned scope of services for the inner west Hospital includes 208 beds, of which 14 are Tresillian beds, a level-5 emergency service, five operating theatres, a psychiatric special care suite, a comprehensive range of community health services, and associated support services such as CT scanning. The new emergency unit will reflect the hospital's role as a key provider of accident and emergency services in the area. The new hospital will have additional operating theatres to ensure minimal waiting times for the residents of Canterbury. All these services will be supported by a range of medical imaging and other diagnostic services fitted with the latest technology.


Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I direct my question to the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that Broken Hill, a major regional city, has had its local ambulance control centre closed down? Is it a fact that people in Broken Hill requiring an ambulance must contact Dubbo for ordinary use, and that in an emergency they must ring 000 to Sydney or Adelaide? Will the Government investigate this alarming situation which is distressing the people of Broken Hill, many of whom have drawn this matter to my attention? Can the Government introduce a simpler, locally based ambulance control centre, perhaps in cooperation with the 24-hour Royal Flying Doctor control centre in Broken Hill, which now operates by telephone?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I shall be delighted to draw this matter to the attention of my colleague the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and obtain a considered and, I would hope, early response for Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.


The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Did the Miscellaneous Workers Union in a letter to the Minister today threaten to disaffiliate from the Labor Party? Did the Minister, in order to placate this union and other unions, undertake to reintroduce journey accident claims as a basis for compensation at some time in the next 12 months?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: As to the first question, I am not sure whether the honourable member has put it absolutely correctly. My recollection of the letter is that there was some suggestion of reconsidering affiliation with the party. But there is a letter vaguely to that effect, as asserted by the Leader of the Opposition. As to the second part of the question, we indicated before the last election that we would reinstate the journey claim provisions which were so callously removed from the workers compensation scheme by the former Government. Unsurprisingly, I think I have reaffirmed that commitment.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Is the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations aware that hundreds of flying foxes have been shot in the past two weeks at Mangrove Mountain as a result of licences issued to non-commercial fruit growers?
Page 4971
Are amateur orchardists advertising, "Bring your gal, bring your grog and bring your gun and we'll supply the targets"? Is the Minister aware that the flying foxes that are being shot are lactating mothers and that Australia is the only country in the world that shoots lactating mothers? As a result, wildlife carers are being swamped with dozens of young orphans. Will the Minister sack the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife Service, Robyn Kruk, and David Papps, who are responsible for this massacre and similar, uncontrolled and unnecessary massacres of flying foxes and other wildlife?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: As at present advised, I am unable to confirm the somewhat dramatic details in the assertions of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. I shall certainly refer them to the relevant Minister and obtain a response.


The Hon. DOROTHY ISAKSEN: Will the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council inform the House of the outcome of the thirteenth New South Wales-Guangdong Joint Economic Committee Meeting in Sydney on 13 December?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The thirteenth New South Wales-Guangdong Joint Economic Committee meeting was held in Sydney on 13 December. I am sure the House would be interested in the terms of the agreement, which I signed on behalf of New South Wales, and which was signed by the Vice Governor of Guangdong Province, the Hon. Lu Zhonghe. The agreement reads as follows:

The Thirteenth New South Wales-Guangdong Joint Economic Committee Meeting was held in Sydney on the 13th December 1995.

Wide ranging and in-depth discussions were held on economic, investment, trade and industry development issues of interest to both parties.

The Premier of New South Wales, the Hon. Bob Carr and the Vice Governor of Guangdong, the Hon. Lu Zhonghe reaffirmed the principle of mutual cooperation and joint promotion of activities to further deepen the Sister State Relationship between New South Wales and Guangdong.

Progress on projects arising from the Twelfth Joint Economic Committee were reviewed and assessed and new projects were identified for 1996.

The Joint Economic Committee agreed to the following action to be undertaken under the auspices of the 1996 Cooperative Agreement:

(1) The continuation of existing cooperation projects or new cooperation projects of mutual interest in the 1996 Work Plan would be in the following areas:

a. Environment Protection
b. Banking Services
c. Agriculture
d. Education
e. Public Health
f. Science and Technology

(2) The Department of State Development, New South Wales Government and the Foreign Affairs Office, Guangdong Province, will act as coordinating organisations for the cooperative projects.

(3) Each party will continue to send and receive trade and investment missions in order to further mutual understanding and cooperation between the two areas.

(4) Both sides pledge to continue working with existing institutions in New South Wales and Guangdong in pursuing greater economic cooperation between New South Wales and Guangdong.

Finally, it was agreed that the Fourteenth Joint Economic Committee Meeting will be held in Guangdong in the second half of 1996.

Dated this 13th day of December, 1995

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs. In response to a question in this House on 6 June the Minister for Community Services said that he was certainly not aware of any move to downgrade the present Government's support for the concept of positive ageing. On 6 July the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women said that the Government would ensure that the mature workers program had specific employment and training programs for women wishing to re-enter the work force. Despite those two commitments, has the Government now decided not to fund the mature workers program in next year's budget? Have program providers been informed? Are they today establishing a mature workers forum? Will the Minister give a commitment that mature workers will be able to access specifically targeted employment programs?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I shall refer that question to the Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs for a response.


The Hon. I. COHEN: Will the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing, inform the House of the current status of the Cadia project environmental impact statement for the Ok Tedi-like project being proposed by Newcrest mining? Will the Minister explain and reveal the reason for the gift of 4,200 megalitres of water per year to Newcrest? Is this in contravention of the 14 July gazettal of no more licence allocations?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the honourable member's question to my colleague for a response.

Page 4972

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: Is the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, aware that haemophiliac patients are being turned away from hospitals without adequate treatment because of a shortage of recombinant factor 8? Is the Minister also aware that the Minister for Health stated, in answer to a question without notice from the Leader of the Opposition in the other place yesterday, that the reason for this shortage was that the blood bank was not producing enough of the product? Is the truth of the matter different, namely, that $3.5 million in Federal matching funds that are available to New South Wales are not being accessed because the New South Wales Government has not released its share of the funds? Is the Minister aware that Victoria, for example, made its share of funds available, submitted a purchase order in advance and has no shortage of recombinant factor 8? Why was no provision made for these funds in the October State health budget? Is the reason for this neglect of haemophiliacs the need to maximise the diversion of resources to attempt to cut hospital waiting lists?

The ACTING-PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members that lengthy and detailed questions should more appropriately be placed on notice.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The very short response to that very lengthy question is that I shall obtain an answer from my colleague the Minister for Health.


The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services. Is the Minister aware of the advice dated 5 July from the New South Wales Police Service, Office of the Solicitor, stating that the State Emergency Service cannot hold out as a disaster rescue service or a storm rescue service, and does not have the authority to act as a combat agency for rescue operations? Does this mean that the SES cannot carry out rescue operations in the event of flood, storm and tempest? What, therefore, is the role of the SES in these events? What is the relationship of the SES to the Police Service in an emergency situation?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I shall refer that question to the Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services for a reply.


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, and Minister for Economic Development. In view of the answer the Minister gave earlier to the Leader of the Opposition regarding the Olympic Games, is he aware of the criticism by Rod McGeoch that New South Wales is missing an enormous opportunity to capitalise on the Olympic Games in terms of promoting Australian industry and business because neither it nor the Keating Government has any plans? What is the Carr Government's plan, if any, to promote industry to ensure long-term jobs in New South Wales after the Olympic Games?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I regret to say that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has my portfolio wrong. I hold a number of portfolios, but I have never been the Minister for Economic Development. I am the Minister for State Development. This is all part of the Opposition's misinformation campaign. Last night members of the Opposition were running around the place at about quarter to midnight telling people that I was no longer the Treasurer.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: We were merely repeating a wishful thought of the left wing.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It would have been wishful thinking on their part. I am not the Minister for Economic Development, but I am proud to be the Minister for State Development. On becoming Minister for State Development, one of the very first things I announced in this Chamber at the business briefing was the establishment of the Olympics Business Roundtable comprising a membership of eminent people.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What are they doing?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: They are proceeding at a great rate to put together the strategy to make sure that the Government is able to maximise the opportunities the Olympics provide to reposition Australia's business image around the world and attract more of the investment, business and jobs the Government has so successfully attracted in its first nine months in office.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Is the Minister aware of a $40,000 claim being brought against the Department of School Education following an alleged act of discrimination against a student? Has in-servicing of teachers and principals on anti-discrimination grievance procedures commenced in New South Wales schools? If not, when will they commence? What follow-up procedures are in place to determine the success or otherwise of the anti-discrimination policy?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am aware of a substantial claim based on anti-discrimination grounds in the educational field. It is inappropriate that I or anyone else comment on that claim while it
Page 4973
is being processed according to law. I readily agree that there ought to be proper education programs in the school system directed to anti-discrimination issues.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: There are.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: If the Hon. Virginia Chadwick tells me that there are, I am happy to accept that. I would be prepared to raise it with the Minister, Mr Aquilina, to ensure that these sorts of programs are effectively delivering the message that, as in other areas of our lives, people in schools should not be discriminating contrary to the Anti-Discrimination Act.


The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I direct a question without notice to the Treasurer and Leader of the House. Is it a fact that Treasury has commissioned ACIL and JLW to undertake a study of the commercial management and the level of charges of the Sydney Market Authority? Did this study commence on 9 October? When does he anticipate receiving the findings of the study?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will obtain a response to the question asked by the honourable member. I do not have any details at the moment that I am aware of, but I will try to ascertain them.


The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I ask the Minister a supplementary question. Given the Treasurer's response, will he ascertain why simultaneously a study of the Sydney Market Authority is being conducted by Turnbull and Hill, commissioned by the Premier's Department? Why would these two studies, one commissioned by the Premier's Department and the other by Treasury, be running simultaneously? In relation to the Turnbull and Hill study, is it a fact that Malcolm Turnbull and Neville Wran are personally conducting the relevant interviews and that they are to report to the Premier on options for the ownership of the markets? Will the Minister confirm that the memo CS0002 stating that privatisation is an option is correct?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will include that inquiry in my own inquiries.


The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Corrective Services. Did 21-year-old Brett Collins gain access to the Goulburn gaol special protection unit prior to being bashed and going into a coma? Did staff reductions directed by the Government contribute to Collins obtaining access to the special protection unit?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: That is a very specific question about a particular person. Obviously, I would need to refer it to the Minister for Corrective Services for an appropriate answer.


The Hon. I. COHEN: I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, a question without notice. Why is the Minister allowing work to proceed on the Wombarra drainage tunnel project before a catchment management study has been done?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I will refer that question to the relevant Minister for a response.


The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, representing the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. Is the Minister aware that women of non-English speaking background have a higher unemployment rate than the rest of the community and more problems because of language barriers with access to services and social isolation? What action has the Minister taken to address the needs of this group of women? Will the Government initiate an effective communications channel similar to those established by previous governments to enable the women to voice their concerns? Will the Government neglect the needs of this group of women? Will the Minister inform the House if any women of non-English speaking background have been appointed to the Government's recently inaugurated women's council? If so, who? If not, why not?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the question to my colleague the Premier for a response.


The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I ask the Treasurer a question without notice. Has the proposed overseas tour during the Canadian winter by the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann and the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner to investigate codes of conduct been attacked by media editorials as "junkets - a real snow job"? To prevent this House being brought into disrepute will the Government review the allocation of finance for this unnecessary overseas tour, as the information is available in the Parliamentary Library having been prepared by a previous parliamentary investigation?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I point out to the honourable member that the operations and functions of parliamentary committees are not a matter for which Executive Government has responsibility. The Parliament makes an annual appropriation for parliamentary committees. As Treasurer, I, and indeed all of my ministerial colleagues -

Page 4974

[Interruption]

That interjection from the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby shows a surprising level of ignorance on her part. I do not run the Parliament, nor should I. There is a proper separation between the Executive Government and the running of the Legislature, and I do not meddle in the running of the Legislature. I noticed a question yesterday, however, from the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby in relation to a proposal by a committee of this House to travel overseas. I recall that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby went on a trip as a member of the electoral funding committee. The purpose of that trip was to waste time so that the committee would not have to bring down a report before the 1991 election. The pot should not call the kettle black!


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My question is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Is the Minister aware of the major story on the front page of the Glebe this week in which Associate Professor Wendy Bacon, who will be a candidate for the No Aircraft Noise party at the next Federal election, made the startling claim that the State Government is about to slash teacher support for children with learning difficulties at inner city primary schools from 1996, a claim that is supported by statements from the department? Does the Minister agree that this should happen to disadvantaged children with learning difficulties in the inner city?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am afraid I have not caught up with this week's Glebe, but I shall read the article and refer the question to the Minister for Education and Training for his response.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism, a question supplementary to that asked by my colleague the Hon. I. Cohen. Is the Minister aware that the Wombarra community is this morning engaged in a picket action against the State Rail Authority and Transfield constructions in order to stop work on the Wombarra drainage tunnel, which they believe is unsafe? Has any risk assessment of the Wombarra tunnel been carried out? If not, why is the Minister proceeding with construction of the Wombarra tunnel?

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: On a point of order: given the level of disturbance from people exercising their democratic rights outside, I am having difficulty hearing the honourable member's question.

The ACTING-PRESIDENT: Order! I accept the point of order and ask all honourable members to approach the microphone.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the honourable member's question to my colleague the Minister for Transport.


The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I address my question without notice to the Leader of the Government, representing the Minister for Small Business and Regional Development. Given the failure of the Prime Minister's innovation plan to provide additional assistance for small business inventors and innovators, will the Minister inform the House what plans the State Government has to foster this potentially lucrative and job-creating sector?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer that question to my colleague the Minister for Small Business and Regional Development.


The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: My question is addressed to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Emergency Services. Does the State Displan identify the State Emergency Service as the agent to respond to floods and storm and tempest damage? Is the current situation about combat roles really no more than a territorial battle between the Police Service and the State Emergency Service? Given that I made representations on this matter on 15 June, which were acknowledged by Minister Debus on 14 September, and that I have heard nothing in the three months that have since elapsed, why has this Government taken so long to respond, bearing in mind the potentially dangerous emergency situations that could arise in the summer months?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: That question about the State Emergency Service seems to be inextricably linked to the honourable member's earlier question. I will link the two and refer them to the relevant Minister. I am sure an enlightening answer will follow.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question. As foxes will now target young kangaroos as a result of the mass deaths of rabbits from calicivirus, will the Minister review the proposed commercial kangaroo quota for 1996 to head off a potential population crash of kangaroos?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I will refer the honourable member's question to the relevant Minister for an answer.

Page 4975

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Is the Leader of the Government and Minister for State Development aware that Mr Rod McGeoch in his recent evidence to the Standing Committee on State Development, to which the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti alluded earlier, referred to the Olympics Business Roundtable but said that, notwithstanding the good work of that roundtable, he believed that both the Federal and New South Wales governments should develop an overall plan to maximise the business and social benefits to New South Wales, Sydney and Australia of the 2000 Olympics? Is the Minister aware that Mr McGeoch made his statements to the committee because he wished to alert this Parliament to the narrow terms of reference under which the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, of which he is a member, is quite properly operating? Is the Minister saying, by way of his answer to the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, that he is prepared to discount the alarm bells that Mr McGeoch was ringing?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I have not had the opportunity to read Mr McGeoch's evidence to the parliamentary committee, so I am not sure what comments he made about SOCOG. I can assure Mr McGeoch, as I can assure the House and everyone in New South Wales and Australia, that the Olympics Business Roundtable is working very well towards that objective.


The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: My question is addressed to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Emergency Services. Is the Minister aware that the State is facing the onset of the peak bushfire season in January and February. Will he assure the House that New South Wales Bush Fire Brigades are adequately prepared for the oncoming period? In particular, has the matter of the status of unregistered vehicles used by bush fire brigades been resolved so that this very necessary equipment will be available to meet any emergency that may arise?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The answer to the first question is yes. In relation to the latter questions concerning the adequacy of bush fire brigades and their preparation, I am sure all honourable members would share common ground in hoping and anticipating that any emergency services were properly prepared for what might be a difficult January and February. We would all be concerned about bushfires in that period. I will refer the honourable member's question to the Minister, but I am absolutely confident that he would have very much on his mind the need for adequate services during that period.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Local Government. Has the plan to redevelop the Bondi Icebergs club been scrapped after Waverley Council voted to relinquish its stewardship of the building and hand control back to the State Government? Is it further a fact that a structural analysis has revealed that some sections of the building have concrete cancer and the council is concerned that it would be left with huge payouts if a section of the building collapsed and people were injured? As the Government owns the Bondi Icebergs site, why does it not repair the building? Can the Minister inform the House what the Government now proposes with the site?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I propose to refer that question to my colleague the Minister for Local Government for a response.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Health. Is it the Government's intention to close the Allandale nursing home at Cessnock? Is the Government aware that the closure will disadvantage residents because they will have to be transferred to other nursing homes regardless of their wishes or the wishes of their families? Has the area health officer said that there has to be an immediate reduction of at least 150 staff? Is it the intention of the Government to eventually privatise the Allandale nursing home and disadvantage the elderly who cannot afford private nursing home fees? Can the Government do something to prevent the immediate closure of Allandale and the movement of patients?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The question is detailed, and I shall refer it to my colleague the Minister for Health to obtain a considered response.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You had plenty to say about health care of the aged last week.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Opposition seems to suffer from a fundamental confusion between asking a detailed question about a particular location and asking a question about general policy or administration that falls within the portfolio areas of the Treasurer, the Attorney General or myself, or for that matter those of Ministers we represent. For the Opposition to ask whether some facility at Woop Woop might be closed -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Allandale.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am not describing Allandale as Woop Woop. Woop Woop is a general description for the obscure locations that the Opposition sometimes fixes on. It is apparent to me that the Opposition has run out of questions. Any moment now the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti will ask a question about the Andrew "Boy" Charlton pool. Before he does so, I warn him that I have an
Page 4976
answer to a previous question he asked about the pool. The Opposition is desperate. The honourable member for Eastwood, the next Leader of the Opposition, was sitting in the gallery for most of question time. His attendance does not seem to have done the Opposition much good because he has left in disgust.


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Will the Treasurer release details of the impact on the profits of the operators of the M4 as a result of the injection of over $9 million of taxpayers' funds into the widening of the M4?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the honourable member's question to my colleague the Minister for Roads. Obviously, the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti does not think that the Government should spend any taxpayers' money on the road needs of the people of western and south-western Sydney. I proudly inform the honourable member that this year expenditure by the Government on roads in western and south-western Sydney will be almost $150 million.


The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question is addressed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware that the Aboriginal Legal Service has lodged a complaint against the Department of Corrective Services on the basis of discrimination? Are Aboriginal prisoners kept in isolation cells against their will in Sydney gaols because they are black? Are Aborigines segregated in order to deter racial confrontation and tension between other prisoners? Would the Minister agree that this is an inappropriate way to deal with the problem and that it is only a short-term solution and will not solve the problem? Will the Minister explain why Aborigines have to suffer for the department's inability to control racial tensions in prisons? How does the Minister propose to rectify the current situation?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The honourable member, as usual, has raised a substantive and important question. Whether the Aboriginal Legal Service has lodged a complaint against the Department of Corrective Services is not within my knowledge at the moment.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: I thought you might be interested, though.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am very interested in it. Assuming that it be the case, no doubt it will be determined in accordance with the law by the Anti-Discrimination Board in the conciliation phase and by the Equal Opportunity Tribunal, if necessary, by way of contested hearing. That is the way it ought to be dealt with, rather than members speaking in this House on a claim that should be processed in accordance with law. The matter ought to be dealt with in accordance with due process. I am sure the Minister for Corrective Services would be extremely sensitive to and conscious of any allegation of discrimination within the prison system.

Given the sensitivity of the Minister to this matter and given also the processes available under the Anti-Discrimination Act, I am sure the complaint will be adequately and appropriately dealt with. Honourable members would readily acknowledge that the real problem is the disproportionate number of Aboriginal people in the prison system both in juvenile and in adult facilities. We should grapple with that profound social difficulty. The problem is much easier to state than to resolve, but goodwill and bipartisanship should lead to attempts to address it. I do not criticise the honourable member who asked the question when I say that a problem as profound and tragic as this should not be the subject of political point scoring but sincere and constructive consideration.


The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Does the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations support workers receiving wages and other entitlements owed to them by companies that go into liquidation, especially building companies, prior to the tax man and other creditors receiving any payment? Will the Attorney General stand up for the workers of New South Wales by demanding that his Canberra colleagues change taxation laws, as they promised to do four years ago, to protect the wages of New South Wales workers?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The answer to both those questions is yes.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Will the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for the Environment, tell me why the Environment Protection Authority has taken no action to mandate the fitting of filters to reduce particulate emissions from diesel vehicles, a matter that I raised some years ago?

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


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Is the Treasurer, as Leader of the Government, aware of any business plan by the Keating Government to ensure that after the Olympics we are left with long-term jobs as a result of any plans that Government might have to promote Australian industry in the lead-up to the Olympic Games?

Page 4977

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Opposition really has run out of questions. The Keating Government, which will be in office at the time of the 2000 Olympics, will be doing what it has already done very well.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What is that?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: In the last few years it has created 700,000 jobs, and that rate of job growth will continue.

I have extended question time today because I have been waiting for the Hon. J. M. Samios to ask a question. But he will not ask any questions. Honourable members who have questions might put them on notice. I have answers to previous questions, including questions from the Hon. J. M. Samios - who did not ask a question today, yesterday, on Tuesday or on Monday. What a pathetic performance by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party.


The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 26 October the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked me a question without notice regarding the supply of alcohol and drugs to under-age patrons. The Premier has provided the following response:

This Government is already taking action on youth alcohol and drug misuse.

The Government has increased funding by $5 million over 5 years for anti-drug and alcohol education in schools. This commitment means additional resources will be provided for teacher training, curriculum support and policy advice. It means we will educate students about the dangers of drug abuse with a particular emphasis on teaching children in the early years of schooling to resist peer pressure.

The Government's preparation of a New South Wales school discipline policy is also well underway. This policy will specifically address the possession, by school pupils, of a suspected illegal substance.

In July 1995, a Committee on Underage Drinking was established to consider initiatives that might be implemented to overcome the problem of under-age drinking. The Committee brings together representatives from:

- Government;

- health, welfare and youth agencies;

- the liquor industry; and

- young people themselves.

The Committee has reviewed a number of aspects in regard to the under-age drinking laws, including the circumstances under which minors are allowed on licensed and club premises. The Committee has now completed its report. This report has now been forwarded to the Minister for Gaming and Racing for consideration.

The issue of end of year HSC celebrations has been discussed by the Committee. As a result of these discussions, advice has been provided to the Department of School Education in regard to under-age drinking offences under the liquor legislation. This information will assist high school principals in organising appropriate celebrations at their schools and to inform young people about the liquor laws.

In addition, as a result of Committee discussions, the Department of School Education is now working on developing materials to assist schools in their common practise of informing parents about problems which can arise with "end of school year" celebrations.

Also in July 1995, to educate young people about the hazards of binge drinking, the Minister for Health, Dr Andrew Refshauge, launched the second phase of the Youth Alcohol Campaign - Drink Drunk: The Difference is U.

The Government has also been active in educating the liquor industry about responsible alcohol serving practises. This has included the circulation of printed information to all licensees and club managers in the State, and the conduct of inter-agency workshops around the State.

Government efforts have not stopped at ensuring appropriate and effective information and education strategies. The Government is strengthening the relevant laws.

Earlier this year the Government introduced legislation which increased the penalties for adults selling illicit drugs to children under 16 years. In addition legislation is now before Parliament to increase existing penalties for supplying liquor to a minor and to provide for new regulation making powers to require the responsible service of liquor. These measures reflect the approach which was endorsed by the Premier's special alcohol forum in August this year and send a clear message to the industry and the community, about the Government's attitude to under-age drinking in our society.

This Government will pursue these strategies while recognising that there is no greater influence on the attitudes and conduct of young people than their parents and guardians.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 26 October the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith asked me a question without notice regarding multiple voting at elections. The Premier has provided the following response:

The Premier is aware of the warning given by Mr Ian Dickson, the New South Wales Electoral commissioner, about multiple voting in recent elections.

As acknowledged by the Electoral Commissioner, the reported instances of dual and multiple voting may in fact be overstated, as some cases are due only to polling official error in crossing off electors' names as they vote. There is no evidence to support the claim that multiple voting is a problem of any relevant magnitude. In the past, a computerised voter validation system was considered as a measure to eliminate multiple voting. However, the cost of such a system is prohibitive, and could not be justified in the circumstances.

The second part of the question relates to the casting of an ordinary ballot only at a local polling booth. This would involve the introduction of precinct voting, which has been examined in the past and considered to be unsuited to the electoral system in this State. The system would cause inconvenience in city electorates, where voters could only cast an ordinary vote at one polling place in their electorate. A vote at any other polling booth would have to be effected by absentee vote. The result of this would be long delays at polling booths and voter confusion,

Page 4978
especially in view of the fact that this system is not in place at Commonwealth level. The problem faced in country areas would be even worse. Voters would be required to travel great distances to vote at a particular polling booth, and the need to set up an increased number of polling booths to minimise the inconvenience caused would create an administrative and cost burden. For these reasons, it is not considered appropriate to introduce precinct voting in New South Wales.


The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 15 November the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti asked me a question about the Andrew "Boy" Charlton pool. The Minister for Local Government has provided the following response:

The maintenance and renovation of the Andrew "Boy" Charlton pool is a matter for Sydney City Council. While the Minister for Local Government can appreciate the problems associated with maintaining a pool of this nature, the Minister does not have discretionary funds available within his portfolio to assist with funding of this kind.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 20 November the Hon. D. J. Gay asked me a question without notice regarding ethnic affairs policy. The Premier has provided the following response:

The Premier is aware that during the budget debate, the Hon. Franca Arena expressed great concern about an unnamed female from his office who had claimed that she was responsible for Labor's Ethnic Affairs Policy.

There appears to have been some misunderstanding about responsibility for the policy. The policy, (as any other election policy) is a Labor Party document and the Hon. Franca Arena's role in its formulation was invaluable and is acknowledged.

The Premier's Ethnic Affairs Adviser was not asked to nor did she contribute to the ethnic affairs policy, as she had other responsibilities during the last election campaign. The role of the Premier's Ethnic Affairs Adviser is to implement the policy in co-operation with the Ethnic Affairs Commission and in consultation with ethnic community organisations. She is carrying out her duties with my full support and confidence. The Premier is briefed regularly by his Ethnic Affairs Adviser and the Chairman of the Ethnic Affairs Commission on the progress of the implementation of the policy.

The person to whom the Hon. Franca Arena refers is Ms Jarka Sipka, Ethnic Affairs Adviser.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 22 November the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked me a question without notice regarding the appointment of the next Governor. The Premier has provided the following response:

An announcement will be made when the Government considers it appropriate to do so.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 22 November the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me a question without notice about the closure of agricultural research institutions. The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following response:

The Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games has advised that it does not intend to use the facilities at the Rydalmere Agricultural Research Institute as a communication centre for the Sydney Olympic Games.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 22 November Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile asked me a question without notice regarding drug testing for the Sydney 2000 Olympics. The Minister for the Olympics has provided the following response:

The Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG) is responsible for organising and staging the Games.

SOCOG has advised that drug testing for athletes competing in the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games will be undertaken by the Australian Government Analytical Laboratory at Pymble, which is accredited for drug testing by the International Olympic Committee. Samples for drug testing will be carried out by SOCOG, utilising the expertise developed by the Australian Sports Drug Agency (ASDA). ASDA's procedures meet Olympic requirements as specified by the International Olympic Committee.

It has long been the policy of the Australian and International Olympic movements that there be no cigarette sponsorship for the Games, or Olympic teams, and no licensing of any such products in association with the Olympic Games, or teams. It has never been contemplated that cigarette advertising or sponsorship would be a part of the Sydney 2000 Olympics. The implementation of a "smoke-free Games" is currently being considered by SOCOG, and discussions will be held with the relevant Government agencies.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 23 November the Hon. J. M. Samios asked me a question without notice regarding the Ethnic Affairs Commission. The Premier has provided the following response:

The review to which Mr Samios refers has arisen from a pre-election commitment of the Labor Government to review, within the first 12 months of office, the Ethnic Affairs Commission Act 1979, evaluate the Ethnic Affairs Commission's performance, and prepare an updated "Plan of Action Towards the Year 2000".

A review of the Ethnic Affairs Commission Act is currently being conducted by a steering committee comprised of senior staff from the Premier's Department, The Cabinet Office, the Ethnic Affairs Commission and a representative of the Premier's Office. An executive officer has been appointed to the steering committee.

Page 4979

Whilst the Ethnic Communities Council is not formally part of the review committee, the Council has nonetheless been consulted at every step in the review process. The Ethnic Communities' council co-hosted and chaired each of the public consultations that have been held on the Ethnic Affairs Commission review, including meetings in Wollongong, Newcastle, Wagga Wagga and two in Sydney.

The Executive Officer for the review has on two separate occasions met with the management Committee of the Ethnic Affairs Communities' Council. In addition, the steering committee has also met with the entire Ethnic Communities' Council Executive and given an undertaking that they will be further consulted on the draft report before it is submitted to the Premier for consideration.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 5 December the Hon. B. H. Vaughan asked me a question without notice regarding motor vehicle safety. The Minister for Roads has provided the following response:

The Minister for Roads has advised me that the significant problem experienced in North America and in Europe of airbags causing injury to children does not generally apply in Australia. This is so because of the type of infant and child restraints used in this country.

In North America and Europe, child restraints in vehicles are usually attached only by seat belts, and it has become common practice to carry children in forward facing child seats on the front passenger seats of vehicles. Infants are carried in rearward facing infant restraints in the front passenger seat area.

Unfortunately, these rearward facing infant restraints rest upon or are close to the dash board where the passenger side airbag is located. When the airbag is activated, it explodes out of the dash board at speeds in excess of 100 km/h, which can propel the infant in a manner that causes serious injury or death. Technology to turn off airbags automatically when infants are being carried is now being developed, and it is expected that this option will become available in the near future.

In Australia, child restraints are attached to the lower part of seat belts and to a dedicated top tether strap. These straps are secured to anchorages located along the back of the rear seats of vehicles. Accordingly, the Australian custom is to carry young children in the rear seat area, where they are not exposed to direct harm from the activation of airbags.

In the circumstances, there is no proposal at this stage to ask the Staysafe Committee to examine this matter.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 6 December the Hon. M. R. Kersten asked me a question without notice regarding Nyngan grain growers. The Minister for Roads has provided the following response:

The RTA has a responsibility to ensure that the State's roads are used in a safe and responsible manner by all road users, and that damage to pavements and bridges from vehicles is kept to a minimum level. Accordingly, the RTA implements strategies to monitor various aspects of vehicle use including vehicle roadworthiness, driver fatigue and vehicle overloading.

The overloading of trucks for a concentrated period such as harvest season is a major concern to the RTA and to local councils, both from a road safety perspective and because of accelerated damage to road pavements.

Prior to harvest time, the RTA advised rural producers that they would be targeting vehicles overloading breaches.

Overloaded heavy vehicles are a significant threat to road user safety and cause enormous damage to the road surface.

In the Western region, between 6 November and 29 November, the RTA intercepted a total of 530 heavy vehicles (excluding checking stations).

The total number of vehicles weighed were 122. (22% of intercepts).

The number of weight breaches were 81. (66% of vehicles weighed and 15% of intercepts).

The number of breaches for wheat carriers: 68 (83% of all breaches and 12% of intercepts).

The average percentage overload was 32% (range from 3.5 tonne to 41 tonne gross overload).

The number of defects issued were 69.

Approximately 46% of all weight breaches were issued to vehicles registered in another State, with most of these registered in Queensland.

The majority of breaches issued were to haulage contractors, with only one of the last twenty one issued to a primary producer.

Repeated overloading offences indicate a possible perception that these offences as a group may produce lenient penalties in the courts. The Authority needs to be pro active in this regard.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 7 December the Hon. D. J. Gay asked me a question without notice regarding road funding. The Minister for Roads has provided the following response:

The honourable member raised the same matters in a Question without Notice that he asked on 24 October last. A response provided by the Minister for Roads was printed in Hansard on 15 November, 1995. I will now repeat that response.

The New England Highway is a National Highway and improvement works are funded by the Commonwealth Government. Work to improve access to the Highway at Metford was nominated by the State for funding by the Commonwealth, and the Federal Government has approved the allocation of $2 million for the work.

In respect of Regional Road funding, the State has increased funding to local government for works on Regional Roads by $11 million in 1995/96. A total of approximately $9.2 million will be made available this financial year to councils wholly or partly in the electorate of Maitland.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 7 December the Hon. D. J. Gay asked me a question without notice regarding Olympic Games dedicated traffic lanes. The Minister for Roads has provided the following response:

Page 4980

The concept of assigning dedicated lanes for official Olympic traffic was proposed in Sydney's bid to host the Year 2000 Games.

It is the Government's strategy to provide public transport for spectators attending the Games. Heavy rail will access the Homebush Bay site and shuttle buses will operate from parking areas outside the Homebush Bay area. Special buses will operate from sectors of Sydney not served by rail and from country areas.

Detailed traffic management plans which will recognise the needs of Sydney and the Olympic Games have not yet been finalised. The Department of Transport (DoT) is evolving transport plans and the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) will co-operate with the DoT in providing for public transport access to the various venues.

The Government is pressing ahead with the construction of the City West link Road between the new Glebe Island Bridge at White Bay and Parramatta Road at Five Dock. Motorists travelling from the north will use this route to access Western Sydney.

Regarding road proposals between Five Dock and the M4 Motorway at Concord, the RTA is concentrating on implementing traffic management measures along Parramatta Road with a view to enhancing traffic flow on the road. There are no RTA plans proposed for the construction of an extension of the M4 easterly from Concord to Five Dock for the year 2000.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 11 December the Hon. S. B. Mutch asked me a question without notice regarding M2 and M5 motorways property acquisition. The Minister for Roads has provided the following response:

On 1 November last the Minister for Roads issued a News Release announcing that the Government had abolished the M2 Special Acquisition Policy in a move that could potentially save the State hundreds of millions of dollars. In this respect, the Minister indicated that while the Policy had been introduced to purchase some properties near the route of the M2 Motorway, people could have asked for it to be applied to every other road project throughout the State.

After its introduction for the M2 Motorway proposal, the Special Acquisition Policy was included in the Environmental Impact Statement for the M5 East project. However, as the Policy has now been abandoned, it no longer applies to the M5 East project and cannot be applied to any other road project.

Noise attenuation works will be carried out on both the M2 and M5 East Motorway projects.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 16 November the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti asked me, as the representative of the Minister for Sport and Recreation, a question without notice about the Andrew "Boy" Charlton Swimming Pool. I have been provided with the following answer:

Officers of the Department of Sport and Recreation met with Council officers on 10 November to discuss the project and the possibility of assistance with the project. Further details have been sought from Council. Council officers undertook to provide additional information in order that dialogue can continue in regard to the proposal for the Pool.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 21 November the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about seed services? I have now been supplied with the following answer:

•Yes, NSW Agriculture will increase fees for seed certification and registration services to achieve full cost recovery over the next two years.

•This is in line with government policy of full cost recovery where significant private benefit is derived from the supply of a service.

•This issue has been discussed by the Australian Seeds Committee, a sub-committee of the Plant Industries Committee, for the last four years. The Grains Council of Australia (GCA) Seed Section and the Seed Industry Association (SIA), peak seed industry bodies, are represented at this meeting.

At the 1994 Annual General Meetings of the NSW Seedgrowers Association, the Registered Cereal Seed Growers Association and the Seed Industry Association of Australia, these bodies were officially informed of NSW Agriculture's decision to seek full cost recovery for seed services.

Due to the drought NSW Agriculture delayed the introduction of the new fees in 1994. In July 1995 NSW Agriculture announced it was to proceed with the new fees. Key industry personnel and grower body meetings were again officially informed of NSW Agriculture's decision to proceed with the new fees, from 1 October 1995, aiming at full cost recovery over two seasons.

Questions without notice concluded.

[The Acting-President left the chair at 1.00 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]


The Hon. A. B. Manson, as Chairman, tabled report No. 1 of the Printing Committee.

Ordered to be printed.


Debate resumed from 13 December.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.31], in reply: I thank those honourable members who participated in the debate. I shall respond briefly to some of the concerns raised by them. I refer first to the claim that the legislation will prompt businesses to move to Queensland, where no financial institutions duty is payable. The legislation provides no incentive to
Page 4981
move to Queensland: if a business moves its banking to Queensland any funds received from it in Queensland from New South Wales services will be liable to financial institutions duty under legislation which has been in place since 1983, and funds received directly in Queensland from the sale of goods in New South Wales is not liable to FID in New South Wales because of constitutional limitations.

There seems to be confusion in relation to the proposal that regional headquarters should be directly funded by the Department of State Development rather than be entitled to various exemptions which are currently available under existing legislation. Members would be aware that some time ago the Government announced the introduction of the changes contained in this legislation. It was seen that a number of financial institutions which had not initially been thought to be the major beneficiaries of the legislation dealing with regional headquarters would be, resulting in there being a competitive disadvantage to existing financial institutions in New South Wales. Amongst other reasons, the difficulties arising in relation to fairness to their competitors led the Government some time ago to announce that it would introduce these measures.

It has also been claimed that the legislation will raise hundreds of millions of dollars. The indication I have been given by the Office of State Revenue is that the loss of revenue that will be stemmed by the legislation is in the vicinity of $10 million but that the figure could substantially increase if the amendment does not proceed. In other words, the loss of revenue to the State conceivably could be much higher than the estimated $10 million per annum if the loophole which this legislation aims to close is not closed. I also want to respond to the claim that the legislation was not circulated widely. The draft bill was sent to 21 peak industry and professional groups. New South Wales is the only jurisdiction that circulates revenue bills prior to their introduction in the Parliament. That practice was adopted by previous governments. I understand the Opposition intends to move an amendment, and I will deal with it in Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 7

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [2.42], by leave: I move the following amendments in globo:

No. 1 Page 34, Schedule 7, line 25 to page 35, Schedule 7, line 5. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 2 Page 35, Schedule 7, lines 14-22. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 3 Page 36, Schedule 7, lines 12 and 13. Omit all words on those lines.

Amendment No. 3 is the substantial amendment and amendments Nos 1 and 2 are consequential on the decision of the Committee to delete those lines. The bill proposes the omission of section 98LA(1)(g) from the Stamp Duties Act. As I indicated in my contribution to the second reading speech, in 1982 the then Labor Treasurer, Ken Booth, introduced section 98LA(1)(g) into the Act for one specific and explicit reason, that is, he sought an exception to the payment of stamp duties in order to encourage a short-term money market in New South Wales. That effort by the then Treasurer was successful. A significant short-term money market was adopted in New South Wales and it has worked efficiently since. As a consequence, New South Wales is a significant player in that field. However, the Minister has said that the exemption was proposed on the basis that there was a need to close a loophole, and he led many people to believe that assertion. Loopholes arise when there has been an unintended consequence from the legislation. There is no unintended consequence here. This was a deliberate attempt by the last Labor administration to establish a short-term money market in New South Wales.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: And it was supported by the previous coalition Government.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: It was supported by the coalition, and it was successful. The Minister wants to deliberately take away from the legislation an exemption which helps to sustain a short-term money market in New South Wales. He wants to tax the short-term money market out of New South Wales. Honourable members who wish to sustain a short-term money market should support the Opposition's amendments. Not only will the Government tax those who can afford to pay it - the big end of town - it will tax every person in New South Wales who has retired, who has received superannuation, who has taken a lump sum payout and deposited it into a bank account.

Under the State superannuation scheme a person has 30 days to decide whether to accept a lump sum. Many people take the lump sum, talk to investment advisers and deposit the money into a bank until a further decision has been made. The provisions of this bill will ensure that every widow or widower of a State employee will be in the same situation. For instance, when my father-in-law died recently, under the State superannuation scheme my mother-in-law became entitled to a lump sum conversion of a pension. That amount was in excess of $100,000. She had 30 days to make up her mind about what to do with the money - either elect to take the lump sum or accept the pension. She elected to take the lump sum. Under the proposed scheme, if she had put the money into the short-term money market, she would have had to prepare a taxation return and lodge it with the Office of State Revenue. If that had not been done, she would have been subject to criminal penalties. That will happen to every widow or widower of a State employee under the Government's proposal.

Page 4982

That is just plain stupidity. It is a deliberate attempt by this Government to take away an exemption to secure additional taxation revenue. It is not about closing a loophole. This measure is a deliberate attempt to gain further taxation revenue at the expense of widows, widowers and retired people in New South Wales who take a superannuation lump sum. It will adversely affect every person who puts a significant sum into the short-term money market until a decision is made as to its use. Included among those affected will be every householder who sells a house and is waiting for settlement on the purchase of another house. If such a person places money into the short-term money market, taxation returns will have to be submitted to the Office of State Revenue.

The Minister and the Government will stand condemned if this legislation is passed, as will every member on the crossbenches who supports it. This legislation supports a tax on individuals in this State who, for some reason or another, put money into a short-term account to preserve the value of the money until a decision is made about it. Beneficiaries waiting for a deceased estate to be distributed will now have to pay tax to the Government and lodge a taxation return. If that is not done, they will face criminal proceedings. So much for this Government's claim that it stands up for the small person in this State. Clearly it does not. It stands up for big business. It is a taxing government.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [2.49]: I take the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. What concerns me even more is the signal that is sent out to the financial community of this State. New South Wales is making desperate attempts to attract business from Singapore, Hong Kong, Melbourne and, if possible, Brisbane and Adelaide. I am concerned that misleading and incorrect signals are being sent to big businesses and corporations. We want to attract business and to make it as easy as possible for companies to do business in this State. That is serious. It is perhaps more serious than people paying an extra $60, $80 or $120 in tax. In the long term the tax will cost much more than it will raise.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.50]: The proposal to prevent companies from directly depositing receipts into short-term dealings is aimed squarely at an avoidance practice that abuses the short-term dealings concession, particularly as a means of transferring funds out of New South Wales with minimal financial institutions duty. The criticism of the proposal appears to be based on an incorrect assumption that no amounts in excess of $100,000 can be invested short term without attracting a liability for the primary rate of duty. In fact, the antiavoidance provisions operate by way of exception: a liability is imposed only on persons who directly deposit receipts in excess of $100,000 with a short-term dealer. That is, funds already placed in the short-term market or otherwise with a financial institution are not subject to the provisions.

It is true that the proceeds of a house sale could not be directly invested short term without incurring a higher FID liability. However, this is effectively limited to investment properties or a vendor who has substantial equity in the property sold. It should be noted that the provisions apply to receipts in excess of $100,000. It should also be noted that the provisions allow cash receipts to be excluded if they would not in the ordinary course of business be deposited with a financial institution. To the extent that companies will face an increased FID bill, the evidence to date indicates that this will occur only when a company has deliberately arranged its banking to minimise financial institutions duty in this manner.

The provision closing the loophole will apply only when money is lodged on the short-term market and transferred to Queensland or when money - that is, more than $100,000 - is deposited to a contrived short-term account operated by cash management trusts. The short-term concession that was introduced many years ago, as the Leader of the Opposition said, was intended to apply only to genuine short-term money market transactions by money market operators. Historically, once FID of 0.06 per cent was paid, persons were free to obtain a concessional rate of financial institutions duty. The Leader of the Opposition is incorrect in saying that a fair amount of concern has been expressed by a number of organisations about this legislation. That came about because some interested organisations ran off to the Australian Financial Review with the result that that publication published an hysterical article, which in turn caused, I believe, unnecessary concern amongst a number of other players in the financial market.

I point out, as I have done previously, that New South Wales is the only State that consults prior to the introduction of revenue legislation. There is always a danger in doing that because, when such legislation is intended to close a loophole, by consulting with various players in the industry one runs the risk of alerting people to the existence of the loophole. The legislation introduced by the Government was prompted partly by some of the financial institutions not taking advantage of the loophole, which had become apparent, complaining to the Treasurer that others were taking advantage of it. Obviously those financial institutions want to operate on a level playing field. As the Government sees it, it would be most unfair to discriminate against those financial institutions complying with the legislation in the manner in which it was always intended to operate, as against those who are avoiding the tax liability. Nevertheless, as I indicated, the Government concedes that there is some concern. I give an undertaking that the Government will not proclaim the provisions dealing with FID antiavoidance until there has been a full opportunity to consult those various organisations that have expressed concern to the Government.

Page 4983

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [2.55]: It is the height of arrogance for the Treasurer to say, as he did in his final words, "I undertake not to proclaim the legislation until I have further consulted." What does that mean? Basically, he is saying that at some stage he will proclaim the legislation; therefore, everything that I have said, which he acknowledged is true, will come about. That is, householders who sell their homes will pay tax; estates will pay tax; all superannuants will pay tax; and all widows and widowers will pay tax - and the Treasurer is happy for that to occur. At least I welcome his honesty in the briefing note he read to the House. The Treasurer acknowledged that the concerns I raised were justified; that the matters I referred to will occur.

Any family that sells a home and is fortunate enough, after paying the mortgage and completing settlement, to have $100,000 or more left over to put into a second home, and puts that money into the short-term money market to gain maximum interest while awaiting settlement, will pay tax. At least the Treasurer was honest enough to acknowledge that. But he did not say that he will resile from that attitude. He said that the Government will wait until it has talked to a few more people and then it will proclaim the legislation. That is not acceptable to this Government-in-waiting. I wish to restate the approach taken by the Government to consult in relation to this provision. The Treasurer did not refer to the provision in his speech, he did not refer to it in his briefing notes and it is not referred to in any information distributed about the legislation.

People found out about the provision only when the Opposition asked some of the financial markets about the implications of it. We found the provision in the legislation but we were not sure about its implications. The market went crazy. So much for open consultation by the Government! Let us not quibble about this: the Government intended to sneak a provision through the Parliament that would have realised for it tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars. The Treasurer may not have even known about the provision, but I am sure his advisers and Treasury officers knew of it and intended to sneak it through. I have not the slightest doubt that they gave the Treasurer and Cabinet the biggest snow job of all time.

The provision was deliberately introduced by a former Labor Treasurer, whom the present Treasurer has been heard to refer to as an idol, to establish a market in New South Wales. When I drew attention to this provision, it was obvious to everyone who saw the Treasurer on the television, from the reaction on his face and his body language, that he did not know it was in the legislation. The Treasurer did not know that the provision was inserted deliberately by the previous Government. He actually started to believe his own words that the provision was a loophole, because that is what was fed to him by his advisers. The Treasurer has been shown up for that now, and he will stand condemned, as will his Government, if the proposed provision goes through the Parliament.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.00]: I have never heard so much tripe as I have just heard from the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is surely aware that the provision applies only to direct deposits into a short-term money market account. If funds are deposited first to a normal account which is subject to financial institutions duty, for example a savings account, those funds are not caught by the provision. The Leader of the Opposition gave the example of someone who sells a house. I have sold a house, and when I got the proceeds of sale I put them into a bank account and paid financial institutions duty. It was a few years ago now, but I think the house was worth about $140,000 and I would have paid $84 in financial institutions duty.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: On top of all the other charges.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is right, and I paid it, just as everyone who sells a house and puts the money into a bank account pays the duty. Anyone who puts money into a bank account pays financial institutions duty. It is the smarties and the shrewdies who are trying to rip off the people who pay their tax who have devised this scheme. The legislation introduced by former Treasurer Ken Booth was not intended to provide a loophole for the shrewdies and the smarties. Given some of the private conversations I have had on the Government benches in the past few days, it would appear that even a couple of members of the House are taking advantage of the loophole.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Name them.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, I am not going to name them. I keep private conversations private, even though some honourable members do not do so and are prepared to relate private conversations to the Sydney Morning Herald or other news media. The vast majority of taxpayers who deposit large amounts of money - and they do not often get their hands on large amounts of money - deposit it in normal bank accounts prior to entering the short-term money market. They are the people who are being cheated by those who are using provisions designed to encourage a short-term money market in this State. Certainly those provisions were intended to encourage a short-term money market; they were not intended to enable people to avoid the payment of financial institutions duty. The words of the Leader of the Opposition would lead one to think that somehow this provision was placing a new impost on people who sell their homes.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: It is.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Has the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby sold a home in the past 10 years?

Page 4984

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: Only about three weeks ago!

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Did she put the funds direct into a short-term money market account? Of course she did not - she paid the tax.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: No.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: She did a settlement at the same time.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: And I have to repay the bank.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: She did not have to put money into an account.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Then the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby was very lucky. But if she had put money in the bank, as everyone does if a house sale is not part of a settlement, then she would have had to pay financial institutions duty. When people sell a house and put the proceeds into a normal bank account they pay financial institutions duty, just as all citizens do when they put money into the bank. Why should those people be disadvantaged by the smarties and the shrewdies who try to take advantage of a provision designed to encourage a short-term money market to avoid paying their tax?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [3.04]: I am pleased that the Treasurer acknowledges that the provision was deliberately included in the legislation to establish a short-term money market. Where does money for a short-term money market come from? Perhaps it comes from those who want to put money into an account for a short term. That being so, where will institutions get money for a short term? Perhaps it comes from the thousands of people across New South Wales each week who sell their homes and have to wait a few weeks until they are able to complete their purchase. The Minister said that people who sell their homes should put their money into a savings account, like he did. In today's markets a savings account provides an interest rate of 2 per cent to 4 per cent, depending on the fund chosen. Surely many people would act on advice that they can get 10 per cent to 12 per cent, depending on the risk taken, from the short-term money market, the 11 a.m. money market. I ask members on the crossbenches to consider the reality when people are given proper advice. If proceeds are available for investment for a month or so, will people deposit their money into an account that earns 2 per cent to 3 per cent or an account that earns 10 per cent to 12 per cent? The Treasurer says that people should put their money into a savings account that earns 2 per cent to 3 per cent.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: And pay tax on it.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: That is correct, they will have to pay tax as well. The Treasurer is saying that those people should not put money into a short-term money market, which has been established by the Government under legislation, because then they would make money, like everybody else. The Treasurer's argument reflects his lack of understanding of the real position. The Treasurer has lived a closeted life and as a consequence he does not understand that people really have to work and want to look after their families. The Treasurer is saying to superannuants with $150,000 or $200,000 - or retired politicians with several hundred thousand dollars - and to widows that they should put their money into an account that pays 2 per cent to 3 per cent for a month or two, rather than an account that pays 10 per cent to 12 per cent, until they determine a suitable long-term investment.

That goes to show the folly of the Treasurer and the stupidity of this provision that he wants to pursue, and only emphasises that this is a Treasury-driven initiative to try to rip more money away from individuals in the community so that there will be a little more to bolster consolidated revenue. The provision was included in this bill deliberately and secretly. I do not have the slightest doubt that if the Labor Party caucus or Cabinet really knew what was going on the provision would not have appeared in the bill. The Minister should stand condemned. Members on the crossbenches should join the Opposition, eliminate this provision and protect ordinary taxpayers.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.07]: I am glad that the Treasurer has acknowledged that there is concern within the financial community and has said that the Act will not be proclaimed for the time being. It would be much better to carry the legislation over to the first sitting day of 1996 so that it can be reconsidered next year. Why pass the bill now but have a sword of Damocles hanging over the Government? The people who operate in the money market would not be very happy to be called smarties and shrewdies.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: No, not them.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: They are the people the Minister is talking about. He said they are taking advantage of the provision included in the legislation by former Treasurer Booth. They would not like to be called smarties and shrewdies. We need those people for the development of this State; they are the people we need to attract. We need financial developers, and people from Singapore and Hong Kong, and they do not like to be called smarties and shrewdies.

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Bull Mrs Nile
Mrs Chadwick Rev. Nile
Mr Cohen Dr Pezzutti
Mrs Forsythe Mr Ryan
Dr Goldsmith Mr Samios
Mr Hannaford Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Jones Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Kersten Mr Tingle
Miss Kirkby Tellers,
Mr Moppett Mr Corbett
Mr Mutch Mr Lynn

Page 4985

Mrs Arena Mr Manson
Dr Burgmann Mr O'Grady
Ms Burnswoods Mr Shaw
Mr Dyer Ms Staunton
Mr Egan Mr Vaughan
Mrs Isaksen Tellers,
Mr Johnson Mr Kaldis
Mr Macdonald Ms Saffin

Mr Jobling Mr Obeid
Mr Willis Mrs Symonds

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments, and report adopted.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.18]: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The bill will now be returned to the Legislative Assembly, which will consider the Legislative Council's amendments. As I pointed out during the second reading debate one of the provisions of the bill seeks to close a loophole that the Government estimates is currently costing the State $10 million per annum. As I also said during the second reading debate, it could well be that that revenue loss will increase now that more people will be able to take advantage of the provision or become aware of the opportunity to do so. Therefore, the Government will need to consider whether to proceed with other aspects of the bill, which, in the main, involve concessions. The Government is clearly not in a position to deprive the essential services of this State of revenue if it will be faced with a substantial revenue loss. The Government will have to decide during the next few days whether to proceed with the legislation as amended.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [3.21]: This bill was not intended to close a loophole. The comments of the Treasurer have clearly indicated that the amendment in the bill was part of a deliberate attempt to increase revenue and provide benefits. The way the Government is now tying those two matters together only serves to emphasise that fact. If the Treasurer was honest with this Parliament and with the people of New South Wales, he would have included those measures in the budget, which the House finished debating only a few days ago. However, the Treasurer did not do so. His comments here today, highlighted by the threat he has just made, only serve to emphasise the point that I made earlier: the way this bill has been dealt with was a deliberate attempt to deceive the Parliament and the public. For that, the Government stands condemned.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [3.24]: In 1992 the Greiner Government established the Government Pricing Tribunal under the Government Pricing Tribunal Act. Its function is to determine the maximum price for monopoly services supplied by government agencies and to report on the pricing policies of the agencies. The present chairman, Mr Tom Parry, has done a good job. The bill seeks to extend the original jurisdiction of the tribunal so that it is able to conduct investigations and to report on matters of pricing, industry and competition which are referred to it by the Government. The Opposition has some concerns about the legislation. The powers are extended beyond what was originally intended. The Opposition believes that there should be a sunset clause of five years. The Opposition is also concerned about the new title of the tribunal. It is now to be called the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales. I am informed that the appointments to the tribunal will be one full-time and two part-time members, a total of three members. The Opposition believes that the tribunal needs more full-time staff. The Opposition is also concerned that the tribunal will deal with environmental issues, a jurisdiction which it is difficult for the tribunal to operate. The Opposition supports the bill in principle, but proposes to move a number of amendments at the Committee stage.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.30]: This legislation was prepared after considerable consultation with Peter Macdonald, the honourable member for Manly. The bill expands the activities of what was the Government Pricing Tribunal, which will now be the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. The Australian Democrats supported the setting up of the original tribunal under the Greiner Government. That tribunal provided a useful arms-length method of setting prices so that the relevant Minister was not blamed for increasing prices of, for example, water, electricity or whatever. Electricity cross-subsidies have been the subject of concern, and industry prices have now fallen. Prices have also fallen for private consumers, though the reduction in prices is likely to be reversed slightly in the future. Cross-subsidies in water pricing have also been a contentious issue. Retail establishments were paying huge water bills for using only about one cup a day. The Government Pricing Tribunal has gradually removed the problems associated with cross-subsidies.

Page 4986

The tribunal has been a useful vehicle to this point. It is currently considering the pricing of timber. Timber pricing by State Forests has been haphazard - more a mates' style pricing; this resource has not been the subject of a tendering process. World market prices were not being paid for timber. Attempts were made to secure world market prices, but they did not succeed when the mates started asking forestry about their deals and agreements. Through the efforts of the Government Pricing Tribunal, that style of pricing will come to an end in July next year. At that time proper prices will be received for our timber, which will result in there being a sustainable timber industry. At page 9 of the bill new section 14A(2)(g) is as follows:

the need to maintain ecologically sustainable development within the meaning of section 6 of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act by appropriate pricing policies that take account of all the feasible options available to protect the environment.

Economic considerations cannot be taken into account on their own; environmental considerations must also be taken into account because somebody must pays at some time. At page 7 of the bill proposed section 12B deals with the notice of proposed access agreements. This new section will be important with the break-up of the electricity industry and access to infrastructure and will ensure the system is not rorted. At page 10 item [16] of schedule 1 to the bill will remove the words "the protection of the environment" from section 15 and insert "the need to maintain ecologically sustainable development". Again ecologically sustainable development comes to the fore. Under this legislation the independent pricing tribunal will ensure that pricing across the board will be adequately considered on economic and ecologically sustainable development principles. The Australian Democrats support the Government Pricing Tribunal Amendment Bill and on behalf of the member for Manly thank the Government for the consultation.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. J. W. Shaw.


The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.40]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

Australia has the worst record of mammal extinction rates in the world and almost a quarter of the nation's 22,000 plant species are now classed as threatened.

There are 234 species of fauna listed as under threat in this State. Some are found nowhere else in the world, others occur elsewhere in Australia but must contend with a host of threats, including habitat loss and fragmentation; habitat degradation and the introduction of exotic species.

The conservation status of plants in NSW is equally alarming. When the national list of Rare or Threatened Australian Plants (ROTAP) was last revised in 1988, there were 537 plants on the NSW list. Now, only seven years later, there are 770 plants listed by ROTAP as under threat in NSW.

The situation in NSW is critical. We do not have comprehensive threatened species legislation in NSW despite the long list of species lost or pushed to the brink of extinction.

It is obvious from the figures mentioned that the system for protecting threatened species in NSW has shortcomings. To improve the outlook however it is first necessary to understand what are the technical shortcomings of the existing legislation.

The operative legislation (the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974) was amended by the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act 1991 by the Government when in Opposition to provide a degree of relief to threatened fauna and has certainly mitigated what might have been an even worse situation. However the protection available is restricted to endangered fauna and there is no effective protection for threatened plants, invertebrates or ecological communities.

Most importantly, there is no systematic process for the protection of critical habitat for threatened species.

Since the destruction or fragmentation of habitat is the main cause of species extinction and biodiversity loss, it is absolutely vital to conserve habitat and to fully protect critical habitat that is known to be essential for species survival.

The existing legislation also fails to recognise the importance of recovery planning and the control of threatening processes.

The Coalition Government introduced a Bill in 1993 (Endangered and other Threatened Species Conservation Bill) with the supposed intention of promoting the recovery of endangered species of flora and fauna and balancing the competing demands for land use and biodiversity conservation.

In reality that Bill would have completely abandoned the licensing system introduced by the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act. It was to be replaced by amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to provide that the effects of activities or developments on threatened species were taken into account in some nebulous way in the planning process.

In addition, the Coalition Bill would have effectively done away with offences for the disturbance of habitat outside of critical habitat.

The Bill was never enacted and did not deserve to be enacted.

Other proposals have also been advanced for protection of threatened species. While well-intentioned, these proposals tend to extremes and would dissipate the conservation effort across countless low risk issues at the expense of focussing on critical concerns for biodiversity conservation.

These alternative proposals also fail to grapple with the unavoidable fact that socio-economic concerns must be taken into account in decision-making. At the level of process, they do not integrate species conservation into the planning system and rely, instead, on a separate licensing system that is divorced from the environmental assessment and development control process.

The Government has persistently tried to consult extensively in the development of new comprehensive threatened species legislation. Seemingly, others do not want to see fulsome consultation.

Page 4987

Three months ago the Government sought to extend the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act 1991 until May next year. That proposal was made in order to allow an adequate period for public consultation in finalising new and comprehensive legislation to protect threatened species. The Opposition however decided on that occasion to agree only to an extension of the interim Act to the end of 1995.

It is a matter of regret that the Opposition has no interest in furthering community involvement and in consequence has not been prepared to cooperate in the extension of the interim laws. Despite the time constraints foisted upon it by the Opposition, the Government has had considerable negotiations with key stakeholders and has prepared an impressive piece of legislation. I emphasise again that the Government would have preferred a more inclusive process. It is plain that conservation of endangered species needs not only government commitment but also requires community support.

The Bill is effective and well balanced in its provisions. I will outline in a moment the major features of the Bill. Before doing so I feel it is important to emphasise at this stage what we actually mean by the term "Threatened Species." Under the Bill, the term is used in a general sense and is taken to include two categories of risk:

(1) Endangered Species: namely, a species that is likely to become extinct in nature unless the factors threatening its survival or development cease;

(2) Vulnerable Species: a species that is likely to move into the endangered category in the near future if the causal factors continue to operate;

A third category (presumed extinct) is also recognised. If a species presumed extinct is rediscovered, the species will automatically be deemed endangered.

Recognising the shortcomings of the legislative alternatives, the Government has developed comprehensive legislation which affords maximum protection for threatened species, uses the planning system when it is most appropriate to do so, but retains separate licensing where actions are likely to have a significant impact on threatened species but do not require approval under the EP&A Act.

It is true to say that, in integrating threatened species conservation so fully into the planning system NSW is leading the way.

The legislation will provide a streamlined assessment process; tougher penalties for offences and comprehensive coverage for species at risk. For the first time in NSW threatened plants, invertebrates and critical habitat will receive recognition and effective protection.

The legislation will cover all native plants and animals (including invertebrates and non-vascular plants) and ecological communities which are classified as threatened.

It will not cover fish or marine plants however, the Government is committed to amending the Fisheries Management Act 1994 to incorporate the relevant principles of the Threatened Species Legislation.

Threatened species, ecological communities and threatening processes will be identified and regularly reviewed by a 10-member scientific committee comprising representatives from NSW tertiary institutions, the CSIRO, the Ecological Society of Australia, the Entomological Society of Australia, the Australian Museum, the Royal Botanic Gardens and 3 other Government representatives, and an appropriately qualified agricultural scientist.

The Minister will receive the Committee's final determinations on categorising species etc and, subject to any review considered necessary by the Minister will proceed to make formal listings.

Essentially, the legislation will provide for:

(1) The declaration and protection of critical habitat. Critical habitat is defined as the area or areas known to be essential for the survival of endangered species.

(2) The preparation of recovery plans. Recovery plans will outline the process for the recovery of individual species, with the ultimate aim of ensuring the long term survival of the species.

(3) The preparation of threat abatement plans to control key threatening processes. Plans will address key threatening processes affecting more than one listed species/community or operating at a State-wide or bioregional level.

(4) Licensing of actions which do not require consent or approval under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act but are likely to have a significant impact on threatened species. Licence applications will be assessed by the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife. Before a licence can issue, a species impact statement, prepared in accordance with NPWS guidelines and any special requirements stipulated by the Director-General, will need to be prepared. However, where the Director-General forms the view that the impact of the proposed action is trivial or negligible, the need for a Species Impact Statement may be waived.

Significantly, all routine agricultural practices will be exempt from licensing. Only those actions which are listed in the Regulations after mandatory consultation between the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife and the Director-General of Agriculture will require licensing.

Another reduction in the impact on the rural community will be the capacity for all actions undertaken in accordance with a Property Management Plan approved by the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife for the purposes of this Act to be also exempt from licensing.

(5) An obligation to obtain the concurrence of the Director-General, National Parks and Wildlife for actions requiring consent or approval under parts IV or V of the EP&A Act that will have a significant impact on endangered species. However, where a matter is determined by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning or another Minister, concurrence will be replaced by mandatory consultation with the Minister for the Environment before a decision is made by the relevant Minister. This provides a mechanism for the resolution of conflicting public interest requirements in the most appropriate way, but ensures that endangered species interests are fully considered.

As an additional safeguard there will be a requirement that where the determining Minister does not adopt any recommendations made by the Director-General, the reasons for this must be provided.

(6) The imposition of severe penalties for offences.

I would point out that the Bill prohibits the destruction or adverse modification of any area that has been declared as critical habitat.

Critical habitat will be declared at the discretion of the Minister for the Environment with the advice of the Director-General, National Parks and Wildlife. The declaration process will provide for public involvement and will also have regard to socio-economic consequences and existing rights and interests.

To maximise certainty for development proponents, it will be possible to identify the existence of critical habitat early in the planning process, ideally during the preparation of local environmental studies or plans or regional environmental plans.

In most cases, the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife will have a concurrence role for actions in declared areas of critical habitat. It is important to note, however, that critical habitat means just that. It is not all

Page 4988
habitat. Where an area is in fact critical to the survival of an endangered species, development proposals with adverse impact already encounter considerable hurdles to approval. A process to formally recognise that an area is critical habitat is in everyone's interests.

The legislation also requires the Minister for the Environment to consult with other Ministers when declarations of critical habitat are being considered. As with other aspects of the legislative package, consultation is considered to be absolutely fundamental in ensuring guaranteed protection for critical habitat.

As far as existing rights and interests are concerned, the Minister for the Environment will be required to consider the likely impact on landholders' existing uses in declaring land to be critical habitat. The option of negotiating conservation agreements as provided for in the National Parks and Wildlife Act will be pursued in appropriate circumstances.

The Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife will be responsible for preparing recovery plans for all endangered species. Ideally, plans will also be prepared for all threatened species. However the resource implications of this process mean that the Director-General must have the discretion to make a decision on plan preparation for vulnerable species where appropriate.

Plans will usually provide information on species status; habitat requirements and principal threats; recovery objectives; recovery criteria; actions needed and estimated cost of recovery.

Priority will normally be given to species which are endangered nationally.

The relevant agencies will be consulted in the development of plans and approval of the Minister for each affected agency must be obtained before any action relating to their administration is included in a recovery plan.

The Bill states explicitly that the Director-General must take socio-economic factors into account in the recovery planning process, as must the Minister in deciding whether to approve a draft plan.

Threatening processes are defined in the Bill as those processes which have or may have the capability to threaten the survival or evolutionary development of any plant or animal species or ecological community.

Key Threatening processes will be proposed for listing by the Scientific Committee and may be the subject of threat abatement plans, prepared on a priority basis by the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife.

While a definitive list of processes has yet to be developed, examples could include habitat loss and fragmentation as a result of land clearing; competition, predation and land degradation by feral animals.

Like recovery plans, threat abatement plans will consider socio-economic consequences at both the draft and approval stages. The plans will not be strictly binding on authorities but every effort must be taken to implement measures in an approved threat abatement plan. The Minister for the Environment must be informed of any decision by an agency which is inconsistent with the requirements of a plan; and disputes will be referred to the Premier for resolution if they cannot be settled between Ministers.

As mentioned earlier, the Legislation minimises the need for separate licensing and integrates the conservation of threatened species into the development control processes of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

The Threatened Species Conservation Bill adopts the following approach:

In areas of declared critical habitat, an action requiring development consent under part IV of the EP&A Act or activity approval under part V, will, in most cases, require a species impact statement.

If the statement indicates that endangered species are involved, the following factors apply:

(i) Where a matter is determined by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning or another Minister, it will be necessary to consult with the Minister for the Environment before a decision is made. Where the Director-General's advice is not pursued, the reasons must be provided.

(ii) Otherwise, all relevant matters needing consent or approval under parts IV or V of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act will require the concurrence of the Director-General, National Parks and Wildlife.

Actions which require development consent or approval and are likely to have a significant impact on endangered species but do not occur within critical habitat will also need a species impact statement and will trigger the concurrence provisions I have just mentioned.

However, concurrence provisions will not apply where a significant impact only affects vulnerable species. In those cases, consent/determining authorities will be required to consult with the Director-General.

Actions which do not require consent or approval under the EP&A Act but are likely to have a significant impact on threatened species will be subject to the issue of a licence by the Director-General, National Parks and Wildlife.

The likelihood of significant impact on threatened species will be determined using a test which is prescribed in the Bill.

This formulation will ensure a high degree of predictability and rigour in determining the critical concept of "significant impact."

The Legislation will enable the Director-General to enter into voluntary conservation agreements and joint management agreements with public authorities to protect threatened species and communities.

There will also be provision for the imposition of stop work orders and the making of interim protection orders to provide immediate protection in emergencies. These measures may not be imposed where the activity being carried out is one authorised by a valid consent or approval under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act or by a license under the National Parks and Wildlife Act, this Act, Bushfires Act or State Emergency and Rescue Management Act.

The maximum penalties for damage to declared critical habitat or for harming endangered animals or picking endangered plants without consent/approval or a licence will be $200,000 or 2 years imprisonment or both. This is much tougher than the present system, where penalties are limited to taking or killing endangered fauna ($100,000 or 2 years imprisonment or both) or vulnerable and rare fauna ($20,000 or one years imprisonment or both).

In addition to the more serious offence of damaging declared critical habitat, there will be a separate offence of damaging habitat.

The Bill preserves existing third party appeal rights. However, Olympics development and associated infrastructure will be exempt from third party rights claims as a matter of necessity.

The Government made 26 amendments to the Threatened Species Conservation Bill.

Seventeen of these are corrections of cross-referencing or other minor errors in the Bill as tabled.

The remaining amendments were more significant and reflect the product of the Government's commitment to consultation.

One provided a definition in this Bill of "region" to mean a bioregion, to distinguish it from "region" as defined in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and to give it a relevant biological meaning. This definition is repeated in various places in the Bill.

Page 4989

Another ensured that where maps of critical habitat are prepared they are served on landholders of land on which critical habitat is located. The requirement for serving maps on public authorities who manage or exercise other relevant functions over land on which critical habitat is located has been refined.

Of most importance was an amendment arising as a result of consultation with farmers on this Bill. It ensures that routine farm management is not caught up in red tape. This amendment will exempt from licensing all routine farming practices and their ancillary activities.

This principle will be given effect to in the legislation by listing in the Regulations only those actions which may require licensing on the basis of an informed assessment of their potentially significant impact on threatened species or their habitat. Any additions to or omissions from the Regulations may only be made after the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife has consulted with the Director-General of Agriculture. The list of actions in the Regulations will be developed as a matter of urgency immediately following the passage of this legislation through Parliament. Key stakeholders such as the NSW Farmers' Association will also be consulted.

In addition, the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife may approve a Property Management Plan prepared by any landholder. Such approval will exempt all activities carried out in accordance with the Plan from licensing whether or not the activity is listed in the Regulations.

Consequently, the undertaking of routine farming practices or actions carried out under a Property Management Plan approved by the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife for the purposes of this Act will not be liable to any prosecution in respect of all new offences created by this Bill.

There is now a provision which enables the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife to dispense with the requirement for the preparation of a Species Impact Statement where the Director-General is satisfied that the impact of the activity concerned will be trivial or negligible. This is a mechanism to exempt the proponents of activities with very minor impacts from the requirements of unnecessary bureaucracy.

Finally there is an amendment ensuring that when the Minister for the Environment or the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife are consulted for the purposes of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act that the likely social and economic consequences of any activity not being carried out is a separate head of consideration.

The legislation will be subject to a review in two years time with the outcome to be tabled in Parliament. Whatever the reasons for our dismal record in saving the diversity of native plants and animals in NSW I hope that we can at last move forward by accepting the opportunities which the Bill will provide for constructive and efficient conservation practice.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [3.44]: All honourable members are aware that the Threatened Species Conservation Bill (No. 2) is one of the Government's key pieces of legislation still to be considered in the remaining time before the recess. This is important legislation. Obviously the community has been wrestling for some time with a comprehensive approach to the problem of endangered species and protected flora and fauna. As I have said on previous occasions, the impact of recent circumstances on the timber industry is unsatisfactory. On a number of occasions members have been taken through the historical sequence which led to a state of crisis, albeit suspended crisis, which lasted a long time. First in that sequence was the famous Chaelundi decision in the Land and Environment Court which determined that the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act had a significant effect on normal timber operations. Until that decision was reached timber operations throughout the State had been conducted quite lawfully.

Parliament then moved in two particular directions which are of significance when considering this bill. First was the introduction of the Fauna Protection Act in an attempt to codify the Government's approach to the outfall from the decision in order to give a framework by which people could make everyday decisions prior to a comprehensive bill being introduced. Second was the consequential introduction of the Timber Industry (Interim Protection) Act. I would describe the Threatened Species Conservation Bill (No. 2) as an enabling bill. Of itself, the bill does not set out the control measures which will come into operation to protect endangered species, whether flora or fauna, in this State, but basically refers one back to the National Parks and Wildlife Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Together, the three Acts provide the framework upon which, hopefully, it will be possible to resolve a number of questions that will enable various land-use industries to proceed with certainty.

Threatened species have been the subject of considerable debate, but it is only over the last week or so that the Opposition has realised that the Government intended to introduce this legislation rather than extend the provisions of the Timber Industry (Interim Protection) Act, so that further consideration could be given to a comprehensive threatened species conservation bill. Since the introduction of the bill in another place last week there has been much consultation with farmer and timber industry organisations. Alarms have been raised that the provisions of the bill, because they relate to all biological species, could be extended into the fishing industry and other industries. It is an indictment of the Government that such significant legislation has been introduced at this late stage of the session, forcing interested parties to develop considered opinions in a short space of time. Opposition and crossbench members have had to reach a considered opinion and position in regard to the bill. Major groups have reservations about what the bill says and does not say. Details of machinery set up by the bill are yet to be made clear.

Despite the hasty and unsatisfactory introduction of the bill, the Opposition wishes generally to cooperate with the Government, but wants to debate a number of amendments. That debate will not be short, nor can we assure the Government that the bill will be dealt with expeditiously. The considerations involved are very weighty as they impact on many industries.
Page 4990
Communities throughout this State are waiting anxiously to hear how debate develops on the bill. A number of areas have yet to be dealt with in detail, and many concerns will be expressed in debate in Committee. The Opposition is most anxious that this long and extended period of indecision comes to an end. Deep anxiety has developed about the effects the legislation will have on forestry. That will be the most contentious part of the debate. The bill has been the subject of much discussion within the farming community, which has been reassured that the legislation is not designed to stop the clock on normal farming operations. In normal farming practice interference with animal communities is inevitable.

Farmers are uncertain how the proposal will affect the use of fire in farming practices. The use of fire to remove stubble and crop remnants from farm fields has been a longstanding subject of debate within agricultural communities. Farmers who, with the best intentions in the world, have practised minimum cultivation techniques and stubble retention may find at the conclusion of a crop cycle that diseases have entered their croplands, and might deem it prudent and necessary to burn remnant stubble off the fields. It would be almost inevitable that some animal species would be affected by such an operation. The use of fire in farming practices is related to bushfire control. In its initial implementation the legislation should be limited to areas where its effects are fully understood.

Under the previous Act the timber industry was a political football. That industry was first singled out in the Chaelundi decision. A reputable section of the farming community has identified a number of threatened species that must be conserved. Every effort should be made wherever possible to ensure these species are fully protected. Within those general guidelines, exceptions can be made so that a sustained yield can be taken from a native plant or animal species that might otherwise be protected and provided for in the carrying out of farming operations. These exceptions should be regulated in a proper way. A section of the bill is devoted to the granting of such licences, and I welcome that measure. Overzealous pursuit of protection of identified endangered species has disrupted the timber industry and hangs over investment in the timber industry in New South Wales like an incubus.

This legislation does not do a great deal more than introduce certainty into a world of uncertainty but the Opposition welcomes a structure through which we can work towards an environment that is friendly not only to wildlife but also is not inimical to reasonable commercial pursuits in various habitats throughout New South Wales. The scientific committee established by the bill will replace the scientific committee established under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Its work will be pivotal to the bill's operation. The findings of the committee in relation to conservation measures for particular species must be seen as beyond reproach. The committee will basically be reconstituted in its previous form, giving continuity of assessments.

The bill sets out the mechanism for the establishment of lists of endangered species, how eligible species will be assessed and the process of maintaining the lists. It establishes a method by which critical habitats can be identified and subsequently declared - a major issue in the debate about the impact of extractive industries. There will be controversy about how to define critical habitats. We saw an example today in the debate about the revocation of dedication of forests. It was asserted that substantial specimen trees were logged without consideration of their conservation value or role as habitats for local fauna. I think Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said that in his experience such trees were already excluded from logging by responsible forest services in recognition of the expectations of the community. The bill will go a stage further by ensuring that critical habitats of various endangered species will be identified. Public consultation and scrutiny on the declaration of critical habitats should strike a balance between conservation of threatened species and access of our extractive industries to natural resources.

The bill will provide for recovery plans of threatened species and ecological communities. There should be a moratorium on activity which continues to prey on them so that communities can recover from the brink of extinction, protecting them for future generations, with aesthetic and in some cases more material advantages. The industry most affected by the legislation, forestry, has had difficulties in the last four or five years in assessing the impact of legislation protecting endangered species. The Forest Products Association would prefer one body of legislation to give a clear indication of overall policy. The association should have to deal with a minimum of government agencies in seeking approval for its continued operations and should be confident about the decisions made. The association recognises that society has expectations of comprehensive legislation in this area. It is not opposed in principle to the introduction of the legislation - to the contrary; it welcomes a comprehensive bill such as this.

The Forest Products Association, more than any other group, has led the campaign against the on and off policies contained in the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act. The administration of that legislation has come at a cost to the Government. The forest industry support of this bill has averted an emergency that would have resulted in the closure of the sawmilling industry on 31 December in the absence of any supplanting industry. Major criticism of the bill is that it is vague in definition, in particular in relation to critical habitat, to which I made reference earlier. It is important to deal analytically in Committee with the concept of critical habitat.

Page 4991

The other major concern relates to the concept of key threatening processes, which are yet to be identified in the bill. Schedule 3, dealing with these processes, is blank. The Government has told the Forest Products Association that it does not consider logging to constitute a key threatening process as defined under the bill. However, it is not entirely clear from the wording of the bill whether that assurance has been incorporated in the legislation. I draw particular attention to the provisions of clause 128(2)(d), which states that the scientific committee could make a determination contrary to the view that the forestry industry is not a key threatening process. The Opposition will debate that matter further in Committee. I refer to comments made by the forestry industry, through the Forest Products Association, that part 6, dealing with licences, effectively eliminates the requirements for section 120 licences for forests which are subject to environmental impact assessment determinations by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. They agree that forests subject to the operations of the Timber Industry (Interim Protection) Act are similarly exempt from licensing requirements under this measure. However, the association will still identify areas that may need a section 120 licence, namely those areas for which an environmental impact statement has not been determined and which were not covered previously by the Timber Industry (Interim Protection) Act. This could have significant impact on red gum, cypress and some hardwood sectors in Narooma, Batemans Bay and other areas.

The Opposition will seek confirmation from the Government that the transitional provisions relating to current section 120 licences will remain current and that there is no intention to act detrimentally to those areas. The Forest Products Association also supports the Opposition's stand that the legislation makes substantial inroads into the need to provide a sensible and balanced approach to the governance of threatened and endangered flora and fauna. The Opposition will not oppose the legislation and believes it has the support of the Forest Products Association, subject to amendments to be moved in Committee.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. D. F. Moppett.

[Pursuant to sessional orders proceedings interrupted at 4.15 p.m. The House continued to sit.]


Schedules 1, 2, 3 and 8

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [4.16]: I move:

No. 1 Page 5, Schedule 1[6]. After line 18, insert:

(2) If total or partial incapacity for work results from an injury that is a psychological injury, any compensation payable to the injured worker is not to include a weekly payment under Division 2 (Weekly compensation by way of income support) of Part 3 for any period of incapacity after the first 3 years of incapacity. A reference in this subsection to a period of incapacity for work includes, in the case of separate periods of incapacity resulting from the same injury, a reference to the aggregate of those periods.

As I said in my second reading speech, this legislation, which is largely supported by the Opposition, is mainly aimed at controlling the burgeoning costs of the WorkCover compensation scheme. I said also that I would seek to improve the legislation where that is able to be achieved, and deal with those provisions that provide an opportunity for oppressive administration of the scheme. I have said at all times that the legislation must provide a fair go all round for workers and employers.

The proposal I have put before the Committee, which deals with what are described in the vernacular as stress claims, provides that the maximum period for which compensation will be paid for a disability arising from stress is three years. An examination of proposed section 11A clearly shows that the Government has significantly narrowed the avenue for stress claims. Proposed subsection (1) provides that no compensation is payable in respect of a psychological injury - effectively that is stress - unless the employment concerned was a substantial cause of the injury, and the injury was not wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by and on behalf of an employer with respect to transfer, demotion, promotion, performance appraisal, discipline, retrenchment or dismissal of a worker, or the provision of employment benefits to a worker.

Commonsense and the experience of honourable members indicate that stress, by and large, is a condition that should be able to be managed within a reasonable period with proper rehabilitation. The whole structure of the WorkCover scheme ensures the provision of rehabilitation. The nature of the amendment is to indicate that the period for which a person may get compensation should expire after three years. If a person is not able through rehabilitation to recover completely within three years, one must wonder what is contributing to the stress - it could not have been the workplace. If the stress was so serious that a person left the workplace, one must wonder what is continuing to sustain the stress beyond three years. Honourable members know that it is hard for practitioners to quantify stress disability. If the Government wants to control costs, it is reasonable and appropriate to provide a time limit for stress compensation claims.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [4.23]: These amendments expose the hypocrisy of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition, in the rhetoric in his second reading speech, suggested - or at least implied - that the legislation was in some way anti-
Page 4992
worker. At the same time he said that the Opposition would support the legislation. There is an inherent contradiction in his two statements. The amendments are clearly against the interests of injured workers. The Opposition seeks to deny injured workers appropriate rights. Any objective observer would see the sheer hypocrisy of that.

The reasonable restrictions placed on stress claims by the bill essentially aim to eliminate far-fetched and tenuous claims. I make no bones about the fact that the Government is seeking to eliminate stress claims that are inappropriate or otherwise not suitable for inclusion in the WorkCover compensation scheme. The Opposition amendments, while leaving those restrictions alone, would impose an additional major restriction on stress claims which are compensable under the bill. The additional restriction would cut off any entitlement to weekly benefits after three years. That is what the Opposition wants to do. If a stress claim lasts more than three years, that person will get literally nothing. That is the benevolence of the Opposition. That is the Opposition approach to workers compensation.

The matter should be clearly thought through by honourable members. We are talking about valid stress claims, compensation for which will be payable under the bill. In short, that means cases in which there is a substantial causal link - substantial meaning real and important - with a worker's employment. Under the Opposition proposal such workers would receive weekly benefits for only three years at most. It is worse than that, because the Opposition amendments state that entitlement to weekly benefits would cease after the first three years of incapacity for work. That is different from saying that entitlement would cease after the first three years of incapacity payments.

It is well established that a worker can be partially incapacitated for work without suffering at the time a reduction in earning ability. In other words, an incapacitated worker might continue working, but under the Opposition proposal the three-year limit on weekly benefits would quietly tick away. An example of a valid stress claim might be that of a rescue worker involved in the Granville train disaster. Obviously people react differently to stressful situations, and some still suffer bad effects after many years. Another example might be that of a bank employee subjected to the experience of an armed hold-up. These are some of the harsh effects of the Opposition amendments.

The amendments would create an arbitrary time restriction. After three years a person would get nothing; that person would be removed from the system. It is possible, being benevolent, that the Opposition does not appreciate that the amendments would have that effect. If members opposite think about it they will realise that the effect is arbitrary, drastic and unjustified. There is absolutely no scientific justification for a cut-off after three years. A worker could be genuinely affected and incapacitated by stress beyond the three-year limit. In all conscience the Government simply cannot support the amendments; indeed, it opposes the amendments.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [4.27]: I share the concerns of the Minister. Debate about the bill has been on the basis that the Government has been forced to introduce certain restrictions to prevent a blow-out in compensation claims. I understand that the proposed section 11A is adequate and sufficient in regard to psychological injury. In lay terms, psychological injury is stress. The Minister indicated that the amendments are not necessary to prevent a blow-out in claims; in other words, what the Government has done is adequate and sufficient.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [4.28]: I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I found some of the arguments of the Attorney General strange. If we are dealing with stress in the sense of a person being stressed by a family tragedy, forced redundancy, the loss of a promotion or something like that, I cannot believe that that person would not, with proper psychological counselling, recover from the stress-related condition within three years. The examples given by the Minister, particularly that of the bank teller subjected to an armed hold-up, fall into a totally different category. They should not be equated with the normal stress conditions from which people can suffer.

The Public Service Association has advised that the forced retrenchment of many members of the public service under this Government has resulted in considerable workers suffering from stress. Many public servants are suffering because they do not know whether they are going to be retrenched. The changes commenced in April when the new Government came to office. It is now December and there are people in government offices all over Sydney who do not know whether they will have a job next year or whether they will have to move to a country town. Public servants are definitely under stress caused by unreasonable action by their employer, the Government.

People who are suffering from a more serious type of stress which could be allied to a mental illness possibly would not have recovered within three years. That condition, however, could no longer be considered to be the result of ordinary stress, but of something that required treatment, probably long-term psychiatric treatment, for a completely different condition. Nobody suggests that payment should then be cut off. The amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition caters adequately for workers who suffer from work-related stress; it does not deny those who are suffering from much more serious psychological conditions continuing to receive treatment and continuing to receive workers compensation benefits.

Page 4993

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [4.31]: I should like to address the comments made by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. The provision I seek to amend relates to weekly compensation by way of income support under division 2 of part 3 of the Act. People suffering from a disability that would entitle them to lump-sum compensation under section 66 or section 67 will still be eligible for that compensation. The amendment relates only to those who receive continuing weekly income support payments. A person who suffers from a disability which means that he cannot work in his own job and receive the same income will be entitled to income support for three years. It is hard to conceive of an instance in which a person would not be able to obtain another job and sustain his income at the pre-existing level. The amendment does not deprive workers the payment of lump-sum compensation if they are able to show that their disability warrants that.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [4.32]: This amendment sets an arbitrary cut-off date. A worker who has a bona fide disability based on stress extending beyond three years will receive no further weekly payment after three years. The amendment is harsh and drastic, and it should be opposed.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Bull Mr Moppett
Mrs Chadwick Dr Pezzutti
Mr Corbett Mr Ryan
Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios
Miss Gardiner Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Hannaford Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Jobling Mr Tingle
Mr Jones
Mr Kersten Tellers,
Miss Kirkby Mr Cohen
Mr Lynn Mr Mutch

Mrs Arena Mrs Nile
Ms Burnswoods Rev. Nile
Mr Dyer Mr O'Grady
Mr Egan Ms Saffin
Mrs Isaksen Mr Shaw
Mr Johnson Ms Staunton
Mr Kaldis Tellers,
Mr Macdonald Dr Burgmann
Mr Manson Mr Vaughan

Mr Gay Mr Obeid
Mr Willis Mrs Symonds

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [4.40]: I have a question to ask of the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations and a statement to make. Given the impact of this schedule is it expected that these fees will be negotiated between WorkCover and the various organisations, that is, various medical practitioners, hospitals and occupational therapists? Is it your intention to regulate the agreed fee?

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: Which clause are you directing attention to?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [4.41]: Schedule 1[16], new section 60A.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [4.41]: Certainly the intention of the Government would be to have appropriate consultation. Whether or not there ought to be regulation of the fees is a matter to be decided at a future date .

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [4.41]: Given that this is part of the Act, one would expect that it would be prescribed under section 61(2). Does the Minister intend to regulate those fees?

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: What particular provision is this?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [4.42]: Proposed section 60A(a) says, "in the case of a medical or related treatment for which a sum is prescribed under section 61(2) . . . " Does the Minister intend to put those fees under regulations?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [4.42]: At the time of enacting the legislation there is no particular intention to make a regulation. but obviously the Executive Government can determine at some future date that a regulation is appropriate.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [4.42]: If the Minister regulates those figures as agreed amounts without an escalation clause I intend to move disallowance of any regulation. I place the Minister on notice that he will face a motion for disallowance if the agreed fees do not have a sunset clause or an escalation clause associated with the cost of living.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [4.43]: I believe the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has discharged his obligation to the doctors' union in that regard.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [4.43]: I seek clarification in light of the matters that have been raised by the Minister. Proposed section 60A(a) refers to the applicable maximum and has the effect of prohibiting the recovery of any fees for medical or related treatment, hospital treatment at a hospital, or an occupational rehabilitation service. As I understand the law at the moment - and I am happy to have the Minister correct me if I am wrong - there is
Page 4994
normally a prescribed set of fees determined by agreement between the medical profession and WorkCover. This agreement sets out the amounts that will be charged for hospital treatment and recovered by both public and private hospitals, and for medical and other related treatment. As those fees are already agreed upon, negotiated and prescribed, is it intended that that set of prescribed fees will be used to determine the maximum beyond which there cannot be recovery under proposed section 60A?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [4.44]: There is a general form of agreement to pay the fee of the Australian Medical Association but whether that agreement should continue is a matter for future decision, and I would not want to give an undertaking that we would necessarily be bound hand and foot to the AMA scale. Over recent years and at present, the payment is based on that scale.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [4.45]: I may not have made myself clear. I understand that from time to time, including at present, WorkCover prescribes a set of fees for hospital and medical treatment. Will proposed section 60A provide for recovery only up to the fees currently prescribed and as varied from time to time in the future?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [4.45]: It is true that hospital fees are prescribed and the intention of the proposed section is to limit the fees to the fees currently prescribed.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [4.46]: Can the Minister assure the House that this proposed section will operate prospectively so that any fees which have been rendered to date in excess of the prescribed fees will not be illegal; that the section will relate only to fees rendered as from the date of gazettal of this proposed section?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [4.46]: Yes.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [4.47]: I understand that the WorkCover Authority was in the midst of negotiations with orthopaedic surgeons and some other doctors for an increase in fees, and that those negotiations were terminated because of this proposed legislation. Can the Minister give an assurance that this proposed section will not be gazetted until those negotiations are completed, so that the new fees will be in place; and that this proposed section will operate whilst new fees are determined under these suspended negotiations?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [4.47]: No.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [4.48]: Can I indicate to the Minister and to the House that this Government is facing a potential crisis with the medical profession. The Minister's answers clearly indicate that having embarked upon a series of negotiations to increase orthopaedic fees and having suspended them, it is now his intention to ensure that the current fees will be the only fees recoverable by orthopaedic surgeons from the date of gazettal of this legislation. Orthopaedic surgeons who are carrying out procedures will have a choice: they will either be able to recover only the current fees, which are acknowledged, as I understand it, to be 12 or 18 months out of date, or they will say, "I'm sorry, I'm not going to carry out medical procedures because I am not being paid a reasonable fee."

I put the Minister on notice that he is going to generate a major medical confrontation in this State if he maintains that attitude. I further put him on notice that if he is doing it because he is being driven by Treasury and the Premier's Department, they are the departments that will be responsible for driving the orthopaedic crisis. The Minister knows that the orthopaedic surgeons have already put him on notice that as from 1 January 1996, which is the intended date of operation of this legislation, they will not, other than in emergencies, deliver service to WorkCover patients unless the Minister has put in place a reasonable scale of fees. A reasonable scale can only be achieved by negotiation with them. At this stage I understand that the Minister's officers, under instruction, have terminated those negotiations. I implore the Minister to reconsider his attitude. He should indicate that he will not proclaim section 60A until he has completed the negotiations. Having done that, he can then proclaim the fees and the section. If he does not, he will deliberately provoke confrontation with the orthopaedic surgeons, other medical service providers and the Private Hospitals Association. Private hospitals in this State will refuse to treat WorkCover patients other than in emergency situations.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [4.50]: I do not accept that the medical profession would act in the way suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. I am informed that the last adjusted fee was in January, when there was an increase of between 4 per cent and 5 per cent. I am also instructed that any negotiations about fee increases were at an early stage and that there was no agreement about any fee increases for orthopaedic surgeons.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [4.51]: I raise an issue brought to my attention by the Australian Society of Anaesthetists, to which I belong. In a letter dated 14 December, Dr Harris, the vice chairman of the Australian Society of Anaesthetists, New South Wales Section, stated:

Anaesthetists provide service of the highest quality to WorkCover patients, facilitating their early return to the workforce. In Victoria there is a dispute over Transport Accident Commission and Workers Compensation remuneration for anaesthesia services.

Page 4995

More than fifteen hundred compensable patients have been added to the Victorian public hospital waiting lists this year as a result of this dispute because anaesthetists simply will not work for less than their service is worth. The cost to the insurers of paying compensation to these patients while they await operation is no doubt considerable.

The association also makes the point - I ask the Minister to see through the haze - that of the 6 per cent of WorkCover costs that are generated by medical fees, only 10 per cent of that amount, 0.6 per cent, is generated by fees for anaesthesia services. As I have been in the medical profession for many years, I offer the Minister a little bit of advice . I have been involved in all of the disputes since the young doctors went on strike in 1971.

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: You were a shop steward in those days, were you not?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Yes, I was close to being a shop steward at the lower town hall. I was supported by the union movement and the judges of the time, and have been ever since. It would be wise for the Minister, when proposing to put out regulations regarding these matters, to consult before bringing them into the Chamber. We may have to disallow them to ensure that compensable patients are being treated. The Minister knows very well that there is no risk for urgent surgery and urgent services. That was discussed during the second reading debate. The Minister also knows that more than 1,500 compensable patients have been added to the waiting list of public hospitals in Victoria as a result of the dispute that is occurring there now. The increased compensation payments for those people are no doubt considerable. If the Minister intends to regulate in this area, he should only do so on the basis of what will be a reasonable process - using the Australian Medical Association schedule is a reasonable way to go. The Minister has called off those negotiations. This does not relate only to orthopaedic surgeons; anaesthetists are probably in shorter supply in this State and have an integral part to play in any form of surgery.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [4.54]: The Opposition could move amendments to constrain the Government in this matter, but it has chosen not to. The Opposition has outlined to the Government the real concerns of people. It has given a real warning. The Hon. Patricia Staunton is a union person involved in the provision of medical services. She knows only too well the real dangers that are inherent in this if the warnings given by the Opposition are not heeded by the Government.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [4.55]: I am concerned about the orthopaedic surgeons. Something needs to be done, and perhaps an amendment is the way to proceed. During the second reading debate I said that I had received a letter from the Australian Society of Orthopaedic Surgeons referring to an extraordinary general meeting held at North Ryde on Sunday, 10 December - only last Sunday. I asked the Minister during my second reading speech whether he was aware of that meeting. The contents of the letter I have received from the orthopaedic surgeons is totally different to what the Minister has just said - he has apparently been advised that all is well and that negotiations are proceeding. This letter is a fairly heavy condemnation of the Minister.

The letter stated that the meeting of orthopaedic surgeons condemns the New South Wales Attorney General, Mr J. Shaw, QC, of the New South Wales Government for neglecting to consult with the orthopaedic surgeons. The surgeons have threatened to withdraw their services; they will no longer be obliged to treat WorkCover patients other than in emergency situations after 1 January 1996. Something needs to be done. This is a serious situation in the minds of the orthopaedic surgeons, but perhaps not in the mind of the Minister. There has been some breakdown. The Minister may be of the understanding that his staff or advisers who are negotiating with the orthopaedic surgeons are doing so adequately, but apparently, to put it mildly, the surgeons are fed up.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [4.57]: I agree with the remarks of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. During the second reading debate last night I also drew the attention of the House to the resolutions passed last Sunday by the Australian Society of Orthopaedic Surgeons. One of the resolutions categorically stated that unless there was an accommodation with the Government they would withdraw their services as from 1 January 1996. That is in 10 days time. I repeat what I said last night: the orthopaedic surgeons do not make these threats lightly. This is not just rhetoric. If they make that threat, they intend to carry it out. When the orthopaedic surgeons withdrew their services in the past, the government of the day undertook many weeks of negotiation before they went back and completed their duties in the public hospital system.

I cannot believe that the resolutions of the meeting of orthopaedic surgeons have not been in the hands of the Minister's advisers. It is possible that the Minister has not sighted them, but I cannot believe that they have not been sent to his office. At least one of his advisers must be aware of what happened at that meeting, the criticism of the Minister at that meeting and what the orthopaedic surgeons intend to do. As Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said, the Minister must consider those threats. The orthopaedic surgeons are in a position to carry out their threats. I have no doubt that they will do so unless an accommodation is reached.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [4.59]: I shall emphasise how serious this issue is. The Minister might not be aware that representatives of these professional associations are present in the gallery. They want to hear what he has to say. I suggest that he should now accept some advice. I counsel him to undertake at the third reading stage to consult the orthopaedic
Page 4996
surgeons before gazettal of the bill. I acknowledge the position the Minister is in, but if he indicates he will consult, the organisations will be satisfied. I read their letters on to the record. They want the Government to talk to them and to listen to them; they are prepared to cooperate and work with the Government. They are not interested, and have never been interested, in exploiting a situation. They want to be treated fairly. If that undertaking is achieved at the third reading stage, it will be a step forward.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.00]: Of course the Government will consult the medical profession. It understands that sometimes doctors are quite militant in their objections to government policy. However, the Government will consult them before making any regulations.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [5.01]: Item [20] of schedule 1 relates to registration of agreements for compensation. Opposition amendments were circulated proposing to delete this item. However, having now read the Government's amendments, I do not propose to move the Opposition amendment to item [20]. The Opposition will accept the Government's amendment. It is appropriate at this stage to deal with the issue of consultation. I expressed grave concern during the second reading debate about the approach the Government had taken to consultation: some people had less than nine days in which to respond to the bill and other important organisations, such as the medical profession, were not consulted until the very last minute. The Opposition circulated many amendments and the Government now proposes to accept some of those amendments and adopt others. I add that in the limited time available for consideration of these measures the Opposition consulted interest groups extensively. It is interesting to consider the pressure under which the Government was placed. On 12 December the Labor Council issued a press release under the heading "Labor Council Secretary Rejects Changes To Workers' Compensation", which stated:

The Secretary of the Labor Council of New South Wales, Mr. Peter Sams, today rejected outright some sections of the Government's WorkCover Legislation Amendment Bill 1995.

Mr Sams said:

"The Labor Council strongly urges the Government not to proceed with certain sections of the proposed changes to the WorkCover legislation.

Whilst unions support the majority of amendments to the legislation, particularly those dealing with Occupational Health and Safety, there are aspects of the proposed Bill which cause the unions enormous concern.

Unions feel that the Government has seriously reneged on the undertakings given through negotiation. Understandings reached in negotiations with the Minister are apparently omitted from the legislation.

Sections of the legislation, such as those relating to stress claims, binding medical panels, pre-existing conditions and legal representation are among those causing serious concern to the Labor Council, Unions and their members", Mr Sams said.

"I am personally appalled with the Government's haste in attempting to pass major legislation through parliament to implement these changes. This has resulted in insufficient time for an appropriate consultative process and for unions, their members, and indeed employers, to comprehend the impact of these changes. I will request the Government defer these sections of the legislation until appropriate consultation, negotiation and clarification has occurred".

The terms of that press release are the strongest I have seen from the Labor Council condemning this Government for the way it has dealt with the so-called consultative process. Now what has happened on 13 December? It is appropriate that I place on the record a letter circulated by the Miscellaneous Workers Division of the Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union. The letter is directed to the "NSW Government, ALP Caucus Members" and stated:

Dear Colleague,

Last night at our Union State Council meeting our affiliation to the Australian Labor Party was called into question for the first time since I become Branch Secretary in 1977.

There were a number of grievances aired by councillors in respect to both the Federal and State Labor Governments performance, not the least of which was the Federal Government's continuing programme of privatisation/asset sales.

The catalyst however was a report given to Council on the proposed changes to Workers Compensation legislation currently before the Parliament. Councillors were particularly concerned that the contents of the Bill do not reflect the range of matters agreed in negotiations between the Labor Council negotiating committee and Minister Shaw. Indeed the Bill contains matters that were expressly agreed to be excluded.

Although our Council was not entirely happy with the outcome of negotiations with the Minister it was prepared to support the agreement. Council does not support the Bill currently before the Parliament and demands further consideration to be deferred until the outcome of the negotiations with Labor Council can be accurately reflected in a new Act. We have endorsed the press release issued by Council Secretary, Peter Sams yesterday.

I urge you to support our position as a fracturing of the relationship between the NSW Trade Union Movement and the Carr Government on this issue may well prove to be irreparable. Either I or Assistant Secretary, Ian West would be prepared to discuss the position of our State Council at your convenience.

What next occurs is most interesting. Under the hand of Tom Burke, Building Trades Group of Unions Secretary; Andrew Ferguson, New South Wales Secretary of the CFMEU, Construction Division; and also Roly Robson, New South Wales Secretary of the CEFU Plumbing Division is a circular to a number of members of the labour movement asking for workers to fight to defend compensation. They call the union movement to a rally at Parliament House in Macquarie Street at 12.30 today.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: We heard them.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: That rally was heard and the noise was such as to interrupt the proceedings of this House.

Page 4997

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: The doors were locked.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The doors of the Parliament were locked because of the noise from the rally. It is unbelievable that the labour movement would take to the streets against a Labor Government on this issue. The Minister for Industrial Relations held a meeting with representatives of the labour movement. Today a further press release was issued by the Labor Council. To complete the picture, I also place the contents of that press release on the record. It said:

The secretary of the Labor Council of New South Wales, Mr Peter Sams, today released a letter from the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr. Jeff Shaw, responding to Labor Council's concerns with Workers' Compensation reforms, as discussed in a meeting with the Minister this morning.

Mr Sams said:

"While the union movement remains unhappy with the package of changes already announced and it cannot endorse it, I am pleased that the Minister has offered a number of concessions which the union movement welcomes and accepts.

These concessions go to our concerns with ensuring injured workers are capably and competently represented and that any future need for change will be discussed through a tripartite working party to be established in the New Year.

These concessions demonstrate the value of the collective union movement acting as a united and responsible force for achieving and preserving benefits on behalf of our members. I thank the unions for their efforts and the Minister for responding in a practical and reasonable way.

Honourable members might recall that during my contribution to the second reading debate I called for such a tripartite working party. I said to the Minister at that time that he had generated major confrontation over his and the Government's approach to this issue, which had been driven from the top. At least a breakthrough has been achieved in the way this Government will deal with these issues in the future. I am pleased that many of the amendments that I foreshadowed are now being adopted and supported by the Government. In many instances the Government has taken an alternative approach. I will not move my foreshadowed amendments but accept the Government's amendment as it will protect workers without adding significantly to the administrative cost of the scheme. As I said in my opening remarks, I do not support an oppressive administration. There must be a fair go for the workers and the employers. I am pleased that a more conciliatory and sensible approach is being taken to this legislation.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.10]: I move:

No. 1 Page 10, Schedule 1[21], line 9. Omit all words on that line, insert instead:

Omit the subsection. Insert instead:

(4A) The Authority must refuse to register an agreement unless it is satisfied that the worker received independent legal advice about the agreement before the worker entered into the agreement.

This amendment proposed by the Government will ensure that in every case where registration of a lump sum settlement agreement is applied for the WorkCover Authority cannot register the agreement unless satisfied that the worker has received independent legal advice. That arrangement should generally operate now in view of the way lump sum claims are made in practice. However, the Government considers that it is worthwhile making this absolutely clear in the Act. The proposals for reform of the WorkCover scheme, necessitated by the maladministration of the previous Government, were placed on the table for all relevant parties early in November. The many discussions and enormous consultation that have taken place during the last six weeks have resulted in this agreement. The Government was flexible; nothing put forward was set in concrete. This amendment indicates that flexibility. I commend the amendment.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [5.12]: The Opposition supports the Government's amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.12]: I have a couple of questions for the Minister, of which I have given short notice. I refer to item [28] of schedule 1, new section 67A(4), which states:

(4) Compensation is not payable under section 66 or 67 for a loss that is HIV infection or AIDS if the loss resulted from voluntary sexual activity or illicit drug use . . .

Would a person employed in the sex industry who contracted AIDS through voluntary sexual activity be paid compensation? What action would a person have if adequate protective measures were not available or were not used under those circumstances?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.13]: It is true that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti alerted me to his concerns on this matter shortly before the Committee stage commenced. I believe the position is that the worker in question would need to be an employee, that is, the subject of a contract of employment. If the sex worker were an independent contractor, he or she would fall outside the ambit of this legislation. Assuming employment, it seems to me that there would be a claim and that the sexual activity would be voluntary. If a manager of a brothel or some like establishment did not provide adequate safeguards for employees, that would constitute a breach of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The employer would be failing to maintain a safe working environment for the employees. A claim would be actionable on that basis.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.15]: I thank the Minister for his answer. The new provision does not cover people employed under certain contracts, such as visiting medical officers.
Page 4998
Is there a thought in the Minister's mind that might help to resolve the continuing burning issue for senior surgeons and visiting anaesthetists who have a type of contract arrangement with the Department of Health for provision of their services. I am aware that they are not classified as employees under the Workers Compensation Act, nor under the various proposed industrial relations Acts. However, they are classified as employees under certain other Acts, for example the Anti-Discrimination Act on the basis of age. Given the Minister's predilection for the Anti-Discrimination Act in the Industrial Relations Bill, could he in the future, not necessarily under this clause, look at some form of compensation or discuss the matter with his colleague the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to try to resolve what has become a continuing sore point among many of my colleagues.

I appreciate that this progressive move is the first chink for employees. I note that hepatitis C is not included in the bill. Hepatitis C is likely to be contracted by employees in the public hospital system in the same way that HIV-AIDS is contracted. Will the Minister give further consideration to these matters in any future review, or enter into discussions with his department, the WorkCover Authority and the Minister for Health? These matters, which are of considerable concern and anxiety, need to be resolved.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.17]: I am happy to take on board and consider the matters raised by the honourable member, who has an expertise in the area of visiting medical officers, because I think he is one. I appreciate that the VMO is regarded by legislation as a non-employee, that is, an independent contractor. I think the VMOs favour that situation; they do not want to be employees.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: They are, under the Anti-Discrimination Act.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: They may be covered by the Anti-Discrimination Act. They are distinct from salaried specialists, who are employed doctors in our hospitals. Specialists have certain rights of private practice but they are considered to be employees. That is the traditional line of delineation in the workers compensation system between persons under a contract of employment on the one hand and persons who are independent contractors or in other legal relationships on the other. There are some exceptions. There are some deemed employees under the workers compensation system. For example, jockeys are deemed employees.

A jockey may not be, at common law, an employee but for the purposes of workers compensation he or she is deemed to be a worker for the purposes of the workers compensation provisions. These things are worth considering but where to draw the line is difficult. I note that a VMO engaged substantially in private practice but working sessional hours in a hospital can take out private insurance in order to achieve, in effect, something analogous to workers compensation coverage. I will take the observations of the honourable member on board.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: And the issue of hepatitis C?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The honourable member reminds me that he also mentioned that there may be work-related diseases or medical conditions that ought to be specially considered in this legislation. My mind is not closed to that proposition, and I will give it consideration as well. Hepatitis C has been mentioned informally to me by other honourable members as a disease that ought to be considered a compensable injury for the purpose of the Act.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [5.20], by leave: I move the following amendments in globo:

No. 3 Page 14, Schedule 1[30], lines 20-25. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(2) Once a worker has been paid compensation under section 66 for a loss or further loss of hearing due to boilermakers deafness (whether the compensation was paid before or after the commencement of this section), the worker has no entitlement to compensation under section 66 for any further loss of hearing due to boilermakers deafness unless that further loss is at least 5%. This subsection is capable of applying to a worker on more than one occasion.

(3) The fact that compensation is not payable for a loss or further loss of hearing because of this section does not prevent notice of injury being given or a claim being made in respect of that loss or further loss, and does not affect the operation of section 17 in respect of that loss or further loss (if and when the worker's total hearing loss reaches 6% or that further loss reaches 5%).

No. 4 Page 15, Schedule 1[30], lines 8-12. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(c) The worker suffers a further hearing loss of 4%. The worker is not entitled to compensation for the 4% further loss (because it is less than the 5% further loss threshold). Again, notice of injury can be given or a claim can be made for that further loss even though compensation is not payable for it.

(d) The worker suffers a further hearing loss of 3%. The total further loss has now passed the 5% threshold and compensation is payable for the full 7% further loss. Each time the worker suffers a further loss of hearing after compensation has been paid for any previous loss, no compensation is payable for the further loss until it reaches 5%.

No. 5 Page 16, Schedule 1[30], lines 10-13. After "loss" wherever occurring, insert "or further loss".

No. 6 Page 16, Schedule 1[30], lines 19-21. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(c) any test that finds that the worker has suffered a total hearing loss due to boilermakers deafness of 6% or more (being hearing loss for which the worker has not received compensation under section 66),

Page 4999

(d) in the case of a worker who has received compensation under section 66 for loss of hearing (whether before or after the commencement of this section), any test that finds that the worker has suffered a further hearing loss due to boilermakers deafness of 5% or more,

These amendments, which relate to new section 69A, concern hearing loss. The bill as circulated by the Government is supported by the Opposition. It proposes a threshold of 6 per cent hearing loss before a claim for such loss can be made. However, the bill would allow a claim to be made every time additional hearing loss occurs. As the law stands, a person could make a claim for 7 per cent hearing loss, then at 8 per cent, 9 per cent and so on. The Opposition amendments propose that the next stage at which a person can make a claim for compensation is when further significant deterioration has occurred, that is, at five percentage points. A claim for hearing loss could be pursued at 11 per cent, 16 per cent, 21 per cent, and the like.

The amendments will not prevent a person from lodging an intermediate claim. A person whose hearing loss reached 9 per cent could file a claim in order to preserve his rights, but could not pursue the claim, nor incur consequential legal fees, until reaching the next gate, at 11 per cent, 16 per cent, and so on, for finalisation of the claim. On the advice I have taken, this is not an unfair move. In mining industries and the like, where hearing loss is a significant component in worker injury, 11 per cent loss is a point at which many people pursue claims. The Government's 6 per cent threshold will remove what might be called the difficult-to-sustain claims. Administratively, however, the amendments are not unfair or inappropriate. I commend them to the House.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.25]: The Government takes a contrary view. I think there is unfairness in the proposed amendments. There is common ground between the Opposition and the Government that there ought to be a threshold and that hearing loss ought to reach a certain percentage before being considered by the court. But the proposed amendments, while leaving in place the initial loss threshold already provided by the bill, would impose a series of additional thresholds. The result would be that after the worker has reached the initial threshold, he or she could not be compensated again for industrial deafness until the further hearing loss suffered had reached 5 per cent on each occasion.

If a worker were able to demonstrate a 6 per cent hearing loss and received compensation and some years later were able to show that hearing loss had reached 10 per cent, that is, an additional 4 per cent more than the 6 per cent, the effect of the amendments would be that such a person would not receive compensation for that loss. The difference between 6 per cent and 10 per cent hearing loss may be significant. If a worker were able to establish a 10 per cent hearing loss and later could establish another 4 per cent hearing loss - an overall loss of 14 per cent - why should that worker not be able to pursue that claim? The proposed amendments, and the concept underlying them, are arbitrary and are designed to curtail claims by injured workers. The Government cannot accept the amendments.

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Bull Mrs Nile
Mrs Chadwick Rev. Nile
Mr Cohen Dr Pezzutti
Mr Corbett Mr Ryan
Miss Gardiner Mr Samios
Mr Hannaford Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Jobling Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Kersten Mr Tingle
Miss Kirkby
Mr Lynn Tellers,
Mr Moppett Mrs Forsythe
Mr Mutch Mr Jones

Dr Burgmann Mr O'Grady
Ms Burnswoods Ms Saffin
Mr Dyer Mr Shaw
Mr Egan Ms Staunton
Mrs Isaksen Mr Vaughan
Mr Johnson Tellers,
Mr Kaldis Mrs Arena
Mr Manson Mr Macdonald

Mr Gay Mr Obeid
Mr Willis Mrs Symonds

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.32]: I move:

No. 2 Page 20, Schedule 1[41], line 17. Omit ", because of exceptional circumstances,".

Under this proposed amendment claims not made within the first three years after the injury date would be allowed if it is in the interests of justice that the claim not be barred. The amendment would remove the additional requirement of establishing exceptional circumstances. The court, in dealing with the provision as amended, should still properly examine the circumstances of each case. It is not the Government's intention to return to a nominal, meaningless time limit such as exists in the Act at present which is honoured more in the breach than in the observance. It should be noted
Page 5000
that under the existing provisions of the bill insurers are permitted to waive the apparent non-compliance with the three-year claim limit if the WorkCover Authority's approval is obtained in appropriate cases. This is because the new time limit provisions are not themselves intended to become a major source of litigation and costs. While seeking to tighten time limits in a responsible way, the Government is striving for a reasonable result. The proposed amendment, in conjunction with the various other sensible safeguards provided in the bill in relation to the time limit provision, will help to achieve that.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [5.33]: The amendment moved by the Government is identical to an amendment foreshadowed by the Opposition, which intended to move it for the same reasons enunciated by the Government. We welcome the Government adopting this approach to the changes to the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [5.34]: I had foreshadowed that I would move amendment No. 8 circulated in my name in case amendment No. 7 circulated in my name was not carried. As the Government's amendment has been accepted, there is now no necessity to proceed with amendment No. 8. I move:

No. 9 Page 22, Schedule 1[43]. After line 12, insert:

(5) An employer against whom a claim for compensation is made under this Act may require the employer's insurer in respect of the claim to defend the claim (whether by disputing liability or otherwise). An insurer is required to comply with such a requirement, subject to the regulations.

(6) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to the resolution of disputes between insurers and employers as to the defending of claims by insurers pursuant to a requirement under subsection (5).

This is a very important amendment for employers. It effects a change in the relationship balance under the WorkCover scheme between employers and those to whom the employer pays a premium for protection from legal suit. The scheme as it currently operates basically means that the employer's rights to defend claims, for whatever reason, have been transferred to the insurer. The insurer takes over all the rights of the employer. I suspect every member of Parliament has received complaints from employers that insurers have sought to settle or have compromised claims on which the employer was satisfied liability should have been denied and the matter should have been fought to the bitter end. The insurers have taken the attitude that they would rather pay out $5,000 or $6,000 to save $4,000 worth of legal fees. The employer who believed he had no responsibility whatsoever for the injury has a black mark on his record as a responsible employer and his premiums are increased, and it takes him a long time to get back to paying the average premium.

The amendment will enable an employer who believes he is not liable to demand that the insurer fight the claim. If the insurer believes the employer is wrong and is liable, the WorkCover Authority, by regulation, will be able to put in place a mechanism by which the dispute can be readily resolved. If the insurer says, "Yes, I agree that you may not be liable but on the balance I think that you are and your approach is totally unreasonable", such a dispute could be readily resolved. We are used to such situations with other schemes of insurance. For example, under the law cover scheme, which is a mutual indemnity scheme, if the insured solicitor takes the view that the scheme insurer is inappropriately proposing to settle a claim or inappropriately going to admit liability but then dispute quantum, the dispute may be referred to a conciliator for resolution - usually an eminent counsel. That could be done with WorkCover. I believe this is a very important protective mechanism for employers. Employers believe that at the moment they have no rights: all they have is an obligation to pay out and the balance of rights is skewed away from them. I urge the Committee to accept the amendment. There must be a fair go all round for employers and employees. The amendment is aimed at addressing the imbalance and ensuring that there is a fair go for employers.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.39]: The Opposition proposal is opposed. The proposed provision if accepted would have the effect of standing the present workers compensation system on its head in the sense that it is now, and has traditionally been, the case that insurers decide whether to oppose particular claims. Obviously insurers take employers' views into account, but insurers are bearing the loss and it is they who in litigation decide whether to concede to a claim or oppose it. If the employer were to be able to dictate the situation, it is likely that many more claims would be opposed, the system would be clogged up and the professional claims managers for the insurance companies would be inhibited in dealing in a practical and pragmatic way with the resolution of claims.

The amendment would give employers the responsibility which, under the contract of insurance contemplated by the Act, the insurer properly has to administer and determine claims, and decide liability. It is radical and irresponsible to raise this change at this stage. It would give birth to a whole new category of potential disputation. For example, employers who may not have the expertise to determine whether a particular claim really ought to be settled may dictate that claims should be fought out contrary to the professional advice of the insurer. If employers under existing arrangements are not content with their insurer's decision, they have various, reasonable courses of action open to them. They can appeal to the WorkCover Authority. If the insurer's decision adversely affects their experience-adjusted premium, the authority can direct the proper premium to be applied.

Page 5001

The Act already provides, and has provided since 1989, that disputes which conciliation officers can consider include disputes between employers and their insurers. The radical change suggested by the Opposition has further adverse cost implications for a scheme which is obviously already in some financial difficulty. The proposal now floated may be an example of excessive zeal. The idea that the employer can countermand its insurer's decision ought to be rejected as contrary to the approach in ordinary litigation where insurance is involved. In workers compensation, as in the rest of life, too many cooks spoil the broth. I urge the Committee to reject this amendment.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [5.41]: I acknowledge the comment of the Minister that we are changing the balance of relationships, but this is a statutory scheme and the Opposition set down the terms of this statutory contract. Under the present scheme the employer has only one entitlement: he or she must pay premiums. If a claim is made against an employer and the employer takes the view that he or she did nothing wrong and was not responsible, he or she cannot insist that the insurer defend the matter. We are not dealing here with some corporate insurer; we are dealing with a statutory authority created by legislation, a government agency. If the government agency will not stand up and protect an employer, in terms of dollars and cents, what then is the responsibility of the employer? There is only one. The employer must pay more; premiums have increased because the insurer has decided to pay out on a claim against the employer. I do not believe that is reasonable or fair. I am sure there would not be one single employer who believes it is fair. If the system is to be fair with provision for a balance of rights, the employer, who pays the money, should have some rights. This amendment provides a mechanism for those rights.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.43]: I believe the Minister has overlooked what actually is in the amendment. It is not a black and white requirement. Part 6 states that the regulations may make provision for or with respect to the resolution of disputes between the insurers and the employer as defending the claims. Some very good reasons may exist for the insurer not to defend the claim. The potential legal costs could be prohibitive, in which case the matter would need to be resolved between the employer and the insurer. The amendment will provide a formula to do that. It will not always be the case that an insurer will be forced to defend a claim that is indefensible. When amendments 5 and 6 are viewed together, the proposal seems adequate and fair.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Bull Mr Mutch
Mrs Chadwick Mrs Nile
Mr Cohen Rev. Nile
Mrs Forsythe Dr Pezzutti
Miss Gardiner Mr Ryan
Mr Hannaford Mr Samios
Mr Jobling Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Jones Mr Tingle
Mr Kersten
Miss Kirkby Tellers,
Mr Lynn Mr Corbett
Mr Moppett Mrs Sham-Ho

Mrs Arena Mr Macdonald
Dr Burgmann Mr O'Grady
Ms Burnswoods Mr Shaw
Mr Dyer Ms Staunton
Mr Egan Mr Vaughan
Mrs Isaksen Tellers,
Mr Johnson Mr Manson
Mr Kaldis Ms Saffin

Mr Gay Mr Obeid
Mr Willis Mrs Symonds

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [5.51]: I move:

No. 10 Page 24, Schedule 1[47], lines 27-31. Omit all words on those lines.

Proposed section 98A(6) provides:

A conciliation officer may at his or her discretion make any document or information produced or furnished under this section available to any other party to the dispute, but only after consultation with the party who produced or furnished it.

Effectively, that provides an imbalance in power in a conciliation. Conciliation officers should be mediating to resolve a dispute. They are not arbitrators; they facilitate the resolution of disputed claims. But under proposed section 98A a conciliation officer has discretion to determine that all information may be provided by one party to another. The legislation includes a requirement that material be brought before the conciliation. That significantly alters the balance of relationships in a conciliation. In many cases insurers cause investigation reports to be prepared. The Opposition's view is that undercover operations should be pursued, with claimants being videotaped. It is not beyond the wit of imagination to conclude that, if a conciliation officer required all material to be brought forward, insurers would have to provide all investigation reports and videotapes. The conciliation officer then has a discretion to make that material available to all other parties.

Page 5002

One does not have to be Einstein to realise that if it becomes known that such material is required in a conciliation, excuses will be prepared to explain why a person carried heavy weights or played with his or her grandchildren on a particular day. I could well imagine a complainant saying that such activity had never been undertaken before; it was on only one occasion and that, fortuitously, was on the very day that the video camera was running. Conciliations should be working to seek to achieve agreement between the parties and resolution of the matter. They should not be a tool for use by insurers or complainants to get material by way of disclosure before a claim comes before the court. The provision should be deleted because I believe it was not the intention of the Government that the balance of relationships should be unduly skewed. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.55]: The Government opposes the amendment, but does not regard it as of sufficient importance to warrant dividing the Committee. Proposed section 98A(6), which the Opposition seeks to delete, allows a conciliation officer to make available to any other party any documents produced . Firstly, honourable members should note that the provision contains safeguards. It states that a conciliation officer may make documents available in that manner only after consulting with the party who produced them. Secondly, the provision does not apply to workers not legally represented. Furthermore, the existing conciliation arrangements in the Act include general safeguards. In particular, the Act states that the evidence of any statement made during a conciliation conference is not admissible in court proceedings unless the person who made the statement agrees. In these circumstances the provision for conciliation officers to make documents produced available to the other party - that power is designed to be exercised with restraint and reasonableness - is considered appropriate.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.56]: Call to Australia understands the reasons for the Opposition amendment and the Government's response to it. The Minister said that the words "only after consultation with the party who produced or furnished it" provide a safeguard. Consultation may take place and a party may say that material should not be made available to any other party. If the provision stated "but only after agreement with the party who produced or furnished it" we would be happy to support it. Consultation does not mean that a decision not to provide documents or information to any other party is binding. Consultation does not mean agreement; a party may have said that it was consulted but it did not agree. Perhaps insertion of the word "agreement" would satisfy both the Opposition and the Government. I would be happy to move an amendment to that effect, unless the Minister wishes to move to do so.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.58]: I appreciate the exercise in diplomacy. The Government remains opposed to the amendment but does not regard it as of sufficient significance to cause the Committee to divide. The Government will accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [5.59]: I move:

No. 11 Page 27, Schedule 1. After line 17, insert:

[49] Section 100A Proceedings before conciliation officers

Omit "not" from section 100A (2).

[50] Section 100A (3)

Omit the subsection.

Item [50] of schedule 1, the deletion of section 100A(3), is consequential to item [49] of schedule 1, the omission of the word "not" from section 100A(2). At the moment there is no provision for legal representation before conciliation officers, and the Opposition believes that is not reasonable. Conciliation is a mechanism whereby resolution can be achieved easily. Within the bill conciliation is a term that could be used for mediation. The amendment is designed to seek the resolution of claims as easily, inexpensively and quickly as possible before they reach litigation. International experience shows that conciliation works well in limited areas of claim. This legislation broadens the role of conciliation officers and the range of cases to which conciliation may apply. All matters will move towards conciliation. Experience has shown that if people get appropriate advice they take advantage of the conciliation procedure and claims are resolved much more readily and easily.

The argument will be put forward that the amendment will result in more matters being litigated and, thus, a blow-out in legal fees and a monumental increase in claims. The contrary will be the case, as has been shown in other areas in which extensive mediation has been pursued appropriately. The House will recall that when I was Minister for Industrial Relations I introduced legislation to secure mandatory mediation and conciliation in all courts. My recollection is that the only court in which the procedure had not been implemented was the Compensation Court, and this bill seeks to provide the mechanism by which that will be achieved. It is interesting to note that claims, backlogs in some cases, and overall costs are being reduced in all of the courts in which mediation and conciliation procedures are followed. People who have skill and training in mediation and conciliation are quickly able to reach agreement. This amendment seeks the expeditious resolution of claims, and this will significantly reduce the costs of the scheme.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [6.03]: The Government opposes this amendment. The former Government inserted section 100A in 1989.
Page 5003
Mr Fahey, the relevant Minister, moved the provision. In his second reading speech he did not pay particular or precise attention to the provision, but, by inference, certainly took the view that conciliation ought to be an informal, roundtable conference process not involving legal representation. On 1 August 1989 in the Legislative Assembly the former Premier, then Minister for Industrial Relations, stated:

An important part of the present dispute resolution process, currently performed by review officers, is to be retained. This is the conciliation function in respect of disputed claims. The review officers will become conciliation officers employed by the WorkCover Authority. In the exercise of their conciliation function, they will act independently and will not be subject to the control or direction of the authority. It was recognized during the WorkCover review that the conciliation function has proved highly successful at reducing the number of matters proceeding to hearing. This important function will continue under the provisions of the bill.

The views expressed in the course of the WorkCover review have also been carefully considered in the course of developing the current legislation. Interested parties represented on the review committee expressed concern regarding the duplication of resources required to operate the two systems. In the end, although the views of the parties varied on many issues, all were concerned for the provision of a just, speedy and efficient resolution process to deal with workers' compensation matters. I am confident that the new structure established by this legislation addresses all relevant concerns and priorities.

Nothing has been said by the present Opposition to demonstrate that Mr Fahey's conclusion should be varied and that there should therefore be an entitlement to legal representation at the conciliation process. Under the 1989 workers compensation legislation the conciliation process is essentially a voluntary process. Parties may or may not attend. Conciliation is usually carried out administratively: the administrative officer attempts to settle the dispute, usually without calling in the parties. If the administrative officer does call in the parties, the process is voluntary. The exception to that process is one effected by this bill under proposed section 98B(2), which states that when the conciliation officer issues a summons to require the worker to come into the conciliation conference, the worker is then entitled to legal representation.

When the worker is required to attend conciliation, a safeguard has been provided, but when the process is voluntary the Government does not propose any change from the legislation enacted by the previous Government in 1989. No case has been made to demonstrate that the 1989 regime ought to be altered except in respect to the exception to which I have referred. The bill indicates that there ought to be a right to call in the parties, and in that circumstance - when a summons has been issued - there is a right to legal representation. Apart from that instance, the Government takes the view that the status quo should remain and there is no need to add another layer of legal representation and legal cost to the system, which would undoubtedly be a cost burden. The Government fails to see the justification for this proposal, which has been made at very short notice by the Opposition, presumably at the behest of solicitors.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [6.07]: The Attorney General's opposition flies in the face of his own amendments already accepted at this Committee stage. The Minister will acknowledge that agreements as to compensation are entered in the conciliation agreements. Under the Government's legislation those agreements are capable of being registered. Under earlier Government amendments to the legislation the range of matters for which compensation agreements will be entered has been broadened, and in recognition of that fact the Government has said that no such agreements will be able to be registered until independent legal advice about the agreement has been obtained.

The Government proposes that there will be a conciliation process; conciliation being completed, an agreement will be entered; people will be sent away and advised to seek independent legal advice; and if people are not satisfied, they will decide to make claims. However, people will not be entitled to go to the conciliation process with an adviser to say there and then that a proposal is satisfactory. The Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations talks about saving costs, but he destroys that aim with his own arguments and amendments. The Opposition is trying to facilitate resolution of disputes. By having someone present to provide legal advice during the conciliation process, agreements will be resolved there and then. That is much more preferable than sending people away to get advice, which leads to the potential for confrontation and a lack of trust.

Confrontation is especially likely to arise if people are sent away and their legal adviser tells them that they have been dudded by an insurance company and that the conciliation officer has in effect colluded by not telling them that they were eligible for greater compensation. The Government is undermining its own scheme and is generating lack of trust. If there are just a couple of occasions on which the independence of a conciliator is called into question, the whole conciliation scheme will be undermined. It would be much better to facilitate advice and assistance, which is what this amendment seeks to implement. In the view of independent advisers, a guaranteed flow-on effect is the reduction in costs and in the number of claims that are prosecuted. I commend the amendment to the House.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [6.09]: I do not know who has been advising the Minister on these amendments, but for reasons that I do not understand the Minister's advisers do not seem the least bit interested in what the Labor Council wants. The amendment with which the Committee is now dealing was specifically requested by the Labor Council. It seeks the deletion of section 100A(2) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, which states:

Page 5004

A person who is a party to any dispute is not entitled to be represented by a barrister or solicitor at any conciliation conference.

The Labor Council has also requested a commitment to a subsequent amendment to provide that legal representation will be available to injured workers at conciliation conferences. It does not matter what the Minister for Industrial Relations may have said; it does not matter what has been said in press, perhaps to allay the concerns of the unions. The Government's amendments to the Act do not entitle a worker to legal representation as of right in the conciliation process. What will happen? An inequality before the law will immediately result: the insurers' representatives will obviously be far more experienced and knowledgeable than individual workers. It is not accurate to state that the bill does not change the current position concerning legal representation before conciliation officers, because comparing the existing provisions with what is proposed is analogous to comparing a koala with a kodiak bear. The Government's amendments are clear evidence of the Government's determination to deny workers access to an impartial court exercising judicial independence. I cannot understand why this Labor Government is blind and deaf to what the Labor Council of New South Wales wants and why the Labor Council has had to go to the Opposition to air its concerns. This is a necessary amendment and the Australian Democrats support it.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [6.11]: Because of the Labor Council's concerns and its submission to us, Call to Australia supports the amendment. The House is attempting to balance the insurers' representatives, who have expert knowledge, with individual injured workers. I ask the Minister whether there is any requirement for conciliation officers to have legal qualifications so they can help to resolve legal questions that arise during the conciliation process? Are they barristers, solicitors or public servants?

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: Public servants.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: They would be at a disadvantage in relation to legal representation?

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: Conceivably.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: That is a dilemma the Minister faces, but I still support the amendment.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [6.13]: To answer the question of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile more formally, there is no requirement for conciliation officers to be legally qualified. They can come from a variety of backgrounds and have a variety of qualifications. The Government is concerned that those propounding the amendment have simply not shown or attempted to show why the position entrenched by the Liberal Government in 1989 ought to be altered. Given that that there has been no agitation over the years to alter the position, there has been no attempt to show why the process of conciliation ought to be rendered one where there is a right to legal representation. That has obvious cost implications for the system and, indeed, constitutes a deterrent to conciliation. If it will cost people significant amounts of money to be legally represented, conciliation is less likely to be used than otherwise would be the case.

The Leader of the Opposition said that the Government's amendments give the worker the right to legal advice before a lump sum agreement is arrived at or registered. This is certainly so, but it is one thing to say the worker ought to get legal advice. It is another thing to say the worker and/or the insurance company ought to be legally represented at an informal, roundtable conference directed to settlement. I certainly acknowledge that the worker ought to be given legal advice before settling, but whether there needs to be legal representation - barristers and solicitors - in an informal process is questionable. In relation to the change effected by the bill, that is, the right of a conciliation officer to summons a worker into a conference, the Government has provided the requisite safeguard. The Government has provided that in those circumstances there would be an entitlement to legal representation. Surely that is a reasonable balance in the system. The Opposition is imposing another layer of legal representation and, in a sense, litigation on a system which is already overburdened by legalism.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [6.15]: It is not fair to compare the present situation with the new scheme. The Minister intends to broaden the role of conciliation officers and the circumstances in which agreements will be dealt with. The Committee has just dealt with proposed section 98A, which relates to the power of conciliation officers to require information. The conciliation officers are employees of the WorkCover Authority. The WorkCover Authority is a statutory agency of government, and the WorkCover Authority administers the scheme. A government agency is paying out money, employing conciliators and has the responsibility of trying to mediate the dispute. That conciliators must be seen at all times to be acting fairly in the administration of the scheme, but they are mediating on behalf of their employer. That is an inappropriate balancing of power.

The scheme must be managed without oppressive administration. It might be a totally different matter if WorkCover was an insurance agency, and a wholly separate agency administering the conciliation process, or if the administration of the conciliation process was put under the administration of the courts. The conciliators would then not be beholden to the agency that is both paying out the money and paying their fees. There must be appropriate checks and balances. I do not support measures that could lead to oppressive administration and, therefore, I believe that checks and balances must be provided.

Page 5005

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [6.17]: One of the rhetorical criticisms of the Government that the House has heard from the Leader of the Opposition is of an alleged failure to consult in relation to this measure. I repudiate that criticism; there has been substantial consultation. I assume the Opposition has consulted with employers and insurance companies before moving in this House to enshrine a right to legal representation at the conciliation phase of the workers compensation system. Given the Leader of the Opposition's rhetoric about consultation, I can only assume that he must have consulted with the insurance companies and the employers. I would like him to affirm that for the record.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [6.18]: This matter has been the subject of significant consultation. I am informed that a meeting yesterday was attended by representatives of the legal profession, and representatives of a number of insurers: the MMI insurance group, Zurich, self-insurers, Sydney Water, Amatek Limited, AIG Workers Compensation (N.S.W.) Proprietary Limited, Fairfield Council, the FAI Insurance Group, and GIO Australia Limited. I have almost covered 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the insurers that administer these schemes. As I understand it, the representative of the MMI Insurance Group attended at the direction of the chief executive. The matters which I am putting before the House were not opposed by them.

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: They were approved by them?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: In fact, as I understand it, they were approved by them.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [6.20]: Whatever the Attorney General may have said, the Australian Democrats are determined that there will be a level playing field. It will not be fair to require a worker to turn up without legal representation and argue his or her case against an experienced industrial advocate from the insurance company. It is crystal clear that the worker would not cope. Being interrogated in a court of law is frightening. At a conciliation conference the worker would have to argue a case against someone who is very experienced. The insurance company representatives do nothing all day but argue against claims that they immediately decide are shonky. They will tie the average worker in knots. Injured workers would not be able to cope, particularly women from non-English speaking backgrounds and those with a limited knowledge of the English language. In such cases, a level playing field is essential.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Bull Mr Moppett
Mrs Chadwick Mr Mutch
Mr Cohen Mrs Nile
Mr Corbett Rev. Nile
Mrs Forsythe Dr Pezzutti
Miss Gardiner Mr Samios
Mr Hannaford Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Jobling Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Jones
Mr Kersten Tellers,
Miss Kirkby Mr Ryan
Mr Lynn Mr Tingle

Mrs Arena Mr Manson
Dr Burgmann Mr O'Grady
Ms Burnswoods Ms Saffin
Mr Dyer Mr Shaw
Mr Egan Mr Vaughan
Mrs Isaksen Tellers,
Mr Johnson Mr Kaldis
Mr Macdonald Ms Staunton

Mr Gay Mr Obeid
Mr Willis Mrs Symonds

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith): Order! The Committee will need to reconsider Opposition amendment No. 8. The normal procedure is to recommit the bill after the conclusion of the consideration of the bill in Committee. However, there is a precedent to return to the amendment at this time with the leave of the Committee.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [6.28]: I move:

No. 8 Page 21, Schedule 1[41]. After line 6, insert:

(4E) When particulars of any injury received by a worker are entered in a register of injuries kept by the employer under this Act, the making of that entry suffices for the purposes of subsections (2) and (4A) as the making of a claim for compensation in respect of the injury.

I thank the Committee for reconsidering Opposition amendment No. 8. All employers are required to keep a register into which is to be put the name of every person who is injured and the particulars of the injury. This proposal adds another mechanism for ensuring that the notification of a claim is secured by the entering of that material into the register. The register is then able to be accessed by the insurers, and the activities of WorkCover then follow. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Page 5006

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [6.29]: The Government does not oppose the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [6.29]: I move Opposition amendment No. 12 as circulated :

No. 12 Page 32, Schedule 1[56], line 4. After "later", insert "However, this subsection does not prevent the commencement of court proceedings by a worker in respect of compensation under section 66 after a period of 16 weeks has elapsed since a claim for the compensation was duly made, so long as the worker has responded to any offer of settlement made to the worker during that period."

The Opposition supports the Government's proposals for restrictions on commencing court proceedings so as to ensure there is a medical panel examination of people making a claim. However, experience with these types of panels in Victoria as been it can take nine to 18 months before a claim proceeds. This amendment will ensure that WorkCover secures the medical panels within 16 weeks of a claim being notified. Otherwise, the claim is able to be pursued. The amendment makes certain that WorkCover provides resources to handle the matters. If not, an injured worker should not be prevented from accessing the court to get the claim resolved.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [6.31]: Though the Government has some legitimate doubts about whether the amendment is necessary, given the current position with medical panels and the capacity to get them to determine matters, the Government will not oppose the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [6.31], by leave: I move the following Government amendments as circulated, in globo:

No. 3 Page 38, Schedule 1[58]. At the end of line 16, insert:

, and

(f) costs incurred in relation to the mediation or neutral evaluation of any matter under Part 4A of the Compensation Court Act 1984.

No. 4 Page 40, Schedule 1[58]. At the end of line 13, insert:

, and

(f) costs incurred in relation to the mediation or neutral evaluation of any matter under Part 4A of the Compensation Court Act 1984.

No. 16 Page 118, Schedule 3[23], lines 7-10. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

The cost of providing mediation and neutral evaluation for the purposes of this Part (including the remuneration of mediators and neutral evaluators and the cost of administrative support) is a cost of operation of the Compensation Court and accordingly is payable under section 19(2)(c) of the WorkCover Administration Act 1989.

These amendments relate to existing provisions for mediation and neutral evaluation introduced into the Compensation Act by the former Government. Amendments Nos 3 and 4 will clarify the court's general discretionary powers to order payments of legal costs, including costs incurred in connection with mediation or neutral evaluation of a matter. The existing provisions of the Compensation Act dealing with costs of mediation or evaluation state, inappropriately in the workers compensation context, that these costs are generally to be shared equally by the worker and the employer or insurer. The court has requested these amendments, which fit better with general workers compensation costs arrangements and will help to make mediation and evaluation more realistic alternative dispute resolution possibilities in the court. Amendment No. 16 will clarify that remuneration of the mediators and similar operational costs are to be financed from the WorkCover Authority funds in the same way as the court's general budget.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [6.32]: The Opposition supports the amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [6.33]: I note that the Government proposes an amendment to delete subsections (5) and (6). Therefore, in order to save the time of the Committee, I do not move Opposition amendment No. 13. I move Opposition amendment No. 14 as circulated:

No. 14 Page 43, Schedule 1[63], lines 22-25. Omit all the words on those lines, insert instead:

(4) The certificate is, in any proceedings, evidence (but not conclusive evidence) as to the findings certified.

In many organisations it is standard fare that employers will seek to put in place risk management programs for staff. Part of the arrangements with these programs is that when a person is injured, they are immediately taken to a medical officer, who will treat them straight away. In many, if not all, cases the employer pays the doctor's expenses. With this particular arrangement I envisage a circumstance arising - I suspect regularly - that the employer and doctor will have a series of forms for completion. The injured worker, when taken to the doctor, will be asked to sign all of these forms and thereby agree that the doctor will give a statement as to the injuries and the consequences of them. The agreement can make provision for the following procedures: x-rays, other results, workers to submit for examination by a medical practitioner and the like.

These forms will be signed by the innocent worker who, by so doing, will have agreed that the certificate will be conclusive evidence of the findings. There will be no opportunity to challenge it. Effectively the worker will have signed away his rights. I shall give an example of these risk
Page 5007
management measures successfully at work. A friend of mine was the risk management consultant for Holroyd City Council. Because of massive medical absenteeism the council put in place a mechanism under which every supervisor of outdoor workers was given a mobile phone. The moment anybody was injured, the supervisor immediately contacted the foreman. The injured worker was collected and taken immediately to the council's doctor.

The doctor immediately dealt with the worker and determined whether or not the person could go home or back to work. As a result of that intervention, absenteeism at that council dropped to minuscule proportions. If that result was achieved in that one incident, imagine what could happen if the same relationship arose with the medical certificates, particularly when it is said that the doctor's findings are conclusive and cannot be challenged. I am supportive of change, but not change that could lead to oppressive results. The change advocated in this legislation could lead to such oppressive results. For that reason I move the amendment and commend it to the Committee.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [6.37]: I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. It is interesting to note the remark of Mr Justice Nathan in the Victorian Supreme Court in his judgment of 31 March 1995 in the case of Masters v McCubbery & Ors. I shall read some quotations from his Honour's remarks:

. . . a medical panel under the Accidents Compensation Act provides an opinion in answer to specific medical questions asked of it by the Court. It neither hears nor entertains arguments by the competing parties. It proceeds as a step removed from them to independently examine and assess a worker in order to provide an opinion which answers the questions placed before it. Both the intention of the Act and analysis of its terms establish that the medical panel is not a Tribunal and thus is not susceptible to the rules of natural justice or the requirements to provide written reasons for its opinion.

Mr Justice Nathan also said:

. . . all that a Judge does, upon receipt of an answer from the medical panel is to calculate the amount due in conformity with the answers, or if the opinion is that the worker is not incapacitated to dismiss the complaint. The Judge is reduced to performing administrative functions whilst the medical panel performs the judicial ones. Even more appalling is the fact that the medical opinions are immune from test, justification or any sort of oversight.

In that case medical opinions assessed by a medical panel were referred to a judge, who found them unsatisfactory. The Government is now trying to suggest that the agreement by the medical panel shall stand for all time and there will be no appeal against it. These doctors are not independent but are employed by the WorkCover Authority.

It will not be fair for workers if they have no appeal mechanism against the decision of the medical panel. It is essential that a type of appeal mechanism is available to them. I hope that in reply to my comments the Attorney General does not suggest that claimants always have a right of appeal to the Supreme Court. I canvassed the only way that a person can appeal to the Supreme Court in my contribution to the second reading debate yesterday. I am certain that, as an eminent barrister, the Attorney General knows the methods by which one can appeal: on questions of fact only, not on opinion. That is well known to the Minister and therefore should be well known to the Government.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [6.41]: The value or efficacy of this amendment is questionable given that proposed section 131A is predicated upon agreements between the worker and the employer referring a matter to a particular medical practitioner. That would not be a medical practitioner employed by WorkCover but one agreed upon between the parties. The whole process will lead to a binding result pursuant to the proposed section 131A(1). It may be that the subsection proposed to be deleted has no particular purpose. In the circumstances the Government does not oppose the deletion.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [6.42]: I move Government amendment No. 5 as circulated:

No. 5 Pages 43 and 44, Schedule 1[63], line 26 on page 43 to line 7 on page 44. Omit all words on those lines.

That amendment would, in effect, delete subsections (5) and (6) of proposed section 131A which would remove the concept of incentive payments being made to the worker to agree to have a medical adjudication of his or her claim. Representations have been made that this would be in some way untoward or unsatisfactory. The Government has responded to those representations to the extent of agreeing that that provision ought to be deleted.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [6.42]: The Opposition agrees with the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [6.43]: I move Opposition amendment No. 15 as circulated:

No. 15 Page 45, Schedule 1[4], lines 15-35. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(3) The certificate of the medical panel is, in any proceedings, evidence (but not conclusive evidence) as to the matters certified.

The conciliation officer is able to refer matters to a medical panel. That medical panel will issue certificates in relation to the injuries sustained. The medical panel will be made up of people who will be paid for by the WorkCover Authority. They will be appointed, effectively, by the Government although, depending on what happens with other amendments, they will be appointed by various groups. To an extent they will be dependent upon government because they are paid by the
Page 5008
WorkCover Authority. They are not appointed by the court, they are appointed by the Minister and they will have renewed appointments. No matter how independent people might seek to be the potential risk is that they may feel dependent upon government for their continuing income, particularly if they are approaching retirement and require their income to maintain them in a retiring lifestyle.

As I said, I am seeking to ensure that this scheme will not be oppressive or potentially oppressive. I must be getting old, because I approached this amendment with a view to whether one would want one's children to be in a position where, if they were seriously injured, they would be dependent upon these mechanisms for getting compensation, without having the protection from the law. Had I been a Minister trying to protect a scheme I might have taken a different attitude and run the bureaucratic line.

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: It is all a question of perspective.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: It is a matter of perspective. Having been a Minister one has to use judgment. I would not like my children to be put through this and that is why I propose this amendment. There should be evidence, and it should be persuasive evidence, to go before the panel. If for very good reason someone, either the insurer or the injured worker, believes that something has gone wrong there must be a mechanism for challenging what has occurred. That is why I advocate this change.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [6.47]: The Government opposes the amendment. Binding medical panels available in specific circumstances have been a feature of workers compensation legislation in this State for 65 years. The provision that the Opposition seeks to delete states that if the regulation provides, the senior conciliation officer will be able to refer matters for binding medical panel assessment. That regulation power could possibly extend beyond the existing provisions of section 131 calls for medical disputes, which could result in binding panel assessment. It should be noted, however, that the provisions of the bill include some strict limitations. Specifically it is stated that a medical panel certificate under those provisions can never be binding if the panel referral is made after court proceedings have started or if the parties themselves have previously applied for a panel or have agreed to refer the question to an independent medical practitioner.

Despite assertions to the contrary medical panels cannot be used under the provision in question without the worker having obtained his or her own doctor's report. The Act and the regulations specifically require that a lump sum claim under section 66 is not duly made unless and until the claimant has provided a supporting medical report. Until that is done there is no claim and hence no dispute could have found its way to conciliation to become the subject of referral to a medical panel under this provision. I record the Government's undertaking that no regulations to activate this medical panel procedure will be made until an exhaustive consultation process occurs. The Government does not have any immediate plans to seek such regulations but will monitor the situation in the future. This is a significant matter relevant to the WorkCover scheme's current cost problem.

I also ask the Leader of the Opposition whether this matter has been the subject of consultation between the Opposition, the employers and the insurance companies. I would express some scepticism about whether it has, and if it has, whether there is agreement by those relevant parties to this proposition. If the Opposition had moved in this House, without consultation, a proposition of this kind to remove the concept of medical panels being binding on any issue, in the context of proposed section 131B, that would be a gross breach of proper procedure and certainly hypocritical in the light of the criticisms - which we deny - of the Government in relation to its consultative process.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to some meeting with a number of insurance companies yesterday, and asserted that in relation to another matter there was no opposition to certain changes being effected to the legislation. It would be interesting and intriguing to know whether the same meeting considered this matter and, if so, whether it reached any conclusion; and, if so, whether that meeting amounted to consultation between the Liberal Party, the National Party and relevant interest groups. I am sceptical about any such asserted consultation. I doubt that it occurred. It would be quite untoward if, as may be the case, the Opposition has moved this amendment without adequate and proper consultation with the insurance industry and with the employers. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to indicate the nature and extent of the consultation which he or the Opposition has undertaken with the insurance companies and the employers with respect to this amendment.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [6.51]: I am happy to do so. As I indicated earlier, I understand that all of these amendments were made available at the meeting yesterday morning; and, again in relation to all matters, they were not opposed.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [6.51]: I find it strange that the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, a Minister in a Labor Government, seems to believe that the vital consultation is with the insurance companies and the employers. What about the workers? What about consultation with the Labor Council? I refer again to the judgment and remarks of Mr Justice Nathan in the Victorian Supreme Court. He condemned the fact that doctors rather than judges determine claims. Doctors do not have life tenure like judges.
Page 5009
If they do not perform to the expectation of the WorkCover Authority which employs them, they can be dismissed at the end of their term of office. Doctors who accept appointment to the panel will be well aware that renewal of their contract will depend on their toeing the line with the government policy of the day. At the last election the people of New South Wales supported the referendum to preserve the independence of the judiciary. To give judges complete independence and then ensure that disputes are resolved by doctors who do not have that independence seems to fly in the face of the wishes of the people. This is a fundamental attack on our system of justice. Therefore I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [6.53]: Contrary to the assertion of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, I do not put forward the view that the vital - I assume she means by that the only - relevant consultation is with insurance companies and employers. I believe that all interested groups ought to be the subject of consultation. That is the approach we have taken in putting forward a package. I would not like there to be any misconception that either the workers or their representatives should not be consulted. I do not think any member of this House believes I would contemplate that the trade union movement should not be consulted on matters of this kind. The contrary is the case. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby made assertions about judicial independence. She has to bear in mind that, under section 131 of the Act, from time immemorial there has been the concept of medical panels reaching binding decisions with respect to medical matters on certain defined issues. There is nothing new and there is nothing antithetical to judicial independence about that concept.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [6.55]: I ought to take forward the comment made by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, because she has put her finger on the nub of the problem with this proposed legislation, that is, the need to protect people's rights from oppression. If panels were not appointed by, controlled by, and answerable to the organisation paying compensation, I would have difficulty sustaining an argument. If panels were subject to the administration of the court, and answerable to the court for contempt if they acted inappropriately, I would have almost no legs to stand on. If panels were able to present conclusive evidence to a court, again I would have no legs to stand on. But if a management scheme is being put in place that is potentially oppressive, rights and interests must be balanced. That is the issue here. The Government has taken an inappropriate approach to the introduction of these changes.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Bull Mr Mutch
Mrs Chadwick Mrs Nile
Mr Cohen Dr Pezzutti
Mr Corbett Mr Ryan
Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios
Miss Gardiner Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Hannaford Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Jobling Mr Tingle
Mr Jones
Mr Kersten Tellers,
Mr Lynn Miss Kirkby
Mr Moppett Rev. Nile

Mrs Arena Mr O'Grady
Mr Dyer Ms Saffin
Mr Egan Mr Shaw
Mrs Isaksen Ms Staunton
Mr Johnson Mr Vaughan
Mr Kaldis Tellers,
Mr Macdonald Dr Burgmann
Mr Manson Ms Burnswoods

Mr Gay Mr Obeid
Mr Willis Mrs Symonds

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [7.02]: I move:

No. 16 Page 66, Schedule 1[82], after line 8, insert:

(3) The assets of a statutory fund maintained by an insurer under this Division may not be applied for the purpose of enabling any payment by the Authority as a dividend to the credit of the Consolidated Fund, whether by virtue of a direction of the Minister under this Act or the WorkCover Administration Act 1989 or pursuant to a requirement under section 59B of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, or otherwise.

(4) The assets of the WorkCover Authority Fund under the WorkCover Administration Act 1989 may not be applied for the purpose of payment of a dividend to the credit of the Consolidated Fund, whether by virtue of a direction of the Minister under this Act or pursuant to a requirement under section 59B of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, or otherwise.

It would be very easy for the Minister to make it clear to everybody that there was never at any time an intention by central agencies to rip money out of the WorkCover Authority by way of dividend; he could very easily do that on behalf of the Government by saying, "We support this amendment." The last time any government in this country had an experience with a managed fund was in Victoria when the Motor Accidents Fund, during the period when the current head of the Premier's Department was the head of the Premier's
Page 5010
Department in Victoria, had $1,200 million ripped out by way of dividends from the fund into consolidated revenue. In New South Wales the Minister issued a direction to the WorkCover Board to increase the average premium that should be charged for insurance from 2.1 per cent of wages to 2.5 per cent. We know that the decision was not taken willingly by the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations: there was a Cabinet decision driven by Treasury to force the Minister to issue a direction to the WorkCover Board to increase premiums. The Minister had previously told Cabinet that the premium determined by WorkCover would be sufficient to meet its liabilities and obligations.

There is no restriction at this time on the Government ordering the Minister to issue a similar direction to the WorkCover Board to declare a dividend to the Government. There is therefore no reason why the $200 million that the Government hopes to save as a result of these changes cannot be ordered to be a dividend to consolidated revenue by 30 June next year. Nor is there any other mechanism by which all the savings that we are seeking to achieve, or any other savings that might be achieved by way of good management by the excellent leadership of the WorkCover Board, could not be set at nought by the Government ripping out several hundred millions dollars a year from the WorkCover Authority. Employers pay the premiums. It is their money and the employees' money; not the Government's money. We should support this amendment which reinforces that the authority is not a milch cow subject to the avarice of Treasury. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [7.07]: The Government does not oppose this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [7.08], by leave: I move amendments Nos 6 and 7 in globo:

No. 6 Page 99, Schedule 2[28], line 29. Omit "associated".

No. 7 Page 101, Schedule 2[28], line 3. Omit "associated".

The amendments relate to the provisions of the bill enabling authorised officers of union organisations to enter and inspect workplaces where their members are or may be working for the purpose of investigating any suspected safety breaches. The proposed amendments correct a printing error: the word "associated" in the phrase "for the purpose of investigating any suspected breach of the associated occupational health and safety legislation" inadvertently limits the provisions to breaches of safety legislation other than the main Occupational Health and Safety Act. To make sense, the proposed new provision must cover breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Act itself.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [7.09]: I move:

No. 8 Page 104, Schedule 2[31], line 16. Omit "(under section 31I (b1))".

This proposed amendment is a minor drafting correction relating to the provision of the bill stating that an employer convicted of a safety offence may be ordered to reimburse the WorkCover Authority for its costs in testing industrial plant and the like involved in the breach. This is a reasonable provision based on a longstanding precedent in the Fair Trading Act relating to consumer product prosecutions.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [7.09]: The Opposition supports the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [7.10]: I move:

No. 9 Page 111, Schedule 3[1], lines 4-26. Omit all words on those lines.

The proposed amendment would delete from the bill the provision of the appointment of one of the commissioners of the Compensation Court as senior commissioner. That provision is considered unnecessary because of satisfactory existing administrative arrangements within the court. Under those arrangements the Chief Judge allows one of the commissioners to operate as an ad hoc senior commissioner for some purposes, though not on a specific statutory basis.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [7.10]: The Opposition agrees with the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [7.11], by leave: I move the following amendments in globo:

No. 10 Page 112, Schedule 3[2]. After line 13, insert:

(2B) The Minister can, when inviting nominations for the purposes of subsection (2A), specify the minimum number of persons required to be nominated.

No. 11 Page 112, Schedule 3[3], lines 16-20. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(2A) As far as reasonably practicable, one of the medical referees constituting a medical panel must be a medical referee appointed under section 14A(2A)(a) and one must be a medical referee appointed under section 14A(2A)(b).

(2B) Of the medical referees constituting a medical panel, no more than one is to be a medical referee appointed under section 14A(2A)(a) and no more than one is to be a medical referee appointed under section 14A(2A)(b).

Page 5011

No. 12 Page 112, Schedule 3[3]. After line 29, insert:

(2D) When a medical panel is constituted by 2 medical referees and they cannot agree as to their decision, the medical panel is to be reconstituted as a panel of 3 medical referees (whether or not including either or both of the medical referees from the original panel).

These are simply machinery and practical amendments designed to make sure that the medical referees and medical panels work effectively. In particular, they deal with the situation where medical panels constituted by two medical referees cannot agree. They also give the Minister powers to specify the minimum number of persons required to be nominated. They make somewhat more flexible the circumstance whereby some of the doctors have to be nominated by employee interests and some by employer interests in the event that it is difficult to constitute a panel in that precise form.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [7.12]: The Opposition does not oppose the amendments, although initially tempted to do so. Provided I am given an assurance that the use of the term "as reasonably practicable" will in fact be a rare occurrence or an occurrence of last resort, the Opposition will not oppose the amendments. The intention with these medical panels is to ensure that there are representatives of the interests of the employer and of the employee. If it becomes difficult for there to be an employee nominated representative, obviously there could be two employer representatives. It comes back to the question of balance and a perception of fairness. In view of the fact that the House has omitted the requirement that these certificates be conclusive evidence, I will not insist now on my amendments to this. However, I ask the Minister to assure the Opposition that the use of the "as reasonably practicable" provision would be a last resort measure.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [7.13]: That is my intention.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [7.13], by leave: I move the following amendments in globo:

No. 13 Page 113, Schedule 3[5], line 4. Omit all words on that line, insert instead:

Omit the section. Insert instead:

18 Costs

Section 116 (Costs) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 applies to and in respect of any proceedings in the Court, not just proceedings under that Act.

No. 14 Page 113, Schedule 3[8], lines 10 and 11. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

Insert before section 22(3)(a):

(a1) the need for proceedings to be disposed of efficiently by the Court, including the need to make full use of the commissioners, and

These are cost provisions under the Workers Compensation Act that also deal with the allocation of matters between the commissioners and the judges. They effect technical changes and are uncontroversial.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [7.14]: The Opposition supports the amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [7.14]: I move:

No. 15 Page 113, Schedule 3[9], lines 12-22. Omit all words on those lines.

This amendment is consequential upon the amendment accepted earlier by the Committee. In effect it deals with the concept that regulations would provide for the allocation of matters between the commissioners and the judges, and leaves the allocation function essentially for the Chief Judge of the court.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [7.15]: The Opposition supports the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [7.16], by leave: I move the following amendments in globo:

No. 17 Page 118, Schedule 3[26], lines 18-20. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 18 Page 118, Schedule 3[27], lines 25 and 26. Omit "The Senior Commissioner must be a full-time Commissioner.".

No. 19 Page 133, Schedule 8.4, line 13. Omit all words on that line.

No. 20 Page 133, Schedule 8.4, line 15. Omit ", other than the Senior Commissioner".

These amendments are consequential upon the earlier amendment accepted by this Committee to delete the office of senior commissioner from the bill.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [7.18]: The amendments are agreed to by the Opposition.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedules 1, 2, 3 and 8 as amended agreed to.

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

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner) left the chair at 7.20 p.m. The House resumed at 9.00 p.m.]

Page 5012

Clause 5 and Schedule 3

The Hon. I. COHEN [9.00], by leave: I move the following amendments in globo:

1. Page 2, Clause 5, lines 21-23. Omit the clause.

2. Pages 8 and 9, Schedule 3. Omit the Schedule.

The result of these amendments would be that areas designated as nature reserve remain so designated. As I explained in a contribution to the debate in the House earlier today, the classification of nature reserve is higher than the classification of national park. To classify land as nature reserve provides protection in that the land is less inclined to be used by visitors and for recreational purposes. Such land earns the status of land of great scientific importance. To reclassify a reserve as national park would be to downgrade it, to subject it to greater visitor usage, and not to ensure that it was ecologically sustainable. Only a nature reserve classification can protect these valuable areas.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [9.02]: The Government opposes these amendments to clause 5 and schedule 3 to the bill. Essentially they seek to maintain the status of special land as nature reserve, rather than make it available for subsequent addition to adjacent national parks, as is the Government's intention. The Government's proposal is a more rational approach and will allow the land to be managed in concert with the surrounding larger areas of national park. From a management and administrative perspective this is by far the most efficient way to proceed.

Essentially the amendments seek to restrict public access to and enjoyment of the areas listed in schedule 3. They stem from an extreme view that all areas identified for nature conservation should be locked away from public use and appreciation. The Government does not accept that, in the case of the four nature reserves described in schedule 3 to the bill, the action proposed by the amendments has any merit. Indeed, for a number of obvious reasons the addition of these areas to adjoining national parks is the most rational option. For those short reasons, the Government does not support the amendments.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [9.03]: The Opposition will not support the amendments. I wish to clear up any misunderstandings about remarks made in my second reading speech, in which I spoke strongly about the record of State Forests and its predecessors in looking after flora and nature reserves. I alluded to the fact that in many cases the conservation value of areas is assiduously defended by State Forests. I compared that with the ability of the National Parks and Wildlife Service to similarly defend national parks, simply because of the scope of responsibilities of the NPWS. I certainly did not intend my comments to be a criticism. They were simply an example of how State Forests has undertaken a broad range of community responsibilities beyond the narrow function, often impugned in debate in this place, of managing forests to produce saw logs.

It is unreasonable to expect State Forests to maintain its remnant responsibilities within the general boundaries of a large national park, or to draw a line around the area adjacent to that national park, when the intention is to preclude logging activities in the vicinity. I do not believe the amendments are appropriate or laudable.

Amendments negatived.

Clause and schedule agreed to.

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


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.11]: On behalf of the Call to Australia group I support the legislation. This bill will amend the Government Pricing Tribunal Act 1992, expand the functions of the tribunal under that Act, change the name of the tribunal, make further provision with respect to the membership of the tribunal, make a consequential amendment to the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Act 1975, and make other changes. It is important to have a body in this State that can conduct independent investigations and, where there is widespread public concern, investigate matters and report on industry. The tribunal will conduct investigations and make reports on any matter with respect to pricing, industry or competition, as referred to it by the Minister. The legislation fulfils a need in our society, and we are pleased to support it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.12], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedules 1 and 2

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [9.15], by leave: I move the following amendments in globo:

No. 1 Page 3, Schedule 1[1], lines 6-9. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

An Act to establish the Government Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales; to confer functions on the Tribunal in relation to pricing, access rights and competition; and for other purposes.

Page 5013

No. 2 Page 3, Schedule 1[2], line 13. Omit "Independent", insert instead "Government".

No. 3 Page 4, Schedule 1[4], line 15. Omit "Independent", insert instead "Government".

No. 4 Page 4, Schedule 1[6], line 21. Omit "Independent", insert instead "Government".

No. 10 Page 20, Schedule 1[32], lines 12 and 13. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

GPRT means the Government Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales.

No. 11 Pages 20 and 21, Schedule 1[32], lines 20, 23, 28 and 34 on page 20 and line 4 on page 21. Omit "IPRT" wherever occurring, insert instead "GPRT".

No. 12 Page 22, Schedule 2, lines 8 and 10. Omit "Independent" wherever occurring, insert instead "Government".

As I indicated in debate on the second reading of the bill, the title of the tribunal should revert to what it was. The word "Government" should be inserted, as mentioned in the proposed amendments, in lieu of the word "Independent". The Government Pricing Tribunal was established by the Greiner Government. Its role is to relate to public agencies and determine the maximum price for monopoly services supplied by government agencies.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.16]: The Opposition is trying to turn back the clock and restrict the operation of the tribunal by changing its name to what it was. There has been extensive consultation with Dr Peter Macdonald, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and others. The tribunal, which will be renamed in this post-Hilmer era the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, will be granted a wider investigative brief, similar to that of the Industry Commission, and will establish certain specialised functions in relation to a public infrastructure access regime under the competition policies agreement of the Council of Australian Governments.

In future the pricing tribunal will go beyond its current somewhat restricted role into a wider field. That is supported by the Australian Democrats, on behalf of environmental groups and the Public Interest Advisory Council, following consultation with the Government. The legislation has been improved. There will be greater transparency in the relationship between the tribunal and the Government once the tribunal's independence has been strengthened. There are more coherent requirements for the tribunal to consider ecologically sustainable development in its pricing and regulatory operations, including an express commitment on demand management and least-cost planning.

There is an enhanced ability for non-government organisations to view submissions, access agreements and other documents before the tribunal; enhanced transparency of registered access agreements; and ensured public development of guidelines for access agreements and public notification of an arbitration of a disputed access agreement. It is greatly improved legislation. I do not believe it would be appropriate to restrict it to government; it should move into the broader field of being an independent pricing and regulatory tribunal.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.18]: The Government also opposes the Opposition's amendments. The amendments would change the tribunal's name from the proposed Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales to the Government Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales. The Opposition has argued that the tribunal is a government body and that its name should reflect that fact. It is also an independent body, and I believe it is appropriate that its name should reflect that fact. Most fair-minded observers would believe that the tribunal, since its inception, has been an independent body. It is completely independent in the discharge of its investigatory and reporting functions under the Act. This independence has contributed to the tribunal's high standing.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [9.20], by leave: I move the following amendments in globo:

No. 5 Pages 6 and 7, Schedule 1[10], line 18 on page 6 to line 14 on page 7. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 6 Page 8, Schedule 1[10], line 12. Omit "12E", insert instead "12D".

No. 7 Page 8, Schedule 1[10], line 24. Omit "12B", insert instead "12A".

No. 8 Page 11, Schedule 1[18], lines 8-10. Omit all words on those lines.

The last three amendments, which are consequential on amendment No. 5, essentially deal with the jurisdiction of the tribunal. The proposals in the bill will expand the tribunal's functions and services to include industry issues in general. The Opposition's amendments will restrict that.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.21]: The Government opposes Opposition amendments Nos. 5 to 8 which intend to strip the tribunal of its proposed Industry Commission functions. The Opposition has argued in another place that these Industry Commission functions will expand the tribunal's powers of investigation beyond what was originally intended when the tribunal was established. That is the case. The simple answer to the Opposition's criticism is to ask: what is so unique about the tribunal which requires its roles and functions to be set in concrete and be unchangeable? Times have changed, and so should the role of the tribunal.

Page 5014

The Government could have established a separate body to deal with these industry- commission-type functions, but that would cause unnecessary duplication and result in an unjustified waste of money. We already have a tribunal, which has been known until now as the Government Pricing Tribunal. It is an expert and independent tribunal and its work has been widely acclaimed by those on both sides of the political fence and by all fair-minded commentators. Given the necessity of a body to deal with Industry Commission-type functions, the choice is simple: either a separate body should be set up, or the functions should be given to an existing body, such as the Government Pricing Tribunal - which is to be renamed - which has the capacity and expertise to combine the two functions. The Government is simply trying to save taxpayers some money. It seeks to expand the tribunal's role to take in new areas which are compatible with its existing role as a government pricing tribunal.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.23]: The Australian Democrats also oppose Opposition amendments Nos. 5 to 8 for the reasons stated previously. This is a further attempt to restrict the pricing tribunal to dealing with governmental matters. Proposed section 12A will enable the tribunal to consider investigations on any matter to which the Minister referred, such as pricing, industry or competition. We fully support the Government's proposal to broaden the scope of the tribunal.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.24], by leave: I move the following amendments in globo:

No. 1 Page 7, Schedule 1, lines 28-31. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 2 Page 8, Schedule 1, lines 21-23. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(4) An agreement of the kind referred to in subsection (1) is not enforceable unless it is registered as referred to in subsection (3).

These amendments relate to the registration of an access agreement between a government agency and a third party; namely, an agreement on access to public infrastructure. The Government's amendment No. 8 merely provides the tribunal with a discretionary power to request registration of agreements that have not been included on a register. It is essential that these access agreements are as transparent as possible, and that any opportunity for collusion or sweetheart deals be ruthlessly extricated. A provision which ensures the validity of an agreement, even if it is not appropriately registered, can act only as an incentive to non-compliance, particularly if someone does not want word of an agreement which is not in the public interest to become widely known. My amendments will provide that an access agreement is not enforceable unless it is registered. I am advised that this will not open the Government up to any potential liability. Any honest oversight could be immediately remedied. It is in the interests of both parties to register. I do not believe that any major problems will arise.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.26]: The Government opposes Australian Democrat amendments No. 1 and 2, essentially because it is a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It goes far beyond that. The amendments are at odds with equivalent Commonwealth Government provisions. The issue of the sanction to be applied for failing to register an access agreement is addressed in the bill. Proposed section 12D provides that if a government agency fails to notify the tribunal that it entered into an access agreement, the tribunal can request the agency to provide written reasons for that failure. Proposed section 12D also requires the tribunal to report to the Minister regarding that failure and the agency's reasons for not registering the agreement.

There is a real danger that this amendment will capture access agreements which are not entered into under a New South Wales access regime. Nowhere in the amendments is it stated that access agreements which are entered into pursuant to a Commonwealth access regime are to be excluded. Does this mean that agreements concerning access to infrastructure of national significance, such as that relating to electricity and railways, which are governed by Commonwealth access regimes would have to be registered with the tribunal? This would represent a duplication of the registration requirements of the Trade Practices Act, and have the unthinkable effect of raising doubts regarding the enforceability of those agreements. Where is the possible public benefit in such an outcome?

If an access agreement is not registered for some innocent reason, the amendment could give rise to serious consequences for the parties to the agreement. For example, what would be the legal status of actions taken by the contracting parties after the agreement has been finalised but before it has been registered? What would be the position of other parties who have entered into related contracts? The Government is committed to ensuring that there is adequate transparency in the manner in which this State's access regimes operate. The Government's bona fides in this regard are demonstrated in the bill's enhancement of public access to submissions made to the tribunal and the register of access agreements. It is in the interests of all concerned that access agreements are registered. It is for this reason, in addition to the administrative arrangements which are to be put in place as part of the development of access regimes for government agencies, that the Government has introduced proposed section 12D. Having in mind the adverse commercial consequences which could flow if this amendment were to be adopted, the Government does not accept that access agreements should be made unenforceable if they have not been registered at the tribunal.

Amendments negatived.

Page 5015

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.30], by leave: I move the following Australian Democrats amendments in globo:

No. 3 Page 13, Schedule 1, line 29. After "disputes", insert "and remedy or restraint of breaches of this Act".

No. 4 Page 16. After line 24, insert:

24F Remedy or restraint of breaches of this Act

(1) Any person may bring proceedings in the Supreme Court for an order to remedy or restrain a breach of this Act.

(2) The proceedings may be brought by a person on the person's own behalf or on the behalf of other persons (with their consent), or a body corporate or unincorporated (with consent of its committee or other controlling or governing body), having like or common interests in those proceedings.

(3) Any person on whose behalf proceedings are brought is entitled to contribute to or provide for the payment of the legal costs and expenses of the person bringing the proceedings.

The Australian Democrats have fought long and hard for third party rights wherever possible. For example, these have been in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act since 1979. In our view, they have not been abused. Occasions on which individuals have abused third party rights are very rare - I cannot recall any. It is useful for community groups and individuals to have third party access. These amendments provide the community, and potential competitors to government monopolies, with third party enforcement rights and legal standing. By comparison, the Commonwealth's trade practice legislation gives such broad legal enforcement powers. As government monopolies provide access to, or exploit, valuable natural resources of water, energy and public transport, it seems to me that the community has a legitimate expectation of being able to enforce compliance with tribunal determination and the Act. Sweetheart deals could be struck under the bill and the community and competitors may be not be able to challenge them, which would be a strange result for a supposed anti-monopoly bill.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.30]: The Government opposes these amendments. In the Legislative Assembly the honourable member for Manly, Dr Macdonald, cited as examples of legislation which contained third party rights provisions the Trade Practices Act, the Protection of the Environment Administration Act, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act. Obviously, the last three of the examples relate to environmental regulations that entail a completely different objective from that of the Government Pricing Tribunal Act.

The Government Pricing Tribunal Act involves economic regulations. There is a world of difference between an individual initiating a third party action to address breaches of environmental laws and third party actions being taken against the tribunal in relation to its pricing determinations or against government agencies concerning their implementation of those determinations. These supposed amendments provide that third party actions can be brought to remedy or restrain a breach of the Government Pricing Tribunal Act. This would allow a third party, including large business corporations, to take action in the Supreme Court on the basis that the tribunal has breached the Act in making a determination. In remedying such a breach would the Supreme Court be expected to step into the tribunal's shoes and make its own pricing determination? Such an action could be used to delay indefinitely the making of determinations by the tribunal.

The Trade Practices Act has a completely different focus from the Government Pricing Tribunal Act. The Trade Practices Act is directed towards the regulation of conduct. The ACCC, as the Trade Practices Commission is now to be called, has been given specific functions in relation to preventing breaches of the Act. On the other hand, once the tribunal has made a pricing determination, section 18 of the Government Pricing Tribunal Act makes the implementation of that determination a matter for the relevant Minister, public official or government agency. The tribunal does not have a policing role in the way that the Trade Practices Commission did. Nor does the Act provide that failure to implement a determination constitutes an offence. To the extent that a party believes that the tribunal has not properly discharged its functions, the appropriate remedy lies under administrative law.

If it is a government agency that has somehow breached the Act, that breach should be a matter to be addressed by the relevant Minister, who is ultimately accountable to the Parliament. The Government Pricing Tribunal Act already provides that government agencies must include in their annual report details of the way in which tribunal determination has been implemented. If a recommendation has not been implemented, the agency's annual report is required to include a statement as to the reasons that it has not been implemented. In addition to these requirements, the bill provides that in subsequent submissions to the tribunal, government agencies must provide particulars regarding implementation of recommendations and determination to the tribunal.

In so far as the amendment is directed at the protection of the environment, during the debate in the other place my colleague the Minister for Small Business and Regional Development stated that the Government would be happy to discuss the issue of third party rights "at another time, in a more appropriate bill". In so far as the amendment is directed to either the decision-making functions of the tribunal or the commercial conduct of government agencies, whilst the Government would be willing to examine this issue further, the
Page 5016
proposed amendment is much too generally worded. The Government could not responsibly give its support to a provision the potential operation of which is so uncertain. Surely it would be better to first clearly identify the supposed ill for which this amendment is meant to be the cure and, having done that, consider whether an appropriate mechanism can be drafted to fix it. I understand that was also the view taken by the Opposition in the other place. I thank the Opposition for taking that responsible approach to this issue.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.35]: Call to Australia supports the Government's position on these amendments. A development in recent days in regard to the casino and in the super football conflict between Packer interests and Murdoch interests demonstrates that it might not be small consumers who would use this facility but very powerful bodies, which would be able to block general inquiries and actions.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [9.37]: I move Opposition amendment No. 9:

No. 9 Page 18, Schedule 1. After line 13, insert:

[25] Schedule 2, clause 3 (2)

Insert at the end of clause 3:

(2) Subject to this Schedule, the minimum term of office that may be specified in the instrument of appointment of a permanent member is 3 years.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.38]: The Government supports this amendment. There is some merit in the term of full-time members of the tribunal being a specified period of three years. The Government was concerned with the second part amendment as originally proposed, that the term of appointment of a temporary member be one year, because temporary members are appointed for specific inquiries or purposes and it may be that they need be in the job for a matter of weeks or months only. I thank the Opposition for amending its amendment as initially drafted.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

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


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [9.41]: At the point when debate was interrupted I was rounding off some general comments about the bill. The bill has created some anxiety in the community, probably on both sides of the argument. I refer honourable members to the introduction a few years ago of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (Amendment) Act, which was an attempt by the former Government to try to rationalise the process of environmental protection. There was an attempt to bring together a number of disparate organisations which had consent authority status. They were to be consolidated in one overarching organisation which could give effect to Government policy on environmental protection. I mention that because at the time there was great alarm in some sections of the community that it would be an all- powerful and extremely intrusive organisation, and it has taken some time to work through that.

In more recent times, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, there was a multiplicity of controlling Acts, beginning with the decision of a court which ruled that the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act rendered a lot of forestry operations subject to litigation. It was believed that those actions would be repeated successfully and would bring the industry to a halt. During debate on this bill in the lower House Government members admitted that the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act, introduced by Labor when in opposition with the help of the Independents, had not worked. The Government responded with the Timber Industry (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill and what we have been hoping for ever since that time is that, in some way, we could bring this legislation together in the same way as the Environmental Protection Authority tried to give a focus to those whose livelihoods were involved and to those who had aspirations and expectations about the environment.

The Opposition welcomes the bill as giving a clear direction, but a number of issues have arisen in the short time that has been available for the community to consider the bill. The Opposition wants to put those issues on the record and to give effect to them by way of amendment. I mentioned earlier, and I repeat, that I believe the Government has been very wise in accepting that farming should be explicitly excluded from the bill at this stage. The House will debate amendments that are contrary to my view, which is that Fisheries ought also to be excluded. The reason for my suggestion is that the Opposition would like to ensure that the bill does not at a later stage produce some unexpected bombshell in existing areas of commercial and ordinary life. I believe that regulation of those two industries should proceed along quite different lines. Fisheries has its own Act and many other acts impinge on farming which I believe are more appropriate than some legal interpretation of the provisions of this bill. Honourable members will recall the devastating effect on the forestry industry of the decision in the Chaelundi case.

There will be a point at some stage, away from farming and fishing that we have been talking about, when there will be an impact from decisions
Page 5017
about critical habitat classification. Where they impinge on private land, it is the very firm view of the Opposition that consideration should be given to providing compensation to people whose land is blighted by any such government decision. Honourable members will remember the landmark legislation introduced by the former leader of the National Party in another place, the Hon. Wal Murray. It really was a watershed in respect of the responsibility of government when it undertakes changes which may affect enjoyment of assets such as public land. Mr Murray's legislation introduced the concept that if members of the community placed a high price on certain objectives, they ought to be prepared to pay the price, and that land-holders had every right to expect to be able to sell their land without suffering any diminution in its value. That issue needs to be addressed. I hope the Government will be as fair minded and open minded as the Hon. Wal Murray was when he introduced the earlier legislation.

The bill is a major part of the Government's legislative program that it undertook to introduce at the time of the election. It has been some time in its gestation. Suddenly the Government found itself not only laboured by political persuasion, but in labour producing this bill. I am sure it is of some regret to the Government that time constraints were placed upon it by the expiry of the Timber Industry (Interim Protection) Act. Decisions had to be made by various organisations, which did not allow the Government sufficient time to fully consider the bill. I have received a number of reports from significant organisations who feel that it is important to go ahead with the bill now. Their views have been either considered by the Government or are contained in amendments, the adoption of which my colleague the Hon. J. F. Ryan and I will endeavour to argue in Committee. The Opposition will support the broad thrust of the bill

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [9.51]: It is a pleasure to lead for the Opposition on the Threatened Species Conservation Bill, and some of the comments I make will be similar to those of my colleague the Hon. D. F. Moppett Why do we have this bill right now? Earlier this year when the Government attempted to break an election promise and give itself the opportunity to introduce this legislation next April when the Parliament resumes, the Opposition combined with the crossbenchers to prevent that from happening and to force the Government to introduce its promised legislation before the end of the year. We are certainly pleased to see that it has finally arrived.

I note that the Minister in another place complained that she had been rushed into this legislation without adequate time to consult with affected parties. The Opposition, together with other members of this House, is of the view that there has been a long time for consultation. Threatened species has been an issue of public debate in this Parliament and outside it ever since the now famous Chaelundi case was decided in 1991. Having had four years of endless discussions and consultation with the community, it was high time to introduce permanent legislation and have it assessed by the community.

If it is necessary to rush the bill through the Parliament, the blame lies with the Government, who, in the dying days of this Parliament, has introduced a lengthy bill - with amendments it consists of 174 pages - which has been difficult to comprehend. It has taken almost every waking moment of my life during the last week for me to ensure that every clause of the bill is as good as it should be, to consider amendments formulated by the Opposition, to consider amendments recommended by community groups and other honourable members. That task was made somewhat more difficult because the day after the Government introduced the legislation it circulated 40 amendments, which indicates that the Government did not have its act together. The Minister had boasted at other times that the bill was ready for presentation to the Parliament and that the finishing touches were being put to it. The Government was obviously doing a great deal more than putting finishing touches to it.

The Opposition makes no apology whatsoever for the fact that we are finally in a position to debate the legislation and make it law. Fortunately the community has been made aware of the contents of the bill, and many of the people who have been at the forefront of the debate on endangered species legislation have given assistance to the Opposition, the crossbenchers and, I suspect, the Government in the last week. I would like to thank the various organisations for their efforts and assistance, particularly Mr Bill Hilditch from the Coalition for Economic Advancement, Mr Col Dorber from the Forest Products Association, and Mr Geoff Angel, who has been extremely helpful in assisting us to understand the amendments he has developed, and for enabling the crossbenchers to better understand the issue. There is no doubt that his understanding of the legislation from a conservation point of view is second to none. We have appreciated the time he has given to help us to come to terms with the amendments and the bill.

I would also like to thank my colleague in another place, the shadow minister for the environment, Mr Jim Longley, who has worked assiduously to produce 40 amendments for the Opposition. That was evident from the manner in which he handled the legislation in another place and the expert manner in which he went through the bill clause by clause, amendment by amendment, and explained it in reasonable detail. He has shown the crossbenchers and their staff that he had an excellent grip on the legislation fairly quickly and a commitment to conservation values. He also had an understanding of how the bill would affect developers, foresters, farmers and the mining industry. It is important that their concerns be taken into consideration also.

Page 5018

The three overlapping reasons for conserving biodiversity are beauty, utility and profit. Beauty is the most difficult to appreciate and quantify. Nevertheless, I am sure that all honourable members understand what it is like to appreciate our natural heritage and wonderful diversity of native animals, plants and fish. Utilitarian reasons are chiefly concerned with the maintenance of the ecosystem function, which I will expand on later. They emphasise the importance of a wide gene pool, the ability for species to reproduce themselves and the protection of our natural environment. Everything has its purpose under the sun. Equally, our multifarious, megabiodiversity has a useful purpose under the sun, and it is important to protect it. We have found uses for plants and animals and all aspects of our biodiversity in medicine and food production.

The profit reason for conserving biodiversity is somewhat controversial. It has been interesting to note that people have been able to use our wide biodiversity to produce new products and to encourage tourism. There are profitable and commercial reasons for wanting to preserve our biodiversity. The continuation of human life on earth is dependent upon fundamental biological systems and processes. Biodiversity provides a foundation for a healthy planet and for our wellbeing. All food, many medicines and industrial products are derived from the wild and domesticated components of biodiversity. The diversity of life is of critical value both from an anthropocentric perspective and for the maintenance of ecosystems.

Biodiversity provides a vast pool of genetic resources to assist in the development of new crops which may be especially important in the event of climate change. In general the benefits of conserving biodiversity can be grouped into three different areas - ecosystem services, biological resources and social benefits. The ecosystem services include the protection of water resources, soil formation and protection, nutrient storage and cycling, pollution breakdown and absorption, contribution to climate stability, the maintenance of ecosystems and recovery from unpredictable events.

The biological resources can be things that we take for granted every day such as wood and food; but we know also that human existence depends upon plants. There are 5,000 species of plants that people are using for food. Less than 20 plant species now the majority of the world's population; and only three or four carbohydrate crops are staples for large populations. Our natural habitat areas provide benefits and support systems for commercially valuable environmental resources. For instance, wetlands provide shelter and breeding grounds for fish and crustacean species, and this assists in the maintenance of fish stocks for the fishing industry. Other habitats act as genetic reservoirs from which seed and other material can be collected for the enhancement of other species and for medicine, for example, the vine tylophera, which is the source of the drug known as tylocrebrine, which has been effective in the treatment of lymphoid leukemia. There is a phenomenal incentive for everyone in Australia to maintain our biodiversity; and the members of the coalition do not treat this important social responsibility lightly.

The Opposition has at heart a concern for future generation, in that we want to make sure we pass this planet on to our offspring in as good a condition as we possibly can. We have as one of our aims in life the successful reproduction and survival of our own species, and that simply will not happen if we limit the biodiversity of our planet by irrational development and irresponsible destruction of our environment. The major threats to our biodiversity can be caused by clearing natural vegetation, the fragmentation of habitat, land and water degradation, introduced plants, animals and species such as foxes, rabbits and cats, and, finally, uncontrolled exploitation of trade in wildlife.

The Opposition commends this bill for its attempt to achieve these objectives in a responsible and, we believe, fairly balanced manner. We have some concerns with the legislation. One of our concerns is that to some extent this legislation treats the need to conserve threatened species as if this is something that happens only in New South Wales; and that we should only take note of the threats to biodiversity that occur in this State within the colonial boundaries set by our colonial forefathers. Those boundaries are entirely artificial - species do not take any notice of State boundaries - and it is necessary to consider the whole country when considering whether a species is endangered or how endangered it might be. We intend to move an amendment to ensure that that issue is taken into consideration.

One of the means of rescuing some of our endangered species is to adopt recovery plants. As I understand it, the likely cost of a recovery plant is in the order of $100,000. Thus it will cost more than $1 million to ensure the recovery of just 10 endangered species; and the expenditure of such a vast amount of money has to be considered carefully. We have to make sure we get the best possible environmental result for every dollar we spend. Therefore there is not much point spending enormous amounts of money and effort in trying to conserve species which might be endangered in New South Wales but are plentiful in other parts of Australia. Additionally, if a species is in dire straits throughout the rest of this country but is reasonably plentiful in one colony in New South, and that one colony is in danger from irresponsible development within a small region of the State, obviously we have to consider that. We need to consider these matters as they affect the entire Australian continent rather than simply New South Wales alone. But I recognise that the main focus of agencies such as the National Parks and Wildlife Service will be our State.

Page 5019

The legislation provides for stop work orders and for the declaration of places as critical habitat. That will have a significant impact on developers and holders or leaseholders of land. We believe that needs to be acknowledged in this legislation in two ways. First, I foreshadow an important amendment to provide for compensation for people who are adversely affected by critical habitat declaration. The conservation of our biodiversity is important because it is for the benefit of the entire community. Therefore the entire community should assist people who are adversely affected by the declaration of critical habitat. It should not be the responsibility of the hapless, if I may use that expression, owner towards which a particular threatened species has gravitated and set up its critical habitat.

It is important for this legislation to recognise the important role of the Government to compensate people whose livelihoods might be destroyed by something that Australia needs. Stop work orders should be acknowledged; and people should have the opportunity to appeal to the Land and Environment Court if, for example, they are subject to a stop work order or if they are dissatisfied with the decision of the director-general or the Minister. That is simply fair play within our society. We have always had the opportunity in the appropriate court to appeal major bureaucratic decisions that affect our lives. In this instance it is likely to be the Land and Environment Court.

[Interruption]

I am sorry that this bores the Hon. Franca Arena, but we to believe that these issues are important. We regret that we are discussing this after such a long sitting but the irresponsible bum-rush with which legislation is being dealt with in this Parliament this week is entirely the fault of the Government. We sat for nearly two months earlier this year and did just about nothing, and then in the final two weeks of this Parliament we have to consider legislation that is in some instances the size of a short novel. If the Hon. Franca Arena wishes to continue to interject and give me reason to speak further, I am more than happy to do so. I would simply ask her to acknowledge that we are the victims of this bum-rush, that we have had absolutely nothing to do with causing it.

We are concerned also that many of the processes identified in this bill, particularly those that need to be followed to declare a particular species endangered, and the effect that might have on critical habitat, are open-ended and no time limits has been set for them. Therefore the livelihood of people might be affected because they are not able to carry out particular developments for which they may have purchased land, because, perhaps, the future of their land is subject to a bureaucratic process. Time limits are important and we welcome the fact that some of the crossbenchers are likely to support their inclusion in the legislation. That does not mean that critical habitats will not be declared where appropriate, but it does mean that the Government will have to get its act together to make sure that decisions that will have an impact are made openly, transparently and quickly so that people are able to decide what their future holds.

The Opposition believes that greater significance should be placed on the likely social and economic consequences of development if consent is granted or refused. In earlier drafts of the bill the clause to which I shall refer had not been inserted. The Opposition believes that the clause affecting the greening of the Olympics has been whacked into this bill in a deceitful manner so that the Government can escape scrutiny of the Olympic Games. An agreement was struck between the Government and the Opposition in the early days of the Carr Government. The coalition made it very clear that it was more than happy to assist the Government with any problems it might have with the expeditious construction of the Olympic facilities and any other work that needed to be done to ensure that the Olympic Games were successful. After all, it was the previous coalition Government that worked hard to ensure that Sydney won the bid for the Olympic Games in the year 2000. The last thing the coalition wants to do is be obstructive to the success of the Olympic Games.

As I understand it, the Government gave a commitment earlier in the year that if there were any problems with the arrangements for the Olympic Games, particularly the greening of the Olympics, the Opposition would do its best to work with the Government if due notice was given to ensure that the difficulties were resolved. This may have included difficulties with the crossbench members in this place or the community. The coalition believes that the Olympics process should be open, transparent and involve the community. Unfortunately, the Government has decided that it does not want to share these problems, if they exist, with the Opposition. It has whacked a clause into this lengthy bill so that the Olympic Games construction can escape scrutiny.

The Opposition believes that that is entirely inappropriate. The Opposition will endeavour to remove that clause which it believes was deceitfully inserted into the bill. The Government did not consult the Opposition about the insertion of this clause. It broke the deal on the Olympics by not drawing the clause to the attention of the Opposition on a leader-to-leader basis. The Opposition found the clause by accident. At least one of the beneficial things about having this bill hang around the upper House for a long time is that we found this clause.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Thank heavens for the upper House.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Thank heavens for the upper House. This clause was drawn to the Opposition's attention only in the past 24 hours. Just this morning the Opposition discovered that the
Page 5020
clause was in the bill and the impact it would have. That is an example of the Government's deceit. The Opposition intends to fix the problem in the amendments it will move during the Committee stage. The Opposition will also move amendments to make the processes in this legislation more transparent. We need to make sure that if the Minister or the director-general make a decision, it is noted. If there is a requirement for concurrence, documents should be created that are publicly available and there should be proper consultation with the community.

The Opposition does not resile from the fact that there is a need for ministerial discretion in many of these matters, but we believe that the process should be open, reported and available for scrutiny by the Parliament. I shall make more detailed comments with respect to these amendments during the Committee stage. The amendments which the Opposition proposes to move were explained in some detail by Jim Longley in the other place. I am not sure whether the Government is ready to deal with these amendments. It just goes to show how much notice the Hon. Pam Allan, the Minister for the Environment, took of the shadow minister when this matter was debated in the other place. If anybody wants to guess the level of contempt with which the Opposition is treated by the Government - regardless of what reasonable things it might have to say - and the contempt with which it regards debate in the other place, one need only consider the fact that the Opposition announced that it had amendments more than a week ago. It gave a copy of the amendments to the responsible Minister. I understand that a response to those amendments has not been prepared for debate in this House tonight.

It was implied that the Opposition amendments came as a shock to the Government. It was a shock because the Government has not got its act together to prepare speaking notes for the Minister to deal with the amendments. If this bill does not reach the Committee stage tonight it will not be the fault of the Opposition. It is true that some Opposition amendments have been formulated only in recent hours by the Parliamentary Counsel. However, the intent of the amendments and the clauses they affect have been well known to the Government. The Opposition sincerely hopes that the Government will pick up some of the amendments. The Opposition thanks the crossbench members for giving the Opposition an assurance that they will accept some of the Opposition's amendments. The Opposition is happy also to say that some of the more visionary things that have been put together by some members and committed environmentalists on the crossbench will be supported by the Opposition. By the time the House has finished with this bill, it will be improved.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [10.15]: I have spoken many times over the last eight years about threatened species, so I do not wish to burden the House with a long monologue or a diatribe about the problem of threatened species in this State. As many honourable members know, Australia has the worst mammal extinction rate in the world. Twenty species, or 8 per cent of the total Australian mammal fauna, have been lost since the arrival of Europeans in this wonderful country just over 200 years ago. Those losses occurred mainly in the arid regions of Australia and involved both marsupial and rodent species. In 1973 Dr Harry Frith, one-time chief of the division of wildlife research at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, published the most authoritative work on the status of wildlife in Australia. Frith listed 37 marsupial species, or 26 per cent of the entire marsupial fauna, as either extinct or threatened.

Only 20 years later, in 1992, the "Action Plan for Australian Marsupials and Monotremes" produced by the Commonwealth Government, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and the World Wide Fund for Nature listed 70 species, or 49 per cent of all marsupials, as either extinct or threatened. Therefore, almost half of Australia's fauna are either extinct or threatened. That is an absolutely disgraceful record. As honourable members know, it has occurred partly through clearing and through the introduction of feral animals, such as foxes, rabbits and cats but has also occurred because of a general lack of understanding of the Australian environment. The early settlers tried to convert Australia into a replica of England, Scotland and Ireland. By doing so, they destroyed very many species.

Of all the States, New South Wales is the worst in the extinction league. It has the worst animal and mammal extinction records in Australia. New South Wales has lost 40 native animal species, 27 of them mammals. New South Wales is also second only to Western Australia in plant extinctions, with 15 gone so far. Another 50 mammal species are considered endangered, vulnerable or rare in New South Wales. I refer to the work of Chris Dickman at the University of Sydney. Dickman and his colleagues, under contract from the National Parks and Wildlife Service, reported on "Mammals of particular conservation concern in the Western Division of New South Wales".

Dickman's work shows that at least 26, or 38 per cent, of the 69 original mammal species found in the Western Division have become regionally extinct and that a further nine have declined in distribution, just within that administrative region. Dickman further identified 27 mammal species of particular conservation concern, eight species of national significance, four of State significance and 15 of regional significance. That is one of the reasons the Government introduced State environmental planning policy 46 - to slow down the clearing rate in western New South Wales where the more endangered species are found. Now we see that the Government has watered down SEPP 46 in an attempt to win back the redneck vote.

Page 5021

In a country that has the worst mammal extinction rates in the world, New South Wales appears to have one of the worst regional extinction rates for mammals compared with any other national region. There are many reasons to conserve threatened species, some of which may be obvious. Threatened species have a right to exist. The needs and desires of humans should not be the only basis for ethical decisions. Species are vital components of ecosystems that provide us with indispensable services for the life support system of our planet. They are an integral part of Australian biodiversity. Change in the future is inevitable and is likely to be rapid. Today's rare plant and animal species may become tomorrow's keystone species as conditions change.

Biodiversity also has economic benefits: plants, animals and micro-organisms provide many human resources, including medicines and drugs. The unique Australian flora and fauna and the scenery they help to create also attract many tourist dollars. Extinction reduces our future options. We now know that the northern Queensland rainforests are paying for themselves, as they never did before when they were being logged. Tourist dollars are far more valuable than the logging dollars were. As the old-growth forests disappeared, the logging dollars also disappeared. Our options were kept open for the future and each year we reap the rewards as tourists flock to see these magnificent rainforests.

Species should be preserved because of their beauty, symbolic value and intrinsic interest. Species extinction reduces the richness of potential human experience. New South Wales has desperately needed a threatened species conservation Act. Since European settlement, approximately 120 plant and animal species have become extinct in Australia, earning our country the infamous reputation of having documented the highest extinction not just for mammals but also for other species. I thank Jeff Angel of the Total Environment Centre and Michael Kennedy of the Humane Society International not only for their work on this legislation but for the work they have put in over many years.

I have known Jeff and Michael since about 1980 when they were involved with different organisations, such as Friends of the Earth and Fund for Animals, which I assisted in founding. For some time Michael Kennedy worked with the endangered species program. Each of these men has shown enormous dedication over the years in trying to preserve the threatened species of Australia and the world. I salute those two gentlemen and others who have worked on this legislation trying to slow down the species extinction rate - animals, birds, fish, plants, trees, fungi and even invertebrates, which I hope will receive some form of protection under the provisions of the new Act.

At the moment the legislation does not contain fish as a threatened species. This is a strange anomaly because the bill contains frogs as a threatened species, but not fish; it contains fungi as a threatened species but not fish; almost anything is covered in the bill, except fish. I shall move an amendment in Committee to have fish included in the legislation, as contained in Peter Macdonald's bill. Fish are not included in the bill because of the turf war between the Department of Fisheries and the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Of course, the exploiters won the battle. Nevertheless, if my amendment is not successful, and I hope it is, I trust that the Department of Fisheries will acknowledge the value of conserving all species of fish. At the moment all kinds of fish species are heading towards extinction. Honourable members have spoken about that topic in previous debates.

For many years I have been trying to slow down the extinction rate and trying to save the forests. That is one of the key reasons I am a member of this Chamber. I have not been too successful to date as a series of losses were experienced under the previous Government. In the early 1980s I was involved in the koala campaign with Sue Arnold. We have been spectacularly unsuccessful trying to conserve koalas and their habitat. Only recently a piece of legislation was rushed through the Parliament in a matter of days to allow the destruction of koala habitat and the killing of koalas at Tomago. Very swift action was taken to allow miners to continue killing koalas. This Threatened Species Conservation Bill has taken nine months to prepare, but at least three years ago its need was apparent.

There has been no excuse for not producing this bill. As the Hon. J. F. Ryan said, the Government is trying to take another five months to produce legislation. No excuse can be offered for not trying to get this legislation through when the RZM koala killing legislation could have been passed in a few days, albeit simple legislation. Peter Macdonald presented this bill in another form, which could have been adapted by the Government. Unfortunately, his legislation was weak; some rednecks are suspected of having a hand in putting it together. It is not clear whether they were members of the National Parks and Wildlife Service or outside of the service, but certainly the legislation was weak to the point that it would have been preferable not to introduce it at all.

The interesting point in this process is that Jim Longley, the shadow minister, has shown a genuine commitment to threatened species and has been very open to making this bill a much better piece of legislation. Jeff Angel, Michael Kennedy and others have had long discussions with Jim Longley. I spoke with him earlier today and thanked him for the work he had done. I find it fascinating that the coalition, including many National Party members, now understands that the environment is mainstream. It is even more fascinating that the coalition is beginning to outflank and outmanoeuvre the Australian Labor Party in many areas, as demonstrated in this Chamber over the last few days.

Page 5022

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: We have listened, we have learned and we have understood.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: The Hon. J. H. Jobling said the Opposition has listened, heard and understood. It had to happen. Over the past 7½ years in this Chamber I have said many times that environmental issues are not the preserve of the ALP. Surely they should be the preserve of all sides of politics. Five years ago I told this House that the areas best conserved are usually inhabited by Liberal Party voters. Surely there is some reason for that. Perhaps they have an understanding for conserving nature. The ALP has been taking for granted for a long time the preferences of green voters, whether they were Green or Australian Democrats. Those preferences can no longer be taken for granted. In middle Australia a large constituency exists that does not vote Labor or conservative but they care deeply about the environment.

Approximately 60 per cent of people in Sydney care very much for and take action to protect the environment. When they vote for a minor party in the upcoming Federal election or at the next State election, they will have to consider carefully where to place their preferences. It is clear that as the minor party vote increases, those voters will be courted by both sides of politics. In the last election of members for the upper House about 25 per cent of voters did not vote for one of the major parties. I suspect the coalition is more successful than the ALP, which is watering down its conservation policies, such as State environmental planning policy 46.

This Threatened Species Conservation Bill was a weak piece of legislation. For example, in my area the Goonengerry koala sanctuary will now be logged because Pam Allan was unable to fulfil her election promise. We were unsuccessful in adding compartments to those areas that the National Parks and Wildlife Service desperately wanted to increase. Before the election 19 coastal areas were designated by the Labor Government for non-development. All but two or three of those developments have now gone ahead. I regret to say that Labor's conservation policy is weak and is getting weaker as the pressure from Canberra grows in trying to win back the redneck vote. On the other hand, the coalition will probably not lose any country seats. However, it needs to win back votes in the city, where the conservationists live in greater proportion than in the country, though country people are becoming more aware of conservation issues. I am afraid that the Australian Labor Party will suffer at future elections as a result of its belief that it has to pander to the redneck vote to preserve country seats. The coalition does not need to do that and, therefore, it is in the box seat. I regret that we will have to move 45 amendments to this legislation in Committee. We would have liked to move more amendments, but these 45 have been negotiated by our advisers in conjunction with the Hon. Jim Longley and his advisers.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: He is very supportive.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: He is supportive. A number of coalition members have been supportive. They care deeply, as do a number of Labor Party members, especially those on the Left. Unfortunately, they have been rolled by the Right. The Right is much further right than many Right members of the coalition. Many on the Labor side who care deeply are not in the ascendant, regrettably, whereas those in the coalition care deeply are indeed in the ascendant. Therefore, we have cooperated with the coalition and with the Hon. Jim Longley. I hope we will come out of this with a much better piece of legislation. Next year we will see whether koalas are still being killed under licence and whether flying foxes are being killed in huge numbers along the coastline without any care by the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Today I received a phone call from a woman at Mangrove Mountain who is caring for 140 juvenile flying foxes because their mothers have been shot over the past two weeks. A scientist believes that the flying foxes are heading to the point of no return at the rate they are being killed. The National Parks and Wildlife Service does not give a damn about them. The service issues licences over the phone to part-time orchardists who hold shooting parties. The National Parks and Wildlife Service does not care that 140 flying fox orphans have been rescued in the past two weeks and that more are coming in every day. The National Parks and Wildlife Service has to clean up its act and get rid of the rednecks in the service, some of whom have been duck shooting. Some people in the National Parks and Wildlife Service very much resented the legislation banning the recreational shooting of ducks because they themselves were shooting the ducks. Some shoot flying foxes also.

It is essential that officers of the National Parks and Wildlife Service care about the threatened and vulnerable wildlife and do not issue licences to kill protected fauna like confetti at a wedding, as I mentioned previously. Over the next year or so I hope that the National Parks and Wildlife Service is cleaned up and that it does its job properly to protect not only our threatened and vulnerable species but all wildlife. No other country in the world allows the shooting of lactating flying foxes. Bob Carr protected them when he was Minister for the Environment. I thank the people involved in negotiations to tighten up this bill and make it stronger. I hope that by the end of the Committee stage we will have a much better bill.

The Hon. I. COHEN [10.32]: I support the Threatened Species Conservation Bill. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones said that the bill is weak and needs a great deal of amendment. As a representative of the Greens in the Legislative Council I am pleased that the coalition, particularly the Hon. Jim Longley, is
Page 5023
taking an interest in the issue and moving in some vital areas, as I am. I am saddened that the Australian Labor Party is dead in the water, like so many ducks at a duck shoot - possibly attended by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The Greens will work happily with whoever comes up with the goods on conservation.

The Threatened Species Conservation Bill is of utmost importance. It is a landmark bill. It is a like a canary in a mine; it is a reasonably easily quantifiable method of gauging the state of health of the environment. We are able to assess the situation through the survival of threatened species. In areas that are used for forestry practice or tourism, the state of threatened species indicates the management of the land and the environment. As the Hon. R. S. L. Jones said, a great deal more money is being made by logging the rainforests of northern Queensland than was ever made out of the timber industry. Changed land use can give people a reasonable living. This has been reflected in New South Wales, particularly in the northern area where I live.

Equally it is obvious that tourism and new industries can be destructive to the environment. The level of extinction is the litmus test of how we treat the environment. Although the Hon. J. F. Ryan had difficulty getting around the word, if not the concept of anthropocentricism, we still entertain the environment as something that is central to our work, our financial gain or our recreation. The endangered species concept is much more than that. It is the point where we need to start to appreciate threatened species. As the Hon. R. S. L. Jones has so eloquently commented many times, it is the inane cruelty and thoughtlessness of people and their treatment of our wonderful species, particularly endangered species, that shows their callousness and stupidity. A scientifically driven assessment of endangered species, their value to humanity and contribution to the Earth and the environment that will allow them to survive in the long run. We are all on Spaceship Earth together. They will allow us all to survive and sustain our quality of life and health. We should be able to share this planet with other species with sensitivity in a way that gives a degree of wholeness to our lives and those of our fellow creatures.

Vulnerable species are recognised worldwide as a category of plants and animals that are threatened with extinction. Internationally renowned conservation authorities also recognise that such species must be given serious conservation attention. In New South Wales alone in the region of 350 vulnerable plants and animals require the immediate attention of this bill. The legislation must include strong and adequate provision for their recovery. I hope the foreshadowed amendments will help to provide an adequate recovery. The bill presented by the Government falls far short of that aim, which is a grave disappointment and does not augur well for the relationship between the Green political movement and the New South Wales Labor Government or the political success of the Labor Party at State or Federal level. Threatened species must not be left out in the cold, the dust, or the heat in bulldozed areas because the tree canopy has been removed; they should not be left to linger until they become truly endangered. That will be the result unless suitable amendments are made to this dangerously weak bill.

The Government's proposal has deviated seriously from the accepted legislative concept required if vulnerable species and their habitats are to be fully recovered in the years ahead. This bill must require the Director-General of New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service to prepare recovery plans for all recognised and listed vulnerable plants and animals, and must set down a clear timetable for such plans to be developed. In the absence of such mandatory action these hundreds of plant and animal species are doomed to move into the endangered category. Just as critical is the need for this legislation to address licensing and concurrence provisions for all vulnerable plants and animals. This system of early management efforts for vulnerable species is an essential means of avoiding damaging development that may see such species move into a higher and more critical threatened state. By requiring recovery plans to be produced within time limits for vulnerable species of plants and animals, and by ensuring that strong licensing and concurrence procedures are followed, this legislation will give such species a fighting chance for survival.

I turn to biodiversity strategy. Stemming from this State's major obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity and the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity, this legislation must provide for the preparation of a State biodiversity strategy. New South Wales is a signatory to this very important national agreement, and the proposal for a State strategy will merely build upon the excellent work of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. A biodiversity strategy can be viewed as a statewide conservation blueprint that sets out the Government's responsibilities and goals for nature conservation into the next century. It is essential that such a plan be developed within the framework of full public process. Consequently, the legislation must be specific in regard to the membership of the advisory committee that will be established to report to the director-general and the Minister. The strategy must spell out the precise functions of the advisory committee. They should include advising the director-general and the Minister on the preparation and implementation of the strategy, advising on the conservation status and threats to biodiversity across New South Wales, and reviewing all legislation for the implementation of biodiversity programs and existing laws that may directly or indirectly result in the loss of biodiversity.

The bill must also specify the procedure for making the strategy that incorporates a comprehensive public consultation process, ensuring
Page 5024
that the public can assume ownership of the strategy and will therefore embrace its conservation goals. Finally, the bill will need to specify the issues which must be covered by the strategy, a time limit for its production, public education programs, extensive biodiversity research programs, broad objectives, performance indicators, statements indicating how the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service will achieve and assess its conservation efforts, and the means for effecting greater community involvement in decision-making affecting biodiversity conservation. Combined with strong and effective threatened species legislation, this strategy will lay the foundation for the long-term conservation of biological diversity in the State of New South Wales.

This State has the highest rate of mammal species extinction in the world at the present time. We have the luxury as an advanced western nation of being able to really take stock of such resources. It is a tragedy that we do not act accordingly. Given the problems faced by the bureaucracy in organising this legislation on time, it is a shame they did not take note of Peter Macdonald's legislation that was available and could have been part copied. Whilst the amendments will give the bill a degree of strength, we are starting from a weak point. Hopefully we can turn around this sad and sorry record of New South Wales and Australia. We are moving closer to the end of this millennium and towards the Olympics, which will bring a massive influx of tourists into Australia. Surely the conservation debate is raging and has
mainstream acceptance. It is obvious from the support we have received from the coalition on this issue tonight that conservation is far from extreme and is in fact in the mainstream.

The polls are showing more and more that people are voting for conservation. I suggest that is the reason the Greens are growing so strongly in New South Wales and throughout Australia. From now on any major political party will rue the day that it treats the conservation movement with the disdain that the Labor Government has shown that movement in recent times. Now is the time, particularly with this legislation, to acknowledge that we should step over that hurdle and work together, as we have done on other issues of vital importance, in a non-partisan manner to save the wonderful biodiversity of this country - a biodiversity second to none in the world. I will continue in Parliament to work towards that goal. Any party will rue the day that it indulges in a smokescreen-and-mirrors legislative process without delivering the goods by saving the animals, fish, insects, invertebrates, plants and ecosystems of this State.

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


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

That this House at its rising this day do adjourn until Friday, 15 December 1995, at 9.00 a.m.