Condolence-26 September, 1984 1413

p~~ielafibe&m.wmtrlg

Wednesday, 26 September, 1984

Mr Speaker (The Hon. Lawrence Borthwick Kelly) took the chair at 2.15 p.m. Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

DEATH OF THE HONOURABLE SIR VERNON HADDON TREATT, A FORMER MINISTER OF THE CROWN Mr WRAN (Bass Hill), Premier and Minister for the Arts [2.15]: I move: That this House extends to Lady Treatt and family the deep sympathy of Members of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales in the loss sustained by the death of the Hon. Sir Vernon Haddon Treatt, K.B.E., M.M., Q.C., M.A., B.C.L., a former Minister of the Crown. Vernon Treatt entered this House at the election of March 1938 as the member for the seat of Woollahra. His political career began in the twilight of the United Australia Party governments which had dominated New South Wales politics since the defeat of the Lang Labor Government in 1932. In a little more than a year after his election he was appointed Minister of Justice, a position he was to hold until the defeat of the Mair-Bruxner coalition of 1941. From 1946 to 1954 he served as Leader of the Opposition, in the twilight years of the Mair-Bruxner Government, and in the decade of Labor ascendancy which followed. Vernon Treatt displayed that balance of academic accomplishment and keen political instinct so necessary for any Leader of the Opposition, matched against the likes of McKell, McGirr and Cahill. Through all this he managed to pursue a distinguished academic career serving as a Challis lecturer in criminal law at the University of Sydney from 1927 to 1959. He served the people of his electorate of Woollahra for twenty-two years until the seat was abolished in 1962. Though Vernon Treatt failed in his attempts to contest the new seat of Bligh in 1962 his political talents were soon to be utilized with his appointment as chairman of the Local Government Boundaries Commission from 1962 to 1969 and as Chief Commissioner of the City of Sydney from 1967 to 1969. He will be remembered as a skilled advocate and Crown Prosecutor, an aca- demic lawyer of note and a conservative leader whose political skills helped his party survive its wilderness period in the immediate post-war years. The late Sir Vernon Treatt was also a champion long distance runner, a Rugby player and a keen surfer. His long years of service to this country were recognized in 1970 when the Qucen invested him as a Knight Commander of the British Empire. On behalf of the Government, I extend sympathy to Lady Treatt and her children. Mr GREINER (Ku-ring-gai), Leader of the Opposition [2.21]: I join with the Premier in offering sincere condolences to Lady Treatt and her family on the death of Sir Vernon. Vernon Treatt was the son of English parents and was born in Singleton in 1897. He was educated at Sydney Grammar and later at St Paul's College at the University of Sydney where he shone as both a scholar and sportsman. Like so many of his contemporaries his career was interrupted by war, and he served in France in World War I, where he won the Military Medal for carrying telephone wires under heavy fire. After surviving that conflict, he returned to Australia to recommence his studies and career. He excelled in his scholastic pursuits, studying at Oxford as a result of winning a Rhodes Scholarship. On his return to Australia, he commenced what was to become an outstanding legal career both in practice and academia.

Mr Treatt, as he then was, entered State Parliament as the United Australia Party member for Woollahra in 1938. In 1939 as a result of his recognized legal capacity, he was appointed Minister of Justice and held that portfolio until the defeat of the Mair-Bruxner Government in 1941. In 1945 he was elected Deputy Leader of the Opposition and became Leader in 1946. He remained the Liberal Leader of the Opposition until August 1954. Ultimately it was the strength of his convictions rather than any frustration of opposition that resulted in his resignation. He was not re- strained in admonishing sections of the Liberal Party for what he considered to be their shortsightedness in indulging in the luxury of internal squabbling and highlighting trivial differences. Like leaders of all major political parties, I suspect, he felt at times a sense of despondence at the endless internecine troubles which diverted his party from its basic goals and aspirations. At the time of his resignation, Vernon Treatt said : Objectives are the important things and Party supporters should not allow themselves to become side-tracked by petty argument or become pre- occupied with personalities.

He did not choose to consult party members about his decision to resign, but like so many significant decisions taken in this world, it is said that he reached his on the golf course that day. After signing the necessary documentation, he went to the theatre in order, I suspect. for life to assume some degree of perspective. Although he lost the leadership of the Liberal Party, the party continued to rely greatly upon his thorough Itnowledge of the parliamentary process, a ltnowledge embellished by a genuine respect if not reverence for the parliamentary system of government. In 1962. as a result of a redistribution Sir Vernon found his seat of Woollahra had disappeared, replaced with what is today the unique and diverse seat of Bligh. As was the case at so many times during his life, Vernon Treatt could have chosen, as the Duily Mirror put it, "an easy and lucrative way out, but typically he stayed to fight". It was a fight in this instance which he lost.

Displaying the tenacity for which he was renowned, Vernon Treatt committed himself to an area which had long been a centre of his interest, that of local govern- ment. He was chairman of the Local Government Boundaries Commission from 1964 to 1969 and became Chief Commissioner of the City of Sydney from 1967 to 1969. He was knighted in the New Year's honours list in January 1970. It is appropriate and relevant on the day after we presented the Address in Reply to His Excellency the Governor to quote from Vernon Treatt's Address in Reply in 1950. As Leader of the Opposition he touched upon the Government's reaction to criticism and said: It is not the intention of the Opposition-and I think events will prove it-to indulge in any fractious or captious criticism. Occasionally, no doubt, our criticism may irk members of the Government side, but our intention is to use our voting strength as a means of ensuring alert administration on the part of the Government and of seeing that Parliament is not used as a rubber stamping machine for the government of the day. Condolence-26 September, 1984 1415

It has been said once and repeated many times over that a week is a long time in politics. What should not be forgotten are the significant and dignified contributions made by Sir Vernon to this Parliament, this city and this State. He occupied a difficult position for many years and provided an effective opposition to the Government of the day. On behalf of the Opposition I pay tribute to his commitment to the parliamentary system and the principles for which it stands.

Mr HILLS (Elizabeth), Minister for Industrial Relations [2.25]: I join with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in the motion conveying to Lady Treatt the sympathy of this House on the death of Sir Vernon Treatt. Sir Vernon was a member of this Parliament when I was elected to it a little more than thirty years ago. As Leader of the Opposition and a former Minister of the Crown, Sir Vernon made a significant contribution to this Parliament. He had a way about him that clearly showed his depth of knowledge of the affairs of this State. He was a man on whom one could rely implicitly that his word was his bond. After his electorate seat of Woollahra had been abolished I was Minister for Local Government and it was my pleasure to recommend to His Excellency the Governor that Sir Vernon be appointed as Chairman of the Local Government Boundaries Commission. I do not think that members on my side of the House were pleased that I was proposing a former Leader of the Opposition for the position, but I had a lot of respect for Sir Vernon's capacity and ability to handle the position. In subsequent years he was appointed as Chief Commissioner of the Council of the City of Sydney after the council members had been replaced by commissioners. Sir Vernon was a former trustee of the Sydney Cricket Ground. In that capacity he did a great deal for sport in this State. Recently when Sir Vernon was not present at the final Rugby union test match between Australia and New Zealand I realized that age had finally caught up with him and we probably could not expect to see him at the ground again. Together with other members, my wife and I wish to convey our condolences to Lady Treatt, who is a delightful woman in her own right. Mr PUNCH (Gloucester), Leader of the National Party [2.27]: On behalf of the members of the National Party I join with the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister for Industrial Relations in conveying to Lady Treatt and other members of the family the deepest sympathy on their great loss. Sir Vernon will go down in history as one of the great men of this Parliament. He served for a short time only in the Ministry but nevertheless made a significant contribution to this Parliament over a long period. One thing that could be said of Sir Vernon is that of all things, and above all else, he was a gentleman. He was held in the highest respect by everyone. The Minister for Industrial Relations has spoken of his admira- tion and support for Sir Vernon by appointing him to a position that could reasonably have been expected to go to a member of the Minister's own political persuasion. I have no doubt that the Minister appointed Sir Vernon because he was a man who was fair at all times and would do the right thing in the interest of local government without fear or favour or bias. Apart from the fact that Sir Vernon was a Rhodes Scholar, he was also a scholar in so many other areas. Sir Vernon was decorated for bravery in the firs4 World War. During this period he proved to be a most capable member of this Parliament. Like the Minister, I would be one of the few members of this Parliament who served in this Parliament at the same time as did Sir Vernon. The honourable member for Rockdale served for only three years during the time Sir Vernon was a member of this House. I am sure that he will agree that although Sir Vernon led a pretty quiet life in Parliament during that time he clearly showed what a brilliant debater he was, how well informed he was on all matters and how he handled the role of a member of Parliament and a senior member of the Opposition. Sir Vernon Treatt perhaps will be remembered also as a man who was almost Premier of this State, but not quite. As some will recall, in 1950 the election result was extremely close; the balance of power was held by an independent member who, unfortunately for democracy, voted with the Labor Party on most occasions and thus enabled that party to stay in office.Sir Vernon Treatt was the Leader of the Opposition during that extremely close election and, had he received even a few more votes, would have been Premier. As Premier I am sure he would have been most distinguished. His role in the Boundaries Commission has been mentioned. Another aspect that will be a lasting memorial to the work of Sir Vernon Treatt in this State was his role as chief administrator of the Council of the City of Sydney when that council was abolished in the mid-1960's.

It would be fair to say that Sir Vernon Treatt was the one who started, if I may use the term, the modern beautification of the city, a process that has been carried on by later lord mayors who included Sir David Griffin,Sir Nicholas Shehadie, Mr Port, Mr Meares and now Mr Sutherland. All these gentlemen played their part in making the city much more attractive than it was twenty or thirty years ago. Things have changed; attitudes have changed. The creation of many city parks, the alteration of Martin Place and such works have done a great deal to beautify this city in which we live. The roots of that modern beautification go back to the ad- ministration of Sir Vernon Treatt, and the process has been continued by all lord mayors since. That city beautification will be a lasting memorial to Sir Vernon Treatt. Those who study the history of this city will recognize that Sir Vernon Treatt played a big role both in the Parliament of this State and in local government in this fair city. Again, on behalf of all my colleagues I extend our most sincere and deep sympathy to Lady Treatt and her family on the great loss they have sustained.

Mr SHEAHAN (Burrinjuck), Minister for Planning and Environment [2.33]: I shall speak briefly on this condolence motion, for much has already been said by way of tribute to Sir Vernon Treatt. However, it will not surprise some of the more senior members of the House when I say that my late father and Sir Vernon Treatt had an extremely close association over half a century before my father's death in 1975. They were of a similar age and shared many years in this Parliament, many years in the law-especially the criminal law-and they shared a wide participation and love for sport. Their association extended to membership of the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Trust. To the day he died my father regarded Jack Lang and Vernon Treatt, as he then was, as the two most polished parliamentarians among the many politicians who had come to this Chamber. On behalf of our family I should like to be associated in this brief way with the tribute to this fine Australian who has passed away in the last few days.

Mr J. A. CLOUGH (Eastwood) [2.34]: 1 join with the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the National Party and the Minister for Planning and Environment in conveying condolences to Lady Treatt and her family. The late Sir Vernon Treatt had been in this Parliament for a number of years when I came here in 1956. He had been previously the Leader of the Opposition. I do not wish to be repetitive; I merely say that I endorse all that has been said about him by previous speakers. Superimposed on that great intellect was a wonderful sense of humour and conviviality. He was a most pleasant man. He was a fighter across the table of this Chamber, but always a staunch colleague and a most friendly and generous gentleman. He was helpful to me and others who came to this Parliament and spent much time endeavouring to assist new members. I want simply to add my endorsement to what has been said and to say that I hold Sir Vernon Treatt in the highest esteem. He was a great man, and a great parliamentarian. Sometimes I thought that if he Condolence-Petitions-26 September, 1984 1417 had had the shrewdness of the late Sir Robert Askin and the aggressiveness of Lieutenant- Colonel Murray Robinson, both leaders of my party, he would have been Premier and a great man. Once more I convey my sympathy to Lady Treatt and to the members of their family. Mr COLLINS (Willoughby) [2.35]: Sir Vernon Treatt's public accomplish- ments in this House as a scholar, soldier and leading member of the New South Wales bar have already been outlined by other speakers. I rise to support this motion with a sense of personal loss, the feeling that the final line has at last been written in a life of achievement, determination and example. My earliest recollection of Sir Vernon Treatt is now part of that haze of childhood memories: late afternoon, in a paddock fenced by my grandfather, Sir Vernon-together with my grandfather-stood triumphant over another writhing, headless serpent on a property infested with snakes. As a 6-year-old, that impression was quite vivid and his property at Locksley near Bathurst, with its surplus of snakes, was an excellent training ground for his job then, as indeed it would have been for any member of this House. While Vernon Treatt's arrival at his Locksley property might, to some, have seemed like the squire returning to the manor, it was a homecoming that he longed for and enjoyed, a chance for re- generation and renewal. As Sir Winston Churchlill said of his refuge in Kent, "A day away from Chartwell is a day wasted". Such was Vernon Treatt's love of his haven which he called "Riverview"-a need all members here present will appreciate. But even after the last fence post had been dug at Locksley, the last rabbit killed by myxomatosis, and, my grandfather had retired to town, I felt there were things yet to be learnt from Vernon Treatt. I can now understand his surprise, and more fully appreciate his patience, when as a 14-year-old schoolboy, I sought his advice in chambers as to how I should go about becoming a barrister. A former athlete, Sir Vernon impressed me as a man of great vigor and vitality but also as one of compassion and humanity, an Australian I have always admired and liked. One can only wonder now how things might have been had this man achieved his ambition to be Premier of New South Wales; but the political tide was not with him. After my election in 1981, I again contactcd Sir Vernon who then-well into his eighties- retained a keen interest in the cut-and-thrust of this Chamber. It gave my wife and me great pleasure to entertain him and his wife Frankie here and to enjoy their hospitality at Locksley. On behalf of my wife and for myself and all members, I extend my sincere condolences to Lady Treatt on the death of Sir Vernon, a man who over half a century gave so much to this country and this House. His achievc- ments and his capacity to serve this community will serve as a model for others to follow. Members and oficers of the Horise standing i77 their places, Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS The Clerk announced that the following petitions had been lodged for presentation: Homosexual Laws The humble Petition of citizens of Australia. New South Wales, re~pectfullysheweth: That we urge the immediate repeal of Mr Wran's private mem- ber's bill to amend the Crimes Act, for the following reasons. Mr Wran's bill, which deals with serious social, legal, moral and religious issues, was rushed through Parliament without adequate com- munity debate concerning its far-reaching implications, as stated by the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, who said, "Notwithstanding the very sensitive nature of the issue, provision was not made for adequate com- munity discussion of the bill's implications." This was published in the Catholic Weekly of 23rd May, 1984. There was no widespread community support for Mr Wran's bill: in fact, the opposite is true, as is testified by many members of Parlia- ment who received hundreds of opposing letters and petitions, and not one supporting letter. The main effects of Mr Wran's bill, that is, the legalization of sodomy for males over 18 years, in private, and in public, and the legalization of adult male soliciting, are a serious threat to public morals and health, and not in the public interest. Mr Wran's public threats to remove the conscience vote clearly undermined the historic right of members of Parliament to exercise their conscience vote on a private member's bill dealing with the controversial issue of homosexual acts. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will take urgent steps to repeal Mr Wran's private member's bill to amend the Crimes Act. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. Petition, lodged by Mr Cox, received.

Moral Standards

The Petition of citizens of Australia, New South Wales, respectfully sheweth: That there is great concern because of the spread of moral pollu- tion and the increase in violence in our State. We call upon the Government to introduce legislation immediately to provide strict con- trols over video cassettes with the sale or hire only of G-, NRC- and M-rated video cassettes, and the total prohibition of the sale of R-rated video cassettes. We totally reject the concept of X-rated video cassettes. We call upon the Government to tighten up the standards used by the respective State Government agencies so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic publication, video cassette or film con- taining child pornography. Your Petitioners, therefore, humbly pray: That your honourable House will protect our society, especially children, from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. Petitions, lodged by Mr Akister, Mr Cox, Mr W. T. J. Murray and Mr Schipp, received. Petitions-26 September, 1984 1419

Recyclable Resources

The Petition of concerned citizens of New South Wales respectfully sheweth: That for the removal of sewage pollution from our beaches, the rehabilitation of impoverished soils, the careful use of our resources and for the maintenance of the health of our citizens, measures be taken to put an end to the waste of our recyclable resources so that our used water is treated, purified and recycled for maximum use; so that our sewage, sludge and selected garbage is combined to make hygienic soil improving compost; and so that this compost is available for sale and use on farms and gardens. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your honourable House will take all steps necessary to set up a commission of inquiry to determine the best methods of accomplish- ing the above. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. Petitions, lodged by Mr Irwin and Mr McGowan, received.

Sexual Activities with Children

The Petition of concerned citizens of the State of New South Wales respectfully sheweth: That the activities of the paedophile support group are repugnant to the majority of citizens. We deplore the inaction of the Government in allowing such people to disseminate information encouraging sexual activities with children. We consider this to be the ultimate pornography, and sexually discriminating against children. Already the homosexual reform bill makes it illegal for any person to advise a male under 16 years to perform a homosexual act. We feel that this bill is discriminatory and a new bill should be presented to Parliament making it an offence for any person to procure, obtain, incite or advise any person under the age of 16 years to perform any sexual act. It should also be an offence for any person to counsel or advise another person to engage in sexual activity with a person under the age of 16 years. The maximum sentences under this Act should be dramatically increased. Petition, lodged by Mr Walsh, received.

Privilege

Storey v. John Fairfax and Sons Limited

The Petition of Stephen Jaques Stone James of the AMP Centre, 50 Bridge Street, Sydney, respectfully sheweth: Your Petitioner is a firm of solicitors acting on behalf of John Fairfax and Sons Limited who are defendants to an action for damages for defamation brought by Donald William Storey and commenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The said action has been set down for hearing commencing 29th October, 1984. The publications of which Mr Donald William Storey complains are: Material appearing in the Sun-Herald of 16th August, 1981, under the heading "The World of Sydney Gambling Mr Digby's Win began a Course Flutter"; material appearing in the Sun newspaper on 21st August, 1981, under the heading "Mr Digby Case: Parliament Questions": material appearing in the Sydney Morning Herald on 22nd August, 1981, under the heading "Mr Digby Case": MP seeks full Inquiry"; material appearing in the metropolitan Sydney edition of the Sun- Herald on 23rd August, 1981, under the heading "Mr Digby's Owner Won't Talk. The World of Sydney Gambling"; material appearing in the country edition of the Sun-Herald on 23rd August, 1981, under the heading "Mr Digby's Owner Just Won't Talk": material appearing in the Sun-Herald newspaper on 27th December, 1981, under the heading "Wed, Bred or Dead . . ."; and material appearing in the Szm-Herald newspaper on 27th December, 1981.

The text of the above material is set out respectively in the first schedule of this Petition. In defence of Mr Donald William Storey's action, the defendant relies, inter alia, upon a defence to the second, third, fourth and fifth matters complained of in that they were published as a fair extract or fair abstract from, or fair summary of, a paper published by order or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales. In order to meet any evidence which the plaintiff might adduce to the contrary, the defendant has been advised that it will be necessary for it to adduce in evidence and make reference to and otherwise use in the presentation of its case, full and official records of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales Questions and Answers papers as set out in the second schedule of the Petition. The defendant has been advised further that the proper procedure for obtaining the right to adduce in evidence and make reference to or otherwise use it in court in the presentation of its case the full and official record of the said Questions and Alzswers papers is to petition this House and seek its leave.

Your Petitioner therefore humbly prays that your honourable House w~llgrant leave: To your petitioner and to the defendant to issue and serve sub- poenae for the production of the relevant full and official records of this House as described in the second schedule; to your petitioner and to the defendant to adduce the said full and official records of this House as evidence of a paper published by order or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales; to an appropriate officer or officers of the House to attend in court and to produce the said full and official records of this House to the court provided that such officer or officers should not be required to attend at any time which would prevent the performance of their duties in Parliament.

And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

I'etition, lodged by Mr Mack, received. Matters raised by Mr Briese, C.S.M.-Questions-26 September, 1984 1421

Mr MORGAN RYAN: MATTERS RAISED BY Mr BRIESE, C.S.M.

Ministerial Statement

Mr LANDA: I wish to make a ministerial statement. I wish to advise the House that on 25th September material in relation to certain conduct of His Honour Judge John Foord in relation to the Morgan John Ryan case was provided to me by the Chief fudge of the District Court, His Honour Judge Staunton. Immediately on receipt of that material I sought the advice of the Crown Solicitor who, at approxi- mately 5 p.m., advised me that it related to matters covered by federal law. Having regard to the nature of the material and that advice, after consultation with the Premier, last night I flew to Canberra in the company of the Crown Solicitor. In Canberra the Crown Solicitor and I conferred with the federal Attorney- General and the secretary of his department, Mr P. Brazil, one of his officers Mr A. Menzies, and Mr P. Cook from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The federal Attorney-General, having read the material, referred it to the Director of Public Prosecutions for his consideration. The representative of the office of the director indicated that investigations will be set in train by that office immediately. Judge Foord will not sit as a judge until further notice. It is not appropriate for me to say anything further at this stage either in the Chamber or outside. However, I wish to advise the House I shall inform the House and the public of the result of these investigations to the extent that I am able to make the results public bearing in mind the investigations are to be conducted by the Commonwealth. Mr GREINER: I do not believe it is appropriate for me to comment on what the Attorney General has just said. It is nice to see him acting with great expedition in this particular case.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

ELECTRICITY TARIFFS

Mr GREINER: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy. Is it a fact that to achieve worthwhile reductions in county council electricity prices, cuts must be made in the Electricity Commission's bulk supply tariff? Given its $87.5 million profit in the last financial year, will the energy authority ensure a reduction in Elcom's 1985 charges, enabling the abolition of standing charges and the introduction of a more economical declining block tariff by all county councils? Mr COX: I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for raising this ques- tion because today I have had discussions with representatives of the Sydney County Council. That council issued a press statement indicating changes in the charges for electricity supplied by the Sydney County Council. That statement was made without my knowledge and without conferring with me. Today I have spoken to the Chairman of the Sydney County Council, and he has agreed that the new charges that were announced by the Sydney County Council will be deferred until such time as I have had a look at the tariff report that has been submitted by a working party announced by the Premier back in March when the Premier announced also that the standing charges for autumn and winter would be abolished. The Premier indicated also that there was a need to have a complete review not only of the Elcom tariff but also of electricity charges of various county councils. 1422 ASSEMBLY-Questions without Notice

I noticed in the Atlstralian Financial Review today an article that indicates that the Premier had announced the increases recently announced by the Sydney County Council. That is not correct. As I pointed out earlier, that county council made a decision without referring the matter to me, and as I have stated, that decision has been deferred. I am currently having a look at the total situation in relation to electricity charges right throughout New South Wales. I am paying particular atten- tion to the performance of the Electricity Commission. It is important that the Elec- tricity Commission's performance ensures availability of power comparable with over- sea countries. This afternoon I shall be having discussions with Mr Brady from the Electricity Con~missionon this important issue. On the question of electricity charges generally, it is essential that there be a total review of these charges because in recent years there has been a tendency for those charges to increase, and increase at a dramatic rate. I am also conscious of the need to reduce the industrial tariff in New South Wales. If we are to encourage industry into New South Wales, there is a need to reduce the industrial tariff, and that matter is receiving my attention. So I am most grateful to the Leader of the Opposition because he has given me the opportunity to inform the House that I am extremely conscious of the need to improve the performance not only of the Electricity Com- mission of New South Wales but also of county councils that are operating in New South Wales. There is a tendency among the county councils to look upon themselves as a little unit that is not responsible to anyone. The question of accountability comes into this matter. So far as I am concerned, they must give serious consideration to accountability because they conduct a very important industry in relation to domestic electricity charges in this State and charges that industries have to face as a result of the operations of those councils. So I can assure the House that this matter is receiving my urgent attention.

FUNERAL FUNDS Mr WALSH: I address a question without notice to the Minister for Consumer ARairs. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to recent publicity about the liquida- tion of companies in the Russell Kinsela group of companies, which operated a number of funeral funds? What is the present position? Mr PACIULLO: I thank the honourable member for raising this issue, not only because of the very large number of people who have been disadvantaged by this group but also because of similarities between practices of funeral funds and other practices about which I have spoken recently. I refer particularly to practices in the health and fitness industry and video libraries. These business procedures require that the consumer pays money in advance for services or goods to be rendered by a business or company at some time in the future. This practice unduly transfers business risk from the entrepreneur to the customer, an issue to which I intend to direct my attention in the very near future. An honourable member in another place has asked questions on this matter and I shall be providing my ministerial colleague who represents me in that other place with detailed answers to those questions. In 1981 the three companies in the Russell Kinsela Group were placed into liquidation. At that time the funds had more than 8 500 members, who had contributed about $2 million to them. During 1980 the Registrar of Funeral Funds directed the three companies-Russell Kinsela Pty Limited, Russell Kinsela Funeral Fund Pty Limited and Funeral Benefits Pty Limited -each of which was operating funeral funds, to refund their subscribers in full. This action was taken because of serious doubts about the financial status of the funds Questions without Notice-26 September, 1984 1423 and the desire to minimize any possible losses by subscribers. As the companies did not comply with that direction, on the petition of the Registrar of Funeral Funds they were put into liquidation and an official liquidator was appointed for each of the funds. The administration of the liquidations and the realization of any assets of these funds are the responsibility of that official liquidator. The Registrar of Funeral Funds must await completion of his activities before he is free to make any distributions to the funds' subscribers. I sum up briefly the present position. Up to 1 lth November, 1983, the liquida- tion for all the companies realized $552,034. Some $316,000 has been expended on legal fees, property and mortgage costs, as well as liquidation expenses. The sum of $236,103 is available for distribution, but further realizations of property are still to be completed. No money is expected to be available for Russell Kinsela Funeral Fund Pty Limited. The liquidator is still seeking money for Russell Kinsela Pty Limited. By the end of October a distribution is expected for Funeral Benefits Pty Limited, but I am sad to advise that the dividend is unlikely to be substantial- probably less than 10c in the dollar. The Registrar of Funeral Funds has advised me already that when the money is made available by the liquidator he and his officers will carry out the distribution without further cost to the subscribers.

I point out to the House also that the delay in this complex series of liquidations has been caused largely by extensive litigation precipitated by the Kinsela interests. This has not helped the liquidator to draw matters to a speedy conclusion so that the Registrar of Funeral Funds can make a distribution to the affected subscribers. A most disturbing factor has been that the fund companies expended more than $500,000 either in unsecured loans to directors and associated companies or in the provision of boats and cars for the use of directors. Former Ministers for Consumer Affairs have made scathing remarks about that practice. I heartily endorse those remarks. I make it clear to honourable members that there is no question of dereliction of duty by the Registrar of Funeral Funds or his officers. Their hands are tied by the need to observe thc laws of thc land and the necessity to let the official liquidator complete the liquidation of the companies before any distributions can take place. AS I have indicated, the matter is not yet settled. I assure the House that I will make public further information as it becomes available.

DEFENCE LAND ACQUISITION Mr PUNCH: Is the Premier aware of widespread concern and confusion that has been caused by his action in submitting the Bathurst-Orange area for con- sideration by the army as a training site, despite the area having previously been excluded by the federal Government as being unsuitable? Is he further aware that the suhmission made to him by representatives of Bathurst, Orange and Blayney councils concerned land totally outside their local government areas and in areas of councils opposed to the base? Will the Premier act immediately to end the distress of land- owners by permanently withdrawing the area from consideration, in accordance with decision of the federal Government not to consider productive land? Mr WRAN: Obviously the confusion exists with the Leader of the National Party, for no area of New South Wales has been nominated for consideration by the army as a training site. The process is that a number of areas are being considered in terms of their availability and suitability, and there is widespread public participa- tion in the studies that are being carried out. In respect of the land to which the Leader of the National Party refers and the other sites that are considered as possible 1424 ASSEMBLY-Questions without Notice options, it must be remembered that the New South Wales Government has no decision- making power at all. The final decision-indeed, the only decision that will count- will be the decision of the Commonwealth Government. Mr Punch: On the recommendation of the New South Wales Government. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr WRAN: No, there will be no recommendation. You should not keep telling fibs, because the truth ultimately outs and the reality is- Mr Punch: That is why you are in trouble. Mr WRAN: -that if we in New South Wales turn our backs on literally hundreds of millions of dollars of income per year, then we can do what the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party want us to do, say to the army, "Get out of New South Wales and go to some other State". That is exactly what \.ce do not want to do. Mr Punch: What was that truth you were talking about the other day? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the National Party to order.

Mr WRAN: One of the important criteria in respect of each of the sites that is subject to a feasibility study is the matter of productive land. It was not due to anything done by the National Party that the Commonwealth Government withdrew its interests in the New England area, because that site has been put on the list of defence sites by Mr Ian Sinclair. Mr Punch: You know that is untrue. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the National Party to order.

Mr WRAN: He obviously thought at the time he did it that it would be of some electoral advantage to him, and when he discovered it was not, did a complete about-turn and in his usual dishonest way misled the people of New England. I want to make it perfectly clear to the people on the land near Bathurst-Blayney-Orange and other areas of New South Wales that what is occurring is one of the fairest, most open and highly participatory inquiries ever held in any State of the Common- wealth of Australia. Everyone concerned will have an opportunity to address his mind to the various conditions that have been attached to the inquiries. The protests and ciemonstrations that have been going on are exercises in futility, for ultimately what the New South Wales Government is seeking to do is to come to terms with what is. by any stretch of the imagination, a complex problem. Failing an answer to that problem, the people of New South Wales will suffer.

BUILDERS LABOURERS FEDERATION

Mr DAVOREN: Will the Minister for Public Works and Ports and Minister for Roads inform the House of the status of the industrial dispute at the construction site of the Sydney police centre? What action is being taken to resolve the dispute on this important project? Mr BRERETON: I assure the House that the Government has done everything possible to allow the construction of this important public building to proceed. How- ever, the continuing guerilla tactics employed by the Builders Labourers Federation Questions without Notice-26 September, 1984 1425 have delayed construction of the project to the point where it is now almost two years behind schedule. In the process the cost of the building has risen from $35 million to $63 million. The police centre in Sydney stands as a monument to bloody-mindedness for which the BLF should be condemned by the entire community. The BLF has caused a massive and unnecessary drain on public funds, and is now intimidating members of other unions who are attempting to get on with the job.

The Builders Labourers Federation is picketing the Sydney police centre site and will not allow supplies for other tradesmen through the picket-line. Honourable members may judge for themselves the integrity of the Builders Labourers Federation's behaviour in this affair. The present dispute arose because a BLF delegate claimed that rude words were spoken to him by an electrical foreman. Because of that delegate's sensitive nature, the entire BLF work force was called off the job for four days before the matter was due to be heard by the Industrial Commission of New South Wales. That action was in direct breach of a previous site agreement, which called for a 7-day cooling off period on any dispute. The present dispute is based on a lost pay claim for those days that the BLF members spent sitting in their sheds. Unfortunately, that is just one of many examples where the BLF has proved that its members are in- capable of conducting themselves in the reasonable manner expected of Australian trade unionists. The other unions involved have now decided that they will break the picket-lines, which have been imposed in direct contradiction of ACTU policy. The Government and the ACTU strongly support this action. The decision follows physical intimidation of union officials and members of other unions, as well as threats about their future employment in the building industry.

This sort of behaviour will not be tolerated by the Government, and certainly not by the vast majority of responsible union members. The Government congratulates the ACTU and the Labor Council on their efforts to restore industrial harmony in this affair. Following discussions with my colleagues the Minister for Police and Emer- gency Services and the Minister for Industrial Relations, I can assure honourable members that all necessary steps will be taken to prevent further industrial blackmail by the BLF. That will, where necessary, include police protection to guarantee the safety of other workers who are members of other unions involved on the site, and allow the job to proceed.

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES

Mrs FOOT: I address a question without notice to the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that Dr Basil Donovan of the National Venereology Council has expressed concern about the alarming increase in the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases and that only 10 per cent of them are reported? In the light of the grave threat posed to public health by those diseases, including acquired immune deficiency syndrome, what action has the Minister taken or will he take to cope with the problem? Mr MULOCK: I am not particularly aware of the comments made by Dr Basil Donovan. Certainly, from discussions that I have had with medical officers in the field of public health and the Department of Health in New South Wales I am aware that there have been increases in the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. I have expressed concern also about the reporting processes. Because of the obvious public health problem involved, every possible action will be taken to ensure the proper monitoring of sexually transmitted diseases. The process of reporting is a matter that could be the subject of review and monitoring by the Dcpartment of Health. 90 1426 ASSEMBLY-Questions without Notice

PROPOSED LEVY ON MILK

Mr ARMSTRONG: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Corrective Services, representing the Minister for Agriculture. Is the Minister aware that the Australian Agricultural Council has discussed with the federal Minister for Primary Industry the proclamation of the Dairy Industry Assistance Levy Act which imposes a 15 per cent levy on milk crossing State borders? In view of the fact that the moratorium on the flow of Victorian milk into New South Wales expires on 20th October, will the Minister ask his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, to ensure that the Act is proclaimed before that date?

Mr AKISTER: I am aware that the federal Minister for Primary Industry, the Hon. J. C. Kerin, has been giving consideration to the proclamation. Indeed, in the publication Govevrznzerzt in Focus; vol. 1 No. 7 of August 1984, full details of the position of the Commonwealth Government are given. For the education of honourable members opposite I shall read the salient points. The article states: New arrangements for the marketing of milk and milk products have been proposed to the dairy industry by the Minister for Primary Industry.

The article goes on to state that recently in Melbourne the Minister told the Australian Dairy Industry Conference that though the Australian Agricultural Council had not achieved complete agreement on marketing arrangements for dairy products, there had been agreement in some areas. One important matter of agreement was that in the long term national marketing should be introduced in an effort to promote economically efficient production. The main points of the agreement are: a market milk committee to develop arrangements for market milk in a more economically efficient way irrespective of State borders; Commonwealth legislation restricting milk trade across State borders to remain unproclaimed; a levy on all milk to build export returns to a target level of 120 per cent of real average export prices for the preceding three years or, if higher, 120 pcr cent of real average export prices for the period 1982-83 to 1984-85; butter and cheese to be given additional domestic price support; underwriting to apply to export sales only; and allowances to cease. I have given honourable members an outline of the position in respect of the Commonwealth's intentions towards milk marketing throughout Australia. If any honourable member wishes to obtain further detail, it may be obtained by reading the publication Government in Focus.

HARRY M. MILLER CASE

Mr WADE: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Has the Attorney General ordered an investigation into allegations made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition concerning the Harry M. Miller case and the transfer of a Supreme Court judge at the direction of the under secretary of his department? If so, will the Attorney inform the House of the progress of investigations made so far?

Mr LANDA: As honourable members would be aware, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition attempted to accuse me of misleading the House. In the course of his long address he said this: If the Attorney had read his file, he would have been aware of complaints to the Under Secretary of Justice at the time that the Corporate Affairs Commissioner had attempted to interfere in the Harry M. Miller case to have a magistrate replaced. Questions without Notice-26 September, 1984 1427

Later, at a press conference, the Leader of the Opposition repeated the allegation. He said: There is information on departmental files complaining about the alleged involvement by the Corporate Affairs Commissioner in seeking to have a magistrate replaced in the Harry M. Miller case. It will be noted that interference has now become alleged involvement. The Leader of the Opposition was then asked whether he had not placed a cloud over the Corporate Affairs Commissioner by raising the matter without knowing whether it had been resolved or investigated. He said: No. No. All I was doing was pointing to some of the allegations- some of the information on the departmental file which was available to the Attorney General and which is the background for this whole local court episode. Now I don't see that I should be checking out what happened to it. That in my view is irrelevant to today's debate. He went on to say: I don't think there is going to be a great deal served by going back over that five years later. Honourable members might be interested to know that those at the press conference were not so easily fobbed off. The Leader of the Opposition was further questioned along these lines: That's a very serious allegation against the Corporate Affairs Com- missioner. Shouldn't some action be taken against him if it's true? The Leader of that Opposition said: I think that's a corporate affairs commissioner before last or before that and I am unaware whether the department of the time made any investigation of the matter at all. But as I understand it the matter was resolved satisfactorily in the view of the parties concerned. 1 have no further information than that and the purpose of raising it is not to attack the Corporate Affairs Commissioner before last or the one before that, it is to point out the sort of dangers in the system at the moment and that was seen by people like Mr Briese and other judicial figures I mentioned. So, in the time that it took the Leader of the Opposition to walk from this Chamber to the press conference, "the Corporate Affairs Commissioner" became "a corporate affairs commissionerm-not this one but "the one before last or the one before that". In that brief space of time, an allegation of the grossest impropriety by the Corporate Affairs Commissioner had, in the Leader of the Opposition's view, become so trivial that five years later it was not worthwhile investigating. In that time a matter that all members of this House had been led to conclude was left unresolved had, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, "been resolved tc *he satisfaction of all the parties involved". The obvious assumption is that either the Leader of the Opposition tried to mislead the House or he tried to mislead the press conference. However, that is not the case. In fact, he misled both. Yesterday I ordered an investigation into the allegatio~~smade by the Leader of the Opposition. The first results of that investigation are now to hand. I am advised and have seen what I can gather from the Leader of the Opposition's convoluted allegations are the relevant parts of the file, which reveal that the matter to which the Leader of the Opposition referred concerned a letter sent on the advice of senior counsel appearing for the Corporate Affairs Commission in the Harry M. Miller case, and signed by the commission's solicitor. It should be noted carefully that it was not 1428 ASSEMBLY-Questions without Notice-Urgency signed by a corporate affairs commissioner. It was not signed by the commissioner, nor the commissioner before him, and not the commissioner before him. It was not even signed, to use the sloppy terminology of the Leader of the Opposition, by "the commissioner before last or before that". That letter offered legal argument to the chairman of the bench of magistrates, questioning the exercise of jurisdiction by the magistrate and seeking that the magistrate not hear the matter when it commenced. A copy of this letter was sent to Harry M. Miller's solicitors. So we are dealing with a legal submission sent to the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate- Mr Dowd: What sort of legal system is this? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Lane Cove to order. Mr LANDA: -and to the legal representatives of the defendant. As it turns out that argument was not sustained. The matter subsequently was decided by Mr Justice Sheppard in interlocutory proceedings in the Supreme Court and reported fully in the press at the time. It was dealt with between the parties and the court. I leave it to honourable members to judge the Leader of the Opposition's credibility. I refer to another and more serious matter that he raised. I remind the House of another allegation that the Leader of the Opposition made yesterday. It is a most serious allega- tion and one of the most serious that has been levelled in this House against a public servant of this State. The Leader of the Opposition, again referring to me, said: Likewise he would have known of a direction given in late 1979 by the Under Secretary of Justice, presumably from the Minister himself in relation to the transfer of a Supreme Court judge. A first year law student would know that the Under Secretary of Justice has not, never has and never will have the power to direct the transfer of any judge, let alone a judge of the Supreme Court. The under secretary has advised me in writing today that the allegation is false. If the Leader of the Opposition has any details, any documents, any evidence that refute that written denial by the Under Secretary of Justice, he should forward it immediately to my office. If he does not have that evidence, he should withdraw the allegation and apologize, and will therefore deserve the censure of this House. The Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition in general should cease this undermining of independent Crown law officers. His cowardly attacks upon persons unable to defend them4elves is a contemptible misuse of his position and this place. rime will tell whether the Leader of the Opposition delivers on this or whether it is put up or shut up.

RURAL WATER CHARGES Urgency Mr CRUICKSHANK (Murrumbidgee) [3.15] : I move: That it is a matter of urgent necessity that this House should forthwith consider the following motion, viz.: (1) That because of the State Government's decision to increase rural water charges for irrigation areas and districts by 22 per cent for 1984-85, taking to 60 per cent the increase in the past three years, as well as increasing the rates to pumpers by 32 per cent, many of the State's irrigators face financial ruin; and (2) The Government should immediately rescind the increases announced by the Minister for Natural Resources and act to review the whole operations of the Water Resources Commission in an effort to restore viability to rural industries. Urgency-26 September, 1984 1429

This matter is urgent because the increase in water charges announced by the Minister for Natural Resources will have a profound effect upon the viability of the State's irrigators. Already a wave of protest has erupted against the increase, particularly in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, which is the largest user of water in the State. A msss protest meeting was held at Leeton on Monday. Mr Walker: On a point of order. In speaking to urgency the honourable member must give reasons to the House why this matter is urgent, As I understand it, the announcement relating to these water charges was made fifteen days ago. Clearly, if the honourable member is to comply with the standing orders and if he believcd there is any urgency about the matter, he would have raised it long before this time. The honourable member is not speaking to urgency if the matter he raises occurred fifteen days ago. Mr Dowd: On the point of order. Clearly, the former Attorney General needs to re-establish himself in some way in this House. He has not won a point of order yet. It is open to the honourable member for Murrumbidgee to bring all the argu- ments forward. He has only just started on the matter. It is absurd for the former Attorney General- Mr Walker: Minister for Housing. Mr Dowd: The Minister for Housing. I would not be too proud of that. Mr Walker: I do not mix with Chinese criminals. Mr Dowd: It is absurd to try to stop a member going into arguments. The honourable member does not have to say the matter is urgent every three minutes. For the matter to become urgent he has to advance his arguments and that is what the honourable member is doing. Mr Fischer: On the point of order. It is a matter for the House to determine whether this matter is urgent or not. The fact that the announcement was made some few dcq s ago- Mr Walker: Fifteen. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Fischer: The matter has now been put forward for discussion. It will be for the determination of the House whether the matter is urgent. In any event, the details of the announcement took some time to become available to the organizations and the many irrigators who are directly affected by these massive increases. Mr Brereton: There was a press release thirteen days ago. Mr Fischer: The most recent meeting on the matter only took place on Monday and was attended by 4 000 people. This is the first opportunity the honourable member for Murrumbidgee effectively has had to bring the matter forward. Again I submit it is a matter for the House to determine urgency and not for a member by a point of order. Mr SPEAKER: Order! As the honourable member for Murray has pointed out, it is for the House to decide whether a matter is urgent and whether the business of the House should be set aside to deal with it. The question that concerns any member is the most effective way of having a matter dealt with, and in the shortest time. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee has chosen to move urgency as the most effective way. The House will decide whether the matter is urgent. Mr CRUICKSHANK: It was unfortunate that the Minister for Natural Resources could not see her way clear to attend that meeting, for she would have gained a firsthand knowledge of how concerned and angry the irrigators are because of the recent increase. This matter is urgent because the Minister, on the one hand, has admitted that she realizes the burden that the water charges places on irrigators; and yet, on the other hand, she adds to that very burden with the 22 per cent increase -an increase that takes to 60 per cent the total increase in charges to water irrigators in the past three years. No other section of the rural sector has had to bear such a large increase in addition to the other State taxes and charges that have been imposed by this Government. It is important to note that the Minister in announcing the increases said that the decision cleared the way for the formulation of a long-term policy for the Water Resources Commission to recoup its recurrent costs of adminis- tration, operation, and maintenance of the State's rural water supply and distribution system. Imagine what would happen to the city transport fares if the same policy were applied to the Urban Transit Authority to recoup the costs of its operation. Mr Cavalier: What a ridiculous controversy. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Cavalier: Are you advocating that? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Education to order. Mr CRUICKSHANK: There would be a tremendous increase in public trans- port fares. The ensuing public outcry would force the Government, through sheer weight of numbers, to reverse its decision. The Government knows that its increase in the price of water affects relatively few people and so it can afford to punish the irrigators and ignore their protests, but the Minister for Natural Resources and the Government should be aware that the irrigators are in an angry mood and are not going to accept the latest increases without a struggle. This matter is urgent because many of the State's irrigators will now be faced with paying an extra 46.5~a megalitre for the water they use to produce their share of the State's primary produce. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ryde to order. Mr CRUICKSHANK: The overall cost of a megalitre of water, including the 90c metering charge, is now $1.90, a 33 per cent increase, and not the 22 per cent promoted by the Minister. The real impact can be best gauged by the realization that in the past four years the State Government has imposed increases up to 300 per cent in many of the charges that primary producers now face. This latest increase, sizeable by any means, will cost licensed pumpers alone $500 a year. The effect of this will be to force irrigators to reduce the amount of water they use, thus significantly reducing their productivity and State Government revenue. In effect, the State Govern- ment's decision to recoup its costs by slugging the user will result in many irrigators being priced out of the rural industries. It simply means that the Government is not interested in irrigation costs but is only interested in relieving itself of its costs. The Government is not taking into consideration the present poor economic situation being experienced by many irrigators. The situation is made more urgent because the decision by the Minister for Natural Resources to increase the price of water could have been opposed by the Minister for Agriculture, who should have known what impact it would have on the irrigators. Obviously, he did not seek to advise the Minister for Natural Resources and we can only assume he did not offer his advice simply because he is ignorant of the economic situation of the industry or that he is indeed supporting the increase. Urgency-26 September, 1984 1431

The fact is that many irrigators, particularly ricegrowers, are in dire financial difficulties and the situation is getting worse. The Rice Growers Association sought a nil increase for 1984-85 on the basis that its members had been subjected to heavy increases in the previous two years. Because of the latest increase it has been estimated there will be a resultant downturn in production from the southern irrigation areas and districts that will cost about $5 million a year. This matter is urgent because an idea of the extent of the problem can be obtained by referring to figures that show the Murrumbidgee division of the Water Resources Commission supplies irrigation water to about 770 000 hectares of land, a total of 1.75 megalitres of water each year, so it is obvious that this latest increase is not simply some minor adjustment with minimal impact.

For the benefit of honourable members who may not be informed as to how irrigators are charged for the water they use, allow me to explain. Irrigators are charged three times the number of irrigable hectares they own at a first rate of $10.81 per megalitre. All remaining water use is charged at the rate of $7.42 a megalitre. The 22 per cent increase will take the first rate to $13.19 a megalitre, a severe impost on our irrigators. This matter is urgent because New South Wales cannot afford to lose primary producers. Rather it should do everything in its power to encourage them to produce more effectively. Among irrigators there is widespread resentment that the Minister for Natural Resources chose to impose the increase without first consulting those in the industry. They are incensed that their inability to pay any more government increases at this stage was not taken into consideration by the Minister for Natural Resources. They would have liked the opportunity to advise her that many of them would face financial ruin because of the increased charges. One Murrumbidgee district irrigator has a relatively substantial ricegrowing farm of 183 hectares. Yet, because of oncosts, he is making less profit now than he was 28 years ago when he had 20 hectares. This matter is urgent because there is a limit as to how much the State Govern- ment can extract from farmers and still expect them to operate against world competition. More than forty brand new rice mills have been built in southeast Asia in the past two years. Competition from overseas will intensify and ricegrowers seeking to develop alternative crops will take many years to achieve that. The Minister's haste in proposing the 22 per cent increase reflects the attitude of the Water Resources Commission, which is out of touch with its lessons and which has now put the Minister out of touch as well. The Water Resources Commission and the Minister have not paid any attention to the need for updating, changing and extending the irrigation areas. This is a desperate plea to upgrade the efficiency of the Water Resources Commission in the areas and districts-

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member has exhausted his time. Mr WRAN (Bass Hill), Premier and Minister for the Arts [3.25]: The honour- able member for Murrumbidgee has moved urgency to discuss his substantive motion. I was in the House yesterday and I have a clear recollection that there was nothing said of this matter yesterday by the honourable member for Murrumbidgee. I am in a quandary as to whether the honourable member is serious in seeking urgency. The motion deals with rural water charges and seeks a rescission of the increase. I have a news release issued yesterday by the honourable member for Murrumbidgee. I will read the relevant few words of it as I do not wish to detain the House unnecessarily. The news release was issued with the compliments of Mr Adrian Cruickshank, M.P.. member for Murrumbidgee. It is dated 25th September, 1984, which happens to be yesterday. It reads: The member for Murrumbidgee, Mr Adrian Cruickshank, today- -that is, yesterday- -called on the State Government to reverse its decision to increase rural water charges by 22 per cent for 1984-85. The statement, which was freely available yesterday, continued: Mr Cruickshank moved to have State Parliament debate the matter as a matter of urgency. I am seeking to examine the gentleman's integrity and his sincerity in bringing this matter before the Parliament a couple of weeks after it was made public knowledge and well after he had an opportunity to raise it. I repeat, the statement said: hfr Cruickshank moved to have State Parliament debate the matter as a matter of urgency but the Premier, Mr Wran, refused the debate. The problem with some people- [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has the call. Mr WRAN: -is that you can paddle all the filth out of those pigsties for so long that you cannot tell the truth. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Murrumbidgee to order. Mr WRAN: The next time something truthful comes from the Opposition benches we should all run out of the House, because the roof might fall in. Before I sit down I should like to say that the price of water in the irrigation areas of New South Wales is, following the recent increases, still the cheapest water supplied by any State authority in any State of Australia. Having said that, and having noticed that I refused a debate on the matter, urgency is granted and the debate will proceed. Moton of urgency agreed to.

Suspension of Standing Orders Mr CRUICKSHANK (Murrumbidgee) 13.301: I move: Suspension of standing orders so that so much of the standing orders be suspended as would preclude----- Mr Sheahan: On a point of order. The motion should be put strictly in accordance with the standing orders, not in accordance with the honourable member's notes. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member should move the correct motion. Mr CRUICKSHANK: I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would preclude consideration forthwith of the following motion, viz.: (1) That because of the State Government's decision to increase rural water charges for irrigation areas and districts by 22 per cent for 1984-85, taking to 60 per cent the increase in the past three years, as well as increasing the rates to pumpers by 32 per cent, many of the State's irrigators face financial ruin; and, Urgency-Water Charges-26 September, 1984 1433

(2) The Government should immediately rescind the increases announced by the Minister for Natural Resources and act to review the whole operations of the Water Resources Commission in an effort to restore viability to rural industries. Motion for suspension of standing orders agreed to. Mr CRUICKSHANK: Monday last- Mr Sheahan: On a point of order. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to call on the honourable member for Murrumbidgee to move a motion. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member should move his motion.

Motion

Mr CRUICKSHANK (Murrumbidgee) [3.3 11 : I move: (1) That because of the State Government's decision to increase rural water charges for irrigation areas and districts by 22 per cent for 1984-85, taking to 60 per cent the increase in the past three years, as well as increas- ing the rates to pumpers by 32 per cent, many of the State's irrigators face financial ruin; and, (2) The Government should immediately rescind the increases announced by the Minister for Natural Resources and act to review the whole operations of the Water Resources Commission in an effort to restore viability to rural industries. Monday last saw some 4 000 angry demonstrators packing the whole of the Returned Senices League club at Leeton, indeed overflowing into the street and on to the road. It was a meeting that was not organized by a bunch of bolshie farmers, aspiring agro- politicians, or the National Party.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Mr CRUICKSHANK: The meeting was organized by the Irrigators Council of New South Wales to protest at the most callous, insensitive, destructive charges that any government has inflicted on any farming industry anywhere in Australia. The shops of Leeton were closed. Several other towns made a similar effort. The Leeton High School teachers voted strike action in support, and there were visitors from between the Queensland border and the Victorian border. The irrigators are stunned by the 22 per cent increase in water charges. The Minister has undertaken, according to a letter of 9th August read by Mr Mike Bennett of Dubbo, not to enter into sudden or large increases in prices. The Water Resources Commission had given commitments to stay within the consumer price index, and there are sworn affidavits to prove that. Yet the price of water for irrigation is to be increased by 22 per cent, and by 32 per cent for river pumpers.

This Government does not realize there are 40 000 people directly employed in the rice industry. Over 100 000 are employed by the multiplier effect. The Govern- ment does not realize that the industry generates $700 million directly, leading again to four times that, about $3,000 million annually. The industry has been hit with a 22 per cent increase in irrigation water charges-for what? For a lousy coilple of million dollars. This increase also will hit the business houses, the shopkeepers, the entrepreneurs. One only has to look at the last drought to see what any downturn in 1434 ASSEMBLY-Water Charges rural activity does to the Australian economy as a whole. What does this Government think it is going to do to the economy of New South Wales? In its desperate bid to get its hands on a few more lousy dollars, this Government does not care. In particular, the Leeton shire president spoke at length loudly and clearly about his condemnation of the insensitive statements made by the Minister for Natural Resources. The shire president made a valid point that this whole increase is totally outside the prices and incomes accord, and totally outside his concept of what the Hawke Government was advocating. He felt the Wran Government was in fact 100 per cent wrong. People listened to the Leeton shire president with great interest because he was the defeated Labor candidate for preselection for the seat of Murrum- bidgee, so he is hardly one of us. This Government is displaying its laager mentality. In desperation it is throwing away any consideration it may have had for New South Wales west of the Great Divide, throwing it to the wind, intent only on trying to shore up a discredited, reeling and tottering Government that because of its ideological blinkers is incapable of seeing just where its income is derived. The irrigators are being subjected to discrimination. The largesse can be distributed where this Government thinks it may get some votes-this side of the ranges or where there is some hope of propping up seats before the next election- but this Government chooses to get stuck into a few defenceless people who cannot get back at them, and it goes in with teeth bared. Let me turn to the Minister. The Minister has said this is all about economics; good economics and good manage- ment. That is an excellent example of the skewed economy of the socialists. As well, the Minister complains I have called her a socialist. If she is not a socialist, what is she doing in the Labor Party? Mrs Crosio: I am proud to be a socialist. Mr CRUICKSHANK: Madam, I think if you are worried about me calling you a socialist you had better start explaining yourself to some of your minders. You keep watching over your shoulder, because I would be careful about that if I were you. Mrs Crosio: I did not burn my rubber duckie. Mr CRUICKSHANK: What does that mean? I have no idea what the Minister is talking about. If being called a socialist upsets her, she has the problem, I do not. We are told this is good economics. "I demand efficiency of my department", the Minister says. So what does the Government do? The Government now wants to selectively start charging according to the user pays principle. The user pays principle is a tarted up tax and nothing else. It is dragged out every time the Government is short of money and is bankrupt of ideas. If the Government really believed in it, all hell would break loose because it would have to apply it to its own supporters. Then the sparks would fly. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has stated that the Murrumbidgee irrigation area, the Coleambally irrigation area, and the Murray areas are investments by the people of New South Wales which must be protected. The ricegrowers are experiencing the worst downturn in prices in a decade. It has never been disputed that last year 50 per cent of the farmers in those areas did not make a profit and a further 25 per cent made a small profit. The increase will mean an average of around $2,500 a farm. That 25 per cent will fall below the profit line. The Minister said he is dutybound to protect enormous investments in the southern irrigation areas. It is a joke. I know profit is a dirty word on the Government side of the House, but it is about time this Government remembered where its bread and butter comes from. It will only come from those people making a profit. Water Charges-26 September, 1984 1435

I submit there is no other group of people in this country who would stand for having their incomes cut the way this Government is trying to persecute farmers. But it thinks, with its bully mentality, that it can do what it likes with country people. May I quote some figures from a rice farmer in Coleambally? If he were using 1 500 megalitres of water in 1976, he paid approximately $2,800 for that quantity. In 1985, that same 1 500 megalitres will cost him approximately $10,800. That is an increase overall of 300 per cent, or about 35 per cent a year. Would the Government tell me who else in this country would stand for a cut like that in their earnings? You would have wholesale insurrection on your hands. We were told that the increases were imposed after discussion with irrigators. I submit that that is rubbish: it is arrant nonsense. The President of the Rice Growers' Association said publicly on Monday that he would like to know who those people were with whom the Minister discussed this matter. He has also publicly asked the Minister for Natural Resources to discuss these matters with him. He had never heard a word about increases in water charges. In reality, this Government is destroying the ability of the farmers to help themselves. The duty MLC in the region, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the one who is supposed to be out there undermining the credibility of the local non- Labor member of Parliament, must agree with all this. He came from Griffith. He knows, or he should know, that it is up to farmers to help themselves. Though he has been highly critical of rice and its implications and has said that certain areas must be removed and we are going to be living in a dustbowl-his words-he knows that rice prices will improve and that rice will be the best money earner. He knows we must help ourselves. But how does one do that without money? How does one do it if this GOV- ernment is going to send the cockies broke? As an instance, what does the local MLC think of millions of dollars that have already been spent on land planing? Does he never ask himself: what were they doing with that money? Why were they doing the land planing? They have already been employing those methods that now the Johnny-come-latelies are preaching; and they have been using them for years. We are told they should be growing alternative crops. It will take years and years to develop alternative crops. There is no research station looking specifically at alternative crops, as there should have been. Farmers have been doing the research themselves, and were doing it a long time before all the present scare tactics were being employed by this Government. I submit that if the Government were so concerned for its investment, and if it knew so much, it should halie been taking more positive steps of its own, such as setting up a research station for alternative crops. If the Government does not believe the economic plight of ricegrowers, let me instance the problem of the Murrumbidgee shire. That shire has only two small villages. More than 90 per cent of its rates come from farms, encompassing the whole of the Coleambally area. This year's rate collec- tions are already down by 10 per cent. This, plus the instalmelit system, which is being used at an accelerating rate, means that the local council is behind in its money collections as never before. With this current proposed increase, with 75 per cent of farms not making a profit. what does this Government imagine next year's economic health will be? I tell you what it will be; it will be disastrous. It will be a scandal, and this Government will be entirely responsible for it. Perhaps the Government does not realize that there is more than a $3-to-$1 ratio of ongoing effect in the rice industry, and the same ratio applies to unemployment. Perhaps the Government thinks there are hidden benefits that we are not talking about. I can assure the House that there are none. But let me tell you of some of the Minister's disclosures of the hidden benefits that she has cooked up in respect of rice growers. The Minister has had the audacity to put before this House, as the reason why the increases are justified, that land values have been stationary, that I436 ASSEMBLY-Water Charges values had been increasing by 200 per cent and that now, with the scare tactics of this Government, they are actually falling. The capital gain of which the Minister speaks, which has been so great since 1975 and has been of so much benefit to the farmers of the area- Mrs Crosio: Since 1976. Mr CRUICKSHANK: I am sorry, 1976. From 1976 the capital gains have gone up by more than 200 per cent. The capital gain of which the Minister speaks is unattainable. It is of no benefit whatsoever in this wide world to any farmer who is struggling to pay his bills. The farmer is no good for a hollow log any longer; and the sooner the Government realizes that, the better off the State of New South Wales will be. These arrogant decisions, with no consultations made by Ministers who are out of touch, are the straws that are breaking the industry's back. Unemploy- ment will increase; and business houses will be forced to close, just as they did in the 1982-83 drought when this Government dilly-dallied and would not give up the Commonwealth money provided for drought relief. This Government's attitude will cause all those problems to recur. The Minister for Natural Resources says she demands efficiency from her department. What a hollow statement. First, she still has that great white elephant sitting on the north side of the Harbour; it is called Ibis House. After the next elections, I promise that Ibis House will be down in the irrigation area, down where it and its Minister can keep in touch with its lessees. For instance, the channel system that was built just after the turn of the century has been used, abused, and neglected ever since. The numerous political decisions that have been made over the years have today rendered some parts of the area totally inadequate for the task for which the channel system was built. The system suffers from repeated inadequate funding for repairs and maintenance; and the upgrading of channels has fallen further and further behind. I believe this is because successive Ministers have no real idea of what running an irrigation area is all about, and no idea of how their decisions affect rural incomes. The drainage system is a scandalous bandaid job, and right now has flooded thousands and thousands of acres as it meanders off from the irrigation area towards the Lachlan River, because there has never ever been a drainage system built for the area. There has never been provision for the building of a proper drainage system for the rest of the irrigation area-not that we know of. I turn now to another matter. What I have said up till now covers the plight of irrigators within the areas and districts, those who are operating on a scheme devised and created by the Government. There is, however, another group of people involved, the licensed pumpers. They are the irrigators who, by use of the head works at dams and weirs, pump water out of the river for irrigation of crops. The licensed pumper carries the full burden of costs, from point of extracting the water from the river. Unlike the area or district user, he does not have water delivered to his paddock. Therefore the costs of the licensed pumper are similar, if not higher, by virtue of the fact that he pays his delivery costs out of his own pocket, whereas the area and district farmers pay similar costs to the commission, which in turn is then responsible for providing delivery of water. For many years now licensed pumpers have been paying a metering fee. This fee was designed to cover the cost of the operation of reading the meters and applying the information derived from those readings to the operations of pumpers, dams, and the river systems. It was an essential part of the maintenance of irrigation flows in that it allowed the commission to gauge accurately wastage by way of soakage and/or evaporation. This was a system agreed upon and supported by licensed pumpers, and one in respect of which they have generally met the full cost over the Water Charges-26 September, 1984 1437 years. I have no objection to this principle. It is interesting to note that the Govern- ment has not seen fit to increase the metering cost in this particular round of charges; it remains at 90 cents. Three years ago the Government introduced the principle of a charge for water and it is this charge that has been so severely increased in 1984-85, from 57c a megalitre to $1 a megalitre. That is an 86 per cent increase in charges, not 32.4 per cent as the Minister would have us believe. The Minister is conveniently using the principle of amalgamating the metering fee with the water charge to come up with a percentage figure rather than be totally honest and announce an 86 per cent increase. The amalgamated percentage increase is only 32.4 per cent. The theory of this charge for water is that irrigators are paying for the cost of operation of the dam, from the point of discharge to delivery. It is obvious that the Government intends steadily to increase this charge, which is payable by all water users for the purpose of irrigation by as much as possible and as often as it can-vote early and vote often. It has totally disregarded the promises made by a former Minister that charges would not be increased by more than the consumer price index. The Govern- ment therefore has broken that original agreement made with the irrigators. The intriguing part about the principle of charging irrigators as the only beneficiaries from the water is that the principle completely fails to recognize that any river valley system has many beneficiaries. In the United States of America, the principle has been accepted that in the construction of any storage, recreation has a benefit of at least 33 per cent. The use of water storage by fishermen, water-skiers, yachtsmen, or those who just want to camp alongside an expanse of water is recognized in this cost. The Government sees fit to contribute substantial funds towards building recreation facilities near our dams, and I applaud that decision. The contribution does, however, prove my point that recreation is a vital usage factor. Also, recognition is not given to the benefits of having the seed, chemical, or fuel merchants in any town; the benefits of the farm machinery firm that both sells and repairs machinery damaged in carrying out farming practices; and the benefits derived by the stock and domestic water user along the river system or by the town water supply. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ryde to order. Mr CRUICKSHANK: They are all beneficiaries as a result of a construction of a dam. However, this Government wishes to charge to the hilt the irrigator as being the sole beneficiary. In defending her actions the Minister has made several charges that literally do not hold water. Mrs Crosio: No pun intended. Mr CRUICKSHANK: Stick around. The Minister has compared Queensland charges with those in New South Wales. In doing so the Minister has failed to recog- nize the costs involved in the two States. For example, the Minister has spoken about the cost to a licensed pumper in Queensland as being $5.85 a megalitre, which is true. However, the Minister did not bother to mention that Queensland pumpers do not pay licence fees. In New So~~thWales the fee for a 40-hectare licence is $304.20, which licence is valid for five years. For an 80-hectare licence the fee is $482.60 and for a 162-hectare licence it is $725.40. This adds at least $1 a megalitre to the costs in New South Wales, but the Minister has not seen fit to mention that fact. In Queensland the licence fee is built into the charge for water. Th~ls,when the water is used the licence fee converts to a water charge. The Minister failed to acknowledge also that in New South Wales the cost of buying a meter falls upon the licensed pumper. The pumper must find at least $500 to $700 a year for a meter, which lasts 1438 ASSEMBLY-Water Charges

only two years. because they wear out. The pumper is required to pay installation costs also. The pumper must maintain that meter and is liable to a heavy fine should the meter not be operating satisfactorily. Mr SingIeton: That makes a lot of difference, does it not? Mr CRUICKSHANK: In Queensland the meter is paid for, installed and main- tained by the Crown from water charges. The Minister failed to mention also that in Queensland there is no State diesel or petrol tax such as those imposed upon producers in New South Wales. Mr Singleton: Do not praise them too much. Mr CRUICKSHANK: Those taxes apply to fuels used for onroad vehicles and in their operations round the farms. Mr Peacocke: Their pumps too. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Murrumbidgee needs no assistance from the honourable member for Coffs Harbour or the honourable member for Dubbo. Mr CRUICKSHANK: Also, the Minister did not mention that the price of electricity in Queensland is substantially less than it is in New South Wales. The Queensland Government has seen fit to subsidize power charges in Goondiwindi so that the residents in that area pay a price comparable with that paid by residents in other parts of Queensland. Power for that area comes from the New South Wales grid sup- plied by courtesy of the North-west County Council. The Minister failed to mention also that Queensland irrigators do not have to pay financial institutions duty on all transactions, which is another cost that New South Wales irrigators must bear. Workers' compensation premiums, payroll tax and many other forms of tax are far lower in Queensland than they are in New South Wales. The Minister could not have chosen a worse example than to compare New South Wales State charges and taxes with those applicable in Queensland. I commend the motion. Mrs CROSIO (Fairfield), Minister for Natural Resources 13.531: I have heard of second-rate punch-drunk boxers who telegraph their punches before they are thrown; usual!) they are left battered and bruised on the canvas, and the bout lasts only a few minutes. Never have I heard of an honourable member making a press release proclaiming victory the day before the matter has been debated in the House. For the ii~iormationof honourable members I shall table the press release that the honour- able member for Murrumbidgee issued yesterday. The Premier referred to a few lines only of it; however, I wish to table the entire pres release. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee circulated the press release yesterday, stating that he had definitely raised all of these matters in the House on 25th September. Yesterday I spoke to a reporter employed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and stationed in Albury who informed me that the honourable member for Murrumbidgee had sent a telex to him stating virtually the same as that set out in the press release. Mr W. T. J. Murray: On a point of order. I take it the Minister desires to have incorporated in Hansnrd the press release that was released? The Minister has not sought the permission of the House to do so. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understand that the Minister intends to lay the press release on th- table of the House so thqt it will be available to all honourable members. If the Minister wishes to have the document incorporated in Hnnsard, application should be made in the appropriate way. Water Charges-26 September, 1984 1439

Mrs CROSIO: My intention is to table the press release because I am informed insufficient copies were made available. Copies were sent to all the local newspapers in the honourable member's electorate, and to all the radio stations. I wish to table a copy of the press release so honourable members may read it realizing that it is a day late. Mr Singleton: It was a day early.

Mrs CROSIO: The point I wish to put to the House and the point I made to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation this morning, when answering questions about the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, is simply that the honourable member has misled his electorate and he has lied to the people to whom he circulated the press release. The honourable member had the audacity to inform a certain reporter employed by the ABC in Albury that when he came into the House yesterday he was not allowed to proceed with his motion. For the information of the House, so it may be recorded in Hamard, I inform the House that when the honourable member for Murrumbidgee arrived in this House yesterday, the House had been proceeding for about five minutes with a debate initiated by the Leader of the Opposition seeking censure of the Attorney General. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee was not in the House at 2.15 yesterday when the sittings commenced. The honourable member stood at the door of thc Chamber and watched and listened to the Leader of the Opposition before he entered the House.

I table the press release referred to so that honourable members may read the document and understand what the honourable member has done. I state clearly that the honourable member has told lies. He did not seek the call-he did not make any attempt to do so. The intention of the honourable member might have been to do so, and that is why he was well prepared in advance yesterday. His failure to proceed yesterday could have arisen from disorganization in the ranks of the Opposi- tion-maybe he was not given permission at yesterday's party meeting to proceed with the motion. One must give a new member of the Opposition time to learn the procedures of this House. Also, one trusts that in future when the honourable member for Murrurnbidgee pursues issues he will not make any press releases until the matter has been debated in the House. I wonder where these matters of disorganization will lead in what I call a real Punch and Greiner show. In making that press release the honourable member for Murrumbidgee helped his local news media; they now see him exactly for what he is-a babe in the political woods.

I turn now to the motion. I shall answer the matters raised by the honourable member in the order in which he referred to them. The honourable member moved urgency to discuss the Government's decision to raise by 22 per cent water rates charged to irrigators in the State's irrigation areas and districts. It is a matter of urgency that the rate increase be debated. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee said that I announced the increases on Tuesday, 1 lth September, without any prior consultation with anyone. I dispute that statement. I am now debating the issue because I had had a number of meetings with the irrigators' council and one particular gentleman from the rice industry, whom I shall not name in the House, but I am sure he is the one that the honourable member got his notes from, who said that at no time did we discuss water charges. We discussed not only water charges but also what was happening in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area.

Mr Cruickshank: The increase-the increase in water charges.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! 1440 ASSEMBLY-Water Charges

Mrs CROSIO: We discussed also the proposition that was put to me clearly and succinctly, that there should be no increase in water charges. At the time I was doing figures mentally and thinking, "That is not bad; that is a $14.5 million sub- sidization in one twelve months' period." That was when we were talking about water charges and that was not too bad at all, to ask for no increase. I noted that the honourable member for Murrumbidgee said there had been no negotiations, there was no knowledge and no consultation and that the increased water charges should possibly have been brought down in the first week of July. I would not have put that minute to Cabinet, for I wanted further investigation, I wanted reports done, I wanted to see costings and figures, and I continue to have consultation with my colleague the Minister for Agriculture in another place. Mr Armstrong: He would not know. You were wasting your time there. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Lachlan to order. Mrs CROSIO: I had spoken with his department on numerous occasions. The Minister would know a bit more than the honourable member for Lachlan. Last Thursday when the honourable member for Murrumbidgee asked me a question in the House I thought to myself, "At least now he has woken up to what is happening, although it took him nine days to do it". I thought finally someone had got hold of him and said to him: "You represent the electorate of Murrumbidgee. Do you realize what is happening, with press releases going out?" can assure the House, my telexes were going the next day. I cannot understand why the honourable member was not being contacted, or even aware of what was going on and why he had to wait nine days to get the call in the House. It was not because of any lack of co-operation on your part, Mr Speaker. From the time I put out the press release about the increased water charges a fortnight ago yesterday until today the honourable member for Murrumbidgee did not seek the call to ask a question. So he cannot claim that you denied him the right to ask a question in this House. I shall deal with some of the facts. Rice farmers are better off now than they were before the Wran Labor Government came to office. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee referred to valuation figures and I reminded him that he should refer to the figures before 1976. I have done that and compared them with the figures since 1976. Rice farmers are now paying, in real terms, 20 per cent less for their water than they were in 1974-75. I am making the comparison in 1984 dollar values. I have had economists and accountants examine these figures and they are verifiable. In 1984 dollar terms, a farmer with an average size mixed rice farm paid an exorbitant $17,000 for water in 1974-75. This year, after this "disastrous" 22 per cent increase, the same farmer will be paying $14,000 in real terms. In real terms, projecting the 1974-75 dollar, he is paying 22 per cent less. The story is exactly the same in the Coleambally irrigation area. When I projected the figures in the Coleambally irrigation area, in 1974-75 they paid $14,000 in 1984 dollar terms. This year a farmer with an average size farm will pay $11,000; again, $3,000 less in real terms. Again using the Murrurnbidgee Irrigation Area as an example, the horticultural farm paid $5,000 in 1974-75 in 1984 dollar terms and this year, with the increase, will pay $3,000 in real terms. This Government is the best thing that has ever happened to the rice industry and the irrigators of this State. Their water is now cheaper. If I go back ten to twelve years, when the Leader of the National Party was the Minister responsible for water resources, I discover how prices went up in the term of office of the previous Liberal Party-National Party Govern- ment and how many people were laid off. I can bring rtp some of those figures. Not only is water cheaper now, as I have said, but as the honourable member for Mm.rumbidgee said, since we came to ofice in 1976 the Valuer-General's valuations of those rice farms have increased by well in excess of 200 per cent. Water Charges-26 September, 1984 1441

I shall now compare what the New South Wales irrigators are paying compared with what their counterparts in Queensland, that bastion of the National Party, are paying. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee mentioned the Queensland water charges when speaking in support of his motion. Only a few minutes ago I was informed that Queensland was the wrong State to select. The chairman of the Burdeltin Rice Growers Association, Mr Hall, concedes that rice farmers in New South Wales are better off. Those are his words; not mine. In the September 1983 volume of the Rice Mill News he wrote that rice farmers in his area were disadvantaged in their conlpetition with rice farmers on the Murrumbidgee, because water was the most expensive commodity that they had to pay for, and that was considering what they had to pay at that time, not what they will have to pay this year. He conceded in writing that he, as a rice farmer, would be better off in New South Wales. I shall now run through some more comparative figures of irrigation areas and districts to show how much better off the Queensland people would be if they were in New South Wales. Charges for the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, with the increase, are, for the first tier $13.19 per megalitre and for the second tier $9.05 per megalitre. For the Murray irrigation district, they are for the first tier $9.64 per megalitre, and for the second tier, $4.27 per megalitre. These are the new prices. In Queensland, last year, the prices paid in Bundaberg and Burdekin, the area from which Mr Hall comes, were $21.35 per megalitre; in Eden they were $17.60 per megalitre; in Dawson and Emerald they were $12.80 per megalitre. I repeat that these Queensland figures do not include the increase that has not yet hit the irrigators. They are the 1983-84 prices. A number of statements have been made by representatives of the rice industry, particularly over the past week or so, that rice production will decrease as a result of this year's water charges. I suggest that such a reaction form rice growers would in most instances be totally inappropriate. It would certainly be dishonest for those rice growers or the honourable member for Murrumbidgee to make the suggestion. It is not true. The rice industry has already indicated that this year there will be record sowings. I refer members of the Opposition and the rice industry to a recent paper in the commodity bulletin series produced by the New South Wales Department of Agriculture, prepared by economists of that department. This study looks at various aspects of irrigation area farm programmes. I shall refer to one particular matter that raises two fundamental points. The paper states that the marginal value-that is the price an irrigation farmer should be prepared to pay for an extra megalitre of water- is $27. The water prices would need to increase by more than 100 per cent-not 22 per cent-before irrigation farmers had to vary their farm programmes. The document to which I referred is volume 13 of the commodity bulletin series. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee spoke about the Leeton shire president being upset and angry. The honourable member commented on the forthright manner in which the shire president had spoken at the meeting held last Monday. I acknowledge those comments. How would the honourable member for Murrumbidgee know what was said by the shire president, bearing in mind that the meeting began just before 11 o'clock and the honourable member for Murrumbidgee arrived at the meeting after 12.30, in time to hear debate on the six motions that were moved at the meeting? Mr Cruickshank: I did not. Mrs CROSIO: The honourable member did arrive after 12.30, and that can be verified. Mr Cruickshank: A little late. 1442 ASSEMBLY-Water Charges

Mrs CROSIO: The honourable member arrived when the meeting was debating a number of motions that were carried. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee's comments in support of the motion moved today led honourable members to believe that he had attended the meeting. Mr Cruickshank: I was there, but the Minister was not. Mrs CROSIO: 1 acknowledge a further point mentioned in the debate today, when the honourable member raised the issue of water charges. I know that Opposi- tion members have suggested that I should not refer to Queensland water charges. for they relate only to water charges and do not take into account electricity charges, which are cheaper in Queensland, or fuel charges or taxes-all of these dreadful things that Opposition members suggest are happening in New South Wales. If those suggestions are right, I do not know why there has not been more of an exodus from this State. It seems that people are leaving Queensland to come to this State; they are not rushing to go to Queensland. Mr Singleton: The Minister does not read statistics. Mrs CROSIO: I do read statistics. People could do without electricity, if that became necessary; they could do without diesel fuel; and possibly they could do without taxes; but certainly they could not survive without water. Everyone in New South Wales will acknowledge that water is a precious commodity and must be provided efficiently and economically. Every individual must be mindful of the importance of water. When Opposition members speak about charges and efficiency or inefficiency and the percent- age increase in charges, they should remember that as a Minister of the Crown I must take into consideration the fact that increased costs are subsidized by those who do not reside in areas of the State that will be affected by those charges. Those who suggest that the cost of supplying water is too high should be reminded that the charges for the supply of water are not based on a user-pays system, as applies in Newcastle and other city areas. Charges for water in those districts take into account capital costs. Water charges in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and all other areas under the administration of the Water Resources Commission do not include capital cost com- ponents. People in those regions pay recurrent costs-in other words, the amount that it costs to provide the water, not what it costs to build dams or to deal with all problems associated with excessive use of this precious commodity. Recently I was examining the proposals contained in the Government's Budget -and I suppose the honourable member for Murrumbidgee has not yet issued a press release on those matters. This year the Government will spend about $6.5 million on the State's irrigation areas and districts, including the expenditure of $3.3 million in the Murrurnbidgee Irrigation Area, $2.8 million in the Murray River district. In addition new works will be undertaken on pipe irrigation supplies at Curlwaa to complete the Tombullen storage works and other refurbishment works. This year a total of about $6.9 million will be spent on those irrigation districts. Further, the Gcvernment will spend $5.6 million on salinity works. Our federal colleagues will provide an additional $2 million to assist the New South Wales Government in this regard. That commitment of almost $14.5 million is justification for the Government's saying that it is trying to improve the state of the irrigation industry. The Govern- ment asks that the irrigators themselves give a commitment to improving their efficiency and that they make better use of the valuable water supplies in New South Wales. I have been informed-and I am sure the honourable member for Murrumbidgee will correct me if I am wrong-that the rice farmers had to charter two Fokker Friendship aircraft to get their supporters to the meeting at Leeton. Mr Fischer: They were not Fokker Friendships. Water Charges-26 September, 1984 1443

Mrs CROSIO: They were probably DC-10 aircraft. The farmers did charter two aeroplanes.

Mr Fischer: They would have supplied the Minister with an aircraft, if she could have attended the meeting.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Murray to order. Mrs CROSIO: I would have appreciated that gesture. The honourable member for Murray verified what I said. I thought my information could not have been correct. This was supposed to be an instantaneous meeting; it had not been organized; it was not something that they felt so badly about that they had public relations people visitkg the districts drumming up reaction to the increased charges and informing peop!e about what should be happening, what should not be happening. Nevertheless, the farmers hired two aeroplanes. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee told the House about licensed pumpers. The average licensed pumping area is 162 hectares. Charges for those pumping licences will increase by about $600. That increase is only 0.05 per cent of total farm costs. The figures to which I have referred have been checked. I understand that the honourable member for Murrumbidgee promised that when his party gains government in three and a half years-and I would not be holding my breath if I were him-it will get rid of Ibis House at North Sydney. Mr Singleton: The Minister would not know where Ibis House is.

Mrs CROSIO: I know where it is; in fact I have inspected the premises. The Water Resources Commission is not concerned to make a profit at this stage. As Mmister for Natural Resources I am concerned that the commission is able to provide its services at the cheapest possible cost to those areas I have mentioned. The commission will provide those services at charges that can be met, and will be met. If it is able to balance its operating costs and its overall charges, it will be fulfilling its responsibility. By way of interjection Opposition members have asked about the rest of the State and suggested that a coalition government would introduce the user- pays system. I doubt whether anyone would suggest that water charges go anywhere near meeting the cost of operating the State's huge water storages and supplying water to the various districts in the State. The Government has a long way to go before it can begin recovering the cost of operating and maintaining dams in New South Wales. That is not what the Government is about. This Government is concerned about recurrent funding for a commodity that is being provided to a select group, which should in all fairness realize and acknowledge that fact.

Mr Armstrong: They are employing 40 000 people.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the National Party to order. Mrs CROSIO: The increased water charges were part of a package of initiatives that I announced in a media release on 11th September. On that occasion I said that many of the regulations which control farm size in the areas and districts are based on the home maintenance area philosophy. Legislation will be prepared to relax or abolish those restrictions on farm size in the irrigation areas and districts and to permit the amalgamation of smaller farms into more economic units. In addition, I shall be introducing legislation to allow a permanent transferability of water entitle- ments, creating even greater flexibility in farm development. It is hoped that legislative amendments can be introduced this financial year to minimize the impact of what has been called in the House the disastrous increased water charges. 1444 ASSEMBLY-Water Charges

Opposition members-and especially the honourable member for Murrum- bidgee though I should not single him out for mention-have shown themselves to be misinformed about the 22 per cent increase in rural water charges for irrigation areas and districts. The standard of expertise of honourable members on the Opposition benches is underlined by the honourable member for Murrumbidgee's non-performance since his election as a member of this House, the statements he has made to his electorate, and what could be described only as a pitiful performance. I am sure that Opposition members will not agree with that description. The only matter of urgency that needs to be discussed today is the urgent need for National Party colleagues of the honourable member for Murrumbidgee to take him aside and give him some clues about the procedures of the House, for the benefit of the honourable member himself, and for the benefit of all other honourable members. Mr SCHIPP: Mr Speaker- Mr WADE (Newcastle), Government Whip [4.21]: I move: That the question be now put. The House divided. Ayes, 52 Mr Akister Mr Face Mr Paciullo Mr Amery Mr Ferguson Mr Page Mr Anderson Mr Gabb Mr Petersen Mr Aquilina Mr Hills Mr Price Mr Bannon Mr Hunter Mr Quinn Mr Bedford Mr Irwin Dr Refshauge Mr K. G. Booth Mr Keane Mr Rogan Mr Bowman Mr Knight Mr Sheahan Mr Brereton Mr Knott Mr Stewart Mr Carr Mr Knowles Mr Walker Mr Cavalier Mr Langton Mr Walsh Mr Cleary Mr McIlwaine Mr Whelan Mr R. J. Clough Mr Mair Mr Wilde Mr Cox Mr Mochalski Mr Wran Mr Crawford Mr H. F. Moore Mrs Crosio Mr Mulock Tellers, Mr Davoren Mr J. H. Murray Mr Beckroge Mr Debus Mr Neilly Mr Wade

Noes, 39 Mr Arkell Mr Hatton Mr Singleton Mr Armstrong Mr Hay Mr Smiles Mr Baird Mr Jeffery Mr Smith Mr Beck Mr Kerr Mr Webster Mr J. D. Booth Mr Mack Mr West Mr Caterson Dr Metherell Mr Wotton Mr Causley Mr W.T. J. Murray Mr Yabsley Mr J. A. Clough Mr Park Mr Yeomans Mr Collins Mr Peacocke Mr Zammit Mr Cruickshank Mr Phillips Mr Dowd Mr Pickard Mr Duncan Mr Punch Tellers, Mr Fisher Mr Rozzoli Mr Fischer Mrs Foot Mr Schipp Mr T. J. Moore Water Charges-26 September, 1984 1445

Resolved in the affirmative. Question--That the motion be agreed to--proposed. Mr CRUICKSHANK (Murrumbidgee) [4.28], in reply: I should like to address myself to the points raised by madam Minister. I am rather surprised that she should have taken something like six minutes to vilify me personally. It shows a remarkable lack of attention to the real issues involved. Mr McIlwaine: Another press release? Mr CRUICKSHANK: What the honourable member does not realize, of course, is that if that press release had not been issued yesterday we would never have got on today. [Interruption] Mr SPEA-R: Order! The honourable member for Mumtmbidgee has the call. Mr CRUICKSHANK: Unfortunately, madam Minister has not recognized the issues and has not taken account of the six motions that were passed unanimously at that meeting-passed unanimously, without one dissenting voice in relation to the whole six motions. The Minister should, instead of giving me a hard time, look at and speak to the motions and the feelings of the people involved. Mrs Crosio: Because I was speaking to your motion of urgency. Mr CRUICKSHANK: I would say that in my opinion this matter is pretty urgent. There were six motions from the floor of that meeting. There were votes of no confidence in Mr Hallam and in Mrs Crosio. Mr Sheahan: On a point of order. The honourable member is raising a matter completely different from those mentioned in the case put by the Minister. He is now giving a detailed account of some meeting that took place and some motions that were carried at that meeting. He should have done that when he moved his motion. Mr Singleton: On the point of order. The points being made by the honourable member for Murrumbidgee are most pertinent because the Minister during her speech tried to prop up the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in another place by referring to the high esteem in which he is held in that area. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee is pointing out to the House that what the Minister for Natural Resources said is untrue. Mr W. T. J. Murray: On the point of order. It is interesting that the Minister for Planning and Environment who took the point of order was not in the House during the debate. It is equally interesting that in the course of the debate the Minister for Natural Resources held up a copy of the motions that were carried at that meeting. She referred to those motions and to the fact that the honourable member for Murrumbidgee was at that meeting. In fact, I think she said that he was late. She has referred to those motions in her speech. I submit that therefore the honourable member for Murrumbidgee is in order in referring to those motions in his reply now. Mr Sheahan: Further to the point of order. I simply say, as I said when I took the point of order, that it is not proper for an honourable member to prop up an rnitial weak argument by introducing new material in reply. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister referred to resolutions. 1446 ASSEMBLY-Water Charges

Mrs Crosio: I certainly did not refer to resolutions at that meeting. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am advised by the Minister that she did not refer to the resolutions adopted at the meeting. Therefore, if the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, in his reply to the Minister's remarks, wished to refer to the resolutions adopted at that meeting, he would be out of order. Mr Wade: You have not referred to what the Minister said. Mr CRUICKSHANK: Let us examine some of the things that she did talk about. What about the consultation she is supposed to have had with the whole of the rice industry about how much would be charged for water. Mrs Crosio: On a point of order. I am sorry to have to take a point of order on the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, but I did not say I had consultations with all the rice farmers. I said that I had had numerous meetings with the irrigators. Mr SPEAKER: Order! In his reply the honourable member for Murrumbidgee is entitled to refer to any remarks made by the Minister. He may refute any of the remarks she has made but he may not introduce new material or any matter that he thought the Minister intended to raise. Mr CRUICKSHANK: There were some 4 000 people at a meeting in Leeton on Monday. They overflowed the meeting-place and spilled out on to the footpath and on to the roadway. They were not gathered there to have a picnic. Everything that you raised in your speech is totally irrelevant to the feelings of the people and to the economic future of the people in that area. You are ripping the guts out of the industry. Mr McIlwaine: On a point of order. On a number of occasions the honourable member for Murrumbidgee has referred to the Minister for Natural Resources as "madam", "you", and a number of other things. Indeed, he is not addressing the House through you. I ask that he keep in mind Standing Order 150 when making his reply to the House. Mr SPEAKER: Order! As a matter of courtesy honourable members on both sides of the House refer to a member by the name of his electorate or, in the case of a Minister, the portfolio held by the Minister. However, it is in order for an honourable member to say "You said" or "You did something". It would not be open to me to rule out of order any member who used those terms, but wherever possible a member should refer to another member by his electorate or to a Minister by portfolio. Mr CRUICKSHANK: What we are talking about is the people involved in the irrigation industry. She talks in pure economic terms about the efficiency of departments and so forth. I suggest to you, madam, that if the principles that you apply to the activities of your department were adopted by the Government, the Government would be out of office within a week, because those principles would not work. What about introducing a single fare from Hornsby to the city? Mrs Crosio: On a point of order. I am sorry to have to take a point of order on the honourable member for Murrumbidgee. I overlook his calling me "madam", "you" and everything else, although certain people cannot do that. On the point of order- Mr T. J. Moore: You reckon what you are doing for the rice industry is correct. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Gordon to order. Water Charges-26 September, 1984 1447

Mrs Crosio: On the point of order. During my speech I did not refer to fares in Sydney or anywhere else. I did not discuss trains or buses. I talked about water. Mr Walker: On the point of order. If the honourable member for Murrum- bidgee is allowed to introduce fares into this debate, which I understand relates to water charges, it would be in order for the Minister to discuss the activities of the White River Timber Company and how the Leader of the Opposition so mis- managed that company-

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask honourable members to remain silent while an honourable member is speaking to a point of order. I ask honourable members taking points of order to come directly to the point of order, and I ask honourable members to restore. decorum to the House.

Mr Walker: It would be in order for the Minister to raise the matter of the White River Timber Company and how the Leader of the Opposition so mismanaged that company that it lost millions of dollars. It could be argued that the Opposition could not run a pie stall.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Youth and Community Services and Ministcr for Housing has made the point that it is not in order for the honourable rnernbe~ for Murrumbidgee to refer to any matter other than water charges and statements made by the Minister about those water charges. Mr CRUICKSHANK: I am trying to indicate to members on the Government side of the House that when the Government talks about increasing water charges, what it proposes is increasing them on thc basis of user pays. I said before that the user pays principle is nothing but a tarted-up tax. It is a principle that govern- ments adopt when they run out of money and ideas. They do it selectively. They apply it to the areas where they want it applied. I apologize if I mentioned fares in the city, but that matter is terribly relevant. However, I shall adhere to your ruling on the point of order and I shall not mention fares in the city again. Not one of the issues raised at the meeting attended by those 4 000 people in Leeton on Monday of this week was addressed by the Minister in her speech. I spoke about those issues, and you did not. I pointed out to you what is happening to those people and why people living in the area between the Queensland border and the Victorian border- people from all over New South Wales-were at that meeting. I told you about that becauce those people are concerned about the economic problems they are experi- encing at present. The price of rice has never been lower. Some 40 000 people are employed directly in the rice industry. With the multiplier effect, another 100 000 people are dependent on the rice industry. Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is not in order for the honourable member to make another speech on his motion. He should now be replying to what the Minister said, regardless of whether it was relevant to his motion. The Minister replied to his remarks. Now it is the right of the honourable member for Murrumbidgee to reply to what she said, but not to introduce new material or to mention matters that he did not refer to earlier. Mr CRUICKSHANK: Mr Speaker, I am sorry. I am new to the House and I thought what I was saying was relevant to what the Minister was saying. Nr Schipp: Productivity was mentioned in the debate by the Minister. 1448 ASSEMBLY-Water Charges

Mr CRUICKSHANK: I say again that the average of $2,500, which will be the increase for the average rice farmer in that area, will put 75 per cent of the rice farmers below the profit line. Where is your bread and butter going to come from? The taxpayers will be broke, because you are doing the job on them. Two and a half grand a year. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr CRUICKSHANK: Can you show me any other section of the community, Madam Minister, that would accept such a decrease or rip-off of the people who are trying to make a profit? No other section of the community would accept it. Yet you expect them to take it lying down. The 4 000 people at the meeting showed you that they will not take it lying down. Mrs Crosio: And they are going to have representation through the honourable member for Murrumbidgee. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr CRUICKSHANK: You talked about the Minister for Agriculture in another place. I did not mention him very much. I suggest to you that his impact and advice on what is happening in that area is totally irrelevant. I suggest to you that he does not even know, as it was stated at the meeting---- [Interruption] Mr CRUICKSHANK: I might have been a few minutes late. Mrs Crosio: An hour and a half. Mr CRUICKSHANK: I heard enough. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask honourable members on both sides of the House to contain their interjecting and allow the honourable member for Murrumbidgee to complete his reply. Mr CRUICKSHANK: Mr Hallam's advice would be the last advice one would want to take. As was correctly pointed out at the meeting on Monday, he was trying to get all the rest of them to join his club of failed farmers. I should like to refer to a matter on which the Minister for Natural Resources made great play-the increasing values of rice farms. She showed how since 1976-and she was very quick to point out that that was when the Labor Party came to office-the values have gone up 200 per cent. I want her to show me how they can get increases in value when they cannot even pay their bills. They cannot get the money to pay the bills. The 22 per cent increase is ripping their insides out. Madam-Mr Minister-you have talked about the salaries. Mrs Crosio: On a point of order. I take exception to that remark. I do not think that I have to show the honourable member for Murrumbidgee that I am obviously female, but I take exception to the word mister. Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved. Mr CRUICKSHANK: I beg your pardon. [Interruption] Water Charges-26 September, 1984 1449

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Hansard reporters are attempting to take down what is being said. They are having great difficulty because of the conduct of mem- bers on both sides of the House. I will not accept such conduct any longer. I will remove members who are interjecting and preventing the Hansard reporters from hearing what is being said. The honourable member for Murrumhidgee may continue. Mr CRUICKSHANK: We are talking about the sowings. It has been said that there are record sowings in New South Wales in the rice industry. What on earth has that got to do with the amount of money they will make at the end of the season? It is totally irreleva~t. The farmers put in big sowings last year but instead of getting the 800 000 tonnes they were going to get, they got 600 000 tonnes. Mrs Crosio: It was 610 000 tonnes. Mr CRUICKSHANK: I do not think that will make much difference. It is not in the bag yet. It is totally irrelevant. I suggest to you, madam, that the hypo- thetical increases and the figures you have been quoting have very little relationship to the plight and economic welfare of the people in the Murrumbidgee and other irrigation areas. Mrs Crosio: They are not hypothetical cases. Mr CRUICKSHANK: They are totally irrelevant to the present situation because the people of the areas are in a state of crisis. They cannot sell their rice around the world because of the oversupply. That is why, on simple basic economics, the price comes down. Mrs Crosio: Why are they planting more? Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr CRUICKSHANK: Because they are trying to get a lesser amount of money off a greater number of tonnes. It is simple. I think, madam, you must have been in the middleman business too long. Mrs Crosio: That is a sexist remark. Middlewoman business, please. Mr CRUICKSHANK: The Minister, with her insensitive statements, has done nothing but inflame the feelings of the people in the areas that are being affected. She has been aided and abetted by her colleague in the other place, Mr Hallam, bv statements that the whole of the irrigation area will become a dust bowl within thirty years He said that the farmers are not doing their job. He wants them to stop growirg rice. He knows very well that the only money-spinner they have in the area-when prices come good aeain-is rice. The farmers are trying some alternative crovs, with precious little help from the Government. It is the Government's countrv. The farmers are only the lessees of the irrigation farms. The Minister for Natural Resources has done nothing to help them in the matter. If the Government knew all it savs it does about imvendine dangers that these so-called wretched rice farmers were not takinn notice of, it would know of the hundreds of millions of dollars that farmers are spending in land planing the country with most expensive equivment. They do this with their own expenditure, and without subsidies or other assistance. Growers have been spending the money and doing the iob, vet they are being berated by Ministers who say that they are not doing their job. They are doing everything they can. If the Government adds this 22 per cent, it will take away the possibility of their continuincr eood water management. which we all know is the onlv answer to the salinity problems of that area. The Opposition and I condemn this Government out of hand for making such an attack on a defenceless section of the community. [Interruption] 1450 ASSEMBLY-Water Charges

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr CRUICKSHANK: It is a defenceless section of the community, which up until now has been fairly quiescent. The 4 000 people who met down in Leeton last Monday came to conclusions that they were loath to reach. They said that, unfor- tunately, they wiII have to take more action instead of lying down as they have done in the past. If they get their act together, it will make the Builders Reform Action Group, which marched on this House, look like a picnic. There will be a huge number of people bringing their message here, because they are down and this Govern- ment is kicking them while they are down. Question-That the motion be agreed to--put. The House divided. Ayes, 39 Mi Armstrong Mr Greiner Mr Singleton Mr Baird Mr Hatton Mr Smiles Mr Beck Mr Hay Mr Smith Mr J. D. Booth Mr JefFery Mr Webster Mr Caterson Mr Kerr Mr West Mr Causley Dr Metherell Mr Wotton Mr J. A. Clough Mr W. T. J. Murray Mr Yabsley Mr Collins Mr Park Mr Yeomans Mr Cruickshank Mr Peacocke Mr Zammit Mr Dowd Mr Phillips Mr Duncan Mr Pickard Mr Fahey Mr Punch Tellers, Mr Fisher Mr Rozzoli Mr Fischer Mrs Foot Mr Schipp Mr T. J. Moore

Noes, 54 Mr Akisrer Mr Ferguson Mr Paciullo Mr Amery Mr Gabb Mr Page Mr Anderson Mr Hills Mr Petersen Mr Aquiiina Mr Hunter Mr Price Mr Bannon Mr Irwin Mr Quinn Mr Bedford Mr Keane Dr Refshauge Mr K. G. Booth Mi Knight Mr Rogan Mr Bowman Mr Knott Mr Sheahan Mr Brereton Mr Knowles Mr Stewart Mr Carr Mr Landa Mr Walker Mr Cavalier Mr Langton Mr Walsh Mr Cleary Mr McIlwaine Mr Whelan Mr R. J. Clough Mr Mack Mr Wilde Mr Cox Mr Mair Mr Wran Mr Crawford Mr Mochalski Mrs Crosio Mr H. F. Moore Mr Davoren Mr Mulock Tellers, Mr Debus Mr 3. H. Murray Mr Beckroge Mr Face Mr Neilly Mr Wade Question so resolved in the negative. Motion negatived. Harry M. Miller Case-Law Reform Commission Bills-26 September, 1984 1451

HARRY M. MILLER CASE Personal Explanation Mr Greiner; I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Will the Leader of the Opposition give details of the matter he wishes to explain before I seek the indulgence of the House. Mr Greiner: It concerns a genuine error made in Hansard which resulted in the Attcrney General innocently making an attack on me in question time. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Has the Leader of the Opposition the indulgence of the House to make the explanation? There being no dissent, the Leader of the Opposition may proceed. Mr Greiner: Earlier in question time the Attorney General quite innocently and, if I may say so, quite properly in this case attacked me about a statement the Hansard reported I had made yesterday concerning interference in the transfer of a Supreme Court judge. Hansard made an error. The error was due to the inane interjection by the Minister for Youth and Community Services- Mr Walker: Thank you very much. I am glad to be of assistance. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Greiner: What I said in the House referred to the transfer of a magistrate. It has been checked with the tape of Hansard, checked with other transcripts taken, and the Editor of Hansard has agreed it was a genuine error due to the volume of interjections by certain people on the other side of the House. It really is a genuine error by the Attorney General and I make no reflections on him at all. But, given the fact that Hansard will be corrected, it is fair both in respect of myself and the Attorney General to point out that the Editor of Harzsard, Mr Speaker, has indicated he will advise you later.

LAW =FORM COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) BILL DEFAMATION (LAW REFORM COMMISSION) AMENDMENT BILL Introduction Motion (by Mr Landa) agreed to: That leave be given to bring in the following cognate bills: (i) A bill for an Act to amend the Law Reform Commission Act, 1967, with respect to the publication of the reports of the Law Reform Commission, and in other respects. (ii) A bill for an Act to amend the Defamation Act, 1974, to provide, in civil proceedings for defamation, defences in respect of reports, inquiries and proceedings of the Law Reform Commission. Bills presented and read a first time.

Second Reading Mr LANDA (Peats), Attorney General [5.2]:I move: That these bills be now read a second time. 1452 ASSEMBLY-Law Reform Commission Bills

The primary purpose of this legislation is to remove present restrictions on the ability of the Law Reform Commission to publish final reports on major references before they are tabled in Parliament. The current provisions of the Law Reform Commission Act provide that the cornmission is obliged to furnish its reports to the Attorney General of the day for presentation to Parliament. Accordingly, on a strict interpreta- tion of the legislation the contents of a commission report cannot be made public until after the report has been tabled in the House. The commission is often called upon to report on urgent matters of special public interest and importance, and in the Government's view it is inappropriate that public access to reports on such matters should be delayed simply because Parliament is not sitting at the time the report is delivered. Depending on sitting days, such a delay could be as long as four months. The Government feels that prompt release of Law Reform Commission reports is essential to encourage informed public discussion of the issues and recommendations contained in a report. I am sure honourable members will realize that occasions arise when it is important that the Government be in a position to respond quickly to commission proposals, and it is clearly undesirable that the Government should be prevented from properly pursuing the implementation of new measures by the exigencies of the parlia- mentary calendar. Honourable members will note that under the amendments proposed, reports of the commission may only be released before their tabling with the consent of the Attorney General of the day. The revised procedure does not apply to annual reports of the commission, which will continue to be tabled in Parliament prior to their publication. The amending legislation will also ensure that the protection which presently applies to a report that has been tabled in Parliament under the Parliamentary Papers (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1975, will encompass reports released prior to tabling. As honourable members will realize, reports of the Law Reform Commission attract the defence of absolute privilege when they are tabled in Parliament. As the proposed new procedure for the release of reports will result in material being made public before tabling, it is also necessary to ensure that both the Attorney General of the day and the members of the commission are protected from any legal proceedings that might be instituted on the basis of the contents of such a report. Naturally the possibility of such proceedings being instituted is minimal, but as the Act has always purported to provide such protection, the Government determined it appropriate to include this provision. The cognate bill will amend the Defamation Act, 1974 to provide that the benefit of absolute privilege presently contemplated for reports given to Parliament will also apply to reports released prior to tabling. This protection is similar in nature to that already provided by section 17 of the Defamation Act in relation to the Privacy Committee and Ombudsman, and is a necessary corollary to the decision to enable reports to be published between parliamentary sittings. The bills before the House will also clarify the position with respect to the application of the present section 11 of the Law Reform Commission Act. That section currently extends the provisions of the Defamation Act, 1974 to inquiries and reports of inquiries of the commission. However, the precise definition of the reference to reports is not clear and it appears that the section was intended to provide special privilege to reports of the media and others on commission proceedings. In order to restore this protection, the cognate bill repeals section 11 of the Law Reform Com- mission Act and deals with the matter in the Defamation Act. by amendment to the second schedule. Accordingly. publications released in the course of commission pro- ceedings and fair reports of inquiries held will have the benefit of section 24 (1) of the Defamation Act and be considered protected reports. Law Reform Commission Bills-26 September, 1984 1453

The combination of the measures I have outlined will ensure, first, that the contents of reports may be made available to the public for discussion while the relevant issues are current; and second, that the Law Reform Commission will be in a position to conduct its research and investigation thoroughly and unhampered by doubts as to the extent of the protections afforded to commissioners in the conduct of references. Honourable members may be assured that the high professional standards maintained by the commission in published papers will ensure that this privilege is not abused. For the information of honourable members I table explanatory material relating to the bills.

Law Reform Commission (Amendment) Bill Clause 1. The short title of this Act will be the "Law Reform Commission (Amendment) Act, 1984". Clause 2. The Law Reform Commission Act, 1967, is amended as in Schedule 1.

(i) The provisions applying the Defamation Act, 1974, to inquiries, reports and proceedings of the Law Reform Commission, are repealed as a consequence of the proposed inclusion of more appropriate provisions with respect to those matters in the Defamation Act, 1974. (ii) The proposed section 13 (6) provides that the Minister or, with the consent of the Minister the Law Reform Commission, may publish certain reports of the Commission prior to their tabling in Parliament. (iii) The proposed section 13 (7) confers immunity from proceedings other than defamation, such as contempt of court. This additional protection currently applies to a report that has been tabled in Parliament.

Defamation (Law Reform Commission) Amendment Bill Clause 1. The short title of this Act will be the "Defamation (Law Reform Commission) Amendment Act, 1984". Clause 2. The Defamation Act, 1974, is amended as in Schedule 1. Schedule 1 (i) The amending sections provide a defence in civil proceedings for defamation in respect of- (a) The publication, by the Minister or the Law Reform Commission of interim or final reports of the Commission prior to their tabling in Parliament (Schedule 1 ( 1) ); (b) A publication in the course of the proceedings of, or an inquiry held by, the Law Reform Commission or any other publication by the Commission in connection with a reference (Schedule 1 (1) ); and (c) The publication of fair reports of public proceedings of, or public inquiries held by, the Commission (Schedule 1 (2)). (ii) Amendments of a minor ancillary and consequential nature are made to Schedule 2, clause 2 (13) and clause 2 (14) of the Defamation Act, 1974. (iii) The proposed new clause 2 (15) of Schedule 2 of the Defamation Act, brings proceedings in public of, or proceedings in public at an inquiry held by, the Law Reform Commission under the Law Reform Commission Act, 1967, within the definition of "protected report" for the purposes of section 24 (1) of the Defamation Act. Accordingly, such proceedings will attract the defence of a fair and protected report for the protection of the publisher.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Dowd. 1454 ASSEMBLY-Farm Water Storages and Bores Subsidies Bill

FARM WATER STORAGES AND BORES SUBSIDIES (AMENDMENT AND REPEAL) BILL Introduction Motion (by Mrs Crosio) agreed to: That leave be given to bring in a bill for an Act to amend section 5 of the Farm Water Storages and Bores Subsidies Act, 1973, so as to terminate the scheme of subsidy payments established under that Act, and to provide for the repeal of that Act. Bill presented and read a first time.

Second Reading Mrs CROSIO (Fairfield), Minister for Natural Resources [5.6]: I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The main objects of the bill are: to provide for the orderly termination of the subsidy scheme administered by the Water Resources Commission and the Soil Conservation Service; to amend the Farm Water Storages and Bores Subsidies Act, 1973, to provide that subsidies will only be paid in respect of valid applications made on or before 30th June, 1983; to further amend the principal Act to provide that subsidies will be paid only in respect of eligible works completed by 30th April, 1985; and to provide for the repeal of the principal Act by way of proclamation by the Governor on a date to be determined but not before 1st July, 1985. The Farm Water Storages and Bores Subsidies Act was introduced and passed in 1973. The purpose of the Act was to encourage primary producers to improve their onfarm water supplies and increase their ability to resist the effects of drought. By the time the Wran Government took office in May 1976, a total of $2.6 million had been paid in respect of about 12 000 subsidies. This Government has demon- strated its commitment to aiding primary producers to drought-proof their properties by the payment of a further $16.9 million from when it took office until the scheme is terminated on 30th June, 1985. In the period since May 1976, more than 42 000 subsidies have been paid. In 1981 the Government established the government functions task force to examine all the activities and functions undertaken by departments and statutory authorities. In 1982, the task force reported to the Government that it had identified this subsidies scheme as one which had fulfilled its function. The task force recom- mended that the scheme be phased out. The report also stated that the consequential annual savings would be of the order of $0.8 million for salaries and between $2.5 and $4.2 million for subsidy payments. Accordingly, on 7th June, 1982, the Premier announced that the subsidy scheme would be phased out. Subsequently in the Budget for 1983-84 it was stated that funds had been provided for subsidies on applications received up to 30th June, 1983, and that the scheme would be terminated. The current position is that all valid applications received on or before 30th June, 1983, have been approved and the works on all but 330 applications have been completed. Funds have been provided to allow payments to be made this financial year on these re- maining applications. The terms of the proposed amendments provide that approved eligible works must be completed on or before 30th April, 1985. This is to give the prescribed authorities, the Water Resources Commission and the Soil Conservation Service, sufficient time to effect all subsidy payments before the close of the financial year. The repeal of the principal Act will be proclaimed by the Governor soon thereafter. Farm Subsidies Water Bill-Appropriation Bill -26 September, 1984 1455

The proposed amendments demonstrate this Government's determination not to retain legislation which has fulfilled its function and is no longer needed. I commend the bill. Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Singleton.

APPROPRIATION BILL Second Reading Debate resumed (from 25 September, vide page 1404) on motion by Mr K. G. Booth: That this bill be now read a second time. Mr PUNCH (Gloucester), Leader of the National Party [5.11]: Every year since 1976, the Opposition has come to regard with increasing scepticism and contempt the integrity of the document the Treasurer of the day dares to call the Budget. In recent years, the big tax years, the Budget has been nothing more than s document of deceit. It has shed little or no light on the true financial management or taxing intentions of the Government and it has concealed more than it has revealed. In fact, it is not what is in the Budget, but what is not in it that matters most these days. The Wran Government has made it an art form of deceit. How many times have budgets and elections been followed by a spate of unheralded and unmentioned increases in taxes and charges? Take the last election, for instance. There was not a mention in the lead-up to the election of the increases then being planned by the Government, yet within weeks of re-election the Government increased public transport fares by 12 per cent, slugged drivers an extra 33 per cent for their licences, and increased vehicle registration fees by the same amount. The Government then increased milk prices and the price of bread. Many other charges were increased. It was back-door taxation at its worst. This Budget is no different. It tells us only what the Government wants us to know. The worst is to come. In line with its past performance, the Government will now set about rooking the public with another round of increases to raise money to pay for its appalling management of the State's economy. That mismanagement has resulted in the residents of New South Wales being the most heavily taxed people in Australia. That mismanage- ment has resulted in this once leading State in Australia declining in most essential aspects. Our productivity has declined, our exports have been paralyzed by strikes, our competitiveness in relation to other States has fallen behind, our roads have fallen into disrepair, our schools are dilapidated and overcrowded, our hospitals are being closed down and restricted, and small business and the great primary industries are suffering wilful neglect. Water conservation planning is almost non-existent, sand mining has been virtually wiped out, the timber industry is under threat, and thousands of honest, decent, hard working country people have been forced out of productive employment and on to dole queues. All this has occurred at the hands of a Government that has spent much time and energy in legislating for homosexual liberation, discriminatory rights for Aborigines, seven-year bans on doctors and the seizure of privately owned coal rights. It has spent the rest of its time avoiding inquiries into the endless allegations against it of complicity in crime and corruption-inquiries and allegations which have so frequently proved to be correct. And for all of this, the taxpayer is expected to underwrite the Government's incompetence. In return, the taxpayer gets slugged more savagely every time the Government needs more money to finance its folly. 1 do not want to raise at any length in this debate the issue of corruption in the State-corruption which 1456 ASSEMBLY-Appropriation Bill unfortunately exists in high places. The Opposition has a responsibility to pursue the issue of corruption in New South Wales. This State has, over the past eight years, seen the corruption of the Ministry, the police and the judiciary and, without Opposition efforts and the efforts of some investigative reporting, New South Wales would have had people who were not fit and proper persons occupying- Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I draw to the attentioil of the Leader of the National Party and all honourable members the previous decisions of Mr Deputy- Speaker Brown and Mr Deputy-Speaker Cahill: In the second reading debate on the Appropriation Bill, more generally referred to as the Budget debate, the general financial structure of the State is open to consideration. The debate is on Government policy and legislative proposals as they affect that financial structure. Members should deal gener- ally with the finances of the State and Government financial policy. No detailed reference should be made to administrative acts nor should discussion be entered upon in respect of particular items included in the depart- mental estimates. Matters involving detail and administration should be left until the committee stage of the bill. It is at that stage that the more detailed departmental information of the budget papers is discussed, as provided in Standing Order 221. That summarizes the position fairly and squarely. Corruption is not mentioned in any way, shape or form in this bill. The Leader of the National Party may be making only passing reference to it; however, I draw that earlier ruling to his attention and to the attention of all honourable members. Mr PUNCH: Do I take it I am not allowed to debate matters referred to in the Budget? These points I am making-admittedly in passing reference, I do not intend to labour the point at all-are related to matters on page 65 of the Budget. mat is all I am doing, and I ask whether I am allowed to refer to those matters which appear in the Budget Papers? Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I have already ruled that only passing reference should be made to such matters. I will be adhering rigidly to that ruling. Mr PUNCH: Honourable members have experienced on so many occasions protestations by the Premier that members of the Opposition are muck-raking and have no substance to our questions. Yet how often have those allegations been proved to be correct? The Premier and the Government firmly resisted our questions and demands for an investigation into drug growing and distribution in the Riverina-until the death of Donald Mackay. When this terrible tragedy forced a Royal commission, all our fears and suspicions were proved correct. The Premier and the Government firmly resisted any inquiry into Bill Allen's meteoric rise through the police ranks and charges of wrongdoing by him. Allen was subsequently thrown out of the police force in disgrace after an investigation was carried out. The Premier and the Government firmly resisted any inquiry into the Australian Broadcasting Commission allegations into the perversion of justice, but when public pressure forced an inquiry, we saw the former chief magistrate charged and a former senior sporting administrator convicted of trying to interfere with the courts. The Premier and the Government firmly resisted any inquiry into charges over the abuse of the early release scheme, but again, public pressure forced an inquiry- a Minister was stood down and other persons involved were also committed for trial. There have been such abuses of the judicial system that the case even arose where a judge of the Supreme Court was appointed to head a so-called judicial inquiry set up with kangaroo court rules, and was asked to investigate certain happenings involving a senior political opponent of the New South Wales Government and a senior and Appropriation Bill-26 September, 1984 1457 experienced journalist who had also been critical of the Government. That judge delivered what was regarded far and wide as a political judgment, a judgment which, had there been any avenues of appeal, would have certainly been thrown out by any other court or judge in the land. The whole sordid episode reflected nothing but discredit on the Government and on the judge concerned. The Governmcnt has con- tinually tried to cover up these and so many other wrongdoings by its own Ministers or by its friends. Only yesterday, honourable members witnessed yet another example of the Government's scurrying for cover and gagging debate on a censure motion of the Attorney General for misrepresenting the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr Briese, and for misleading Parliament. There is no doubt that the Attorney General misled Parlia- ment and misrepresented the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate, and effected yet another cover-up. The Government promised a debate, but then withdrew its undertaking because it was frightened of the result. It was frightened that not one Minister among all the lawyers on the Labor Party front bench was willing to stand up in the House and defend the Attorney General. The Premier, who has defended crooked cops, suspect members of the judiciary and other well-known people of doubtful repute- many of whom are now being named in the Costigan Royal commission-was not willing to utter one word in defence of his own Attorney General, who had mis- chievously and deliberately misrepresented Mr Briese and misled Parliament. The actions of the Premier and the Attorney General were quite despicable over this whole episode- Mr Langton: On a point of order. I submit that matters raised yesterday in the House are not relevant to the Budget delivered last week. Mr Punch: On the point of order. I had been making only passing reference to that issue, which I have now concluded. Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the National Party may make only passing reference to the matter. Mr PUNCH: I could go on at length about corruption in this State, but this debate is about the Budget, so let me return to the matter of mismanagement. Since 1976, the Wran Government has increased taxes and charges relentlessly. The tax take from payroll tax, stamp duties, petrol tax, financial institutions duty, land tax, gambling tax and licences has increased in that period by an average of 164 per cent. The split-up in that period shows that the heaviest increases have been in licence fees of all descriptions, up 345 per cent; stamp duties, up 225 per cent; gambling tax, up 128 per cent; and payroll tax, up 150 per cent. This has been done by the so-called low-tax Premier, the Premier who soft-soaped the electorate by announcing he was committed to keeping taxes and charges down and that no Labor government with which he was associated would continue to plunder and rook the taxpayers. Just look at the performance of the Labor governments in the taxing arena. In the period from 1981-82 to 1983-84, State taxes increased by 40.2 per cent in Victoria, by 29.5 per cent in New South Wales, by 26.7 per cent in South Australia, and by 33.1 per cent in Western Australia. By comparison, the tax growth in the non-Labor States of Queensland and Tasmania was a mere 5.7 per cent increase in Queensland, and 10.3 per cent in Tasmania. The Government will say that this is only because Queensland and Tasmania are mendicant States; but so are South Australia and M'estcrn Australia, and they receive much more money per hcad from Canberra. Though I agree that this is so up to a point and New South Wales should receive a better deal, this situation has existed for many many years and Labor never supported the Liberal Party-Country Party eflorts for a better deal in the 1960's and 1970's. The clear evidence is that Wran and Labor are committed to high taxes. 92 1458 ASSEMBLY-Appropriation Bill

High taxes and charges have a counter-productive effect upon employment, upon commerce and industry and upon the individual. Our standard of living suffers and our incentive and motivation are suppressed. The Wran Government's propensity for high taxes, shorter working weeks, sweetheart deals with unions and neglect of private enterprise and small business adds up to a recipe for disaster. This Government has set new levels of Government interference, red tape and overregulation of com- merce and industry. Employers in New South Wales, more than in any other State in Australia, are heavily burdened with an excess of regulations and restrictions as to what they cannot do and a surfeit of licences to obtain before they can do anything. Red tape is the hallmark of this Government. If it is not telIing employers and individuals what they cannot do, it is telling them what they must do to restrict productivity and limit profitability. Overregulation of the business sector and of our private lives has become intolerable and unbearable in New South Wales. Labor oncosts have been allowed to increase to the point where employers see little point in carrying on and the only way to survive is to retrench staff and cut back productivity. In the three-year period 1981 to 1983, oncosts have added enormously and unfairly to the cost of production. For instance, the cost of labour has increased by 38.6 per cent in that period, but oncosts have increased by 67 per cent. In the same period, workers' compensation costs have increased by 122 per cent, long service leave provision by 240 per cent, superannuation payments by 145 per cent and payroll tax by 60 per cent. This is in addition to the increases in penalty rates, allowances, annual leave loading and non-productive paid time, not to forget shorter working weeks and the Government's deals with key unions. The outrageous demands of unions, which seem to receive sympathetic hearings from the State Government and the courts, invariably result in decisions that directly cost jobs. The selfishness of the unions and the ineffectiveness of the State Government have contributed most to the general decline of New South Wales as a thriving, virile manufacturing and exporting State. I want to say more on the unions later. Free enterprise, particularly small business, is being crippled in Mew South Wales by a Labor Government unwilling to break free of its union movement shackles and unable to create an atmosphere of healthy growth. Despite Labor's denigraton and ridicule of former head of Treasury, Mr John Stone, he spoke with revealing truth when he said that the fixing of minimum rates of pay was preventing the employ- ment of many thousands of young people. We in the National Party have been drawing attention for some time to the urgent need for governments and unions to break free of the need to continually impose regulations on work hours and rates of pay. We in Australia are prisoners of the five-day week and the penalty rate mentality. The Premier professes to regard unemployment as the State's major problem; he campaigned last election on jobs, jobs, jobs, and yet he continues to permit a system which makes it more comfortable for those with jobs and further excludes those without jobs. Unions, through the courts and the State Government, have regulated employment to the point where having a union job is tantamount to belonging to a closed club. If you are in, you are in. If you are out, you will stay out because wage rises, penalty rates and labor oncosts are forcing a contraction of the work force. This restrictive situation will continue unless governments do something dramatic to reverse the unemployment trend and to generate a freewheeling atmosphere of confidence and economic growth. The answer is in deregulation.

We need to create jobs, and the way to do that is to introduce a seven-day work- ing week40 hours to be worked regardless of what days are worked-with no penalty rates, holiday loadings or other similar repressive and unproductive oncosts. This needs to be accompanied by the freedom of employer and employee to negotiate a voluntary wages agreement, with the necessary safeguards against exploitation. The result would Appropriation Bill-26 September, 1984 1459

be sensational. Hundreds of thousands of jobs would be crcated overnight. The United States of America, with the benefit of deregulation and a minimum of union influence, has creatcd more jobs in the first two months of this year than the Euro- pean Ecoiromic Community creatcd in the past 14 years. In the twenty years from 1950 to 1970, the American economy created just under 20 million new jobs. In the ten years to 1980, the American economy created an additional 20 million new jobs. Despite suffering its worst post-war recession in the past few years, the United Statcs of America cconomy created a further 1.5 million new jobs. The new jobs have not been creatcd in the manufacturing industries where union membership is high and wages are high. In fact, there are no more workers in manufacturing in the United States of America than there were in 1947. The new jobs have developed in the smaller service industries, not the manufacturing giants.

The service industries in the United States are not strongly unionized and they are not overbound by regulations. A virtual free market exists in wages, hours and trading times. The service industries have been the strength of the American economy. The employment miracle has occurred because the service industries were allowed to grow unfettered by restrictive conditions and regulations. The same can happen in Australia-in New South Wales-if governments give business a break. Until govern- ments-all governments-free industry from regulations and cease to regard industry as a major source of income, Australia will continue to lose markets, jobs and income. Until all governments move to eliminate the costly duplication that occurs within and between departments and, indeed, the various levels of government itself, then our whole economy will slowly strangle itself. In addition to deregulation, small business needs relief from the State Government's ever-increasing taxes and charges. Payroll tax is a tax on jobs. In the 1983-84 financial year, payroll tax yielded the State Govern- ment in the vicinity of $1,300 million, including revenue from the 1 per cent supple- mentary tax introduced in 1981 by the Prenlier as a temporary measure but still there. Because the State Government has failed to sensibly adjust the threshold levels at which payroll tax becomes payable more and more small businesses are bccoming liable to pay the tax. The State Government should adjust the threshold to protect small business and it should increase the numbcr of employees who can be employed before payroll tax is payable. Small business desperately needs relief from workers' compensation prcmium rates which, because of State Government inaction, have been allowed to increase to unrealistic levels. A survey of labour oncosts conducted last year by the Metal Trades Industry Association in the metal and engineering industries, shows that workcrs' compensation as an oncost was two and a half times greater in New South Wales than in Queensland-and that was before another 30 per cent increase in New South Wales premiums from December 1983. Now charges in New South Wales are 225 per cent higher than those in Queensland. Queensland, which could teach the Wran Government a lot about keeping taxes down and proper econon~icmanagement, is the only Australian State with a single insurer system for workcrs' compensation. The State Government would do well to study closely the Queensland system in order to bring New South Wales workers' compensation insurance premiums back to realistic levels. Nothing in this Budget indicates that the State Government recognizes the problems of business or employment in any area other than the western Sydney area. The latest insult to many country people was the Premier's recent announcement that the Government would accelerate the provision of financial assistance to private industry and commcrce under the western Sydney business development fund. He revealed that more than $2 million would be provided in the 1984-85 financial year for assistance of private industry and commerce establishment, expansion and relocation 1460 ASSEMBLY-Appropriation Bill in the western suburbs by way of loans, grants and subsidies. There can be no argu- ment about the need for special assistance to the high unemployment pockets in the western suburbs. The Premier has claimed the Government's special assistance has reduced unemployment in the western suburbs with a fall of 19 per cent, or 8 756 persons, in the three months ended 30th June.

Though unemployment in the western suburbs is severe, it is much worse in many parts of country New South Wales, particularly in the North Coast region, which has the highest percentage of unemployment in the State. Despite this, the State Government has not seen fit to spend a dollar extra in special assistance to help the country unemployed. It had no difficulty in finding more than $2 million to spend this financial year in the western suburbs, but not a cent extra for the country. The same story exists with regard to the special housing programmes that the Premier took pride in announcing. Special housing funds were found to provide unemployment relief in the worst hit areas, as well as much-needed housing. Where did all the money end up-Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong and the areas in between. Again, not a cent extra was made available for the country, where housing shortages are chronic and waiting lists are at record levels. So far as this Government is concerned, the unemployed in the country areas can look after themselves.

Of particular concern is the fact that there is nothing in the Budget that indicates that the State Government recognizes the special place of the great primary industries in the State's economy. In the eight years since this Government took office, there has been an unbroken period of neglect of the rural sector. The Government has pursued a policy of plundering the primary industries for revenue whenever thc opportunity arises. Repeated increases in State taxes and charges have seriously retarded the ability of most of the primary industries to continue to operate to their limit and to remain keenly competitive on oversea markets. Only this week, wc have witnessed another mass protest by primary producers against State Government charges-this time by irrigators who have been told their rural water charges will increase arbitrarily by 22 per cent, and licensed pumpers have had their charges increased by 32 per cent-taking the overall increase in the past three years to 60 per cent. In the week before, we saw mass meetings of wheatgrowers across the State calling on the State and federal governments for relief from freight rates, fuel taxes and tariffs on imported farm machinery.

The State Government's taxes and charges have been particularly hard on the wheat and coal industries, both of which have been caught in the crossfire of falling world prices and increasing production costs. Every action of the Government which demands that industries pay more for their power, water, freight, insurances and labour, means an erosion of the ability of industry to maintain productivity and employment, and to compete on world markets. One of the biggest problems facing the coal industry is the cost of freight. It is worth noting that the State Rail Authority charges twice as much a tonne as the South African railway for the cartage of export coal. The average cost per tonne of transporting coal from the key South African mines to the export terminal, a distance of 580 kilometres, is $8 a tonne. However, for a much shorter distance of 100 kilometres, the average cost in New South Wales is $9.50 a tonne, and for distances more than 350 kilometres the cost soars to $18 a tonne. It must concern everybody also that we are closing down coalmines and putting miners out of work simply because of our cost structure.

By reducing our export price by a matter of $3 or $4 a tonne, we could have secured large export orders recently and thereby have kept many people in jobs. Instead, mining companies are being forced to put OR miners and to reduce their working weeks. I have personal knowledge of two recent cases which, but for our lack Mr Punch] Appropriation Bill-26 September, 1984 1461 of competitiveness, would have resulted in the sale of up to one million tonnes of New South Wales coal, one order to China and the other to the Philippines. The order to China, for 50 000 tonnes of coal a month for two months, and most likely for twelve months, has gone to Queensland because Queensland could export it more cheaply-not by any great amount-just $1 or $2 a tonne. The other order, to the Philippines, could still be available to New South Wales if the Electricity Commission of New South Wales were to offer a more competitive price for a total of 350 000 metric tonnes of coal. But the commission wants $52 a tonne for its stockpiled coal and Queensland looks like offering it for $48 a tonne, with the added advantage of reduced sea freight. The Elcom stockpile will continue to lie at grass near the mine, and will continue to grow, because the commission is not willing to negotiate a reasonable price to get rid of its surplus production.

There can be no argument that if we injected more keenness into our efforts to export our coal, a lot of jobs would be saved. It seems a great shame that the New South Wales Government does not possess the necessary entrepreneurial skill or the necessary free enterprise spirit to recognize that we have to become more competitive and stay that way if industries are to survive and if jobs are to be preserved. The rural industries are the ones that have suffered most under the Wran Government. The wheat industry is facing one of its most serious crises, the most serious in fifty years according to those involved in the industry. Much of the difficulty being faced by the industry centres on Government-inspired oncosts, such as grain handling and storage charges, electricity charges, fuel excise, vehicle registration, freight rates and workers' compensation premiums. They are combining to price our wheat- growers out of the international market.

Some of the facts include the gross revenue earned by the Grain Handling Authority since 1979-80 has increased by 127 per cent, or $77 million. In general, rail freight rates have increased by 300 per cent and are continuing to increase. Electricity charges being paid by primary producers have increased by 68 per cent, compared with the national average of 57 per cent. Since 1978-79, port charges have increased by 110 per cent. Though costs have increased, world wheat prices have fallen and the average income of wheatgrowers during the past three years has been $14,256 compared with the average Australian male wage of $19,000. That $14,256 does not take into account that the primary producer works at least double the number of hours worked by the average wage-earner; nor does it take into account any return on the value of his investment in his property and plant.

The wheat industry and its importance to New South Wales should not be underestimated. The latest figures show that in the 1982-83 year, there were 15 603 farming establishments in New South Wales producing, on average, 5.3 million tonnes of wheat. This brings into the State's economy at least $860 million-a figure certainly significant in terms of State trade and one which any State government should be keen to encourage and develop. However, growers have become increasingly concerned with the continual increases in farm costs which they are forced to bear and are unable to pass on. In the past, producers have survived by increasing efficiency, and agriculture has become much more capital intensive. Unfortunately, the increased productivity of the agricultural sector has not been matched by im- provements in other sections of the economy. As a result of government policy, both federal and State, primary producers are worse off now than they have been at any time for many, many years. It is becoming increasingly obvious that New South Wales producers are more disadvantaged than their counterparts in other States. Bureau of Agricultural Economics charts clearly illustrate the worsening situation in the rural sector. They show that since 1979 farm costs and prices paid by farmers have increascd at a rate consistently higher than increases in the consumer price index. 1462 ASSEMBLY-Appropriation Bill

There are no signs that this situation will change to any degree in the near future. BAE figures show the long-term trend is downwards in prices received to prices paid by farmers. It is therefore increasingly obvious that if these trends continue farmers will not be able to continue in the business of producing export income. This should be a matter of the gravest concern to the Government of New South Wales and yet, it seems, it is regarded as yet another example of whingeing from the bush.

It is galling for wheatgrowers to listen to the Minister for Agriculture telling them their concern is purely the result of some stirring by agro-politicians looking for an issue. I challenge the Minister and the Premier to produce one scintilla of evidence that the mass meetings recently held at Moree, Gilgandra and Narrandera-attended by 2 500 concerned wheatgrowers-were anything but a genuine call for help by good, honest, hard working Australians looking right down the barrel of destruction. The trouble is that the Premier and his Minister simply do not understand, nor do they care, about the fate of country people and rural industries. Wheatgrowers feel they deserve some concessions from the State and federal governments. They con- tribute enormously ro the economy and for their effort they are continually dis- advantaged through increases in taxes and charges, more than in any other primary producing country in the world. In every other instance, the governments of those countries encourage and assist their primary producers. The recent meetings sought help from the federal and State governments. The help required is not dramatic in terms of government generosity, but would make a huge difference in the industry's ability to withstand current pressures upon it. The wheatgrowers want the abolition of all taxes and excises on farm fuel used in primary production; the abolition of sales tax on fuel used in wheat production; an end to the 15 per cent tariff on imported harvesters: and a reduction of 10 per cent in wheat freight chargcs. These are not unreasonable demands; they are demands that could save our most important State export industry from collapse.

The meat industry has not escaped Ihe rmal industries crisis. At least 1 000 jobs in the meat industry have been lost in New South Wales in the past few months as abattoirs across the State close down. Again, four main contributing factors have com- bined to put the abattoirs out of business. They are: electricity charges, water charges, freight rates, and workers' compensation rates. Huge increases in meat inspection chargcs have severely damaged our export markets. Freight rates for meat have increased by up to 150 per cent since 1979, and workers' compensation rates have increased more than 100 per cent for meat works in the past twelve months. Since the late 1970's, when the State supported thirty-four abattoirs, nearly 60 per cent of them have closed down and today only fourteen are left. with some of those very shaky. Apart from a depressed world market for beef. the reduction in stock numbers became of drought and the general recession, the Statc Government's part in increasing the financial burden of all sections of the meat industry through higher taxes and charrres has brought the meat industry crisis to a head. Those increased taxes and charoes have not been restricted to the mining industries or the wheat and meat industries; they have also had an impact on the wool industry. Fortunately, the wool industry is one of the nation's most stable industries and one of our most important export income earners. Nevertheless, increased freight rates, fuel taxes, port handling charges and other charges have combined to put extra strain on the wool industry.

It is imperative that the State Government ad immediately to reverse the trend it has followed of hipher and hisrher taxes apd charoes. It must we the wisdom of providing relief to the primary ind~~stricsso thev can recover thrjr viability and so begin to rebuild and re-crnploy the many thoilsands of people who have been displaced. The Government's rccord in managing our dairy industry and our egg industry is one Mr Punch] Appropriation Bill-26 September, 1984 1463 that is headed directly towards a breakdown of the orderly marketing in both mdustries. A lack of concern by the Government for all producers in both industries could well see them put back thirty years to the days of shortages and rationing for the consumer, and bankruptcy or great hardship for the producer.

The Government's total disregard for the future of the primary industries is epitomized in its failure to pursue any water conservation programme. Droughts are a recurring and inevitable feature of Australia's climate, and the conservation of water --our most precious asset-demands that governments of the day place the highest priority on the construction of water conservation projects. Sadly, the Wran Govern- ment does not possess any appreciation of the need to make better use of our limited water resources. The Minister for Natural Resources in this House only recently showed the total lack of knowledge of the Government when she tried to be smart while announcing the contract for the major work on Split Rock Dam. I would remind members that Labor has been in government in this State for more than eight years and this is the first dam to be commenced for agricultural needs in that time- really not a record to be proud of or smart about. In trying to reflect on the Oppo- sition, the Minister said, "I defy honourable members opposite to name one major water conservation project for which they have been responsible". Is not the giant Copeton storage a major work? It was started in 1968 by the Liberal Party-Country Party Government and finished in 1976, the year the Liberal Party-Country Party Govern- ment was defeated. Are not Windamere, Keepit and Wyangala dams all classed as major storages? They were all started by Liberal Party-Country Party governments, which is surely the most reasonable comparison, as the approval is the most important step for any project. If the Minister tries to take the credit for these works, I would remind her that the Keepit Dam was commenced by the Liberal Party-Country Party Government, and when the government changed, it took Labor nineteen years to finish the work. By comparison, Labor started the Blowering Dam-a much larger work-in 1964, one year before the government changed, and it took the Liberal Party-Country Party Government only three years to finish it. The records show that, of the seventeen storages existing in New South Wales today for the needs of agriculture, twelve were commenced by Liberal Party-Country Party governments and five by Labor Party governments. Of the five started by Labor one, Menindee Lake storage, is purely for the needs of South Australia under the River Murray Agreement; one, Glennies Creek Dam, is for the needs of the power stations in the Hunter Valley; one, Burrendong Dam, took Labor twenty years to complete; one, Blowering Dam, was built mainly by the Liberal Party-Country Party Government; and only one major work, Glenbawn Dam, was startcd and finished by a Labor government. Of the twelve dams built by Liberal Party-Country Party governments, some may be small, but they are much appreciated by the landholders on the various rivers, some being situated in high rainfall areas, and on shorter rivers, that do not need large storages as are needed over the Great Dividing Range. The Minister, with her rather unfortunate lack of knowledge, refers to Lostock as undersize and insignificant. In trying to be smart, she said that it remained filled during one of the worst droughts experienced. For her information, we did not have a severe drought on the coast in recent years, as did the major part of the State, and in such a high rainfall area the dam serves an extremely useful purpose to maintain supply for many productive properties along the rich Patcrson River in other dry years. The Minister should alsil try to tell the farmers and the councils who benefit from this and other small dams that they are only fishponds. I am sure their response will be one of contempt for her and of appreciation to the Liberal Party-Country Party governments by whom the dams were constructed. 1464 ASSEMBLY-Appropriation Bill

The Minister's thinking only exemplifies the Labor Party's attitude to water conservation. She is wrong in principle and wrong in her facts. Nothing in any budget brought down by this Government would please primary producers more than an indication that the Government understood the rural sector and had policies aimed at fostering and promoting the rural industries. Such, of course, is not the case. Country people have learned not to expect any co-operation or help from the Govern- ment. Another matter that has to be mentioned in the Budget context is the great damage being done to primary industries by strikes in key industry areas. Recently there was a strike within the Grain Handling Authority over the issue of fostering. The complete and utter selfishness of those Grain Handling Authority employees, who were earning up to $1,200 a week, was the basis of the dispute. They did not want to allow more people to be employed, for it would have reduced their overtime and penalty payments. The result of that dispute was to tie up more than one million tonnes of export wheat, involve the Grain Handling Authority in enormous demur- rage costs, and deprive the State Rail Authority of freight revenue. More significant, New South Wales has now lost important export markets because, while strike-bound wheat remained locked in storage, other wheat suppliers, keen to do business, took our markets.

The recent train strike is still fresh in people's minds. The damage that sense- less and stupid strike by bloody-minded and callous unionists caused is beyond cal- culation. But what a treacherous and low act it was by those unionists to bring on their lightning strike on the first day of the school holidays, thus depriving many thousands of children and their parents of the enjoyment of a holiday together. No words can describe the resentment and betrayal felt by many families who had been looking forward so much to their holidays but were denied them by irresponqible unionists. All honourable members will recall also that on a number of previous occasions union officials have called similar strikes in either the railways or the airlines at the time of school holidays, Christmas, or Easter. Those strikes were called at those times to cause the most disruption to further unionists' own demands-never considering thc interests of the public who are so inconvenienced.

Honourable members will remember the power blackouts when a few super- visors, many of them earning $50.000 to $60.000 a year, were holding the State to ransom, and the State had power rationing and blackouts. In the winter, in the cold, many elderly and many young were subjected to hardship, inconvenience and possibly death because of those selfish and inconsiderate actions. Strikes by transport workers associated with the oil industry or other oil industry workers are occurring repeatedly to inconvenience motorists. Teacher strikes, called so often by the selfish and radical Teachers Federation, hurt only the kids and cause inconvenience to the children and their parents. For so-called professionals to act in this way only does great harm to the image of the important teaching profession.

Every time a traveller flies into Newcastle airport over the Stockton beach, he will see the wreck of a fuel tanker which, after being driven aground in a cyclonic storm, was refloated until the tug operators went on strike, let it go and watched it drift back on to the beach, full of oil. What stupid, irresponsible people would ever allow such a thing to happen? How milch longer will we in Australia allow these ratbag standover unions to dictate to the nation-dictate in such a way that they are inconveniencing the public, losing important overseas markets, costing tens of thous- ands of jobs, increasing priccs enormously, destroying productivity and generally wrecking our whole economy? Their actions are causing our standards of living to decline, by world standards; unemployment lists to grow, particularly for young people; the economy to be greatly damaged; and our whole future to be put into question. Appropriation Bill-26 September, 1984 1465

In a country with the rich natural resources that Australia has, it is incredible that the union movement as a whole docs not have a good look in the mirror and take action to stop such activities. When one is critical of the unions or their leaders, it is usual for those unions or members of the Labor Party to cry union bashing. I am not trying to bash any unions, but I think it is time someone started to take a firm line against those irrespon- sible unions and unionists who put their own selfish interests ahead of their fellow-man and the country as a whole. As a nation Australia cannot compete on world markets for om products unless some sanity is restored to the demands by the unions. We have earned a bad name throughout the world as an unreliable supplier, because industrial unrest has upset either the production or the transportation of our goods- particularly coal, wheat and meat. I wonder how many miners who have been laid off or are about to be laid off consider that the companies who are laying them off are being forced into closing down production because of loss of markets, often because of industrial unrest, or because wage demands, together with government charges, have priced the companies out of many of their markets. Clearly, though union leaders and some unionists themselves are to blame for most of the industrial trouble, it is fair to say that obviously the mechanism for solving disputes and demands is quite inadequate. The arbitration and conciliation courts lack the power to satisfy the demands of those involved, and governments, all govern- ments, in the past and present have been unable or unwilling to step in and eliminate, or at least minimize, the troubles. Personally, I firmly believe that had Mr Fraser, when first elected in 1975, confronted the union movement and said that he had been elected to govern, not the unions, he would have received the support of most Aus- tralians and would still be in office today. Certainly he would have had the support of most ~inionists'wives and, I am sure, of many unionists themsclves. Had he done so, I have no doubt that the national economy would have been stronger than it is today, unemployment numbers would have been much lower and industries, primary and secondary, would have been much stronger than they are. I firmly believe that, until we get rid of many of the unions and eliminate demarcation disputes, until they are all under one government-and I think that must be the federal Government-and until the governments of the day are prepared to stand up to them, then as a productive nation, even with unlimited natural resources, Australia can only go backwards. This Budqet will do nothing hut perpetuate the neelect of New South Wales shown over an &year period by the Wran Government. But those years of neglect have caught up with the Government. The long list of broken promises and the failure to recognize small business and the primary industries as the backbone of the State's economy make a mockery of the Premier's claims that New South Wales is now in better shape than for many years. In every respect, New South Wales is in much poorer shape than it was in the period lcading up to 1976. This Budget is nothing but a fairy-talc. It marks the beginning of the period in which the State Government will set about introducing the real budget-the tax increases and the new charges-the thinzs that were not mentioned in this Budgct, but which should have been mentioned. [Mu Deputy-Speaker lejt the choir at 6 p.m. The House resunzed at 7.30 p.m.1 Mr R. J. CLOUGH (Bathurst) 17.301: It is probably fortunate that I should have the opportunity of following the Leader of the National Party. With other mem- bers 1 listened for some 45 minutes to what was almost an Address-in-Reply speech. Rarely did the Leader of the National Party touch on the Budget. He used almost his entire time to attack the trade union movement. The approach of the Leader of the National Party and all of his colleagues has been that penalty rates must go 1466 ASSEMBLY-Appropriation Bill and that longer hours must be worked for less pay. This, he said, would create more jobs. That is a fairly simplistic approach. If penalty rates go, longcr ho~lrsarc workcd and less money is paid to the working man, in 99.9 per cent of cases the employers accrue a bigger profit. I have never seen any evidence that because working people, accept less pay for a particular job, more jobs will be created. That is a fallacy and always will be. One has only to examine-as I have in my electorate, which can be classified, I suppose, as semirural-the number of representations that are made by people working in the farming sector. They come to me and tell me of the outlandish and atrocious conditions under which they are employed. Many are not paid award rates; many never get the holidays they are entitled to; many are not covered for workers' compensation; and many work under conditions that they should not be required to work under. The conditions are often industrially unsafe and frequently, in the bush the situation exists where they say: "The boss is not a bad bloke. I will help him out". This goes on and on. The argument put forward by the Leader of the National Party that the solution to all our problems is the abolition of penalty rates and that less pay should be taken by the working man to create new jobs is a fallacy. The Budget presented by the Treasurer last week is the first of a number of recovery budgets for New South Wales and is in line with the recovery in the federal sphere. There is no doubt that the income and prices accord implemented by the Hawke Labor Government has had a direct bearing on the situation as it applies in New South Wales today. Of particular interest were some of the commcnts made with regard to the costs incurred by the coal industry. The coal industry forms a vital part of my electorate. I am constantly in discussion with coalowners on the question of costs incurrcd by them. It is unreal to expect any government to bear the difference between the cost of producing coal in New South Wales-or anywhere in Australia for that matter-and the cost of producing it in South Africa or North America where coal can be won cheaper than it can be produced in Australia. This nation will never and should never mine, transport or ship coal under the conclitions existing in South Africa. A situation should not arise in our country that would compare with the massive unrest that seems to occur regularly in that nation. Rail freight also was mentioned fairly extensively by the Leader of the National Party. The rail freight situation in New South \.i7ales has been brought about directly by the neglect of the rail system that occurrcd prior to this Government comi~gto oflice. It will take a long while to overcome that neglect. Thc Government hos been in office for eight and a half years and it will probably take another six and a half years to pull the system out of the trough it has been in and get it operatiny properly. It would have been impossible to shift the massive wheat harvest of last year and to shift the tonnage of coal that is being exported out of coalmining districts had it not been for the huge injection of funds by the Government into the New South Wales rail system. It is a further fallacy to say that freight and other rail charges are too hioh. After all, in New South Wales the whole of the infrastructure for the railway system is provided by the Government. Quite often New South Wales is compared with Queensland. However, in Queensland, coal companies are buying unit trains and are making a contribution towards the upkeep of rail tracks; yet they are still being slugged with high freight rates.

A claim has been made that Government charqes in New South Wales are roo high. Charges in New South Wales are comparable with charges in all other States. Each State through its system of taxation is limited in the areas in which it can introduce measures to acquire revenue. The Treasurer referred to the sources from .which the New South Wales Governmcnt acquires funds. State taxation will account for only 40.64 per cent of the Consolidated Fund in 1984-85. Other receipts from State sources amount to 13.27 per cent. So only 54 per cent of the funds to run the massive Mr R. J. Clough] Appropriation Bill-26 September, 1984 1467 business of the New South Wales Government comes from State taxes and other receipts. Federal government funds provide the remainder from tax sharing grants and other Commonwealth payments and allocations for Commonwealth-State works. An inlcresting point about funds and their origin is that the much maligned tax, payroll tax, accounts for 44.46 per cent of the income of this State. Members of the Opposition have criticized this Government frequently about payroll tax, but the fact is that payroll tax was introduced by the Opposition when in government and has been maintained by successive governments ever since. If something is not right, the way to cure it is to make alternative suggestions. At present it has not been possible to do so. Plenty of criticism has been levelled about how the Government is going to raise funds. There are limited sources available to State governments, and payroll tax is one of those sources. Other funds are obtained from stamp duties and death duties. Turning to the effect that some of the individual allocations will have on various portfolios, I note that thc allocation to the Minister for Transport is $331.4 million. An allocation of that magnitude deserves some comment. The Government will contribute $123 million towards rolling-stock, buses and ferry leasing, but there are other huge outgoings that are part and parcel of the way of life that has emerged in Australia over a long period. A contribution of $17.5 million has been made to the Government railway superannuation account. The next item is the cost of fare concessions for pensioners, schoolchildren, students, unemployed persons and others, and this is a massive $120 million. The subsidy for transport for the disabled is $1.8 million. The cost of freight rebates on the cartage of wheat and wheaten products, wool and other freight conces- sions is expected to be $24 million. The farmers of New South Wales will receive a freight subsidy of $24 million, with a special contribution to cover the cost to farmers of freight rate increases as a drought relief measure expected to cost $12.8 million. My area will benefit, in that $7.4 million is to be allocated to meet the cost of equalizing freight rates for western areas export coal through Port Icembla and Bal- main. That amounts to a massive contribution by the New South Wales Government to the continuation of steaming coalmining in the Lithgow Valley and to the main- tenance of employment in that district. For a number of years the coal industry in the Lithgow Valley has been depressed. When this Government came to office it realized that coal would become a saleable commodity throughout the world. It speedily rectified the rail system between the coal fields and the coal loaders in this area, and lately it has given recognition to the fact that some subsidization of the industry will occur. The Government has allocated $7.4 million to assist the coal industry in my district. I deal again with a matter that affects country people. The Minister for Agri- culture and Fisheries has been allocated $121.9 million in 1984-85 for the require- ments of the Department of Agriculture and the Soil Conservation Service. It is interesting to note where this money is spent and to find out why the farming areas of New South Wales cost so much to maintain. An amount of $21.5 million has been allocated for research into crop diseases, pests, nitrogen fixation in soils and other applied rcsearch, including safety and quality standards for fertilizers and cereals. The Government has introduced these initiatives to make farming more efficient, to help the farmer and to ensure that the best use is made of that rapidly diminishing com- modity-good farm land. In recent years the tendency has been to subdivide good farming land into hobby farms. Also in recent years the Forestry Commission has tended to use good farming land for the planting of pines-a move that I stead- fastly oppoqed. I believe that a halt will be brought to the further subdivirion of good farm;iijr land and that it will not be frittered away until the stage is reached where we are looking for additional lands to farm. 1468 ASSEMBLY-Appropriation Bill

An amount of $18.8 million has been allocated for plant industries programmes concerned with pastures and all field and horticultural crops. This amount includes $4.2 million for the regulation of plant imports, involving quarantine procedures, and plant exports, involving quality control. An amount of $1 1.9 million is to be allocated for advisory services, including educational programmes at agricultural colleges. Those services should be provided because the farming industry requires that the latest tcch- nology and thc latest advice be available. An amount of $30.2 million has been allocated for animal health and production, $8.7 million to meet the operating costs of State Fisheries, and $15.3 million to enable the Soil Conservation Service to con- tinue its programme for the prevention and mitigation of soil erosion and the reclama- tion of eroded lands. Soil erosion is a major problem in country arcas. It was a prob- lem in particular towards the end of the recent drought, as most of the growth that retained the soil had withered and died and had been blown away. Some areas suffered because of huge reductions in their average rainfall, and erosion became a major problem. In the areas further to the west of my electorate, large gulfs developcd in the farmlands as a result of that natural disaster. I turn now to an area in relation to which the prcsent New South Wales Govern- ment has done a magnificent job. There is probably some room for improvement, but improvements can be carried out only according to the funds available. I refer to the field of education. Despite the fact that overall enrolments are expected to fall in 1984-85, provision has been made for the appointment of an additional 437 teachers, making a net gain of 297 teachers. The proposed deployment of the additional teachers is outlined under the heading "Education" in Budget Paper No. 2 issued by the Treasurer. I note that 225 teachers will provide further relief from face-to-face teach- ing in primary schools as from the beginning of the first term in 1985. Representations were made about this mattcr to various members of the Parliament by the Teacher$ Federation. I am pleased to note that that number of teachers will be made available to provide relief from face-to-face teaching. I note with interest also that thirty teachers will be provided to permit flexi- bility in applying teacher staffing formulas. I have never been able to understand why the Department of Education has always adopted the formula whereby a school with 210 pupils, for instance, is entitled to 7 teachers but a school with 211 pupils is entitled to 8 teachers. I have never been able to understand why the allocation of teachers has been so arbitrary and why the staff establishment for a particular school could not have been set. As the number of pupils increases marginally, the appointed staff could deal with that situation. As the number of pupils falls, the teachers would have more time to spend with individual pupils. I have never been able to understand why the department does not have a set staff establishment in those circumstances. This blunt statement appears in the Treasurer's Budget Papers: The Government has continued to improve its services in Special Education and there were 2 476 teaching positions in 1984. In my area there is a need for more teachers of handicapped children, slow learning children, poor readers, and so on. I refer honourable members to a particular case that came to my notice in Lithgow recently of a 14- or 15-year-old youngster who is exceptionally intelligent and who plays all sports well cannot read. His mother brought him to sec me. We gave him a little test by asking him to read a part of a news- paper. It was pathetic to see this bright young boy attempting to read an ordinary newspaper. I have pursued the matter through the regional ofice of the Department of Education in Bathurst and through the Lithpow High School, which the youngster attends. I am not satisfied with the way in which the matter has been handled by either the regional ofice or the high school. First of all, they need to understand that this child has missed the boat as far as education is concerned. He has not been Appropriation Bill-26 September, 1984 1469 able to progress in his reading from the third or fourth class standard. From that point on he has progressively got further and further behind. The attitude adopted now is that he must stay at school to get his school certificate. It will not be worth a crumpet to him if he cannot read. Mr Wade: He must have bad eyesight. Mr R. J. CLOUGH: No, he does not have bad eyesight. The first thought was that he had something wrong with his eyesight or that there was something wrong with his mental processes. It was thought that he might be a dyslectic child or something like that, but that was not the case. Instead of following some of the fancy trends that are appearing in the education field these days, we may be well advised to allocate more teachers to special education to teach those children who are mildly handicapped and those who are severely handicapped. In Bathurst a teacher is shared by the Kelso Primary School and the South Bathurst Primary School. That means that the time the teacher takes to travel between the schools is lost time. The working time of the teacher is reduced probably to about 70 per cent or 80 per cent, and of course very little is achieved. The mother of one student I have in mind has been extremely active in relation to this matter. She has pestered the daylights out of me, has been to Sydney to speak to at least one former Minister for Education, and I would be sulprised if she does not seek to speak to the present Minister. The budget for the Department of Education will ensure that education services in New South Wales will continue to improve. The Budget provides almost $2 billion for hospitals and other health services under the portfolio of the Minister for Health. Despite the previous federal Government's withdrawal from health funding to a large extent in New South Wales, fairly tight management practices of the previous Minister for Health, and carried on by the present Minister for Health, have tended to make New South Wales public hospitals more emcient. Many hospitals had adopted the atti- tude that unlimited funds were available and therefore those funds were spent need- lessly. Other health services and hospital projects that were undertaken could have bee11 dolie without. The previous Minister for Health bit the bullet. He became most unpopular, but he took the necessary steps to improve the system. The former Minister's policies are being carried out by the present Minister for Health to ensure that the best value is obtained for the health dollar. At one stage every small hamlet and small village scattered throughout New South Wales districts was in need of a district hospital. They are not so necessary today, for most small towns are within 10 minutes to 15 minutes travelling time to a general city hospital. The time is fast approaching when we shall have to consider the need for hospitals in the smaller country towns. I was pleased that the Central Mapping Authority, which comes under the administration of the Minister for Natural Resources, has been allocated about $11 million. That authority is one of the Government's most successful enterprises in my electorate. The authority turns out first-class work and is manned by energetic and enthusiastic staff. The authority is making its way as a commercial proposition within the administration of the public service. The authority is paying its way and doing much better than it was prior to a review of operations carried out by the Public Service Board about two or three years ago. In the short time left to me in this debate I wish to speak about the improve- ment that has taken place in police and emcrgency services. Only a few weeks ago an editorial in my local newspaper mentioned that New South Wales had become the haven for criminals and was a place where all the criminals came. It was said the New South Wales police force was inefficient and its officers issued with inefficient equip- ment. The facts belie that now. When the Labor Party came to office there were 1470 ASSEMBLY-Appropriation Bill slightly more than 8 000 police officers in the New South Wales police force. Since that time more than 2 000 police officers have been appointed to the force. The system of promotion has been changed so that bright young policemen prepared to study to obtain the necessary qualifications and who show an aptitude in the various branches are promoted. I cannot imagine a police ofliicer being enthusiastic about a system knowmg that before he can be promoted to the senior rank another police officer has to die. That position must have affected many young policemen coming up through the ranks. They saw sergeants and commissioned officers in charge who were not as good policemen as they were. The New South Wales Government has acknowledged the need for more policemen in New South Wales. One hundred police officers will be appointed in addition to the 485 the Government announced earlier this year would be appointed, lifting the strength of the police force to 10532 officers. Recruitment has been commenced for 210 police officers to form antitheft squads. I am thanldul that country areas have not been subjected to the large number of thefts that have occurred in the metrcpolitan area. People have always asked why more police officers are not on the beat. I am not a strenuous advocate of police on the beat. By the time that a police- man walks or runs to the scene of a crime the criminal has gone. I believe that the system the Government is exploring of making the Police Department better equipped, giving officers better facilities and making them more mobile, is the way to combat crime. I support the Minister for Police in the methods he is adopting. The Treasurer said in his Speech that the employment of staff taken over from the Riverina College of Advanced Education, together with some additional casual residential house services staff, will service the new residential police academy at Goulburn. I am pleased that the academy is now located at Goulburn as it will benefit the area. At one stage there was talk that the academy should be located at Bathurst. Next year the Mitchell College of Advanced Education at Bathurst will commence nursing training education. The allocation for the portfolio of the Minister for Youth and Community Services and Minister for Housing will be increased by 16.2 per cent this year over the previous year's allocation. The allocation will be a massive $208 million and every cent of that is needed. In the western suburbs and some country towns there is a need to prop up the individual who is finding it difficult to manage. As family life disintegrates for a number of reasons, families split up, and mothers are left with children to look after, the Department of Youth and Com- munity Services must be adequately funded to deal with the crisis in which many people find themselves. It would be remiss of me if I did not pay a tribute in this speech to two fine district officers in my electorate. They are two of the best Youth and Community Services officers that it would be possible to get. Every representation that I make to them is treated sympathetically. If there is any way they can meet a request for assistance, they will do so. I commend the oficers of the department at Bathurst and Lithgow and their stags. Over the years they have understood the problems of people they were dealing with and acted quickly to assist them and lcssen the hardship they suffered. No doubt some people rip off the system and p!ay the bond money system right down to the last dollar. We will strike that situation wherever we go. No doubt in some areas people benefit from the system, but sooner or later officers of the department say that enough is enough, and the people playing the system miss out. The wide range of services provided by the department throughout my electorate has been of great benefit to many people. The Budget presented by the Treasurer has been condemned by some Opposition members as a socialist budget. That derisory term was used by the Opposition. I make no apologies that it is a socialist budget. My party's socialist approach has benefited Appropriation Bill-26 September, 1984 1471 people who have lived in this State and nation for many years. Australia is recovering from the effects of the recession and a serious drought. The weak in the community have to be helped by the strong. The person who is in a position to contribute to the finances of a State or nation should be willing to accept some form of responsibility for providing for those who cannot help themselves. Help is needed in other areas of social need, for example, housing. The Government is tackling the housing problem vigorously and eventually will solve it, but that improvement will be slow simply because the number of people seeking housing assistance is continuing to grow. I congratulate the Minister for Youth and Community Services, for he administers a well run department. I commend the Appropriation Bill. Mr BAIRD (Northcott) k8.01: The Daily Telegraph in its editorial of 19th September concerning the State Budget stated: Last night's State Budget can best be described very simply . . . balanced, boring and begrudging. In conclusion the editorial stated: The Treasury currently holds a record amount in cash reserves, some of which will be spent on specific tasks, but the balance means there was scope for real tax cuts in this Budget. However, the Government did not make real tax cuts. It should be remembered that in framing this Budget the Government was in a much different position than it was in earlier years. Because of the general economic upturn, the end of the drought and the impact of very rapid increases in State taxes and charges in recent years, Treasury balances are in a very buoyant situation. According to the Government's own statement, Treasury cash balances stand at $1,260 million. Part of these funds are already committed, but still it can be asked why there was not some real attempt at tax relief. Instead, the Government chose the traditional path, increasing expenditure with only a cursory review of State taxes. The overall result is a Budget very much like the present Government-pedestrian, unimaginative and tired. Moreover, most of the details of the Budget had been announced beforehand by the Premier-much, we understand, to the chagrin of the Treasurer who found himself left with little of interest to say. In its expenditure areas we can see the shocking indifference of this Government to the business sector; an area, I remind this House, where jobs are created. This indifference is clearly shown in the meagre assistance given to business, $12.4 million to technology, $6 million to small business and $24 million to country industries. At a time when the very existence of many small businesses as well as manufacturing companies is threatened, it is an indictment of this Government that such a paltry level of assistance has been offered to the business sector. By contrast, $32 million has been allocated to the Darling Harbour bicentennial project, $64.9 million to the arts, and $100 million to the environment. Manufacturing industries in New South Wales are in crisis. Unless positive steps are taken to arrest this decline there will be significant loss to the State by way of jobs, employment skills and technological advantages. It is time the New South Wales Government took the initiative, reducing the taxation and costs burden for manufacturing companies located in this State, and providing real incentive for new companies to relocate here. To spend so much of the Government's funds in non-revenue producing areas is a very short-term approach to the serious economic problems confronting the State. However, my focus in this speech will be related specifically to the revenue side of the Budget. The taxes applicable in this State are a hotchpotch of ineffective, difficult to identify, regressive imposts that cause problems for small business, large business and for every taxpayer in this State. They are regressive in that they affect the average workingman in this State. This Government claims it looks after the average working- man yet much of the State's taxation is drawn from gambling, liquor and tobacco franchise licences, traffic fines, car registration costs and stamp duties. Moreover, payroll tax impacts on the capacity of many unemployed to find a job. We need taxes that are clearly identifiable, equitable, fair and non-regressive. The possibility of re- placing all State taxes with some type of general sales tax has been discussed by the federal Constitution Committee and should be applauded as a much more appropriate way of raising State taxation. Of course, this would require Commonwealth Govern- ment agreement but a rationalization of taxes is long overdue. There should be that long-term objective from this Government rather than it playing at the margin with a very ineffective and inefficient form of taxation. However, the record of the Government is quite clear. Since Labor came to office in this State in 1976, taxes and charges in New Souih Wales have increased by 170 per cent. Between 1976 and 1984 taxation per head in New South Wales increased from $315 to $785. Moreover, per capita, people living in New South Wales pay 62 per cent more than people living in Tasmania, and 51 per cent more than Queenslanders. New South Wales has the dubious distinction of ranking first, on a per capita basis in Australia, in matters of payroll tax, land tax, gambling, stamp duties, fees and fines, liquor and tobacco franchise fees and petrol tax. In New South Wales, petrol tax is 8.4 per cent, the highest in the nation. It is worth noting that Queensland has neither petrol tax nor tobacco tax. For a govern- ment that complacently boasts of its restrained economic management the following increases, in actual money terms, in key State taxes highlight the way in which the State has been subjected to excessive taxation since the Labor Government came to office in 1976. I shall consider the individual taxes.

Between 1976-77 and 1984-85, stamp duty has risen from $267.3 million to an estimated $841 million, an increase of 215 per cent; land tax rose from $1 12 million to $215 million, a 91 per cent increase. Payroll tax rose from $584 million to $1,435 million, a 145 per cent increase; gambling rose from $202.3 million to $498.4 million, an increase of 146 per cent; fees and fines rose from $34.8 million to $93.4 million, an increase of 168 per cent; liqour licence fees rose from $50.6 million to $1 27 million, an increase of 109 per cent; tobacco licence fees rose from $31.2 million to $81 million, an increase of 159 per cent; mining royalties rose from $45.6 million to $115 million, an increase of 152 per cent; and fees for State ~nstrurnentalitiesrose from $20.9 million to $93.2 million, a 345 per cent increase. These figures clearly show the track record of this Government as being the most punitive taxing government in the history of New South Wales. This Government fails to consider the impact of all these taxes and charges have on business and on every resident of the State. It is not surprising that the Business Review Weekly of 8th June provides details of companies and entrepreneurs who are leaving this State to set up operations in Queensland or off-shore. The article stated: What is certain is that the rising unrest threatens to cause a funda- mental realignment of business balance between the States, with entrepre- neurs showing themselves ready to vote with their fcet and move to those States where the operating costs are more conducive to business . . . with a consequent loss of jobs to this State. At the moment, the positive pole in the magnet for entrepreneurs appears to be in the north, with a grassroots movement of small to medium business to Queensland.

In fact, Queensland has become a tax haven for Australia since it abolished death duties, causing other States to follow suit. Queensland recently moved to abolish the 0.06 per cent duty on share transfers on the Brisbane Stock Exchange and was Mr Baird Appropriation Bill-26 Septcmbcr, 1984 1473 obliged to back down only because of the normal antibusiness stand of the New South Wales Government, which, instead of simply removing the tax, threatened retaliatory action. Of particular interest is the way the Government treats the coal industry, with its continual increases in taxes and charges. Coal is indisputably our major resource and, instead of creating the right econonlic environment in which coal producers can compete internationally, the Government continues to impose punitive taxes and charges. In the three years from 1980 to 1983 the consumer price index rose by 34 per cent, but during the same three years one major coal and coke producer in this State faced the following increases in New South Walcs Government charges: rail freight, 82 per cent; Port Kembla loader charges, 266 per cent; wharfage, 104 pcr cent; royalty, 70 per cent; and electricity, 96 per cent. This company has indicated that although the New South Wales Government is not the only government to increase its charges sharply in recent years, so far as the company is concerned its operations in New South Wales have suffered the steepest increases. Is this the same Government whose Premier stated only in July that its most important priority would be to create the right economic environment for the creation of jobs? The coal industry is in a critical situation, with export sales prices in many cases being below the cost of production. It is time this Government moved from excessive royalties and highly inflated charges to a profits related tax which would be strictly tied to a company's ability to pay, rather than an ad vnlorern production related tax. Instead of building a strong economic base for our resources in the future, the Government is taxing some of our coal mines out of existence. Recently the Premier promised rclief to the coal industry, advising companies that, because the Government would be providing substantial taxation and rail freight relief, mine closures and the lay-off of workers would be unnecessary. However, the only con- cession in the Budget was the promise not to increase this year's already inflated freight rates, and the provision of a meagre $6 million subsidy to meet the formula- based adjustment in rail freight. The coal industry in this State is in serious trouble. Many high cost under- ground mines are on the verge of collapse due to the State Government's excessive taxes and charges. The New South Wales producers' share of new markets has been falling steadily from 55 per cent in 1970 to about 20 per cent today. In this Budget the New South Wales Government should have undertaken a comprehensive review of all taxes and charges on the coal industry with a view to creating a competitive and growing export industry. New South Wales rail charges for coal on a tonne per kilometre basis are currently the most expensive in the world. They are about 8c per tonne kilometre, compared with 6c in Queensland, 3c in the United States of America, 1.6~in Canada and 1.5~in South Africa. Because of the severe problems created for the coal industry by State taxes and charges New South Wales rail freights should be reduced by at least $3 per tonne, and royalties should be reduced by $1 a tonne. Reductions of this magnitude would result in a competitive and growing New South Wales export industry. The Govern- ment stands condemned for its total neglect of the needs of the coal industry. For short term revenue gain, it is selling short the State's long tcrnl economic future. In turning attention to the revenue side of the Budget it is important to comment on the Treasurer's statement that there will be no increase in the rate of State taxes. However in his Budget speech the Treasurer stated: Tn keeping with long acceptcd policy of adjusting fees and other charges to keep pace with cost increases, there will be some increases in departmental charges. 93 That is surprising because there was no mention of this long-accepted policy in previous Budgets. Moreover, prior to the Budget, drivers' licences, learners' permits, car registra- tion and car transfer fees were increased up to 50 per cent; public transport fares increased by 8 per cent to 13 per cent, and water rates increased in rural irrigation areas by 22 per cent. The major disappointment in this Budget is that despite the opportunities for the Government to make significant taxation reforms, at a time when the economy is buoyant, it has failed to take the initiative and has merely played with the edges of two of the State's taxes. The Government focused on minor changes to land tax rates to show it had made some reforms in the taxation area. As honourable members all know, land tax was becoming a political thorn in the Government's side. It was the most iniquitous of all the State taxes and was, in reality, a de facto wealth tax. However, it hits hardest those who are far from wealthy: those with holiday homes on the north or south coast, pensioners and those who have bought houses or land out of Sydney in anticipation of retirement. Such has been the rapid escalation jn land values and inflation in recent years that many more thousand owners of land have been swept into the land tax net. The level of increases in land valuations has been so steep that land owners have often been hit by increases of between 500 per cent and 2 000 per cent. What about the supposed reforms? First, the fact that the land tax will be higher for those who have land valued at more than $150,000 clearly indicates the falseness of the Government's claim that there will be no increases in taxation in the Budget. Second, total land tax collections are estimated to increase from $189 million in 1983-84 to $215 million in 1984-85, which is an increase of $26 million or 13.8 per cent. The Government has the audacity to boast of major reductions in land tax and yet will increase taxation in real terms by over 7 per cent. Third, despite the claim of the Government that reductions in land tax will benefit 80 per cent of taxpayers, the major source of land tax revenue is from businesses with properties over $150,000 in value. Once again, this Government shows its anti-business orien- tation, and creates further tax burdens for its favourite milching cow. The impact of land tax increases on this sector will undoubtedly result in higher costs for office, factory and warehouse rentals. The plan to freeze land values for land tax purposes at 31st December, 1983, values for one year is also worth examining. In many ways the freeze is a con, as only one-third of land owners will receive any significant benefit from this change. Values are reassessed every three years, with the timing for increases varying across the State and, as the Government well knows, only one-third of land owners receive valuations in any year. Moreover, as the most rapid increases in land values occurred before December 1983, freezing land tax charges on the basis of land values at December 1983 is much like closing the gate after the horse has bolted. The plans announced by the Government in the Budget to develop this year a formula to enable smaller, more regular adjustments of land values, appear to be signally another of the Government's sleight of hand tricks. Smaller, more regular increases in values will probably mean more tax paid, as land values carried out on an annual basis will shift the land owner into higher tax brackets more quickly.

The new tax scale rises rapidly, and benefits soon disappear. At $60,000 the tax rate is 0.5~for each dollar, but rises to 2% for each dollar over $70,000. If the rates remain the same, the landholder of a block currently valued at $60,000 will be at least one and a half times worse off, given a 10 per cent increase in the value of the land. Much will depend on whether the tax scale is adjusted at the end of the one year freeze. At current rates and inflation levels, land valued at $60,000 Mr Baird] Appropriation Bill-26 September, 1984 1475 at 31st December, 1983, would have a tax liability on the new scale of $75. How- ever, on the assumption that land is increasing in value at 10 per cent per annum, the Valuer General would value the property at $72,600 in the year ending 31st December, 1983. Assuming the new tax rate scale applies and is not increased, land tax payable for land held at 31st December, 1985, would be $290, which would represent an increase of 386 per cent. Such is the sham of the supposed current reductions in land tax. Land owners of lower valued properties are able to live for a short while in paradise, but they proceed faster to hell. In its editorial on the Budget, the Telegraph stated: The other supposed tax concession last night, land tax, was also more a matter of words than of real financial justice. The fact that 80 per cent of people currently affected will pay less land tax is heartening, but inflation will do the work. Although a "tax relief", the exemption level of $55,000 remains and unless this is raised, more property owners will quickly become liable for land tax. In summary, cuts in land tax are an illusion. The Government has provided a tax concession or reduction of $8 million in 1984-85, which represents only 3.7 per cent of the total land tax to be collected in 1984-85. Overall the Government is to receive an increase of 13.8 per cent in revenue from this source; taxpayers will face an increase in land tax on land valued at $150,000. Details are not provided on how the new formula, designed to provide for more regular adjustments to land values for land tax purposes, will work, despite the Government's announcement six months ago that it was looking at the whole question. One does not know whether the taxpayer will face a savage increase when the one year ends. By contrast, the Opposition believes the Government should have lifted the tax threshold rate to $100,000, reviewed the actual taxation rates, exempted non- commercial properties, and allowed payments to be made in quarterly instalments. In addition, family trusts should be given normal exemption rate levels, rather than be required to pay full rates as is currently the case. During times of rapid escalation in land values, the Opposition would recommend that the Queensland formula be adopted. The Queensland legislation was introduced into Parliament last year and allows for the phasing-in of substantial land valuations over a maximum period of five years. Where the new value that would otherwise apply for land tax purposes is in excess of 150 per cent of the old value, during the phase-in period the valuation will increase each year by 50 per cent until the new value is reached. Where the total increase is greater than 250 per cent, the increase in valua- tion each year will be one-fifth of the total value increase. The Government stands con- demned for its failure to implement meaningful changes in the area of land tax. Turning now to payroll tax, a substantial lifting of the threshold rate was required to assist small business, but the Government only moved with a halfway measme, failing again to address the real needs of small business in this State. The main problem is that the payroll tax reforms do not go far enough. No one would sugg?st that payroll tax could be abolished overnight, as it provides 40 per cent of current tax revenue, but certainly the changes in the Budget are nothing more than a shsm. Payroll tax collections are estimated to increase from $1,313 million in 1983-84 to $1,435 million in 1984-85, which is an increase of $122 million or 9.3 per cent. Again this shows the duplicity of the Government by their claim that they have undertaken significant cuts of payroll tax, but at the same time, will be receiving an increase of $122 million in tax revenue. The revenue lost based on the old exemption level would be $10 million, which represents only 0.07 per cent of 1476 ASSEMBLY-Appropriation Bill

forecast receipts from payroll tax in 1984-85. Some tax cut! By comparison, even Scrooge would be seen as a generous benefactor. Moreover, the increase in the threshold does not come into effect until 1st January, 1985, which is three and a half months away. One can see the urgency that this Government attaches to the need to assist small business, and provide jobs in this State. It is no wonder that the business community has come to the conclusion that this Government does not really care. Comparing the new threshold level with thresholds in other States clearly shows the way in which the Government of New South Wales lags behind the field in tax reform. The threshold rate applying in South Australia is $200,000, in Victoria it is $215,000, in Tasmania it is $250,000 and in Queensland it is $252,000. Only Western Australia and the Northern Territory fall marginally behind New South Wales in threshold levels. Moreover, Victoria and New South Wales have a 1 per cent surcharge on payrolls above $1 million. This was introduced by the New South Wales Government three years ago as a temporary 20 per cent surcharge. There was no indication as to when this surcharge may be removed. The Premier's words at the economic summit that jobs, jobs and jobs were the three main priorities for Australia, show that his actions do not match his rhetoric. Payroll tax is a tax on jobs, and at a time when one in four young people in this State are out of work and one in ten adults, it is a tragedy that this Government has not taken the initiative and eased to a much greater extent the payroll tax burden on employers. Small business, which is overregulated, overtaxed and overcontrolled, needed some tangible form of support in this Budget. Modest changes in the payroll tax exemption levels do not deliver the assistance required. The editorial in the Daily Telegraph on 19th September is particularly telling. It comments: Payroll tax is another area which experts feel is the greatest single disincentive to the recruitment of new staff by the small business sector. Although there was a token effort at raising the payroll tax exemption level, the reality is that an extra $122 million will be collected through tax this year. The changes in the financial sector are welcome, but are long overdue, and will cost the Government very little in terms of revenue foregone. These changes include the abolition of stamp duty on the transfer of mortgage-backed securities, and the transfer of all corporate debt instruments. However, if the Government wishes to enhance Sydney's position as the finance capital of the South Pacific, it is difficult to understand why it did not follow the example of Queensland and exempt from stamp duty all share transactions instead of forcing Queensland to back down. The relative small cost in terms of revenue foregone would be insignificant in terms of its value as a signal to the financial community that the New South Wales Government meant business. The financial institutions duty remains a thorn in the banking community's side. Of course, those organizations which wish to avoid the tax have re-organized their affairs so that accounts are established in the Australian Capital Territory or Queensland. However, the average member of the community is still hit with this tax slug, which shows the nonsense of the Government's claims that it wishes Sydney to be a major world banking centre. Another area the Government should examine to ensure Sydney remains the major Australian financial centre would be the changing of the Securities Industry Act to enable an index options market to become established. The Government should provide legislation to enable the establishment of a secondary mortgage market, and ensure greater efficiency on the part of the Corporate Affairs Commission, especially in relation to its ability to issue licences, and approve pros- pectuses and trust deeds. Mr BairdJ Appropriation Bill-26 September, 1984 1477

Gambling taxation continues to exploit the working man in this State. New South Wales collects twice as much in gambling revenue as any other State. This amounted to close to $500 million last year and will be even more this year, due to increased returns from racing, Lotto, poker machines, and the introduction of video poker machines. It is not surprising that returns from State lotteries and Footy TAB are decreasing given the increased competition from mid-week Lotto and the variety of attempts to win the gambling dollar in this State. The State lotteries also need to review the returns from conventional lotteries and instant lotteries if they wish to retain their market share. The level of dependence of this State on the gambling dollar as a source of revenue is of concern, especially with the continuing proliferation of gambling forms in New South Wales. There was also no mention in the Budget of the problems of policing tobacco and petroleum sales, especially in the north of New South Wales, where conservative estimates indicate that millions of dollars in tax revenue are being lost through supplies being obtained from Queensland. For the motorist in New South Wales it was not a good Budget. Motor Vehicle registration certificates taxes have been increased, with revenue expected to increase by 12.6 per cent and fines by 11.1 per cent. Already, New South Wales has the highest levels of fines of any State in Australia. No mention was made of the $2.5 billion outstanding liabilities in meeting State superannuation commitments. This level of debt exposes the compounded problems of only a partially funded superannuation scheme. If the Government had employed external managers of superannuation funds and allowed the fund to invest at eom- mercial rates, the returns would have been 5 per cent to 6 per cent greater and, in real dollars, provided $200 million which the Government would not be required to find. More prudent economic management would assist the Government in providing some of the improvements in the scheme sought by the public service, such as retirement at 55 years. Finally, I would like to refer to the question of financial reforms. While the move to programme budgeting is to be applauded, there is tremendous potential for large cost savings to be made through developing greater cost efficiencies, management by objectives programmes and greater accountability by department beads to achieve more effective economies of operation. Significant savings have been made by the Thatcher Government through a thorough economic review of Government operations. The British Prime Minister stated in an economic progress report dated June 1984: Savings have been made by improvement in efficiency, greater use of new technology, by cutting out unnecessary work and by privatization and contracting out. Productivity gains have been made, sometimes hand on hand with improvements in levels of service. The British Government's objectives in its programme were, first, to seek to ensure that only necessary work is done in Government departments, and that continuing work is performed as efficiently and effectively as possible, and second, to transfer to the private sector tasks which can best be undertaken there. By comparison, however, how token are the meagre efforts towards efficiency of this Government! The rhetoric is included in the Budget, but there is no action plan as to how these efficiencies are to be achieved. A more efficient State public service could undoubtedly produce the savings necessary to make the significant tax cuts so sorely lacking in this Budget. In conclusion, the Government has produced a pedestrian, unimaginative and totally predictable budget. Expenditures could be accurately forecast even before the Budget was delivered. However, long hoped for reforms in taxation were not forth- coming. The Wran Government has taken the definite decision to take the high tax road. Total tax concessions of $18 million are an insult to New South Wales 1478 ASSEMBLY-Appropriation Bill taxpayers compared to the total tax collected of $7,941 million. They represent a total savings of 0.2 per cent. While there have been some positive features in the Budget, the Government's failure to make meaningful cuts in taxation must be con- demned as a failure to show the type of economic leadership so badly needed in New South Wales. Mr BECKROGE (Broken Hill) C8.301: Honourable members have listened to Opposition members carry on about alternative budget measures. I have listened to the speeches of members of the Opposition, including that of the Leader of the Opposi- tion, and have yet to be enlightened as to what they would do differently. [Interruption] Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Davidson to order for the first time. Mr BECKROGE: The interesting thing is that Opposition members brought up all the worn-out shibboleths of a lost cause, a lost dogma, of something that has failed. One member even had the temerity to quote John Stone, former head of the federal Treasury. If ever an Australian public servant went out in a great whimper, it was John Stone. I do not know how much he contributed to the Treasury and the welfare of Australia, but he certainly contributed much by his resignation from the Treasury. When the Labor Party came to office in Canberra it was mooted that it would get rid of John Stone; but it did not get rid of him. [Interruption] Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I ask honourable members wishing to con- verse to do so outside the Chamber. Mr BECKROGE: I preface my remarks on the Budget by saying that mern- bers on the Government side have listened patiently for an Opposition member to put forward a creditable alternative to the Budget, not that for one moment we thought it possible. Indeed, it proved impossible, because we have heard the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party trot out their usual diatribe, abusing and accusing the Government of all the skulduggery in the world. Indeed it was necessary for you, Mr Deputy-Speaker, to direct the Leader of the National Party to address himself to the financial affairs of the State and not carry on about corpora- tion allegations. What I and other members on the Government side want to hear is how the Opposition's alternative budget would have been different. [Interruption from gallery] Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I direct the attendant to remove from the gallery the person who is interjecting. I inform persons in the public gallery that they must observe the standards of behaviour laid down by this House. Any person interjecting will be removed. Mr BECKROGE: Thank you, Mr Deputy-Speaker; I did not know that my speech would be so controversial. What I was saying was that members on the Govern- ment side have been waiting for those so-called experts who put themselves forward to the people of New South Wales and Australia as managers of the State, to tell the House how their budget would have been different. They have been unable to do so. In March this year the people of New South Wales told the Government to get on with the job it was doing. I must say that the electorate of Broken Hill, which covers 40 per cent of New South Wales, is happy to have his Labor Government for the Budget means jobs to them. In the short time available to me I want to point out how the Government is trying to make good on the welcome emergence from the recession. Appropriation Bill-26 September, 1984 1479

The depth of the recession has prevented emergence from it as quickly as the Govern- ment would have liked, but certainly New South Wales is coming out of that recession. The policies of the Government, as manifested in the Budget and in the framework of the Labor Government, will push that recovery along. One of the most important ways of pushing the economic recovery along is to create demand; to create in the community an expectation that things will get better; to create in the community confidence that there will be adequate supply of goods and demand for them. With the demand for goods comes the necessity to supply goods. The whole philosophy of the Budget is to get the economy moving. It is not based on the nonsensical suggestions of Liberal Party and National Party members. They suggest very blithely that the Government should be cutting taxes. Not for one moment do they explain how the goods and services could be paid for if the Govern- ment adopted their suggestions. No, they explain nothing like that; they just want tax cuts. Mr Cavalier: In the next breath after they call for tax cuts they list their laundry demands. Mr BECKROGE: As the Minister suggests, they have not got their act to- gether. They want their cake and they want to eat it too. Unfortunately, when one sits down and considers budgets, one finds that that is impossible. The people of New South Wales have decided that the Government has tried and is continuing to try, regardless of corruption allegations and all the rest of it, to put New South Wales on a sound economic footing. It is to that matter, not all the peripheral matters, personal matters and issues that go to members' families, that the Government has given its attention. This Budget is about facts, about getting things moving and creating jobs. It is about providing buses, trains, ferries and roads. That is what upsets the Opposition; they come into the House and carp about things, but they do not understand. They think they can throw mud all the time and not try to be constructive. I have yet to hear one constructive prouosal from an Opposition mem- ber in the Budget debate. They do nothing but carp. The people of New South Wales should understand what Opposition members are about-they are unable to put forward credible alternatives. On behalf of my electorate I want to say that the Budget provides a sound economic basis for the coming year. I welcome it, particularly the capital works programmes outlined. The Government has maintained a substantially accelerated capital works programme during the past year, during the height of the recession. Studies of the multiplier effects of capital works show that for every $1 million spent on capital works, thirty jobs are created as a direct result. If one takes that point further into the indirect ramifications of capital works, it will be seen that the $1 million spent on those works creates between forty and fifty jobs. The effects vary according to the type of capital works being undertaken, for example, from about sixty jobs in toto for every $1 million spent on freeways to about ninety jobs in toto for every $1 million spent on building maintenance, irrigation works, and water supply and sewerage. The heavy capital works undertaken by the Government in the past year-not to mention the sustained programme for next year-have therefore main- tained an additional 30 000 people in employment, many of them in the manufactur- ing and service industries. That is the record and the programme of this Government. The Government is creating work for the people. Of course, the creation of an additional 30 000 jobs is a major contribution to the maintenance of long-term emdoy- ment in this State, for those additional jobs represent 1.2 per cent of the work force. The total capital works expenditure of $4 billion last year is supporting. directly and indirectly, more than 220 000 people, or 12 per cent of the State's work force; that is, 1480 ASSEMBLY-Appropriation Bill

12 per cent of the New South Wales work force is being supported by Government action. CO-ordination of the State's capital works programme has improved with the establishment of the capital works unit, and contracts are being closely monitored for their employment and expenditure impact. Particular efforts have been made to undertake works in areas badly hit by recession. I refer particularly to Wollongong and Newcastle. I appreciate that honourable members push for improvements in their own areas, but I feel for the people of Wollongong and Newcastle. The people of my electorate sympathize with the people of Wollongong and Newcastle who have suffered from the unemployment that occurs when industries put off large proportions of their labour forces. I should like to remark also on what the Government has been doing in under- taking new works on roads in my electorate. This is a highly labour intensive operation. Honot~rablemembers would be no doubt aware that my electorate takes in a large area of the State, including Bourke, Brewarrina, Cobar, Wilcannia, Nyngan, Menindee and Broken Hill. I point out that in the coming year $5 million will be spent on most important projects involving the Barrier Highway between Nyngan and Broken Hill. Various works on road widening and rehabilitation, as well as pavement maintenance, will take place on that long roadway between Nyngan and Cockburn on the South Aust- ralian border. The main significance of that allocation of course will be improved road- ways for traffic, but in addition, those in en~ploynlentretain their jobs. Those new works will employ extra people. Out in the areas I represent there is little diversification of industry. The electorate relies heavily on mining and pastoral industries to provide jobs. The allocation of money for road works in the electorate will provide a boost to local economies. The people of my electorate are not interested one bit in allegations and perfidy in this Parliament; they are intercsted in getting work on road gangs, in jobs, because those jobs support families and the road works will bring visitors who will spend money within the electorate. Mr Cavalier: And ensure that their schools are adequately staffed. Mr BECKROGE: That is correct. The Minister for Education has done a marvellous job in the six months that he has held the education portfolio. I wish the Minister well for the future, as do those in my electorate. The Minister is addressing himself to the staffing of schools in my electorate, as well as the important capital works programmes, which create employment. I am pleased that the Government has taken 011 the project of replacing the old wooden-structured bridges over the Polygonum Swamp and the Darling River Billabong at Bourke. The sum of $1.2 million has bcen allocated for their replacement. The bridge over the Polygonum Swamp has been in existcnce since the year dot and had collapsed to the stage where the pave- ment dropped about 30 feet and no transports could traverse the bridge. The $1.2 million allocated for the reconstruction of these bridgcs is most welcome. One of the biggest projects in the northwest area of the State is the east-west road linking Bourkc to Narrabri. That has been a long-term project and has involved many shires outside my electorate. The sum of $2 million will be spent on the road bctween Bourke and Walgett. I am particularly interested in the money that will be spent on the road between Brewarrina and Bourke in my electorate. It will cost about $820,000. In the Barwon electorate the Walgett to Brewarrina section of road will be allocated $1.2 million. That money will be well spent and will produce an important east-west link. 111 the past, roads in that area have not been given priority. I pay tribute to the former federal Government, which instigated the bicen- tennial road programme. I pay tribute also to the present federal Government for its continuation of that programme and for making money available for it. The road betwecn Bourlte and Brewarrina probably is not important when one takes account of the number of vehicles that use it, but it provides an important link to persons living Appropriation Bill-26 September, 1984 1481 in isoiated areas across the State. I am pleased that the Bangate Bridge in the electorate of Barwon will be replaced. That project will cost $270,000. Last year the bridge was damaged by floods. It provides a major link in the route between the east and west of my electorate. The Government's public works programme provides for new works to be commenced in Cobar. These include the upgrading of 7 kilometres of the Barrier Highway between Cobar and Wileannia. The sum of $260,000 will be spent on widening the pavement of the Nyngan Road east of Cobar. The allocation of these moneys means more than just the completion of the works; it will also create employment. I do not know how many jobs these projects will create, but they will be welcome to the communities that I represent. It is pleasing that the Government will continue the construction of the bridgcs and the approaches over the Talyawalka flood plain and the Darling River Aood plain that run into Wilcannia. Governments have spent millions of dollars trying to create a road between Sydney and the west via the northwest through Dubbo, Nyngan and Broken Hill to Port Augusta. There is a difficult section of about 4 or 5 kilonietses known as the Darling River and Talyawalka flood plains that is being gradually upgraded. New bridges are being constructed. It is a long-term project that commenced in 1978 and will not be completed until 1988. I am pleased that $1 mil!ion will be spent on that project. The Central Darling shire will wclcome the $1.5 million that will be made available to carry out improvements to the Barrier Highway between Cobar and Wilcannia. The capital works programme for roads provides for $120,000 to be spent on pavement widening and road seaIing at Menindee. The Menindee road is an arterial highway between Broken Hill, Menindee and Ivan- hoe. The $120,000 allocated will qo some way to providing a better surface on that road. The sum of $1.2 million will be spent on the Barrier Highway between Broken Hill and Cockburn. This is an important road. It is one of the roads that takes traffic between South Australia and New South Wales. As a long-term programme, that highway will be upgraded to first-class status. I refer now to other important matters contained in the Budget so far as they affect my electorate. Everyone associated with the Royal Flying Doctor Service, based in Broken Rill, will be pleased that the Budget provides for an increase from $356,000 to $380,000 in the Government's grant to the New South Wales section of the service. The New South Wales grant represents about 23c in every dollar that the New South Wales section receives in income. The Royal Flying Doctor Service provides a magnificent mantle of safety throughout the western and far western areas of the State. The area covered by the service extending into South Australia and southern Queensland superimposed on the map of Europe would take in the entire area of England, Scotland and Wales. It is a huge area in which the service's operations are conducted. In 1982-83 the Royal Flying Doctor Service flew 333 107 kilometres in its area and treated 11 291 patients. Most of the service's trips are routine visits, but it was called upon also in cases of emergency. People living in city areas see the Royal Flying Doctor Service as an emergency service only. In 1982-83 the service responded to 239 emergency calls and trans- ported 340 patients. I urge the Government to attend quickly to the matter of coal acquisition rights. In 1982-83 the New South Wales section of the Royal Flying Doctor Service suffered a loss of $67,000 as a result of not receiving compensation under the coal acquisition rights legislation. I urge the Government to address itself quickly to the reimbursement to the service of the loss of those rights. The service provides a necessary and creditable service to people living in the far western areas of the State. It was fortunate that the Royal Flying Doctor Service was able to provide a paramedical service in the mining township of Moomba. The loss of $67,000 in compensation is difficult for the service to absorb. 1482 ASSEMBLY-Appropriation Bill

Another matter of importance to my electorate concerns the allocation in the Budget for aid for senior citizens. I am pleased that the Government has made available concessions to senior citizens through this Budget at a cost of $160 million. This will make the lives of senior citizens more enjoyable. It is a recognition also of the appreciation of the present generation. The concessiom granted will enable senior citizens to live their lives with dignity. The public and private public transport con- cessions will cost $64 million. The State's subsidies to water boards and councils will cost $48 million. A provision of $30 million has been made for loss of revenue in respect of driver's licence fees and the abolition of motor vehicle registration fees, together with reduced rates for taxation and third party insurance. I am concerned particularly about the Home Care Service of New South Wales. I have received numerous representations about the provision of home care for the elderly. My examination of the funding of the Home Care Service reveals that the Government has not been remiss in assisting that service. In 1982-83, the Government provided $11.4 million; in 1983-84, $23.7 million; and in the present Budget, for 1984-85 a sum of $28.8 million is allocated. That evidences the Govern- ment's commitment to ensuring that adequate services are provided, but unfortunately the demand is outstripping the ability to supply the necessary assistance. There are probably 1 500 workers now with 9 000 clients. The position is difficult. I have a lot of sympathy for the people who need this service. It is a good thing for people to be able to be treated in their own home, rather than being sent to a hospital or a nursing home. People can enjoy a much better life in their own homes if they are assisted occasionally by someone coming in and doing the things that the people cannot. The Home Care Service in my electorate does a wonderful job. I understand fully that the Government of New South Wales cannot go on funding a programme just because there is a need for it. Many programmes are in need of extra funding, but providing the necessary care for people in their own homes will ensure that much less care will be needed in hospitals and nursing homes. All people need care and assistance as they grow older, and we all hope to make it into the twilight years, but the quality of life for elderly people is much better if they can have love and care in their own homes than it is if they have to seek institutional care. I have touched on matters that affect my electorate particularly. I have also made general comments about the Budget. This Budget attempts to increase the welfare of the citizens of New South Wales. It attempts to address itself to the growing momentum of the economy. It deserves the support of all honourable members. Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo) [8.53]: I listened with interest to the comments of the honourable member for Broken Hill, whose electorate adjoins mine. At times he has shown evidence of some intelligence, but I am surprised that he is so gullible as to describe this Budget as a good one. It is one of the most dreadful budgets that has been introduced into this House for many years; not because it does not spend large sums of money or does not balance, but because at a time when our State and our country are very slowly emerging from the depths of a depression, it shows no imagination, no innovation and no move to get the economy really on its feet. In addition, it is only an instalment of the annual budget of the State. For a long time under the administration of this Government there has not been at one time of the year a concise, full and complete statement of the economic programme of the Government. The Government hands out economic packages in dribs and drabs over the whole year. I wish to talk about what has gone before the budget. This is a deceitful budget in which the Treasurer has said that there have been no tax increases at all. In fact, there has been a considerable number of tax increases prior to the announce- ment of the Budget. I shall give some examples. There have been increases in rail, Appropriation Bill-26 September, 1984 1483 bus and ferry fares of between 9 and 12 per cent; that includes rail fares to country rail users. The cost of drivers' licences has increased by 33.3 per cent and of learners' permits by 33.3 per cent. Car registration charges have increased by 33.3 per cent. AS honourable members heard at some length today from the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, in a well thought out, logical and impassioned speech- Mr McIlwaine: You are joking. You will say anything to get a vote. Mr PEACOCKE: The honourable member for Murrumbidgee spoke at great length about what this Government is doing----- Mr McIlwaine: He spoke a day late. Mr PEACOCKE: A day late, was he? In fact he was fifteen days late, for he should have ripped into the Government about it on the day that it came out, but the Government in its usual sneaky fashion slipped out increases- Mr Cavalier: The increase itself was eight years late. Mr PEACOCKE: The increase was eight years too soon. Let me get back to the subject. There was a 22 per cent increase in irrigation charges. Mr Cavalier: Hear! Hear! Mr PEACOCKE: The Minister for Education says, "Hear! Hear!" In addition there was a 32.4 per cent increase in the charges to riparian owners for water pumping. For what? For water that is supposed to be free to everyone in this country if it is in the river. The riparian owners provide their own pumps, their own labour and every- thing to get that water out of the river. And the Government charges them an additional 32.4 per cent. That brings into focus one of the main inequities and in- justices of this Budget; I refer to the inequalities between the city and the country areas of the State. If any government of this State wanted to be equitable, even on the basis of population, at least one-third of its budget cxpcnditure would be spent in the country because the relationship of country population to city population is roughly one-third to two-thirds. Mr Crawford: That is a completely incorrect statement. It is one-fifth. Mr PEACOCKE: The honourable member could never add up and he probably cannot read, so I would expect a comment like that from him. Mr Cavalier: I went through school with him. He is superb. Mr PEACOCKE: If he went through school with you, he would have learned very little. When the burbling interjections cease, we shall get down to some facts. Let us have a look at the injustice here. Mr McIlwaine: You are talking of your colleagues over there. Look at them. Mr PEACOCKE: I am only preaching to the idiots today, but I cannot help that. Only people of low mentality would sit here and listen to any debate on this Budget. Obviously most of the people in the Chamber were driven out by the honourable member for Broken Hill. No one with any sense would listen to what he had to say. But let me get on with the facts. I shall deal with some of the inequities. I begin with the capital works programme announced in the Budget. There was $5 million allocated for the sport and recreation fund, making $13.5 million available this year. That is a fund that is spread over the whole State-city and country. Of that sum, $2 million was allocated to sporting ground improvements, and that also is spread over the city and country. Then we come to the main amount of $21.8 million 1484 ASSEMBLY-Appropriation Bill allocated for capital works, which includes completion of stage one of the $20 million State sports centre at Homebush Bay, $11 million towards the commencement of the $15 million new Cumberland Oval. Mr Ferguson: Why not? Mr PEACOCKE: And another $3.2 million for the International Hockey Centre at Homebush Bay. Mr Ferguson: Why not? Mr PEACOCKE: In a time like this- Mr McIlwaine: Be careful. Mr Acting-Speaker Mr Wilde will rule you out of order. Mr Cavalier: He should have been ruled out of order years ago. Mr PEACOCKE: I am sorry, Mr Acting-Speaker. 'The mental processes of these fellows disturb me at times. The position is that a total of $38.2 million is to be spent in the metropolitan area of Sydney compared with $18.5 million that is spread over the whole State, city and country. Let us look at the arts. The Budget provides $17.5 million for a wing at the Art Gallery, $10 million for a wing at the Australian Museum and $28.8 million for an extension to the State Library. It provides for con- tinuation of work on the Power House Museum project, completion of the Sydney Theatre Company at Walsh Bay, and commencement of facilities for the Sydney Dance Company, construction of the Dame Joan Sutherland Music Bowl and $7 million for cultural assistance grants and an increase in the per capita subsidy to councils for library services from $1.40 to $1.60. I do not criticize those projects, for they are all worth while; but they are all in the city. What is being done for the country areas? I thought the whole of Australia was to be involved in the bicentennial programme and that we were all part of the one country. Provision is made in the capital works programme for the redeveloprncnt of the Opera House forecourt-and that is wonderful-upgrading of Macquaric Street and the Parliament House forecourt-that is still more wonderful, for it will make it likely that the "peanuts" on the Treasury benches will not trip as they come up the steps-and $32 million has been allocated for Darling Harbour redcveloprnent. An additional $2 million will be provided for Newcastle foreshore beautification. At least some provision is made for a project outside Sydney, though at one of the three "parts" of New South Wales. Funds have been allocated for the continuation of the bicentennial park at Homebush Bay. What does Homebush Bay have to warrant its being allocated those funds? The list goes on and on. The capital works programme for the State's transport system includes the continuing electrification of the Illawarra line, improvements to the Newcastle to Muswellbrook line, and completion of the Ulan to Gulgong link, which was the one good project with merit, for that link will be productive to the Central West of New South Wales and the port of Newcastle. If the Government had any foresight and statesmanship it would have continued that line through to Maryvale and opened up the whole of the west to the port of Newcastle, where there is a high level of unemploy- ment. The Government prefers to spend money on the forecourt of Parliament House to doing some constructive work. So the list goes on. The Treasurer made great play of the amount that would be spent on road- works. He said it was wonderful that $953 million would be spent on the State's roads-all Commonwealth funds incidentally. Where are those roads located? Are they out where people have to travel over terrible dirt roads to get their produce to towns and carry on their normal affairs? Are they where they will be productive? Or Appropriation Bill-26 September, 1984 1485 are they in that part of New South Wales that unfortunately members on the Govern- ment side of the House, who have such a low mental capacity, cannot understand does not form the whole State? Most of the roadworks will be carried out in Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong. Many honourable members on the Treasury benches come from those areas and the smog and pollution have agected their brains over a long period. I return to the subject with which I was dealing. I invite attention to some of the inherent dangers in the Budget, before I come to the main part of my contribution to this debate. The Budget Estimates reveal that in 1983-84 interest payments payable by the Government amounted to $461.35 million. In one year those interest pay- ments, which are payable from consolidated revenue, rose to $504.99 million, an increase of $43.64 million in interest alone. That is a danger signal for the State and for the Government. When it is added to the Government's unfunded contingent liability of $2.5 billion for superannuation payments-and on some estimates the amount is $6,000 million-one finds the time bomb in the finances of the State. That problem is not addressed by the Budget. No provision is made for the reduction of the State's capital debt through loan borrowings. That is dangerous. Mr Cavalier: Does the honourable member suggest that the State is bankrupt? Mr PEACOCKE: The State is close to bankruptcy, and will be bankrupt in a few year's time if the Government keeps on its prcsent course. The Budget includes allocations for services provided by the Wran Government for the people of New South Wales. The Government allocated $150 million for the Premier's Department- money that is wasted on all sorts of news media releases. The Premier's Department is efficient because so much money is spent on it. That explains how, in a matter of hours, the Government was able to pick up a press release made in an Albury news- paper. The Government spends a lot of money on spying. Mr Cavalier: Is reading newspapers spying? Mr PEACOCKE: The Government would not have had time to get a news- paper up here from Albury. It has resident spies in every town in this State, and that costs a lot of money. If money had not been wasted on spying, the Minister for Education would have had more money available to spend on schools, to bring them up to date. That is a different kettle of fish. There is an imbalance between the Government's expenditure on projects in Sydney, Ncwcastle and Wollongong and the amount it spends on country areas of the State. The imbalance in spending is almosL criminal in its neglect of the profitable areas of the State. In addition, there has been a massive increase in taxation of the unfortunate country people. In 1984 one should have thought that the Government would have shown some imagination and paid more attention to the part of the State where the real wealth is created. Obviously the Government cannot keep handing out money raised from taxation to assist the poor and those in genuine need. All honourable members care that some people are living in the direst poverty, do not have jobs, and their children suffer from malnutrition. Last night I read in a newspaper that some kids have to go through garbage bins to get enough food to supplelncnt their diets. That is tragic in a country such as Australia. Every honourable member will feel deeply concerned and troubled that that type of problem exists. There are two ways to look at the problems of those unfortunate people. The first is to realize, as any sensible person will realize, that the

the wealth-producing section of the community and to bleed it dry. Unfortunately, the Government has a penchant for the redistribution of wealth. It is obvious from almost everything the Government does that it believes it is wrong and sinful for someone to make a profit. Mr Cavalier: Obviously it is sinful for an irrigation authority to make a profit. Mr PEACOCKE: In the opinion of the Minister for Education it is. Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wilde) : Order! The honourable member for Dubbo should deal with the Budget. Although a member may make passing reference to other matters, he must confine his remarks to the question before the Chair. Mr PEACOCKE: I do not canvass your ruling, but I am making a passing reference. The Budget should have been aimed at creating lasting, permanent, reward- ing employment for people, restoring their wealth, their material possessions and pride in themselves, and giving them a feeling of their worth to the community. Above all, the Budget should have been aimed at creating jobs for young people. In New South Wales 30 per cent of young people coming on to the job market are unemployed. All honourable members will have had the awful experience that I have day after day, of people coming into their offices and asking for help in obtaining jobs. The young people of this country are a resource that will, if properly handled, carry the future of the nation. Mr Crawford: Did the honourable member for Dubbo help those who came to him? Mr PEACOCKE: I did get some of them jobs. Unfortunately, the profession of which the honourable member for Balmain was a member has failed a lot of young people by not educating them adequately and putting them on the job market being totally ignorant. That is a new subject for another debate. I did help some of those young people to obtain jobs. It is a matter of great sadness that decent, wiIling kids- not bludgers-should have to go to their local members of Parliament in desperation to get help to obtain jobs. The focus of the Budget's attention should have been on the small business community. It is obvious that the small business community will create jobs for our children, now and in the future, provided that the Government is willing to not interfere with it. Earlier the Leader of the National Party quoted some figures of the American experience where, he said, in two months the United States of America created more new jobs than the European Economic Community created in ten years. Those figures are absolutely correct. There is a message in them, and it is this: free enterprise created jobs in a part of the American commercial sector that was not unionized and not involved in manufacturing. The United States of America was able to produce jobs because it was freed up; freed from regulation and freed from union domination. In New South Wales the small business community is the most over regulated of any community, commercial or otherwise, in Australia. For instance, for a service station proprietor there is a maximum of some twenty-one possible licences that he needs to hold to operate his business. The average is fifteen licences. Of course, this Govern- ment has done virtually nothing for small business. It has increased the small business assistance fund by a miserable one million dollars. That fund now stands at $6 million. Business does not want handouts. So far as business is concerned the Govern- ment can have its miserable one million dollars for what it is worth. The Government has made a few loans and given a few guarantees, but has done nothing else. All that business wants is that the Government get off its back, and stop taxing it and over- regulating it out of existence. The Government made great play on the Budget being Appropriation Bill-26 September, 1984 1487 one that would help small business. It is a nonsense Budget from the viewpoint of small business. The Government's talk of a reduction in land tax is an absolute farce. Land taxes were supposed to be reduced, and there was to be a so-called major reform of the land tax system. It is interesting to note that the total land tax collections for this year are estimated to increase from the 1983-84 figure of $189 million to $215 million in 1984-85-which is $26 million more or an increase of 13.8 per cent. If land tax is to be reduced, why is it being increased? The reason is that, in the usual fashion of the Wran Government, the people have been subjected to a confidence trick, for the new concession will not operate until 1st January, 1985.

Further, those who pay land taxes at the higher end of the scale will be subject to a massive increase. Certainly there will be a reduction in land tax at the lower end of the scale. For land with an assessable value of $55,000 the reduction in tax will be $67. Near the top of the range a building valued at $800,000 will attract an increase of $648. For a building worth $10 million, the increase will be $9,848, or 4.1 per cent more. Honourable members might well ask how that will affect the small business community. It would not be unusual for a large shopping centre in New South Wales to have a value well in excess of $10 million. The owners of such a shopping centre do not pay the land tax: the tenants pay it, and most of the tenants are small business men. Though the Government is proposing a paltry reduction at the lower end of the valuation scale, it will continue to tax the small business community out of existence by increasing the tax at the top of the scale, knowing that it will have to be passed on.

Payroll tax is another fraud. In a debate earlier today on a proposal to increase irrigation charges, the Minister responsible for that section of this tawdry Government's activities put great store in a comparison of water charges in New South Wales with water charges in Queensland. A comparison of payroll tax exemp- tion levels is interesting. In New South Wales the level is being raised from $130,000 to $170,000. In Victoria, which is a heavily taxed State, it is $215,000. In South Australia it is $200,000 in Tasmania, $250,000 and in Queensland, $252,000. This New South Wales Government has rendered the small business community-indeed the entire business community-uncompetitive by the burden it imposes through both direct and hidden taxes. In return the Government says, "We will give you an extra $1 million this year; we will have a rolling fund of $6 million, and we will give you a bit of an interest subsidy, a hand with some of your loan repayments, and a few guarantees here and there". This year only forty-five guarantees were given to small businesses. There are 330 000 small businesses in New South Wales. How paltry! Small business is saying to the Government, and will continue to say, "You can stick your $1 million and your $6 million in an appropriate place. We do not want charity. We want to be let off the chain, and we want a reasonable rate of tax fixed for the businesses we operate".

Looking at Government supporters I can see that intelligence in their ranks is limited, but intelligence suggests that if the small business community were let off the taxation hook and allowed to produce and make profits, it would start employing people. There would not then be a need to spend $44.5 million on employment schemes-for instance, $20 million on the youth employment scheme; $7.7 million for an expanded youth corps; $3 million on new technical jobs for women pro- grammes, and nearly $1 million for a new women's management skills programme. The miserable jobs that have been created under those schemes are, to a large extent, a disaster for the young people they are supposed to help.

Mr Crawford: That is not true. 1488 ASSEMBLY-Appropriation Bill

Mr PEACOCKE: It is true. How many times have honourable members had young people come into their offices, thrilled that they have a job under one of these schemes, saying, "I can now buy myself a tape recorder and have some of the luxuries of life. I can live again off the dole". When they become used to something better than the dole they come in and say, "The time is up with my job. It is finished. I am back on the slag heap again". Is that how the Government thinks it should go about upgrading and uplifting our children? Or does the Government want to create real, satisfying and permanent jobs for our kids? Does it want to create jobs that will ensure employment for those young people for the whole of their lives, so they will enjoy dignity of employment and be proud of themselves and of Australia, instead of feeling shame for a country that thinks so little of them that it will do nothing of a substantial and long-term nature, to build a society where all can prosper? The socialist way is to increase taxes and to give young people hand-outs. Let them have a taste of honey, the Government says, and then take the honeypot away. The answer is for this Government to invite the business con~munity,and in particular the small business community, to function in a free market where profits can be made, jobs created, and young people fully trained and allowed to be happy. The Government seems to think that the federal Labor Government is God's gift to Australia, that the prices and incomes accord is the salvation of Australia, and that centralized wage fixing is the protector of people's jobs. Let me give the lie to that; it is the destroyer of people's jobs. Mr McIlwaine: You have to be able to cry. Mr PEACOCKE: I feel like shedding some tears now. When one looks at the prices and incomes accord, the system of centralized wage fixing and the rates of pay for young people entering the job market, one can understand why the unemployment rate is 30 per cent. When one adds to the cost of the wages of young people an extra 60 per cent for oncosts in the form of workers' compensation premiums, payroll tax, and every other kind of tax one can think of, and takes into account the gross and hideous over regulation by this Government, one realizes that the present unemployment rate among young people will continue. As a consequence of that unemployment the present rate of robberies, burglaries, murders and violence among kids will continue. However, there is an alternative. The alternative which I thought any government worth its salt would have looked at is allowing at least the small business community to negotiate wage rates for their employees, in particular their young employees, which they can afford to pay. That would be better than the dole, and would result in kids receiving training. But, no, the Treasurer brought down a hackneyed, old, Keynesian sort of budget. The Government wants to take from the rich-I can assure honourable members that very few rich people remain in New South Wales, except those who take bribes and those involved in organized crime- and give to the poor. This Government is creating morc and more poor every day. New South Wales has a disgusting, tawdry, unimaginative government and it has produced a disgusting, tawdry and unimaginative budget. That is the form of this Government. Unless it changes its ways, in the next three years this State will slip into a greater morass of unemployment and disaster than it is in at present. Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [9.23]: I appreciate having the opportunity to speak in the budget debate. I congratulate the Government and the Treasurer on bringing down a most progressive budget and one designed to meet the economic circum- stances of our time. The Treasurer stated in his Speech: It signals the success of the efforts of this Government, over more than eight years, to create the conditions for a sustained economic growth while simultaneously fighting inflation. It signals the practical success of the new spirit of co-operation between Federal and State Governments. Appropriation Bill-26 September, 1984 1489

The contribution with which we have just been entertained by the honourable member for Dubbo is one of the reasons that regrettably those who represent the interests of rural New South Wales have received a reputation as being a whingeing and carping group of people. That is not the real spirit of the people of rural New South Wales. The people in rural New South Wales want to see the country and the State progress. They are willing to put in a little hard work to achieve that end. One could be forgiven, after listening to the remarks of the honourable member for Dubbo, for believing that rural New South Wales has been totally forgotten by this Government. In fact, the opposite is true. The honourable member for Dubbo did not mention the great assistance that this Government afforded rural New South Wales when it was suffering from one of the most severe droughts in New South Wales and perhaps throughout Australia. The honourable member did not mention the Government's rural roadbuilding programme, which is most costly when one considers the number of people those roads serve. The honourable member did not say anything about the dams that have been built in rural New South Wales. The honourable membcr for Dubbo found it convenient in his speech to refer to the allocation made in the Budget to technology and small business. He referred to the sum of $1 million. In fact, that is only the increase in the allocation. The amount allocated to those areas is $6 million. The honourable member did not mention the Government's great contribution to industry and decentralization. The Budset Papers show that $28.1 million has been allocated to that area, $9.5 million of which is for activities associated with the decentralization of secondary industries into country areas. The amount allocated for capital expenditure, the utilization of cash balances on hand, principal loan repayments and sundry income is $24 million, which will be available to support the activities of the country assistance fund for 1984-85. Of course, the honourable member for Dubbo did not mention that matter. The hocourable member did not mention the great contributions made to country New South Wales by the Minister for Education. He did not mention the country schools programme, the disadvantaged school programme, the relief from face-to-face teaching with a priority given to teachers in country areas, or the teacher housing authority which provides housing for teachers in country areas, the allocation for which has been almost doubled in this year's Budget. The honourable member did not mention the great contribution made to rural New South Wales by correspondence schools. It is easy for honourable members opposite to wax eloquent in condemning this Budgct. The Opposition's role is to highlight any deficiencies in the Budget and to critici~ethose deficiencies. Rather than seeking a few headlines in their local news- papers, I wish that Opposition members would be more concerned about handling the truth a little better than they do. They should not have the audacity to refer to unemplcyment, when under the Prime Ministership of one of their ilk, the Rt Hon. J. M. Fraser, the greatest unemployment in this nation was created since the Great Deplession. It ill becomes any Opposition member to lecture the Government on economic management and on what the Government is doing for rural New South Wales. The Treasurer referred in his Budget Speech to the change that has occurred since the days of Fraserism and confrontation, when the Premiers while in Canberra for their conferences had to haggle and fight for money that was rightfully theirs. I guess the greatest tribute that can be paid to the present national Labor Government is the fact that one of the diehards of the conservative forces of this nation, Sir Joh Bjelke-Fetersen, left the Premier's conference in Canberra and said that he was very pleased with what he got from the Premier's Conference. That is indicative of the policy of consensus that has been followed by the present national Government -a pol~cythat has led to economic recovery and to a spirit of conciliation and 94 1490 ASSEMBLY-Appropriation Bill

co-operation previously unheard of. It ill becomes any member of the Opposition to give lwnourable members on this side of the House a lecture on economic manage- ment and the amount of assistance provided to all sections of the community who are so deserving of it. I am particularly pleased to see that the aims of the Budget, as outlined by the Treasurer, are to consolidate the gains of the economic recovery, to co-operate with and complement the Commonwealth's economic strategy, including the prices and incomes accord, to continue the programme of job creation through a further record capital works programme, and to expand programmes in education, health, housing and community welfare, especially those designed to assist the needy and the disadvantaged, as well as in the area of law and order. It is notable that the Budget does not increase taxes but land tax, payroll tax and some stamp duties concessions have been made. As part of the Government's method of economic control over expenditure, it has exercised tighter control over departmental spending and staffing. The Government has continued to improve the budget presentation, with the initial departmental appropriations in programme budget- ing format. In his Budget Speech the Treasurer said that further reforms will be implemented in the presentation. After ten years as a member of this House I still recall the Budget Papers that originally came before members-with one document, in essence-that members had to wade through to read the details. Even the most trained and prudent accountant could not fathom the extent of expenditure and how his area was affected. There has been a change for the better, with six budget papers being presented to the House by the Treasurer, including the Budget Speech, the Supple- mentary Budget Information paper, the Budget Estimates, Financial Arrangements between the Commonwealth and New South Wales, the Appropriation Bill, and the Capital Works Programme with a list of projects. I am most pleased with the allocation that has been made in the Budget to matters that have always been dear to my heart, technology and small business. I am completely at odds with the honourable member for Dilbbo, who preceded me in this dcbate. I suppose all honourable members acknowledge that the manufacturing sector in Australia, as indeed in most of the western world, has undergone dramatic changes and there has been massive unemployment in that industry. Through the efforts of the Minister for Industry and Decentralisation, and Minister for Small Business and Technology, the Hon. E. L. Bedford, many moves are being made to encourage the revitalization of our manufacturing sector through improved technology. There are short-term losses because of the implementation of the policy of introducing improved technology. Obviously there will be losses of jobs. but the long-term benefits from this programme will be evident. Recently I received a paper from a colleague in the other House, the Hon. J. D. Garland, who was a former senior executive member of the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union. I say that because I want to source some of the information I shall put before the House to the Hon. J. D. Garland and compliment him upon his research. The Hon. J. D. Garland prepared a paper entitled "What has Happened to Australia's Industrial Development over the Past Twenty Years". The Hon. J. D. Garland stated that we are now in the situation, according to the Department of Trade, where almost 80 per cent of Australia's exports are concen- trated in the rural, mineral and energy sectors, which, for more than a decade, have experienced trend growth rates below the world average in both value and volume. Conversely, 80 per cent of Australia's imports consist of finished manufactures that have experienced above average growth rates in world trade. Put simply, A~strali:~'~ deteriorating share of world trade stems from the fact that we are specializing in the production and export of the wrong commodities. Over the last decade of the Industry Assistance Commission-this is the IAC reports on long-term tariff rates-some 80 per cent of government decisions have brought reductions in government assistance. The Mr Rogan] Appropriation Bill-26 September, 1964 1431 average tariir level applying to nianufacluring industry has becn reduced by almost half in this pcriod. They are nominal levels from 24 per cent to 14 per cent. The eKective rate is from 36 per cent to 24 per cent. 111 agriculture the ~nonninalratc is down from 15 per cent to 2 pcr cent and the ciicctive ratc Proin 25 per ccnt to S per cent but the rural sector has rctaincd a piclhora of rcgrlkl~syassisianec. Whiic this has been taking place statistics iron1 the General Agrccmcnt on adsand Trade-this is the GATT agreement-rcvcal a growth of trade barriers by governrncnls and corporations whereby ovcrt quotas and a range oi non-tarif? balricrs cover bctwccn 40 per cent and 48 per cent of all world traded products. This has increased by 5 pcr cent since 1974. There is another mcthod by which some govcrnmcnts subsidisc exports and it is of particular and deep concern to traclc unions and dcniocratically mided peoplc. It is the subsidizations through the reduction of labour costs by the active aild oftcn violent suppression of civil and industriai rights by eovcrnmcnt. Oftcn the specific aim of thcse nleasures is to encourage export oricutcd invcslment. I repcat that I am in disagreement with the federal Govcmrncnt-aitho~~ph it is a Labor Govcrnnwnt and I am a member of the Labor Party-so far as the gencral reduction of tarifis. I shall not repeat my views on that except to say that I believe that all western govcrn- ments should be looking at those countrics with extraordinary low labour rates, virtually no industrial co~lditionsat all, no safcty conditions, and should be saying that they are willing to give those countries Iree access to markets provicled that they do something about lilting their labour rates and labour conditions. Though this cnormous international array of forms of interventions, regula- tions, restrictions and assistance cxists, Australia has one oC the most, if not thc most, open economics in the world. Only 4.5 per ccnt of imports arc subject to ovcrt and visible quotas; 73 per ccnt of imports entcr at tarii't rates of less than 5 per ccnt and thcre is a virtual absence of disgtiiscd or invisililc non-t2rlR barriers and of csport subs:d;es, Import pcnc:ration of Australia's manufacturing industry in 1982--52 acccle- rated from 16 per cent to 25 per cent. growth in imports of n~nchincry and transport equipment was even higher than that of mnnufxtnring as a whale and incrcased by 33 per cent. The average rate of rctrcrlckimcnls in ilie mctai and engineering sectors was about sevcn timcs the national average, and in overall manu- irtcturing, almost four times. Thc share of the Australian market hc!d by imports in 1991-82 w;is some 26 per cent, up iron1 17.6 pcr cent in 1968-69. 'P-hirlecn per cent, haif of total imports, come from developing countrics and 62 pcr ccnt of those imports receive the special prc ence of low or no customs duty. The South Korea, Taiwan, ng Kong, Singapore, the Philippines, China and Yugoslavia. It is in that context that I am dclightcd with the Budyct Spccch and thc bud-ei contribution that has bccn madc to technology and small business. The vicw of the trade union movement of mantlfacturing is that thc world-wide recession, which be~an in 1974, was principally the result of the introduction of Iabotir saving technology, the massive investment of multinationals in Asia and othcr third worl("iountrics using cheap and non-union labour, and the failure of Australian mnnvlncturcrs to reinvest while operating in times of high protcetion and favourable economic isolation. Also, I note that there was a general economic downturn occasioned by tl-ic oil shoclr that comenccd at that time. The National Govcramel?t is takin? po.;ik'vc stcps for thc rcstrvcturino of industry. In that regard I commend the cnorts of Senator Button, thc fcdcrsl Minister for Industry and Commerce. It is encoura,nin~to see that in June of th:s ycnr a manufacturing survey suy~stcdthqt thc manufacturino job slide m2y have eased to some extent and. indeed, may have halted. A rcprt in one of the financial ppers 1492 ASSEMBLY-Appropriation Bill contained the statement that the severe manufacturing job loss slide of the past two years appears to have ended, as the labour market recovery has broadened from its previous narrow base of public and finance sector employment. Manufacturing employment grew by 17 900 units between February and May. Although this may reflect seasonal effects the trend of manufacturing employment appears to have stabilized, with the number of jobs in the industry being at virtually the same level as in May la@ year. Those are riational figures, but their major percentage would be concentrated in New South Wales. I return to the general question of technology and the problems facing this Government and the National Government in taking the message to industry, so that industry will take up that challenge. The Australian Financial Review in May this year, in an article headed "Technology leaves industry's leaders confounded: survey" stated: Confusion and complacency tinged with ignorance are the major trends to emerge from a survey of attitudes to new technology among senior managers within the Australian manufacturing sector. Commissioned by PA Technology, an international technology and consulting group, the survey was carried out by Market and Opinion Research International. Telephone interviews were conducted with 513 executives equally spread among manufacturing companies each employing more than 200 people in Australia, the US, West Germany, Britain and Belgium, between February and April this year. The majority of Australian managers (58 per cent) perceived over- seas competitors to be more technologically advanced than their own companies. Highlighting the confusion was the survey's finding that 71 per cent of the senior executives interviewed in Australia believed that new tech- nology had had a great deal or fair amount of impact on the products their companies produced in the past four years. Commenting on the perception that foreign competitors were more technologically advanced, PA Technology said the comparable figure for the Australian executives' counterparts were 11 per cent in Germany, 21 per cent in Belgium, 28 per cent in the US and 37 per cent in the UK. Despite the high percentage of Australian managers who saw foreign competitors as more technologically advanced and, as shown in other survey results, making better use of technology, 62 per cent of the surveyed group in Australia said they were satisfied with the way research and development was being carried out within their own organisation. The general manager of PA Technology, Dr James Fox, said this figure indicated that most of the executives in Australian manufacturing did not know how to use research and development effectively or that they were simply satisfied with maintaining mediocrity. Today I had the opportunity of speaking with Dr Fox, whose consultancy company is in Victoria. Following an article that appeared in the National Times during the weekend I can do nothing but agree with his perception and the surveys he has carried out. Indeed, I shall be putting to the Minister for Industry and Decentralisation, and Minister for Small Business and Technology in New South Wales, acting in the latter portfolio, that we should make some use of the knowledge that this company has and, through the technology unit there perhaps develop seminars at which business leaders in this State can be encouraged to become more concerned about their lack of research and development and their lack of competitive manufacturing skills. Through Appropriation Bill-26 September, 1984 1493 this process we could generate more awareness in the manufacturing sector in New South Wales that we are falling behind, and have already fallen behind, the rest of the western world. The statement that we do not have a large internal market in Australia is often used as a basis for not doing something positive in New South Wales. We have only 15 million people; the United States of America has more than 200 million for its home market; the European Economic Community has a vast internal market. Our labour rates are said to be another fiegative factor. However, Dr Fox contends, and there is much to commend his statement, that the cost differential in production in Hong Kong is not quite the evil we are led to believe. High technology products do not have a huge labour content. They are the very products on which Dr Fox suggests our manufacturing sector should concentrate in New South Wales. Much of what he says in that respect should commend itself to leaders of industry in this State. I am also pleased to see that under the administration of the federal Minister for Science and Technology, the Hon. B. 0. Jones, technology has finally been given some impetus by the National Government. Next I should like to deal with some of the matters in the Budget that touch upon my electorate. One might be excused for being a little parochial. First I see myself as a State member but second I see myself as a local member. All honourable members must try to get for their electorates a share of the budget. The honourable member for Dubbo waxed eloquent, whingeing and wailing about what he called the lack of money being provided for his rural electorate and for other rural electorates generally. Mr Pickard: Why do you say he was whingeing? I am not going to say that you are whingeing. Mr ROGAN: At times the honourable member for Dubbo should remove himself from where he sits for his meals in the parliamentary dining room to come and talk with some of my parliamentary colleagues. I am sure the Minister for Natural Resources, who is now at the table, is bombarded continually by members from the Government side of the House who say to her that too much money is being given to the electorates represented by members of the opposite benches, and that it should be stopped, for we should be looking more to electorates where Labor members are elected, to sec what is needed. Mr Pickard: Shame! Shame! The money should be divided across the State according to need, not simply allocated to me or you. Mr ROGAN: Those statements have been made by countless members on this side of the House, reflecting their interests in their electorates. I am pleased that the electorate of East Hills is getting a reasonable allocation of Government funds. Certainly I shall not be complaining to the Minister for Natural Resources about the amount of money that is being devoted to my electorate. From the Budget Papers we learn that the East Hills to Glenfield railway line, and the duplication of the East Hills railway line, will continue to receive a due allocation of funds. Indeed, not only is the work progressing to timetable but the only complaint I received regarding the project is that, if anything, it is proceeding so fast that people want to know a little more about what is happening in the areas where the work is being done. I commend the Minister for Education and his department upon the con- struction of stage one of the Padstow Technical College, which is a beautiful building, blending in as it does with the surrounding natural environment. I am pleased to hear that budget funds have been allocated to proceed with stage two of that college. I am pleased also that work will continue on the Canterbury Road, Fairford Road LY-Appropriation Bill and Stacey Street intersection. Honourable members who listen to the morning traffic repol-ts on radio stations would be aware that that intersection is one of tile pereililial bottlenecks in the Syd~wjimeiropolitm arm. The programme for that intersection is on schec1~:le and the necessary ,fr:nds have bee:^ allocated to it. I should like to think thnt funds have becn allocated to electorates because of the persistent repre- sentations of the local members. Howevcr, this Government, which has occup:ed the Treasury benches for the past eight years, is concerned, not just with city electorates, but with electorates right throughout the Syclney and country regions. The honourable member for Hornsby is to follow me in this debate. If he gives an honest assessment of the Budget, I am sure that he will congratulate the Government on the expenditure it has allocated to his electorate. I see from the Budget Papezs that more than adequate funds have been allocated for work on the highway proceeding through the Wor~~sbyelectorate. All Opposition meinbcrs who speak to thk Budget should be satisfied with the funds allocated to their electorates. I conclude on the note on wlilich I coininellced this debate. I comme~ldthe Government, the Treasurer, the Premier and the Ministry upon what I consider an excellent budget, a budget for the time; one which will continue to lead to econonlic recovery and, importantly, a budget which wil! co-operate 100 per cent with the federal Government. That is such a vast change from the days of Fraserism when the order of the day was conicrontation and not co-operation. Mr PICKARD (Hornsby) [9.53]. I have a high regard for the honourable memhcr for East Hills who prcceded me in this debate. It is a pity that he concluded his spcech with snic'e attacks on one or two Opposition members. I suppose that is a norrnnl procedure in this Houre. Bccause of the way budget dcbates have been cordilc!cd in pr-cviour years, this is the first occasion in eight years on which I have bccn able to spca11 to the ucl~et. I hope ParIiament will not soon adjourn and thus prctcnt honourab'e n~enibersfrom commenting on many of the failures of the fcdcra; Government. T fear that, come the erd of October, honourable mcmbcrs on this sick of tbc Houv rni~htfind thclnselvcs returning to their clectorates to campaign for a fedcral coalition government. I: is di%cult in the time allocated to mention all thnt needs to he said of this Budget. I hope that, for the first time in eight years, honourable members will have thz opportnnity to disccss the cduc-tion estimates. I turn my attention to the overall tllri:$t of education in this Bi~dget. I was interested in the statement made in the press and elscwhcre that in terms of cc'ucation this Budget was holding the be at approximately 30 per cent to 31 per test of the total budget allocation. Wonour- able rncnlbers now talk of the trdget in terms of capital works and recurrent works. Not so long a~o,loan estimatcs were set out separately and the percentage of any budget was regarclcd as the percenta,ye of the recurrent works. One then looked separaicly at loan v~orlts and spoke of percentages there. In the old sense of the Budget, when in ofice the coalition never allocated less than 31 per cent of the total recurrent funds to education. On two occasiom the coalition parties a!located 40 per cent, and on anothcr occssion 43 per cent was allocated. Education is allocated 31 per ccnt of this year's Budget. I am advised that an euam;nation of the fiqures for lart year and this year reveals thnt on one view the lnv~ectevcraze allocntion for education is 29 per ccnt. A reduction in the education allocation of 1 per cent or 2 per cent results in a great disadvantage to cdccaiio:l. The cclrrcation al!ox~th is therefore down in percentage terms compared wit11 what has been given in the paqt. Compared with this Govern- ment's budget aIloc3tion for cdusotion hvo ycnrr, ago, the a1Eocat;on this year is much lower in percentage terns. The Govcrnnlent did, at feast, thcn givc 31 pcr ccnt of the total. Appropriation Bill-26 September, 1984 1495

Mr Dcckroge: The aggregate has risen. Mr PICKARD: Honourable members know all about the aggregate. During the Labor Government's term in office spending on education has never equalled what it was when the coalition parties held ofice. When the Labor Party lost Government in 1965 education received a low percentage of the Budget and the allocation was decreasing each year. When one looks at performance one sees that the Government is long on words about education but short on action. In terms of total funds allocated in previous Budgets, the allocation for funding teachers of children in hospital or children at home following hospitalization and who are unable to get a return to school has been minute. In this Budget the allocation has been deleted. Only $80,000 would have been required to keep that fine service running this year. The project has succeeded and has proved its value in the past. Doubtless an increase in the sum allocated would have been in order for next year. In an article that appeared in the Daily Telegmph in September this appeared: Government efforts to cut spending are usually to be welcomed. But funding cuts which have left some sick children without education bear closer attention from the Government. Beating a serious illness is a tough job for any youngster but trying to catch up with lessons at the same time puts an unfair burden on their young shoulders. The Duily Telegraph recognized that hospitalized children are isolated. The Minister has made much play of how concerned he is about isolated children. The Budoet gives no evidence of any real concern by providing funds to improve services for children who are isolated by sickness or by living in remote areas of the State. The article continued: Even a healthy child who gets behind in the learning process is at a disaclvantage. Funding cuts have resulted in the axing of the $80,000 teaching service which involved three teachers giving lessons to dozens of children either at the homes or in small hospitals with less than 10 child patients. It says further, and I hope the Government and the Minister for Education and the Premier note this: No amount of financial juggling can justify robbing these unfortunate youngsters of their education. It appears various alternatives, including correspondence schooling, are beicg investigated. I would like to have time to talk about the correspondence school and the load that has been placed on it with no extra funding and the view that has been taken of that organization. With no increased funding the correspondence school is going to be faced with an increased responsibility apart from this service. These children do not want correspondence schooling, they want individual attention, the same as any class- room child with a disadvantage. A mean $80,000 has been stolen from these dis- advantaged, hospitaliled or sick home children and no mention of it is made here. These are isolated children. The paper goes on to say: It is to be hoped that this investigation will be carried out quickly so that youngsters don't fall too far behind in their work. This investigation has bccn going on for over a year. The paper just mentions it now. This service was cut out in February this year. It is the responsibility of the Minister to deliver education to every child in this State. Children in small hospitals or at 1496 ASSEMBLY-Appropriation Bill home ill have been without education. They have been deprived of their rights and their education dollars and an opportunity to keep up with the rest of the children. When the Minister for Education speaks about isolated children and when I hear what a Minister in another place says about his great concern for isolated children when he goes out to Leeton, I hope he takes into account the fact that isolation is not only geographical, it is social and economic as well. I remember a telegram that was sent in 1976 by the Leader of the Opposition at that time and several of his Opposition spokesmen, one for health, one for youth and community services-which was then called child welfare-and one for education. The telegram went to the Council for the Handicapped and it said in essence that those honourable members would guarantee that every disadvantaged child in schools for the disadvantaged will be given, first of all, a reduced student- teacher ratio, and they mentioned the number four per teacher. I remember when they said that every physical education means available to children in other schools will be made available to these children. I remember when they said there will be put down beside these schools homes where the children can live for a period of time with their peers, and also that the parents and children can receive some relief from the home situation. I can remember those things, but nothing has been heard of them since that day, since that election. It is a never never plan and those children know they are the children of the never never. Mr Beckroge: We of the Never Never. Mr PICKARD: I hope the honourable member has read it. It has a lot to do with children in his electorate, particularly those who come in from the far west. I refer to the disadvantaged, many of them tremendously disadvantaged. In 1976 we had that promise from the Labor Party. Then, when it got to office, the promise suddenly disappeared. The Government was challenged in urgency debates and other debates to make good those promises, but not a word has been said about it since. The honourable member for Bankstown yawns. I hope I am not putting him to sleep by talking about disadvantaged people and disadvantaged schools. I hope he does not yawn when the disadvantaged make representations to him. I hope that is not how he treats their needs. I hope that in the party rooms, in caucus and in the budget debate, he takes a more concerned interest in the disadvantaged. The Government has failed to deliver on its promise. It is long on words, but short on action; big on swollen heads, but little in heart. Very little is done for the disadvantaged. Show me in any of the Government's budgets an increase in real terms for disadvantaged children and disadvantaged schools. Of course, there is no increase for those purposes. I want to talk now about additional teachers. Much has been said about the additional 319 teachers and ancillary staff and a possible $6 million increase for those purposes. The new federal programme, called the participation equity programme, is for it, and not the State, to provide funds for the hiring of certain teachers, certain additional staff for certain areas and schools under the programme. Mr J. H. Murray: Are you certain? Mr PICKARD: Yes. I could name them all, but the honourable member can get them from the federal Budget Papers. If he does not know what the funds are provided for, he can learn that from the Budget Papers. The Budget Papers name the schools. So few of those who have put in budgets for their programmes have had those budgets accepted. The additional teachers and ancillary staff for those schools will be funded from that source. They are not funded by the largesse of the Govern- ment. Again, long on words, short on action; big on heads, small in heart when it comes to the real needs of the people. We heard a lot of empty words during the elections from one of the five Ministers for Education in the past five years. Indeed, Appropriation Bill-26 September, 1984 1497 how can one have consistency of policy when there have been five Ministers for Education in that time? Many of them did not even know how to treat senior staff. Members should go to the head ofice of the department and talk to the staff, if they are able to. On the first occasion one tries to speak to some of the staff, one becomes aware that they are too scared to talk as friends. What they have in the department are not known as spies------Mr McIlwaine: Address the Chair. Mr PICKARD: The honourable member for Ryde is back again; little Sir Echo is in and out of the House like Popsy. Mr McIlwaine: Address the Chair. Mr PICKARD: I will address the Chair. The honourable member should address himself. One gets an amazing response from senior staff in the Department of Education. They say to us: "Do not give them the name spies. That is too glamorous a name for them. They are pimps-those who pimp to the Minister". If it is not to the Minister, they pimp to the little Mau Mau group that exists in the department. If a member of the staff is up for promotion, they ask whether that person has spoken to or been identified with an Opposition education spokesman. They ask whether he has a Labor Party ticket. If not, they look for the first oppor- tunity tc move him aside. One cannot get information from the department about the me of funds made available for education. One cannot find out, for instance, facts on how many teachers are required in certain schools, or how many schools are without the additional staff they seek. The Minister does not seem to know. If he docs, he is not prepared to talk. Yet there are quarterly reports that should be published. If the honourable member does not know, he ought to ask the Minister for Education. The Labor Party espoused public information until it came to office, then it would not release that information. Mr McIlwaine: Under previous governments members could not get any information. Mr PICKARD: The honourable member for Ryde should speak to those who were members of this House at the time I was Minister for Education; for instance, the former honourable member for Wollongong, Mr Eric Ramsay, who is a gentleman. The honourable member for Ryde should consult some of those honourable members, who will tell him all about it. The honourable member for Ryde was not a member of this House at that time and should not attempt to pull that one on me.

Mr McIlwaine: He is serious.

Mr PICKARD: I am serious because I am fed up with the Government's nonsense in dealing with the disadvantaged areas of education. One cannot obtain facts and figures from the Minister. The public deserves to know what is happening in the schools. I refer honourable members to the marvellous agreement that was made in respect of children in those special language schools. The Minister hid himself away and would not talk to the teachers or the children. The Minister did not want to know about these young children who came from a war torn country. Many of them were undergoing psychiatric treatment because of their past experiences. They needed individual attention in their schooling. That attention was not given. After being plagued out of his hollow log, or his elaborate new office, the Minister for Education said, "I will not talk to the Teachers Federation; I will not talk to the teachers at these schools". Because of some argument between the Premier and himself, ultimately the Minister and the Premier spoke to the Teachers Federation about these schools and 1498 ASSEMBLY-Appropriation Bill promised that the matter would be reviewed with great advantage to the teachers in the schools and the pupils being taught. Subsequently, a reduction was made in pupil numbers from twenty to eighteen. Mr Yabsley: It is fifteen in every other State. Mr PICKARD: Thank you; yes, it is fifteen. Honourable members know that in every other State it is not more than fifteen and in most States it is twe!ve. The federal Government makes available funds to those States for that purpose. If the Govcrnment is unable to find another $600,000 to assist these derperate children, it should ask the federal Government for more money. I refcr to non-government schools and to the ladies and gentlemen who were standing against the rights of every child in n non-government schooI to receive some of the budgelary funds supplicd through taxation to enable thcm to underlakc their education at a school of their choice. The Government, which was then on the Opposition benches, got on the wagaon. I can remember the fight. I can remember some of the things that were said. One or two members of the prescnt Government had fought for a long time to have funds made available for this purpose. I recall clearly the Government supporter who commenced the first move in that direction, but that is where it sto~ped.The coalition Government introduced per capltn funding. It was some years before the Labor Party was wilh~to take LID this matter. It then promised an allocation of 20 per cent of the cost of educating a child at a State school. This was the con!ition Government's declared policy introduced by Sir Robert Askin. Where is that 20 per cent now? Tt werlt down to I3 per cent. Two years ago the Government froze its allocation of funds to non-government schools. After a period of six month the Government was able to devise a system to obtah funds through a manipulntion between schools. The next year, the one that is just past, the same amount of funds as was al7ocatetl the year bcfore was again msnipulated. Then the Government came to the point where it decidcd that it was not really in favour of the 20 pcr ccnt and said that it was proposin,o a system of looking at the rchool and det.lnrin5 it to be a wealthy bcbool so that every child attending it is penalized. and then ioolii~~qat another school and declarinp thqt though it is not SPICII a wenlthy school. the children attendin? it will still be penaiinxl. That process was followed throuqh twclve catemries until ope trot to category nine where there was a small 3 per cent benefit while the rate of inflation was eitlicr 5 per cent or 6 per cent, according to how one calculated it and what factors one took into account in calc~~latingit. So the amount of nioncy, even to the schools in the lowest category was decreasing. Mr J. H. Murray: Rubbish! Mr PICKARD: That is just what it is; it is educational rubbish that the Government has been potting out to the people. Mr Mochalski: What has money got to do with education? Mr PICIWRD: I am glad to hear the honourable nlember for Banlcstown ask what h3s money got to do with educztion. Tf there is any copmon area in which one can in% of cquality of opportur;;ty in cdtlcatjon, it is the clollars that a kid has in his hard to go and buy the education he deserves, where he wants it, Whcn one looks at building subpidies to non-government schools, one find7 PO increase; they are not even level: they are down by almost 3 per cent. So the bricks and mortar that these schools use to build for the children attending them have been dhinished as a result of this Government's implcrnentation of its policy. I deal neut with continuing edtica- tion. This is a matter that honourable members hear much of. 'live are told that we will all have to be re-educated at least three times in the future as we change jobs. Mr J. R. Murray: Four times for you. Appropriation Bill-26 September, 1984 1499

Mr PICKARD: It depwds on how often we are voted in or out. But we are a'! gc,ing to have to be re-educated in some way or other. Continuing education is an impc~~taiitpart of the education portfolio. The allocation for it is down by 21 per cent. So wlnt concern has this Government for re-education programmes to adj~~stand prepnic for further jobs later on? The next matter to which I draw artention is the conserva:orkm. 'The State is short of music teaci~crscs well as teachers of mathcmatics, science and woodwork and now there is a shortage of English teachers in the Far West. Two h'gh .;chools have recently reportccl their inability to get rep!acements for English tc:tchc~s So there is a shortage all through the country in some subjectr and in some IW-ts of the country an increasing number of shortages, onc of which is music. One fids that funds for the Conservatorium High School are down by almost 4 pcr cent, w the shortqe of music teachers will be made even worse. I cannot understand the logic of the Government. Maybe it is not Jevon's logic: it is some sort of ct?mmunist or socialist symbolic logic. The subject of the conveying of children to s"ho~1oppearcd suddenly in the press the other clay, and the Minister did not know how it was leaked. Is not that amazing? Mr J. H. Murray: Not all the leaks come from Ministers. Mr PICKARD: Most of them do, and the by-line hunters hang round waiting for them. They are not reporters: thev are just by-line huntcrs. The coqt of con- veying children to school is now under attack. I clearly remember that in 1978 the Premier. on behalf of the Govcrnme~t,on several occasions prior to the election, in this House and in his policy speech said: We will work for the removal of all limits on travcl to school and uc will .;tart with chiidren going to lcinderpartcn. The 1.6 kilometre rule vri!! be lifted and every kindergarten child will be taken to school over what- e~crdistance, from however near to the school. The Government har said that time and time again since. Late one night, one of the five Ministers for Education in the Wran Government's administration came into the I-lonsc, unbeltnown to caucus and the party- Mr McIlwaine: That is not true. Mr PICKARD: Does the honourable member for Ryde mean that everyone on that side of the House knew about it and was in favour of it? The honourable member should be careful about what he says, for his electors might find out that he was trying to rob them. That action was taken to make sure that several things happened: first, that children would never again have the right to free bus travel to the school of their choice. That proposal was then abandoned. Second, there was to be a review of the provisions regardin: the distance that children could travel to schools by school bus. It was proposed that there should be a review also of the distance children could travel by school buses in central country school areas to meet cars, and be taken to and from school each day. That did not succeed and that clause was withdrawn. hlr J. A. Clough: At 2 o'clock in the morning it was withdrawn quickly. Mr PICKARD: It was withdrawn quickly because caucus said that it did not know about the proposal. Many honourable members will recall the yells from the Treasury benches to the Minister. I well recall that it was suggested that we would not hear any more about the proposal. Suddenly on the grapevine one hears that a group called the Russell committee has been set up lo inquire into the conveying of cbildrez to and from schools. IIonocrab!e members will have seen in their electorates funny little cars with small whecls measuring distances from each gateway. They follow the children from one gatcway to the next, measure the distance, take in this 1500 ASSEMBLY-Appropriation Bill-Adjournment slot and put in another slot. It would be humourous, if it were not so tragic; it would be hilarious, if its results were not horrific. Some children have to cross main roads to go to school. I know of one mile of roadway where twenty-seven deaths have occurred in ten years. Children must cross that road to go to the nearest railway station, for no longer can they use private buses to travel to school. I defy the Government and its supporters to tell the electorate that it intends to take that protection from young children. That cannot be blamed on the bus proprietors. Honourable members on the Government side of the House know as well as I do that when bus proprietors submit their figures for the year they must show that they have enough buses to carry the children who will travel on those bus routes and that an allowance of 20 per cent is made for journeys not taken. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member has exhausted his time. Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Hills.

ADJOURNMENT School Subsidies Mrs CROSIO (Fairfield), Minister for Natural Resources [10.23]: I move: That this House do now adjourn. Mr ZAMMIT (Burwood) [10.24]: I am disappointed that the Minister for Education is not in the House. I paid him the courtesy of advising him that I intended to raise a matter relating to his portfolio. I even informed him of the schools to which I intended to refer and I was willing to give him the background material on why I sought to raise this issue of great importance and concern to my electorate. The matter involves two long-established private schools in the Burwood electorate and the parents and children who were erroneously disadvantaged by a recent decision by the Schools Commission. The 1984 State and federal subsidies for Santa Sabina College and Santa Maria Del Monte School at Strathfield have been reduced from level 3 to level 2. I trust that the Minister for Education will take action to have those subsidies reinstated, as figures presented to the Schools Commission showed that the schools have complied with the guidelines set down for level 3 funding and that the federal Minister for Education has acted erroneously. The decision will cost the schools $410,000 in reduced subsidies for 1984. That has caused an intolerable impact on the finances of the schools and a consequent impact on the parents of the children attending the schools. In August 1983 a decision to move Santa Sabina College from group 3 to group 2 level funding was overturned by the federal Minister for Education, Senator Ryan. I am pleased that the Minister for Education has decided to attend the Chamber to listen to this important matter. When informing Santa Sabina College of the Minister's decision, the Schools Commission said that Santa Sabina's funding for 1984 would be reviewed. The first payment for 1984 was made in April at level 2, without prior notification. In May the college was advised that its funding level had been assessed at group 2; yet the college has operated within the school recurrent resource index and income test guidelines for group 3 funding, based on its 1983 data and applying the criteria used for assessing other schools in determining their classification. The commission is attempting to disadvantage the college by applying a new assessment criteria to vindicate the decision. Schools in a similar position to Santa Sabina College were assessed on the criteria set out in the 1982 guidelines, and their funding for 1983 and 1984 was determined on that criteria. The reduced level of funding will result in tuition-free Adjournment---26 September, 1984 1501 increases of 40 per cent as well as the $410,000 reduction. Parents of students at Santa Sabina College are not in the socio-economic category where a substantial fee increase of more than 40 per cent can be accepted without considerable hardship. Mr McIlwaine: How much do they have invested?

Mr ZAMMIT: I will come to that in a minute. If the honourable member listens, he will hear about it. The following evidence supports this assertion. A 1980 survey of the school population revealed that 48 per cent of parents were in pro- fessional or related activities; forty-seven per cent were in middle management or in a self-employed capacity; and five per cent were unskilled or unemployed. Forty- eight per cent of families had two-parent incomes that afforded them the opportunity of sending their children to the school of their choice. Since 1980 economic conditions have deteriorated. A high proportion of families are now experiencing unemployment. In 1982 an analysis of a particular year revealed that approximately a third of families were in the managerial-professional range, while another third were in small business and middle management. The remaining third were in trades, clerical, sales and related occupations. Santa Sabina College students are said to be drawn from a wide geographical range but a recent analysis reveals that 80 per cent of students come from the inner west, with the highest concentration, about 40 per cent, being from Strathfield, Strathfield South, Strathfield West, Belfield, Homebush, Concord and Croydon. Santa Sabina College is the only Catholic school in the area that caters for students in years 7 to 12. Its ethnic composition is 40 per cent of non-Anglo-Saxon origin-the largest numbers coming from the Italian and Lebanese communities. In 1984 there were approximately fifty withdrawals from the school because of the present scale of fees.

Mr McIlwaine: How much do they have invested; tell us that?

Mr ZAMMIT: I will come to that in a minute; be patient. I have sought to speak to the federal member for Lowe to ascertain whether a joint approach could be adopted in this matter. Labor Party members speak of a bipartisan approach and of consensus; yet, the federal member for Lowe said there was nothing he could do and, I suppose, there is nothing he is prepared to do about it.

Mr McIlwaine: That is not true.

Mr ZAMMIT: It is estimated that approximately 30 per cent of the students will have their schooling disrupted because of the withdrawals during 1984-85, if the fees are increased by the necessary 40 per cent.

Mr McIlwaine: How much do they have invested?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ryde to order.

Mr ZAMMIT: This is the third time I have told the honourable member for Ryde that I will come to that matter. He has only to be patient. Only yesterday I was informed that Bethlehem College at Ashfield received some sixty telephone calls from distraught parents of students of Santa Sabina College who will not be able to pay the higher fees. This bears out the fact that Santa Sabina College caters basically for the middle and lower income groups and draws enrolments from a wide range of the inner and far-western suburbs.

Mr J. H. Murray: Strathfield and Burwood. Mr ZAMMIT: Also from Drummoyne, for the gratification of the honourable member. On 25th May, 1954, Sanha Sabina College received a letter from the Com- moilwealth Schools Commission. As I cannot table it I shall make it available to the Minister if he wants to see it. In a letter dated 13th 1984, Santa Sabina replied in great detail to each of the five points raised in the letter of the Schools Commiqas~on. ' Santa Sabina strongly refuted each of the five points raised in the letter. It backed up its arguments with one of the most dctailcd submissions I have ever seen. Yet, Senator Ryan refuses to reply to the points raised by the school, which eficctively points out where the Schools Con~rnissionis wrong. Instead, Senator Ryan says that the decision is final and that no correspondence will be entered into. Senator Ryan's intransigence in this matter would appear to confirm what most informed people were fearful of. The true colours of the Mawlce Government are now beginning to show in this concerted drive by Senator Ryan to pick off the private schools one at a time. At a recent futlctioil Scnator Ryaa said: Education is not xlcl should not be socia?ly and politically neutral . . . The education policies of a national Govern~laenttherefore should be seen as a means of achieving social and philosophical goals.

What a dreadful thing for her to say. It should Ee noted that the emphasis is not on the achievement of cclucational or of personal or individual goals but on the political, social coiieclive anci philosophical ogmc:a of a govcmmcat. This is sornz- thing many Australian parents find disturbing and distasteful. It is one reason they are seeking to educate their chiidrcn outside the go\ernrnent school system. M:my parents see educators as trustecs and not as choseri or self-appointed agents of social change. Just one of many reasons for parents moving children to non-government schools across Australia in increasing numbers is that they believe that their children are bcing indoctrinaiecl with values that they do not share and thay are determined to reject. Many parents shect these ~macccplable values home to the Tcachcrs Federation and to those who would use the edwation system for the achicvcrnent of a union's or a government's icleologieal gods. To these parents, non-government schools are the only available alternative. W'nate-ver the arguments for or against State aid. Santa Sabina Collcgc has clearly demonstrated that within the current guirielines- it has not asked for any special favours-it has been cheated out of ft~ndsrightfully due to it and to the parents of the children who attend the two schools I have mentioned. More important, the children are being unjustly victimized. I ask the Minister to take the necessary steps to correct this gross injustice that has hcen perpe- trated on these two fine local schools.

Mr CAVALIER (Gladesville), Minister for Education [10.34]: I find it a curious use of the adjournment debatc that an honourable member who has this oppor- tunity afforded him so rarely would raise a matter that is entirely and esclusivcly within the domain of the Commonwealth Government.

Mr T. J. Moore: The incompetent federal member will not do anything.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Gordon to order.

Mr CAVALIER: I understand thtt the matter is one of reclassification and that it is currently the subject of discussion between the Commonwealth Schools Commission and the school involved. At this stage the discussions are conlidentinl, and for that reason I cannot provide the Horrse with any details. A decision will be macle on the appropriate Slate grant to be allocated after the conclusion of discnssio:ls between Santa Sabina College and the Commonwealth Schools Commission. The review Adjournment-26 September, 1984 1503 that is taking place is in accordance with Schools Cornmission policy, taking into account qucstioiis of income and expenditure. When the Iionourablc member for wood defamcs the prcscnf federal mcnlber for Lowe- Mr J. H. Murray: And a good member at that. Mr CAVALIER: He is an exccllcnt n~einbera1 that-the member who wiJ always be the yardstick for the parish pump local mcmber of Parlidmci-it and a most distinguished iormcr member of this House, representing the Drummoyne electorate. When the honourable member tor Burwood dekamcs that honourable member and is joined in that chorus by both the Leadcr of the Opposition and the honourable mcmbcr for Gordon, it is worth noting that when the school held a public nleeting recently the federal member was not invited. How is that for consensus? How is that for non-partisanship? How is that for an attcmpt to develop co-operation and a unitcd remonstrance with the federal member? I think it would be most unliltely that anyone would confuse the religious proclivities of the honourable mcmber for Lowe. For those who are interested in dcveloping a unitcd response, a co-ordinated response, a response which was to be directed at the Commonwealth Govcrnment, one would have thought that the elcmcntary step was to involve the fcdcral member. As the school in question did not, on the advice I have, so it it has necessarily limited the effectiveness of its lobbying. But the matter, as I understand, is still the subject of ongoing discussions between the school and the Comnlonwenlih Schools Commission. The Commonwealth Schools Commission, I would have thought, had shown no bias of any kind against independent schools, against independent schools systems, or against any facet of the non-government sector. It ill becomes the honourable member to attack Senator Ryan, the Common- wealth Minister, lor what she is doing is in a di%eult climate, in an area of debate where one's intentions are constantly questioned, and where very little in the way of good will is ever conceded. She has done a first-class job in attempting to not have sioltcd the fierce sectarian fires of State aid. She succeeded in persuading the Com- monwealth Cabinet to adopt a policy on State aid that has led to the general embracing of it by the private school sector and some quite vocal and coherent and thoughtful praise of it by the private school sector and a very significant part of the public education community. As a rcsult of the initiatives of Senator Ryan and her ability to persuade the federal Cabinet and the federal parliamentary Labor Party that every school child in Australia is entitled to some level of basic grant, there is a recognition that she has helped to put off the agcnda of public debate, to take off the hustings, what could be a fierce and divisive debate on the whole question of State aid and what the levels of support should be. That is no mean achievement and deserves a much greater recog- nition by the honourable member for Burwood and other honourable members and all those who intend to participate in the coming federal elections. Doubtless the concerns of the honourable member for Burwood will be taken into account by the Commonwealth Schools Commission. The commissioners are men and women of great integrity, who are guided by the education merits of each question before them. No one should prejudge their decision. In the nature of things, not all the outcomes of their deliberations will go the way that a particular school, a particular sector, or a particular member may desire. That is the nature of making a fair and objective assessment of each question on its merits. I am sure that, whatever the ~utcomewith Santa Sabina and Dcl Monte, the decision of the Commonwealth Schools Commission will be one that can be justified on edtrcalional merit and will take into accomrt all those guidelines that Ihc Coinmonwealth Schools Comn~ission worked so hard to devise and apply objectively and fairly for the benefit of schools in the Australian nation. 1504 ASSEMBLY-Adjournment-Question upon Notice

Mr McILWAINE (Ryde) [10.39]: I rise in this matter-[Quorum formed.] Mr SPEAKER: Order! The debate having proceeded for fifteen minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 40~the House now stands adjourned. House adjourned at 10.39 p.m.

QUESTION UPON NOTICE

The following question upon notice and answer was circulated in Questions and Answers this day.

SAILORS BAY MARINA

Mr COLLINS asked the Minister for Public Works and Ports and Minister for Roads- (1) Has the Maritime Services Board made a decision based on the Commis- sioners of Inquiry Report on marina extensions at Sailors Bay, Northbridge? (2) Was this report handed to the Minister for Planning and Environment in November, 1983? (3) Has the Government received allegations of misconduct on the part of the Maritime Services Board in this matter? (4) Has the Maritime Services Board been approached to supply updated information on additional moorings granted to the marina development at Northbridge? (5) Prior to his development application, did the marina developer assist the Maritime Services Board in the formulation of its policy for a new style mooring system? (6) In 1983, did the developer apply for a senior position with the Maritime Services Board involving the licensing and allocation of moorings? (7) Will he now consider calling for an independent inquiry into the activities of the Maritime Services Board, including those relating to the Sailors Bay Development?

Answer- (1) No. The findings and recommendations of the Commissioners of Inquiry are but some of the matters which the Board is required to take into account when making its final decision in relation to the development. Under Section 114 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, pro- vision is made for the Minister for Planning and Environment, having con- sidered the findings and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. to give advice to an authority such as the Board in respect of the activity to which such findings and recommendations relate. On 28 June, 1984 the Board was notified that no such advice would be made with regard to the general recom- mendations contained in the Commissioner's Report. uesrion upon Notic 150

have completed their study of the responses to the ent, the recornendations of t objections raised by members of the en last week to the Ombudsman in a letter from be referred back to the Sydney Harbour Fore- ittee of Advice for an expression of the Committee's

en in compliance wit

The Chairman of ee (the Board's Chief ourin of the Codttee du encin

receipt of a report from the Codttea, the Board's decision will be

ard understands that the report of the Commissioners of Inquiry ed during November 1983 and made available at about that time to the Minister for Plannin and Envifonment.

oard discussed multiple moorin systems generally w e the industry and the proprietor f Northbridge Yacht the capacity of Secretary of the Marinas Association of N. least one meeting convened by a Commissioner of the ressed by those engaged in the indus at in formulating its policy. for the position of Controller, Waterways Management. s without resviction as to w was unsuccessful. to the Sailors Bay development, an independent Public Inquiry and its findings and recommendations will be taken into a1 decision is made, as mentioned in my answer to P

arliament legislation enacted to reconstitute reconstituted Board policies and operations