PROOF
New South Wales
Legislative Council
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)
FIFTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT SECOND SESSION
THURSDAY 13 APRIL 2000
______
Authorised by the Parliament of New South Wales * * *
PARLIMENTARY DEBATES
Corrections to Daily Proof
To ensure the early publication of the Hansard pamphlet, members’ suggested corrections to debate held on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday will be accepted only until 2 p.m. on the day following the debate; and to debate on Friday, only until 2 p.m. on the following Monday.
Corrections may be marked on a photocopy of the daily proof page and lodged at the Office of the Editor of Debates, Level 8, Parliament House.
Corrections faxed to 9230 2921 should be authorised by signature and contain the name, office and telephone number of the person transmitting the correction.
Corrections sent by e-mail to the Acting Editor of Debates, [email protected], must show the date and time of the contribution requiring correction to allow identification of the debate in which it occurred.
Amendments cannot be accepted over the telephone.
Corrections should relate only to inaccuracies. New matter may not be introduced.
Mark Faulkner Acting Editor of Debates
* * * CONTENTS PAGE NO.
ACCESS TO NEIGHBOURING LAND BILL ...... 2 ADJOURNMENT ...... 68 BAG SNATCHING ATTACKS ...... 21, 25 COAL INDUSTRY ...... 26 CONVEYANCERS LICENSING AMENDMENT (PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE) BILL ...... 1, 45 CONVEYANCING AMENDMENT (CENTRAL REGISTER OF RESTRICTIONS) BILL...... 8 CONVEYANCING AMENDMENT (LAW OF SUPPORT) BILL...... 47 DHARAWAL STATE RECREATION AREA LEASE OF LAND ...... 31 ETHNIC POLICE RECRUITMENT ...... 28 FAIR TRADING AMENDMENT (SUBSTANTIATION OF CLAIMS) BILL...... 1, 34 FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES PROGRAM...... 23 FLORIANO VOLPATO...... 72 FRED McKAY TRIBUTE...... 73 GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 1 ...... 1 HEALTH COUNCIL PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS ...... 31 HENRY STRICKER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AWARDS...... 20 INTEGRAL ENERGY INSIDER TRADING ...... 32 JENNIE GEORGE DELTA ELECTRICITY BOARD APPOINTMENT...... 24 JERILDERIE MULTIPURPOSE CENTRE ...... 71 JURY SERVICE ...... 24 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (FILMING) BILL ...... 10, 33 MOTOR VEHICLE AIRCONDITIONING SYSTEMS ...... 23 MOTOR VEHICLE FIRES ...... 32 NEW SOUTH WALES FISHERIES...... 30 NEW SOUTH WALES REGIONAL SCHOOLS...... 68 NEW SOUTH WALES TOURISM ...... 69 NORTHPOWER BOARD...... 21 NYNGAN POLICE STATION...... 27 OLYMPIC ARRANGEMENTS BILL...... 1 ORANA JUVENILE JUSTICE CENTRE...... 22 PETITION ...... 1 PRIMARY PRINCIPAL CLASSES 5 AND 6 SCHOOLS...... 25 PRIMARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS ...... 33 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE...... 20 RAILWAY MAINTENANCE STAFF CUTS...... 23 SOUTH SYDNEY FOOTBALL CLUB...... 27 TECHNICO SEED POTATO TECHNOLOGY ...... 28 THE BUTTERY, BINA BURRA, RESIDENTIAL DRUG REHABILITATION BEDS...... 29 WORKERS COMPENSATION ...... 20 WORKPLACE SAFETY COMMITTEE ...... 70 ZOOLOGICAL PARKS BOARD AMENDMENT BILL...... 51
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only.
1
<1>
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Thursday 13 April 2000 ______
The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.
The President offered the Prayers.
CONVEYANCERS LICENSING AMENDMENT (PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE) BILL
FAIR TRADING AMENDMENT (SUBSTANTIATION OF CLAIMS) BILL
Bills received.
Leave granted for procedural matters to be dealt with on one motion without formality.
Motion by the Hon. M. R. Egan agreed to:
That these bills be read a first time and printed, standing orders be suspended on contingent notice for remaining stages and the second reading of the bills be set down as orders of the day for a later hour of the sitting.
Bills read a first time.
GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 1
Report
Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, as Chairman, tabled report No. 8 of the committee entitled "Inquiry into the Current Provisions for the Appropriation of Moneys and Authorisation of Expenditure in New South Wales—Interim Report", dated April 2000.
Ordered to be printed.
PETITION
Circus Animals
Petition praying for opposition to the suffering of wild animals and their use in circuses, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.
OLYMPIC ARRANGEMENTS BILL
Personal Explanation
Ms LEE RHIANNON, by leave: Yesterday the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti stated, "She", referring to me, "organised the demonstration to disrupt." I understand that the honourable member was referring to people in the gallery who, on various occasions, interjected. Neither I nor the Greens organised for those people to come into the gallery of this House and, once they were here, we did not arrange for them to interject. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti also stated:
Lee Rhiannon ... throughout her life has been a strong advocate for a totalitarian system of government.
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 2 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
I do not support and have never supported totalitarian regimes. I have, though, spent much of my time campaigning in support of people's movements fighting to promote and protect the democratic process. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti also stated:
She does not like the police at all. Indeed, no matter how much she damages the police or causes violence to them …
I have in no way caused damage or violence to the police. That is a most serious charge and one that I believe the honourable member should withdraw. I am deeply offended by the honourable member's statements. It is also inaccurate to say that I do not like the police. The honourable member should also understand that I was referring to the actions of certain police officers, not police officers as individuals. I recognise that police work can be difficult and dangerous and I expect the police to abide by the law at all times. The honourable member also said yesterday in debate on the Olympic Arrangements Bill that I was "abusing the House". That implied that the Greens moved amendments to that bill for vexatious reasons.
We were not abusing this House in any way. All our contributions in this place are made from our commitment to improve the lives of the people of New South Wales and to safeguard our environment. My colleague the Hon. I. Cohen and I respect the democratic traditions of this Parliament. We believe that honourable members should either debate with us in a respectful manner or ignore our contribution to this place, rather than state that I was abusing the House. In debate yesterday the Treasurer referred to me on a number of occasions as an old com. The "old" I accept, as I am 48, but I am not a member of the Communist Party as that comment implied. I am a member of the party known in this country as the Greens.
The Hon. M. R. Egan: Were you ever a member of the Communist Party?
<2> Ms LEE RHIANNON: No, I was not, and a rule governing membership of this party is that members cannot hold membership in any other political party. Once again, I will explain to the Treasurer that my parents were members of the Communist Party, as were many of their friends, my uncles and, for a short period, my grandfather, who was arrested on a number of occasions at the Domain. I was not. The Cold War is over and this is not the McCarthy period.
ACCESS TO NEIGHBOURING LAND BILL
Second Reading
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [2.40 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
This bill is about protecting people’s right to maintain and repair their homes and properties, wherever they live in New South Wales. It is about building in a mechanism to head off conflict between neighbours, while protecting the rights and interests of all parties. If I own a house that is built right up against, or very close to, the boundary between my property and my neighbour’s property, then in order to properly repair or maintain my house I may need to enter my neighbour’s land. For example, if I want to repair the side of the house that is built close to or along the boundary I will need to carry out the repairs from my neighbour’s land. However, the law currently states that I cannot enter my neighbour’s land without my neighbour’s consent. To do so would constitute a trespass. Furthermore a court has no power to order my neighbour to allow me onto the land. Therefore I may not be able to properly maintain or repair my house or even comply with a council order that I carry out repairs. Unhappily this is the situation which many householders in this State have to face.
In order to find a solution to this and similar problems affecting relations between neighbours, the Law Reform Commission published a discussion paper entitled "Neighbour and Neighbour Relations". After considering the many responses that were received to the paper the commission published a report entitled "Right of Access to Neighbouring Land"; and has published a separate report entitled "Neighbour and Neighbour Relations" that deals with disputes relating to noise and trees. The bill before the House implements the recommendations of the commission contained in its "Right of Access to Neighbouring Land" report.
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 3
The essence of the bill is that it entitles a person to make application to a court for an order enabling that person to enter neighbouring land. There are two types of orders that may be applied for. The first is called a neighbouring land access order and entitles the applicant to enter neighbouring land for the purpose of carrying out work on the applicant’s own land. An applicant will normally be the owner of the land on which the work is to be carried out, but may also be an occupier of that land. This will ensure that persons such as tenants and other occupiers of a property will be able to make applications where necessary. A court will however have discretion to waive the requirement for the owner’s consent. Therefore where consent has been unreasonably withheld, or the owner cannot be located, or for other similar reasons, the court can ensure that an application may still be made.
The second type of order is called a utility service access order. It enables a person who uses a utility service that runs through neighbouring land to enter that neighbouring land to carry out work on the utility service. For example, if a sewer line that services a house runs through a neighbouring property and becomes blocked at some point of the line on that property, then the access order will allow entry onto the property in order to fix the blockage. Other utility services that the order can apply to are drainage, water, gas, electricity or telephone services. If it becomes necessary to add other services in the future then the bill provides that this can be done by regulation.
The applicant for a utility service access order can be anyone entitled to use the utility service. That is, the applicant does not have to be the owner of the land serviced by the utility, or even have the consent of the owner. Therefore an occupier of the land, such as a tenant, can apply in the occupier's own right for the order. This facility recognises that any person who uses a utility service has sufficient interest in its proper operation to be entitled to apply for an order to enter neighbouring land to fix a problem with the service.
An applicant for either order must give at least 21 days notice of intention to lodge an application, and the terms of the order sought, to the owner of the neighbouring land, to anyone else entitled to use a utility service on which work is intended to be carried out, and to anyone else who will be affected by the order. This provision ensures that occupiers of the adjoining land will be given notice of the application, and that where a utility service serves several properties—such as often occurs with sewer lines for a row of terrace houses—all the other users of the service will also receive notice. In many cases the service of a notice of intention to commence an application may be a catalyst for the parties to be able to resolve the dispute themselves, and the intended application may not need to be actually lodged.
An application for an access order will not be able to be made in respect of land that has been reserved, dedicated or declared under part 4 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. Such land is national park, or State recreation area, or native reserve, or wilderness area or other similar land. Access to those special and sensitive categories of land was never meant to be covered by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission's proposals which clearly were intended to resolve problems that occur in urban areas. Accordingly, such land is excluded from the ambit of the bill.
The court that will be empowered to determine applications for access orders will be the Local Court. This is the court that normally determines disputes between neighbours, it is the court in which it costs the least to file an application, and it is the court in which a dispute will most speedily come on for hearing. Accordingly, it is the most appropriate court to hear these types of applications. However, a court will not be able to make an access order unless it is satisfied that the applicant has first made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with the applicant’s neighbour for the access sought. This will ensure that only genuine disputes are brought before the court, and will prevent frivolous or premature actions being brought. Of course the parties will also be able to utilize the services of a community justice centre to assist them in trying to resolve the dispute outside the court system.
However, in respect of those disputes that the parties cannot resolve for themselves, the court will be required to make a decision. In reaching a decision the court will have to consider two main issues. Firstly, whether the proposed work cannot be carried out or would be substantially more difficult or expensive to carry out without access to the neighbouring land and, secondly, whether granting the proposed access would cause unreasonable hardship to the neighbour affected by the order. Unless a court is satisfied about these two issues the application will not be granted.
Even if a court decides to make an order for access, it may impose whatever conditions it decides are necessary in order to protect the neighbouring land and its occupants. The sorts of conditions that will be imposed will be those that avoid or minimise loss or damage to the neighbouring property; those that avoid or minimise inconvenience or loss of privacy to the neighbour; or requiring the taking out of insurance cover by the applicant against risks specified in the order. An access order must also specify the date from which access is permitted and the date when access ceases to be permitted, and if relevant, the times during which access is permitted. By the imposition of these types of conditions and limitations, a court can ensure that the interests of the neighbouring property and its occupants are safeguarded, and that the effect of the order is minimised.
The bill also contains other safeguards for the property affected by the access order. It provides that a person who is granted an access order to neighbouring land will be required to remove from that land any waste that may arise from the carrying out of the permitted work. Additionally, it provides that the applicant will have to restore the neighbouring land to the same condition as it was before the permitted work was carried out, and will also have to indemnify the neighbouring owner against any damage that might arise as a result of the access. Of course, the granting of an access order to do work does not mean that any consent by a consent authority that would normally be required for the works does not apply. If consent authority approval is needed for the particular type of work for which access has been granted, then such approval must still be obtained. Similarly, if any work or activity is prohibited by another Act then nothing in this bill operates to negate that prohibition.
An access order can be varied or revoked by a Local Court on application by the applicant or by any other person affected by the order. This will ensure that any matters that arise after the order is made can be acted upon by
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 4 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
reviewing the order where necessary. One of the most important provisions of this bill is that it authorises the court to order an applicant who has been granted an access order to pay compensation to the owner of the neighbouring land for loss or damage caused by the access. Compensation may be sought by the neighbouring owner after the date that the access order is made, but must not be sought more than three years after the date on which the last access under the order occurred.
The costs of an access order may be awarded at the court’s discretion. However, the court may take into account attempts by the parties to reach agreement before the proceedings, and whether the refusal to grant the desired access was reasonable, in deciding as to how costs should be awarded. Presumably a neighbour who is judged to have acted reasonably in refusing the access sought will be granted costs against the applicant. If the amount of compensation or damages involved in a matter is likely to exceed the amount of the Local Court’s monetary jurisdiction—which is $40,000—then the matter must be transferred to the Land and Environment Court. This court has expertise in deciding all issues concerning land, and accordingly is the appropriate forum for such matters to be referred. Similarly, if a question of law arises in a hearing of an application for an access order, then the Local Court has the option of referring the question to the Land and Environment Court. An appeal on a question of law from a decision of the Local Court upon an access order must also be made to the Land and Environment Court.
As well as the access to neighbouring land problems that I have just discussed, the commission’s report also identifies problems with sharing costs of repair and maintenance of shared utility services. For example, many households share the use of a sewer line or a water pipe. When a blockage occurs in the line or pipe there is usually confusion as to who is liable to pay for the cost of fixing the problem. Is it all the households that share the service, or only the household on whose land the blockage has occurred, or is it some other combination? In order to resolve the confusion over this issue the commission has recommended that each user of a shared utility service be equally responsible for the costs of its maintenance and repair. This is only fair as each user has the use and enjoyment of the service as a whole. However where the need for maintenance or repair is caused by the deliberate act of one of the users then liability will rest with that user alone. The Bill implements those recommendations of the commission concerning sharing costs of repair and maintenance of a joint utility service that I have just discussed.
As this bill deals with land, it is necessary to also make provision for those parcels of land where native title might exist. When any such parcel is the subject of an access application, the bill provides for the giving of notice of the application to the relevant native title body corporate or native title claimant. It also provides that in respect of a parcel of land where there is an approved determination that native title exists, a registered native title body corporate has the same rights and responsibilities under the bill as any other owner of land. The Act will be reviewed in five years time to determine whether the objectives of the Act are being met and whether there needs to be any amendment of the Act to achieve these objectives. A report of the outcome of the review will be tabled within 12 months after the end of that five-year period.
While it is anticipated that this bill will be mainly used by neighbours in residential situations, it can also be used in relation to commercial, industrial, or rural property. It is therefore wide ranging in its operation and may be utilised to solve commercial disputes as well as neighbourhood problems. It provides a practical and speedy resolution to problems which have up until now been insoluble. I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [2.41 p.m.]: I am able to inform the House that the Opposition will support the bill. We believe it is an appropriate amendment to current legislation and will facilitate negotiations between neighbours where those negotiations have not been able to be completed in an informal way. It is obvious that in our modern urban setting there are occasions when property holders have to have access to neighbouring land to carry out normal repairs and maintenance—or, for that matter, extraordinary repairs and maintenance—to their buildings, and for a variety of other purposes connected to the upkeep of their land.
On occasions it is difficult to negotiate with neighbours the terms and conditions on which access could be granted. I suppose we can all regret the passing of an age when neighbourliness was practised in a form which would have meant these sorts of disputes did not have to be a matter of statute and certainly would not come before the courts of our land. But we live in a modern age and we must comport ourselves to the requirements of our society. One of those requirements is that there is a recourse for owners of property to seek a judicial order giving them access to the property that they need.
The Opposition is concerned that the provisions of this bill which provide that access do not necessarily give the appeal rights to individuals who may be opposed to the type of access that is finally determined. We recognise that the Government, in setting very strict criteria for those appeals, is mindful that issues like these should not be contested in a specious way simply by raising the stakes through an appeal mechanism that is going to cost the applicant an enormous amount—in other words, by going to higher and higher jurisdictions to appeal the access that has been granted and which could impose cost burdens on that property holder who is seeking review of the decision and which could coerce that person into accepting the decision. With those reservations, we believe that the bill is useful in dealing with everyday problems that one is confronted with in an urban society and we
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 5
believe this bill should pass this afternoon. It will certainly enjoy the support of the Opposition to that end.
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [2.45 p.m.]: I support the legislation generally. There have been a number of occasions in the past when people have not been able to access neighbouring lands, and that has made this legislation necessary. One problem with it, and which I have discussed with one or two members of the Opposition, is that the appeal rights apply only to questions of law and not to merit. I foreshadow moving an amendment in Committee to address the question of appeal rights so people can go to the Land and Environment Court and appeal the decision on the merits of the case, not only on questions of law. There may be circumstances in which people do not want their land accessed in a particular place. There could be some very rare plants there, a grave of some sort or some work of art or sculpture that they do not want disturbed. If a decision goes against them they may really wish to appeal that on the merits and not on disputed points of law.
The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.46 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats support this law, which does seem necessary. I have personally had difficulty accessing land to fix minor problems on various dwellings, and it is important to have legislation to allow one to access land. We support the bill.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [2.46 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Access to Neighbouring Land Bill. The bill will enable a person to gain access to another person's land to carry out work on the person's own land or to carry out work on a utility service situated on that person's land. That person will be able to apply to a Local Court for a neighbouring land access order or a utility service access order. We believe this can only promote better harmony and co- operation. We note also that the intention of the bill is not to multiply court cases but to encourage the persons involved to do all they can to resolve matters, even by using the community justice centres, so that the time of the court is not taken up with matters that are not of major importance—in other words, to separate those matters that may be frivolous. The court can also impose whatever conditions it decides are necessary to protect the neighbouring land and occupants. That is to avoid or minimise loss or damage to neighbouring property. We believe those factors are also important. We support the bill.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [2.48 p.m.]: The Greens support this bill. As we have an increasing number of local councillors and much of our work is in the community, we have been aware of the extraordinary number of conflicts that can arise because of issues involved in neighbouring property matters. They often result in legal disputes and obviously many of them are unnecessary. We see this legislation as a step towards easing these problems that occur all too often. The bill will reduce the level of unnecessary mediation undertaken by councillors and local government employees, so that is another plus for them as well as for the people who live on these properties. We trust the bill will ensure that there is a clear and inexpensive opportunity for adjudication on access to neighbouring lands, so we will support this bill. <3> The Hon. Dr P. WONG [2.49 p.m.]: I support the bill, particularly the objective to enable a person to gain access to another person's land to carry out work on the person's own land or on a utility service situated on the other person's land. This will help to minimise legal disputes and assist local government officers in carrying out their duties.
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [2.50 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Hon. D. F. Moppett, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans, Ms Lee Rhiannon and the Hon. Dr P. Wong for their support of the bill. Honourable members pointed out that the law of real property has not kept pace with modern living conditions, which often necessitates access to or over another person's property. Generally, the common law does not permit such access except when an easement or other form of right of access exists. This bill provides statutory reform in this area of the law to allow persons to apply to the court for access over an adjoining or adjacent property in certain circumstances.
I understand that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones intends to move an amendment which indicates his concern about the right of appeal to the Land and Environment Court. I draw to the attention of the honourable member the comments made by the Minister in the other place in relation to this particular
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 6 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council concern. It is correct that if damage occurs on a neighbouring property the neighbour can appeal to the Land and Environment Court but only on matters of law. Honourable members seem to have overlooked the provisions in clause 24, which states that either party can take the matter back to the Local Court and have the access order revoked or have changes made to the access order.
So if untoward damage or something else is occurring on the neighbour's property with which the neighbour is not happy, the neighbour can apply to the Local Court to have the access order revoked or varied. If that occurs, the applicant must move away from the area in which he or she is operating or take some other action that will address the concerns of the neighbour. I think clause 24 addresses the concern raised by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Parts 1 and 2 agreed to.
Part 3
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [2.53 p.m.], by leave: I move amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:
No. 1 Page 13, clause 31, line 3. Omit ", on a question of law,".
No. 2 Page 13, clause 31. Insert after line 4:
(2) An appeal is to be dealt with by way of rehearing and fresh evidence or evidence in addition to or in substitution for the evidence before the Local Court may be given.
(3) On an appeal, the Land and Environment Court may make any decision or order or take any action that a Local Court may make or take in proceedings under this Act.
In reply to the second reading debate the Minister referred to an ability to return to the Local Court if damage was being done. That will be too late. I suggest that the person who wants to prevent the damage in the first place should have the right to take a merit case, not only a question of law, to the Land and Environment Court; otherwise it could be irreversible. It is all very well to say that a person can go back to the Local Court if damage is being done or has been done, but by then it may be too late; a valuable sculpture may have been damaged, for example. Persons should be able to perhaps have a rehearing in the Land and Environment Court with new evidence if they feel strongly about a matter. After all, going to court is an expensive exercise, so they would have to feel strongly about a matter to do so. The legislation should provide for a full hearing, not simply a hearing on questions of law.
The Hon. I. COHEN [2.55 p.m.]: The Greens support the amendments moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. Honourable members are aware of the difficulties that can be experienced between neighbours on certain issues. It is important to provide persons with every opportunity to have the issues discussed in court. While the Government's intention is positive, and the Greens support the bill overall, the honourable member's amendments would provide more protection, in light of the rapidity with which neighbourhood disputes can arise and damage that can be done. It is appropriate that the amendments be supported.
The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [2.55 p.m.]: During my contribution to the second reading debate I made cursory reference to this problem, and I shall now address the remarks made by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones in support of his amendments. I was unaware that amendments would be formally moved in Committee so my remarks during the second reading debate were fairly brief. However, I said that while the Opposition was concerned about the appeal, I understood there was a counter argument, which the honourable member has put forward. That is, access to the Land and Environment Court on the subject of merit could create a burden of cost in pursuing this access, which would make the whole exercise prohibitive. Essentially, if a person wants to go onto a neighbour's land to put up a ladder to clean out the gutter, do some painting or something like that—sometimes neighbours get into personal conflicts—the neighbour, simply to spite the person, might say, "I will
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 7
not give you access and I will fight it all the way through the courts." We hear such stories so often, and I am very cautious about this.
The Hon. I. Cohen: What about the converse situation?
The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I will address that because I know it has been offered seriously and genuinely by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and the Hon. I. Cohen. The presumption of those honourable members, which often comes out in the way they address such issues, is that in the first hearing the judicial officer will ignore issues such as a priceless piece of sculpture, a grave or the other examples put forward, and simply say, "To hell with all that. You can put your ladder against the sculpture if it gives some support to your ladder." Our judicial process does not work that way.
I imagine that if such things were nominated by the local tenant as being requirements, it would be difficult to overturn that. It would be difficult for the neighbour to deny access because it would impose extra costs on him in terms of rigging scaffolding to go over the top of a sculpture or to ensure that the foot of the ladder does not stand on a grave on the property. A person would have Buckley's hope of convincing a judicial officer that those important, esoteric issues should be ignored. Based on common experience, the likelihood is that there will be much greater recourse to nuisance through obstructive court procedures: If a wealthy person wanted to stop another person from carrying out simple maintenance on that person's property, he could appeal a decision based on merit; he could go beyond the Land and Environment Court, perhaps to the High Court of Australia.
We should allow the legislation to go through in its present form. However, if a bizarre example eventuates at some stage, perhaps we could look at amending the Act at that time. <4> I believe that the balance of rational thought and reasonable expectation would be that this process, although it may seem to truncate what people might call civil liberties, is tailored to give practical solutions to everyday problems between neighbours. The Opposition opposes the amendment.
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [3.00 p.m.]: For the reasons outlined in my reply to the second reading debate, the Government also opposes the amendment moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. We need to focus on what the bill seeks to do. It is an attempt to provide a relatively simple means to resolve neighbourhood issues, which are becoming more and more problematic as there is a buildup in urban areas. I was a local councillor for many years, and I witnessed many breakdowns in relationships between neighbours, some of which were extraordinary. Often what should be relatively simple things are very difficult to manage. The bill seeks to address those difficulties.
The reason the bill stipulates that people need to go to court is to enable the circumstances of each matter to be taken into account and to minimise any necessary damage. For example, clause 16 (2) specifically provides that a court is to consider whether access would cause unreasonable hardship to a person affected by the order. Therefore the bill provides adequate means for the court to take into account the circumstances of both sides. With regard to appeals to the Land and Environment Court on a question of merit, the concern of the Government is very much as outlined by the Hon. D. F. Moppett, that is, that this could set the scene for a litigious type of system. It would certainly clog up the court system with matters that generally would be considered minor litigation concerning disputes between neighbours. The Government's view is that the requirement for an appeal to the Land and Environment Court on a question of merit is not necessary, and it therefore does not support the amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Part 3 agreed to.
Part 4 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 8 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.
CONVEYANCING AMENDMENT (CENTRAL REGISTER OF RESTRICTIONS) BILL
Second Reading
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [3.04 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
This bill, when enacted, will streamline many of the cumbersome and expensive processes currently involved in purchasing a property. The Conveyancing Amendment (Central Register of Restrictions) Bill 2000 provides for the formal creation of the Central Register of Restrictions. The Central Register of Restrictions, or CRR as it is known, is a database for recording and distributing land related information that is usually searched as part of a conveyancing transaction. The Central Register has been operated informally by the Land Titles Office for a number of years and provides a central inquiry point for information regarding land that may affect a person’s decision to purchase a particular property. A number of different organisations now participate in the Central Register to record an interest or proposal that affects land. They include TransGrid, the Environment Protection Authority, the State Rail Authority, AGL Networks Limited, and the Heritage Council
Prior to the establishment of the central register, a separate inquiry had to be made to each organisation. These inquiries are normally made by a prospective purchaser as part of his or her investigation of a property. It is important to determine if the property is affected by any proposals that will affect the land, such as a proposal to acquire all or part of the property for a school, a railway or for road widening. While the number of properties that are affected is small, the consequences of the existence of such a proposal are sufficiently serious as to warrant these inquiries being made in almost every case. The central register provides an efficient means of conducting the necessary inquiries without the need to separately inquire of each authority. This assists in keeping the time between exchange of contracts and settlement of the sale to a minimum.
The Central Register presently exists only as an administrative arrangement between the Land Titles Office, which functions as the administrative office of the Registrar General, and the individual organisations that participate in the central register. An agreement is negotiated between the Land Titles Office and each organisation as it joins the central register. The central register records proposals by organisations, such as public authorities, that directly affect land or which would, if they proceeded, affect land. The central register may also record other information that is relevant to a land parcel, such as whether the owner of the land has the use of adjoining Crown land under a Crown lease or permissive occupancy. This information is useful as a reminder to both vendors and purchasers that the right exists and that they must separately transfer it as a part of the overall conveyancing process.
The aim of the central register is to make the inquiry process more efficient by allowing a person to make a single inquiry to discover whether a property is affected by a proposal or other matter recorded by any of the public authorities that record interests in the central register. If there is no proposal affecting a parcel of land, the central register will return a clear certificate on behalf of the public authorities. If there is a proposal, or if the land is in an area where it may be affected by a proposal of a particular organisation, the inquiry is referred to that organisation. The organisation further investigates the inquiry and either issues a clear certificate or advises the inquirer as to the nature of the proposal. As such, the central register acts as a central clearinghouse for these common land-related inquiries. In most cases, the authorities participating in the central register have direct access to the database and are responsible for entering and updating the information relating to that authority.
The operation of the central register has resulted in financial benefits for both participating authorities and the Land Titles Office, without increasing the costs to customers. By participating in the central register, the cost to an authority of operating its own inquiry service is removed. The Land Titles Office retains as commission a proportion of the amount paid for each search of the central register and remits the balance to the authority concerned. This amount is determined by agreement between the Land Titles Office and the authority. The economies of scale have no doubt contributed to controlling the costs of maintaining the necessary information and making it available to those who need it. Customers of the central register also benefit from the economies and convenience of a centralised register by having to lodge only one application for information at one place rather than ten for the current participants in the central register.
While there have been no problems with the operation of the central register, questions have arisen concerning the legal status of the central register. For example, it is doubtful whether legislation could provide for an authority's responsibilities to provide information about proposals that affect land to be satisfied by making the information available through the central register. Formalising the existence of the central register will also give its users more security and facilitate the application of new technology to develop better client services, such as on-line searching, remotely printed certificates, and the issue of details of a proposal by an organisation. Conferring legal status on the
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 9
central register may also encourage its use by more organisations, further streamlining the investigation of a property prior to purchasing.
The bill empowers the Registrar General to formally establish the central register as a register to be held under the Conveyancing Act 1919. That Act already provides for a number of registers of diverse land related information. The Registrar General is authorised to record information in the central register and to provide access to that information in accordance with the agreements with the various participating organisations. The bill preserves the existing arrangement whereby an organisation participates in the central register by entering into an agreement. All of the existing agreements are specifically preserved by the bill and are deemed to be agreements under the new legislative scheme.
The bill also gives the Registrar General a wide discretion to determine the manner or form in which the central register is maintained and the manner in which the information it contains is accessed. This is to allow for the development of new technology in the operation of the central register and better client services. To ensure that inquirers can rely on the information issued by the central register, the bill provides that a search result or certificate that is issued by the Registrar-General on behalf of an organisation following an inquiry to the central register has the same effect and standing as if it were issued directly by the organisation.
Currently most authorities enter data in the central register directly and this will continue. Under the bill, and the present agreements, an organisation that participates in the central register is responsible for ensuring its information in the central register is accurate and up to date. Each authority remains the trustee of the information it enters and is responsible for maintaining the currency and accuracy of that information.
The scheme established by the bill merely formalises the arrangements that presently exist and opens up opportunities for improvements to this very valuable service for the conveyancing industry. The formalisation of the central register by this bill will facilitate the increased use by more authorities and agencies that have interests in land. The Land Titles Office has worked to expand participation in the central register by negotiation with a number of departments and agencies and will continue to do so. I encourage all areas of government to look towards making use of this service to provide clients with access to land-related information. This may be a process that will take some time and effort, especially since much information is held in a manual form and needs to collected, validated and made available in a compatible electronic format. However, there are many benefits to be had, both to the agencies and the public, as a result of on-line access to a wide range of property based information.
The expansion of the central register will increase conveyancing efficiency by reducing the cost of making conveyancing inquiries; reducing delays and inconvenience which arise from the making of conveyancing inquiries; and allowing the conveyancing community to obtain more efficient access to information by provision of on-line access to the Central Register of Restrictions. In addition, increased participation in the central register will provide consequential benefits to authorities which utilise the central register as it will substantially reduce the number of inquiries which need to be referred to each separate authority. The central register will also form part of a larger project of the Department of Information Technology and Management that is called the Integrated Property Warehouse.
The Land Titles Office has been working in partnership with other administrative agencies within of the Department of Information Technology and Management, the Department of Land and Water Conservation and the Office of State Revenue to develop an integrated database of land data. The Integrated Property Warehouse will provide an environment for the interchange of, and access to, data sets such as the central register that are held in various administrative areas and government agencies. The Integrated Property Warehouse will provide a single entry point for integrated land and property information. Improved technology will also allow the interchange and sharing of land information between government agencies and other users, leading to better management of land information. By improving data quality and reducing duplication the Integrated Property Warehouse will deliver fast, accurate information on-line saving clients time and money.
The Conveyancing Amendment (Central Register of Restrictions) Bill will provide a solid foundation for the continued operation and improvement of a service that has operated successfully since 1990, and has made a significant contribution to simplifying conveyancing and containing conveyancing costs. As such, the bill is supported by all sectors of the conveyancing industry. I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [3.05 p.m.]: During the time I have been a member of this House a series of legislative changes have been introduced to improve the services of the Land Titles Office and to improve and clarify land titles in the State of New South Wales. Those legislative changes are part of a constant review and improvement mechanism. The Opposition supports this further initiative and congratulates the Government on introducing it.
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [3.05 p.m.]: I thank the Hon. D. F. Moppett for his contribution to the debate and the support of the Opposition for the bill. When enacted the bill will streamline many of the cumbersome and expensive processes currently involved in purchasing a property. The Conveyancing Amendment (Central Register of Restrictions) Bill provides for the for the formal creation of the Central Register of Restrictions [CRR]. The central register is a database for recording and distributing land-related information that is usually searched as part of a conveyancing transaction.
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 10 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
The central register has been operated informally by the Land Titles Office for a number of years, and provides a central inquiry point for information regarding land that may affect a person's decision to purchase a property. A number of different organisations now participate in the central register, to record an interest or proposal that affects land. Prior to the establishment of the central register a separate inquiry had to be made to each organisation. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (FILMING) BILL
Second Reading
The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [5.08 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time .
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
The Hon. D. J. Gay: Is the Minister in a position to answer the questions that the Opposition asked in the lower House?
The Hon. E. M. O'BEID: No, but I undertake to answer them in my reply to this debate.
The Hon. D. J. Gay: The Opposition wants to hear the answers before we contribute to this debate. Leave is not granted.
Leave not granted.
<5> The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I will read the speech. Under Labor, New South Wales has the largest and fastest-growing film and television industry in Australia. I am pleased to present the Local Government (Filming) Amendment Bill which is part of the Government’s strategy to promote filming in this photogenic State. Locations in New South Wales can be brought into the movie theatres and living rooms of people around the world when used in feature films, television series, documentaries and commercials. The glimpse of what is offered by our State can attract overseas visitors from across the world who contribute to our economy through purchasing goods and services. Filmmaking in New South Wales provides an important opportunity for artistic development and expression of our society.
To give a few examples, Pittwater Council recently commissioned a survey of public attitudes to filming which found that the United Kingdom is the home of 75 per cent of international visitors to Palm Beach. Palm Beach is a location used for filming Home and Away which is screened in the United Kingdom. Over 70 per cent of these visitors cited Home and Away as important in their decision to visit Palm Beach. The research also found that tourism has a positive economic and social impact on Palm Beach and on Australia’s tourism industry. Seventy four per cent of surveyed respondents welcomed tourists in Pittwater. Eighty three percent of respondents agreed that seeing parts of the Pittwater area portrayed on television and film made them feel proud and pleased to live in the area.
Tourism is not the only benefit that can be gained. The Matrix, filmed in Sydney, again hit the spotlight when two Australians won Oscars for their technical work. The film collected four Oscars and is likely to continue to bring benefits to Sydney, especially if two proposed sequels are filmed in Sydney. Film production in New South Wales is its own advertisement for the superior quality of this State's technical and other personnel. I also note that the two companies involved in The Matrix—Fairlight ESP and Animal Logic—are part of the Australian Technology Showcase which
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 11 has been sponsored by the New South Wales Government as a way to highlight technology and initiative.
The film industry has contributed approximately $3 billion a year to the New South Wales economy and has helped to create approximately 45,000 jobs directly and indirectly. We must also remember that filmmakers, actors and crew stay in hotels, eat in restaurants, go shopping and seek entertainment. All of those activities add to the economic and social benefits arising from filming. Rural and regional New South Wales is also sharing in the growth of the film industry. At least $7 million has been spent in regional areas with at least 20 films shot in country New South Wales in the last four years. The Premier announced as part of the State Government’s post 2000 jobs plan, a $500,000 regional filming assistance fund to help encourage filmmakers to film outside Sydney.
In recognition of the valuable contribution made by the filming industry to the economy, the Government is introducing measures to streamline the council approval process for filmmakers. Greater consistency, clarity, simplicity of process and predictability is essential to foster the continued growth of this industry. The Local Government (Filming) Amendment Bill responds to concerns from the film industry that regulatory processes can be time-consuming and differently applied in each council area. This invites losses of opportunity. The bill also seeks to ensure protection of the community interest by keeping inconvenience to a minimum and maintaining amenity at acceptable levels.
The bill provides a single application system for existing approvals that may be granted by councils. However, the discretion of councils in granting approvals is unchanged. The bill preserves the obligation of council to consider all the relevant issues under the legislation. The aims of the bill are essentially twofold: The first is to provide a single approval mechanism for filmmakers applying to councils. The making of a film may include a number of activities such as temporarily closing roads, building temporary structures, using parks, and so on. These activities may require council approval under a number of pieces of legislation. Filmmakers will be able to lodge a single application to a council for any approvals that may be given by a council.
The second aim is to incorporate reference in the legislation to a filming protocol. The filming protocol will provide a consistent framework for the consideration and determination of filming- related approvals. It will assist both councils and filmmakers in the process, including guidance on fees, heads of consideration, and the good conduct of councils and filmmakers. The legislation requires that a council must consider the protocol when dealing with applications. The protocol will be developed in partnership between councils, the film industry and the Government so that it achieves a balance between the interests of all players, not the least of whom is the community. I should also mention that the bill makes some amendment to the community land provisions of the Act to facilitate filming while maintaining council accountability for the use of community land.
I emphasise that the bill does not give any new approvals powers to councils or any other agency. Rather, it seeks to streamline the existing requirements. Approvals required by other State agencies—for example, for the use of national parks—are being dealt with by those agencies, and similar guidelines are being developed or are already in place. It is intended to have consistency between agencies wherever possible. This bill refines the local government amendment (commercial filming) exposure draft bill that I first tabled in Parliament last year. Valuable feedback on the exposure draft was received. This, together with consultation and further consideration, has necessitated a few minor changes to the exposure draft. Where relevant, I will mention these alterations as I examine the provisions of the bill in more detail.
First, the bill inserts a set of clauses dealing specifically with approvals relating to filming. The provisions establish a streamlined procedure for councils when granting approvals, consents and making other determinations necessary for filming to be carried out. A single administrative process is provided and a filming protocol is introduced to which councils must have regard when dealing with filming projects. Clause 114 and amendments to the dictionary in the Act provide a number of key definitions. One of the terms defined is ‘filming’. Following tabling of the exposure draft bill, the reference to “commercial” in describing filming has been removed. This is because the commercial nature of a filming project is not a reliable test of the impact on the public. For example, a low budget or independent film may potentially have greater impact using a park bench than a big budget feature
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 12 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
film may have. It is intended to capture filming projects that are likely to have a significant impact, regardless of whether or not they are for commercial purposes.
Still photography, videos of weddings, private celebrations or events, and current affairs or daily news have been excluded and therefore do not come within the streamlined approval process. Nevertheless they are not excluded from any requirement to gain any approval under any other relevant legislation. “Approval” is defined widely to include any approval, authorisation, consent, determination or other decision that may be granted by a council acting in any capacity. Consequently the streamlined process will apply to these approvals. For example, the definition is wide enough to include a council acting as the manager of a reserve trust of Crown land under the Crown Lands Act 1989.
A regulation-making power is inserted to allow the exact kinds of approvals covered under the scheme to be adjusted, if necessary. At present, the possible scope of approvals is still being discussed with relevant agencies, councils and the film industry to ensure that the filming protocol may adequately reflect their requirements. Clause 115 allows a filmmaker to submit a single application form for all council approvals required in order to make a particular film. <6> Clauses 116 to 119A provide related administrative provisions dealing with council obligations to notify applicants of fees and the relevant provisions of any legislation, and for applicants to submit those fees. I seek leave to have the balance of my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
An applicant has 14 days from lodging the application to pay any fees. Council may refuse to consider the application until the fee is paid. There is an obligation on council to acknowledge receipt of the application and of any fee payable within seven days. These provisions are modelled in part on procedures applying to approvals under the Local Government Act, found in sections 75-113. Councils and applicants would already be familiar with these. They provide the essential requirements of a single application system. Specific requirements for a particular approval, such as public notice or the concurrence of other agencies will still apply where stated under the relevant legislation.
Application fees for approvals under the streamlined system may either be set under the Local Government Act or the Act that requires the approval. It has been made clearer in the bill, as compared with the exposure draft bill, that where the council has discretion in setting a fee it must consider the filming protocol in doing so. It is intended that the filming protocol will provide a set of model fees for various approvals. In relation to setting fees, an exemption has been made to section 612 of the Local Government Act, where council determines an application fee under that Act. When a council sets an application fee—called an "approved fee"—that is consistent with a scale or structure of fees contained in the filming protocol, it will not need to comply with section 612. As a result, in such circumstances, council does not need to include proposed fees in a council management plan, or introduce a fee after public notification. The provision is an incentive for councils to adopt the model scale of fees that will be contained in the protocol.
Clauses 119B and 119C deal with the interaction of the single approval system and the legislation under which the approval is granted. This is to ensure that the common procedures set up under the Local Government Act do not affect the determination of each approval as required under the relevant Act. That is, each application for a particular approval made in a filming proposal is to be determined in accordance with the legislation under which the approval is granted. However, the clauses also provide that in determining an application for an approval made in a filming proposal, a council must take the filming protocol into consideration in addition to any other requirements relating to the determination of the application.
Clause 119B deals with approvals under the Local Government Act, and contains technical provisions to ensure the streamlined approval system is complementary to the existing provisions of the Act. Clause 119C deals in a similar fashion with approvals granted under other legislation where a council is able to grant an approval. Clause 119D gives the Director General the power to approve a filming protocol after consulting appropriate persons or agencies. Clause 119E is a further technical provision preserving any advertising or notification requirements that apply to a particular approval. It also allows consolidation of a number of notification requirements if all the requirements of each piece of legislation have been observed.
Clause 119F provides for the streamlined approval process to override other legislation where there is any inconsistency. This ensures that there is clarity in the administrative process applying to film-related approvals. It does not affect the substantive provision of any legislation. As stated previously, clauses 119B and 119C require approvals to be considered and determined under the legislation that contains the approval requirements. Clause 119F also clarifies that rights of appeal under the Local Government Act or any other Act are preserved. An applicant will appeal a decision in relation to an approval under the statute that relates to the approval.
I turn now to the amendments to the community land requirements under the Local Government Act. These are separate to the streamlined approval provisions, but are similarly intended to promote the efficient consideration of film-makers' requests, while balancing community concerns. Some of the procedural requirements in relation to the use of community land under the Local Government Act are amended by clauses [1] to [3] of schedule 1. Section 46
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 13
is amended so that filmmaking will be permissible, with council approval, on community land where there is no specific reference to the activity in the plan of management for that land. Most councils will not have thought about the use of their community land for film-making, and will not have included provisions a plan of management to deal with that possible use. The process of amending a plan to permit what is essentially a short term activity can present significant delays.
At the same time as section 46 is amended, other provisions have been inserted to strengthen other public notice requirements that will apply to a film-maker’s proposed use of community land. Under clause 47AA, the responsibility of a council to advertise the proposed use of the land prior to granting a lease, licence or other estate, has been strengthened, in relation to land that is of particular environmental or Aboriginal significance. council retains full discretion to approve or reject the use of the land for filming if these values are compromised. Similar checks and balances are proposed to be inserted into section 47B, in relation to filming on community land categorised as a "natural area". An obligation to restore community land after filming has been included.
An integral part of the scheme of the bill is the development of a filming "protocol". The protocol is intended to provide a framework for filming proposals so that the land affected and the activities proposed can be clearly identified and the relevant approvals sought. It will be the day to day guide for councils, film-makers and the community about how applications are considered and what is expected of each party. It will assist in identifying the impacts of a proposal so that informed decisions can be made and unfounded rumours dispelled. To take an example, a filming proposal may involve the use of community land and a public road. It may also require the construction of a temporary film set and involve a car chase and explosions. A variety of approvals or consents could therefore be involved, the road may need to be temporarily closed and traffic diverted. The protocol will help a film-maker to identify potential approvals and assist in the making of the single application to council.
Importantly, the protocol will contain relevant considerations that councils must consider in granting filming related approvals, and material on reasonable fee structures for filming approvals. It is important for film-makers to be aware of their responsibilities when using public space. A film-maker has a responsibility to use public space with a minimum of disruption to that space and to the surrounding neighbours. Therefore, the responsibilities of applicants will be outlined to provide guidance in minimising the impact of the activity on community amenity.
The filming protocol is being developed in consultation with and subject to agreement by all relevant organisations. Consultation has already been initiated with the Local Government and Shires Associations, the filming industry and councils. A constructive dialogue has been established and a good understanding of what is intended has already been developed among all concerned. State government agencies have also been contacted and invited to participate in formulating the protocol. The fundamental aim of the proposals in the bill is to assist councils to better manage filming activities in hot-spot locations, and provide for transparent decision making with input from the community. The "filming protocol", which is an integral part of the scheme, will assist film-makers, councils and the community in applying the legislative provisions sensibly, fairly, and efficiently.
The proposals will enhance the ability of the council to strike a proper balance between community expectations, environmental protection and economic development. The processes will be more certain and all stakeholders will have a clearer understanding of the process. The Local Government Amendment (Filming) Bill and the accompanying protocol will continue the encouragement of a vibrant and high quality film industry in this State. I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. A. B. KELLY [3.20 p.m.]: Film production brings enormous economic, social and cultural benefits to the State of New South Wales. It advertises the superior quality of technical and other personnel in our State. Recently on a Standing Committee on State Development inquiry I heard from the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti that some 200 residents of the New South Wales North Coast alone are employed in the film industry. I know that you, Mr Acting President, were at that hearing. Recent Oscar winner The Matrix is evidence of the great technical people in our State. The value of film production has increased from $109 million in 1995-96 to $289 million in 1997-98, and the flow-on effects to the New South Wales economy are multiples of that investment in film production.
Local film production allows for the artistic and cultural expression of our society, and encourages the development of a wide range of technical skills. Films shot on location in regional towns boost the local economy. For instance, a number of towns have benefited from recent film shoots. In one week in the Monaro region during shooting of the feature film Passion $100,000 was spent. In Griffith during a seven week shoot of Doing Time for Patsy Cline $450,000 was spent. In Grafton during a 13 week shoot of Oscar and Lucinda $750, 000 was spent. Projects to encourage and attract film projects are being undertaken in the Illawarra, Hunter and Broken Hill areas and in other urban and regional areas.
That increasing level of activity highlights the importance of this legislation. The two broad aims of the bill are to provide a single approval scheme for film-makers seeking council approvals, and to establish a filming protocol to provide a consistent framework for the consideration and determination of film-related approvals. The intent of the bill is to enable an applicant to lodge one application form for a filming project, which may incorporate a number of things that require approval. It deals with the process rather than the substance of an approval system. The intent has
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 14 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council been to preserve all substantive parts of other approval requirements. The provisions only relate to approvals which council can grant under the Local Government Act or any other Act. Councils' obligation to consider all relevant issues under the relevant legislation when assessing applications is preserved by the bill.
Whilst amendments have been made to facilitate the use of community land for film-making, provisions have also been incorporated to protect environmentally sensitive land and land which has Aboriginal significance. Public notice requirements relating to the use of community land for film- making have been strengthened. Additionally, there is an obligation on film-makers to restore the land upon completion of filming. The proposals will enable greater consistency, clarity, simplicity of process and the predictability to foster continued growth of the film industry in New South Wales.
The protocol is being developed in consultation with key stakeholders, including the New South Wales Film and Television Office, the Local Government and Shires Associations, councils, the film and television industry, the police, the Roads and Traffic Authority and other agencies. The protocol will outline the responsibilities and expectations of the parties involved, such as film-makers, councils and the community; balance the interests of all parties involved; assist film-makers in making applications; and facilitate informed decision-making. I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition)[3.24 p.m.]: The Opposition is very happy to support the Local Government Amendment (Filming) Bill for two reasons. First, it gives deserved assistance to the booming film industry in New South Wales. Second, and almost as important, the Opposition is extremely happy that its prediction that the Community Land Management Act 1998 would ultimately become a bureaucratic nightmare has been vindicated by the introduction of this bill. We are extremely fortunate to live in this magnificent State. I remember the Seven Wonders campaign back in the more enlightened times when Bruce Baird was Minister and there was a proper government in the State of New South Wales. I remember the images that the Government used from around the State. We live in one of the most diverse parts of the world, and our natural beauty and heritage are major reasons why tourism is a fundamental element of the New South Wales economy. One of the most effective tools to tell people interstate and around the world about our great State is through film, particularly through feature films that are shown around the world.
The Hon. J. R. Johnson: It increases tourism.
The Hon. D. J. GAY: It increases tourism, as the Hon. J. R. Johnson said. They could show sweeping images of Sydney Harbour in advertisements for Qantas or images of Wee Waa in Jane Campion's recent film Holy Smoke.
The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Or mobs of wild kangaroos.
The Hon. D. J. GAY: Or mobs of wild kangaroos. But at this stage there is not enough time to discuss that. It is in all our interests to maintain a healthy and vibrant film industry, which not only directly injects money into the community through employment and supporting industries such as catering and accommodation but provides flow-on effects to the tourism industry. With the advent of the Olympic Games and the opportunity they will provided for the rest of the world to see this State in all its magnificence, filming applications must be made as easy as possible.
After the Olympics when the image of New South Wales will be firmly in the minds of people throughout the world, foreign investors will increasingly see New South Wales as an attractive place. Honourable members have cited various examples of the direct economic value that recent films have had on the economy. For example, the Hon. A. B. Kelly, the Minister for Mineral Resources and others have mentioned the contribution to the local economy of Broken Hill by the making of Priscilla of Queen of the Desert; the impact of Oscar and Lucinda on Grafton and Doing Time for Patsy Cline in Griffith. Honourable members know that the Leader of the Opposition is a great devotee of Patsy Cline and laments her tragic death in a plane crash many years ago. Unfortunately it was before he was born but I am sure he researched the subject.
Sydney was the location of the box office hit The Matrix, as indicated by the Hon. A. B. Kelly. The talk is about two future instalments of that film also being made here. Other massive film
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 15
projects include the filming of Star Wars at Fox Studios in Moore Park. The three main aims of this bill are to streamline the council approval process for filming on council land—
The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: They made a movie about the Government's front bench—The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. <7> The Hon. D. J. GAY: I would hate to be doing a prequel of the frontbench opposite. We know where they are going, but to find out where they came from would be just frightening. I would hate to see two prequels of them.
The Hon. E. M. Obeid: What about one on Barry O'Farrell!
The Hon. D. J. GAY: I don't know about Barry O'Farrell, but the Minister knows that Carl Scully is looking for a new portfolio, and after the Olympics Michael Knight will be looking for a spot. The Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries cannot rest easily because the Black Knight is on the move; he has the numbers and is looking around for a new spot. Minister, be very careful! The second aim of the bill is to remove the need for multiple approval applications if filming is conducted in certain areas. This will, in turn, lesson bureaucratic tape for councils and film- makers. And don't forget the Hon. I. M. Macdonald! He is on the move as well. He has the new Armani suit, and he is looking for a frontbench spot. He is asking all the questions, making the moves, walking the walk, and talking the talk. And he is looking in the direction of the Minister! Every day, Minister, he sits there and looks at you.
Thirdly, the bill gives legislative basis to the filming protocol, which unfortunately is not yet complete. Frankly, that is a disappointment, because the legislation is sensible and good. It would have been ideal if the full package of measures had been put before the House so that honourable members would know what the legislation is leading to. It is one of the great shames that the protocol has not been finished at this stage. However, we are told that the protocol will provide the framework for councils, film-makers and communities, when determining an approval for filming on council land. All of these aims are honourable.
The Opposition is always happy to support any initiative that minimises the wastage of resources, whether that be in the public or private sphere. Up until now, 175 councils has meant 175 various practices and procedures in the approval of filming on council-owned land. Like governments and companies, film-makers have strict financial budgets as well as schedules to work within. They have the right to a degree of certainty and predictability when dealing with local councils. In the same way, all councils have the right to guidance when dealing with film-makers, as do communities.
This bill has been designed by the Government in conjunction with the Local Government and Shires Associations, as the peak representative body of local government in this State, and various filmmaking interest groups, such as the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations, the Australian Screen Directors Association, and the Independent Screen Producers Association. I would like to thank those and other groups to which my office spoke for their feedback on this bill. Generally speaking, they all see this as a great initiative, as something that can only help them do business with each other. However, none of them were in a position to offer their total, unqualified support for the all-important filming protocol that is not yet complete. That protocol ultimately will be developed by the Local Government and Shires Associations and by a variety of film-makers who have been involved in the process thus far.
Naturally, the Opposition has total faith in those organisations—with one exception—and their personnel to formulate a fair and transparent protocol. However, like all things with this secretive and bureaucracy-happy Government, one can never be certain of the outcome until it is seen in its final form. My reason for saying that is that the Director-General of the Department of Local Government must sign off on the protocol. I certainly hope that the Government does not use this as an opportunity to interfere and undo all of the great work and goodwill of those organisations. However, in true Carr-Labor style, this amendment really is an awkward attempt to revise some of the more abysmal legislation that has come out of the office of the Minister for Local Government, albeit the office of the former Minister for Local Government in this instance.
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 16 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
As stated by my colleague Mr John Turner in another place, the Opposition is sick of being presented by this Government with bills that really are just second attempts at its own shonky legislation, legislation that it could not get right in the first instance. The community really deserves much better than that from a government. This bill goes some way to fix up the mess perpetrated in this State by the Community Land Management Act of 1998. When debating community land management in this House two years ago I said, as is on record:
... this bill is a broad-brush approach by the Minister for Local Government to simply increase the already enormous workload of New South Wales councils. It is right up there with the botched-up Companion Animals Bill and shares the stage with the so-called septic tank regulation.
I also described the bill then as an overreaction, as draconian and prescriptive, and as a duplication of processes already in place. The bill that this House is presently debating goes some distance, in fact a fair way, towards rectifying some of the mess that we predicted then would result. For the information of honourable members who were not present at the time, or may have forgotten, the Community Land Management Bill was intended, according to statements made by the then Minister, to "control the extent to which community land may be alienated from general community use"—an honourable aspiration by any account. However, the way that this Government pursues those aspirations is to make legitimate community usage of public lands so difficult and confusing, and so entwined in bureaucratic red tape, that it becomes increasingly difficult for the community to enjoy that land.
With the passing of that legislation councils were required to write plans of management for each parcel of community land for which they were responsible. Some councils are responsible for over a thousand such pieces of land. That meant that those councils had to write plans of management for each and every one of those separate parcels of land. The plans of management must categorise the land within a series of definitions. Once the land is defined, a plan of management must be drafted in line with that definition. Part of the process is to say exactly how the land can be used. Therefore, if the council did not have the foresight to say that a piece of community land may be used for the purpose of filming, and was approached by a film-maker to use it for filming, the council would have to amend the plan of management.
So the councils had to do plans of management for thousands of parcels of land because of that legislative provision, creating a bureaucratic nightmare. If the councils did not appropriately fill in that part of the plan, they would have to go through the whole approval process again. The drafting of plans of management is a timely and expensive exercise, as I am sure honourable members would appreciate. Therefore, potential filming locations have been inadvertently alienated by this Government— the exact opposite of the original intention of the Act. The bill will enable, as stated by the Minister in his second reading speech in another place, filmmaking, with council approval, on community land. So, with the passing of this bill, someone who wishes to film on community land may make an application to the council, which will then take all factors into consideration, in line with the yet to be seen filming protocol, and either allow or not allow filming on that community land.
As I stated earlier, the Opposition is happy at any time to help the Government clean up its mess if that will make life easier for the rest of the community. I may have mislaid my copy, but I wonder whether the Minister could produce for honourable members a rural communities impact statement for this bill. Of course, it was one of the Government's election promises that a rural community impact statement would be prepared for every piece of legislation that came before this Parliament. <8> I do not know whether I have mislaid my copy or whether it has been lost in the mail between the Minister's office and my office.
The Hon. E. M. Obeid: Did you ask for it?
The Hon. D. J. GAY: No I did not ask for it. As it was a Labor Government commitment that rural community impact statements would be available for each piece of legislation I had hoped I would be sent such a statement with my copy of the bill. If I remember correctly—and I usually remember these things—the Carr Government promised that every new piece of legislation presented to the Parliament would be accompanied by a rural community impact statement. I refer to the unincorporated area of the State and ask: Will the filming protocol apply to the Western Division?
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 17
The Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, who is in the Chamber, answered that question in part. I hope that he will reinforce that answer by stating that that will apply to the unincorporated area. A large section of the far western area—an area referred to yesterday in this House by the honourable Hon D. F. Moppet—includes places such as Milparinka. I ask the Minister to clarify that issue. In conclusion, the Opposition supports the bill. Opposition members are always happy to help the Government clean up its bad legislation if it means that business, local councils and communities can actually work more effectively and efficiently.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.42 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the Local Government Amendment (Filming) Bill, which has as its overview:
The object of this Bill is to amend the Local Government Act 1993 so as:
(a) to facilitate the making of applications for council approvals, consents and other determinations (whether under the Local Government Act 1993 or any other Act or law) necessary in order do to carry out commercial filming, and
(b) to make special provision for the granting of leases, licences and other estates by councils with respect to community land in order to allow filming to be carried out on such land.
I am pleased that the Government has introduced this bill because of the importance of the commercial production of films in New South Wales. The Government should do—I believe that it is doing—all that it can to assist the film industry to operate efficiently and profitably in New South Wales. Other honourable members referred to the fact that films such as The Matrix, in which two Australians won Oscars for their technical work, make Sydney an even more attractive place in which to produce films. If famous actors like Mel Gibson and production teams, script writers and high quality technical people are employed, it will attract film-makers to Australia. We want to attract them to Sydney.
The final development of the Fox studios at the old showground site has been another factor in attracting film-makers to Sydney. If we did not have those facilities film-makers would probably be going to Queensland and we would not be receiving the economic and employment benefits. The film industry contributes $3 billion a year to the New South Wales economy, which has helped to create 45,000 jobs direct and indirectly. When film-makers and overseas crews are in New South Wales they contribute to the economy of New South Wales by staying in hotels and using facilities that are available in our city. Film-making has also benefited regional areas—a matter of interest to the Hon. D. J. Gay. Rural and regional New South Wales are benefiting from this growth in the film industry. At least $7 million has been spent in regional areas, with at least 20 films having been shot in country New South Wales in the past four years.
The Government is to be congratulated on its plans to ensure the ongoing growth and expansion of New South Wales after the Olympic Games. I hope that we do not witness an economic collapse and a lack of drive after the Olympic Games. The Government's planned $500,000 regional Film Assistance Fund will encourage film-makers to make films outside Sydney. Other honourable members have referred to the supplementary benefits of the film industry if film-makers use sites around the Sydney area, the beaches, the Blue Mountains area, the countryside and rural areas. Those films all become advertising films to promote tourism. Tourism is an important element in job creation in Australia, especially in New South Wales. The State Government will not have to spend money on promoting tourism if films are shown to viewers in America, Europe, the United Kingdom and Asia, promoting our beautiful countryside and our attractive harbour area.
I have always been supportive of the film industry. That is why I supported the original Fox film studio project, which I know was opposed by some honourable members. However, I have some concerns in relation to this legislation. Some councils seem to be negative about film production units operating in their areas. If a council does not give permission and obstructs the production of a film— it might be necessary, because of the theme of a story, to shoot a film in a certain area—can a film producer appeal to the Government or to a Minister to have that matter re-examined to ensure that justice is carried out and to ensure that a council does not refuse permission because of prejudicial attitudes towards, for example, an American film company? Any application by a film producer must be treated fairly and justly by a council.
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 18 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
It was disappointing to see the way in which the producers of Baywatch were treated. They were virtually hunted out of Sydney. That is a good, clean show. Another matter of concern that I ask the Minister to clarify concerns the report that some councils will accept film producers but that they are charging them exorbitant rates. Will the Minister clarify what will happen if a council discourages a film producer by charging exorbitant rates? New section 119D will give the director-general the right to approve a commercial film protocol. New section 119D subsection (d) states:
provisions for determining fees for an application ... made in a filming proposal.
Does that mean that some sort of set rates will be charged by a council if a film crew is in a council area for four hours each day for two days? That would represent a fair amount of money. Can councils still charge thousands of dollars? If they received such an exorbitant amount it might impact on the overall success of a film or it may deter a film company from even trying to make a film in New South Wales. I am unhappy about the attitude of some councils. What they are really doing is ripping off film companies.
<9> Millions of dollars are involved in the film budgets. Councils may want to get a slice of that, but charges must be fair and reasonable. What powers exist that would enable the Government or a Minister—whether the Minister for Local Government or even the Premier, as Minister for the Arts— to overrule a council’s decision to charge exorbitant rates? A council may step out of line by either refusing approval or charging exorbitant rates. The Hon. D. J. Gay complained that this measure will put more work on councils. The application process could be simplified if applications are made to a government department rather than to councils. Councils may prove to be obstructive, and the Government will have to consider that possibility. The overall aim of the bill is to enable films to be made in New South Wales for the benefit of the whole State.
The previous deputy film censor is proud that he is producing pornographic films in Canberra and using all his skills to get round the censorship laws. What controls will ensure that quality films are made in New South Wales and that there are no loopholes for the making of pornographic films? There are reports of pornographic films being made in a country location close to Sydney, and I believe a pornographic film unit was working near Campbelltown. I am in favour of job creation, but I do not want jobs to be created through the making of pornographic films. We support the bill.
The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.51 p.m.]: The Democrats support in principle regimes that streamline government approval processes, as the bill seeks to do for filming on council and community land. Film-makers experience frustration in having to make multiple applications to councils, police, the Roads and Traffic Authority and others to gain access to community and other public land. Community interests must be protected when film-makers gain access to community and public land. Development of a protocol to protect the interests of all parties is the right way to proceed.
Many issues about development of a filming protocol are not clarified by the bill. The Democrats seek to have such issues clarified before the House votes on the second reading motion. These questions relate to the parties—or the stakeholders, as the Minister has referred to them— involved in the development of the protocol. Who are the parties? Are they the councils, film-makers, community groups, or others? We assume that the applicant is the film-maker or the film production company, whether the applicant is an individual or a company. What are the rights, responsibilities and obligations of the parties involved in the development of the protocol?
the Minister in his speech said the protocol will be developed in partnership between council, the film industry and government so that it achieves a balance between the interests of all players, not least the community. Presumably the Government and councils represent community interests, but we would like to see the protocol before we vote on the motion. An empowering bill should be accompanied by the instrument that defines it. Will adequate and appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms be built into the protocol to protect the interests of concerned citizens, especially those in smaller local government areas who might not be able adequately to put their interests forward when a multinational film production company wishes to access public land in their local council area?
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 19
We recall only too clearly the fight that arose between a production company and the Avalon community last year. The bill presumably seeks to create a regime in which such disputes will not arise, However, the outcome is not predictable as the protocol is still in the development stage. The protocol should be presented to Parliament before we vote on the bill. There are other questions. Will the schedule of fees being developed to compensate councils for allowing access be a disallowable instrument? How can members determine whether fees are reasonable if that information is not presented to Parliament? The Democrats would also like the Minister to provide Parliament with advice on how the bill extends to the unincorporated area in the western division.
The Opposition criticises government legislation being presented in an incomplete form. What is wrong with the Opposition that it is unable to remedy drafting shortcomings? This House reviews legislation, it is not a rubber stamp. The Opposition should not bleat after it has allowed the Government to do whatever it likes. Crossbench members try to fix legislation to the best of their ability. The Opposition should do the same and thus assist the parliamentary system to work as it should.
The Hon. I. COHEN [3.55 p.m.]: I wish briefly to state the Greens position on the bill. I am in concurrence with a number of points made by both the Hon. D. J. Gay and the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans. Certainly, in principle the Greens support the cutting of red tape. That is laudable, but other issues need to be raised. The Greens understand that both major parties are supporting the bill but concerns remain. The Baywatch dilemma demonstrated that community concerns often are not considered when governments become interested in boosting tourism and profitability through the export of locally made films. Following a heated debate occurred within Sydney’s northern peninsula community, Baywatch was rejected. Community consultation must take place.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Were they all residents?
The Hon. I. COHEN: A great number were residents, and many people in the local community were very concerned. A very small, cohesive community did not want to be overrun by film-making and associated activities for a long period of time. Their wishes need to be respected. Similarly, there are concerns among the Leichhardt community about the Water Rats program. The makers of that program are constantly on the waterfront in that municipality and there is concern about how much recreational area is taken up by the program’s activities. We have a community obligation. We do not want to be overcome by the concept that activities that make a lot of money should always be encouraged.
Mention was made of the need -makers to respect Aboriginal land and the needs of the environment, with the added comment that film-makers would be under an obligation to restore sites. One cannot have it both ways. The Hon. D. J. Gay was right about unincorporated land in the western division areas where there is no local council. That difficulty needs to be resolved. National parks, though not mentioned in the bill, are often used for as film locations. Extensive film-making could lessen the tourist asset value of our parks. The community where I live does not welcome with open arms this type of film development. It has an impact on the environment. Areas like Byron Bay are being flogged by the tourist industry. Our infrastructure does not bear up well under extra pressure of activities that are not necessarily of benefit to the local community or the environment. The Greens have those concerns but we do not oppose this bill.
The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [3.58 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Hon. A. B. Kelly, the Hon. D. J. Gay, the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans and the Hon. Ian Cohen for their contributions. A couple of matters were raised by the Opposition. First, I confirm that my colleague in the other place the Minister for Local Government has undertaken that the protocols will extend to the unincorporated area of New South Wales, in the western division. <10> He will be adopting–
The Hon. D. J. Gay: It is not quite the same.
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 20 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
The Hon. E. M. OBEID: No. He has undertaken that the protocols will extend to the Western Lands Commission and to unincorporated areas, and will be adopted when agreed to.
The Hon. D. J. Gay: To both?
The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Yes. I see no difficulty with that. As to the impact on the community, it is worth noting that the film industry has contributed about $3 billion a year to the New South Wales economy and has created 45,000 jobs directly and indirectly. It has produced at least $7 million which has been spent in regional areas, and there are 20 films yet to be shot in the regions. As part of the Premier's announcement of post-2000 jobs, $500,000 has been allocated for regional filming assistance. It goes without saying that the regional community will benefit from the process. We are all happy that the regions in Australia can benefit from this.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile referred to an appeals mechanism. That is already part of the Local Government Act and it will continue. As to the issue of fees and charges, a rating structure will be agreed to as part of the protocol. The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans raised a number of issues. I can assure him that when the protocols, which are in draft form, have been finalised the issues he raised will be considered.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
______
WORKERS COMPENSATION
The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: My question without notice is addressed to the Special Minister of State. Is the Minister aware that recently in one Compensation Court judgment a 20-year- old man was awarded ongoing payments of $317.68 per week for a wrist injury which even his own doctor testified was due to a self-infected childhood injury, not his employment? Is that judgment symptomatic of the Government's mismanagement of the workers compensation system? How will the Minister, as the latest Minister responsible for workers compensation, reform the system to stop nonsensical awards of this kind?
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I am not aware of the specific case to which the honourable member refers. As he would be aware, there are hundreds of workers compensation matters before the court at any point in time. If the honourable member provides me with the details of the case I will examine the matter and come back to him in the future. I should like to comment on the workers compensation system.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: The Minister was not asked about that; he was asked about a specific case.
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: In that case I have answered the question so I will sit down.
HENRY STRICKER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AWARDS
The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: My question without notice is addressed to the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer. Will the Minister provide the House with details of the Henry Stricker Annual Acknowledgement Awards presentation, which I understand he recently attended?
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: In February this year I attended the 2000 Henry Stricker Annual Acknowledgement Awards presentation. This reflects on the many initiatives of the Jewish community's B'nai B'rith Council of New South Wales. These awards are in such fields as welfare, education and culture. In hosting the awards, the council recognises the voluntary work and financial support given by members and supporters to the community. The B'nai B'rith was established in New
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 21
York in 1843 and in New South Wales in 1943. It is a worldwide organisation with more than 500,000 members. It is a voluntary non-profit service organisation for the promotion of social justice, benevolence, anti-defamation and equality.
In New South Wales B'nai B'rith makes a valuable contribution to the community. At the awards presentation I attended, more than $70,000 was presented to a broad spectrum of deserving areas. In attending such a function, I was impressed by the valuable contribution the Jewish community has made to the Australian way of life. New South Wales has one of the most culturally diverse societies in the world. I understand that in Sydney there are more than 150 separate ethnic or national groups, although the Hon. J. M. Samios used a slightly different figure in this place recently. This symbolises what our nation is all about.
The Jewish community has been part of Australia since the first day of European settlement. It is as old as any of our traditional links with Europe. It is estimated that up to 20 Jewish people were on the First Fleet, and followers of Judaism have played a role in all aspects of our life ever since. The first policeman of sorts in New South Wales, John Harris, was Jewish. So, too, was our first legal publican, John Lara. Jewish people soon became prominent in business and public life. Between 1850 and 1914, 13 prominent members of State Parliament came from the Jewish community. Followers of Judaism have achieved roles in Australian society out of all proportion to their numbers. These have included such great Australians as our two Governors General, Sir Isaac Isaacs and Sir Zelman Cowen.
The Hon. M. R. Egan: And Syd Einfeld.
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: And Syd Einfeld. I nominated two specific vice-regal positions, but I concede that many other prominent people of Jewish background have risen to high office. As it is close to Anzac Day I mention one other person in particular. In our nation's great Anzac tradition there is no more famous name than General Sir John Monash, one of the most capable allied military leaders of World War I. Some would say that he was one of the few capable allied military commanders in World War I. The Jewish community is also renowned for a record of working together to assist its members and other people throughout society. Charity has always been a focal point of Jewish practice. Thus, the annual presentations by B'nai B'rith, which I had the pleasure of attending, highlight what an integral part the Jewish community is in our nation.
BAG SNATCHING ATTACKS
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I ask the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for Police, a question without notice. Is it a fact that there has been an increase in purse stealing, with violent attacks on both young and old women in the Sydney area? Is it a fact that a recent attack on a young mother in the Menai marketplace resulted in her receiving serious brain injury and that she is now in intensive care? What action is the Minister taking to stop and deter the rash of purse stealing by increasing police surveillance in shopping centres? Will the Minister ensure that court penalties and sentences for purse stealing reflect the high penalties provided in the law, including 14 years for a robbery or assault with aggravation, and perhaps review the sentencing guidelines and/or minimum terms of sentence?
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I thank the honourable member for his important questions. In so far as the question relates to the administration of my colleague the Minister for Police, I will refer that part of the question to him. However, other aspects of the question relate to the portfolios of the Minister for Police and the Attorney General. I am not sure whether the Attorney General is aware of the details of the question, but I am sure he will look at it and come back to the House at an appropriate time with a considered response.
NORTHPOWER BOARD
The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is addressed to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Why does the board of NorthPower have no local representation following the latest round of the Treasurer's appointments to the boards of State-owned electricity companies? Does the Minister approve of regional electricity boards being administered entirely by board members who do not live within a bull's roar of the region? Was the
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 22 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
issue of local representation taken into account when these appointments were made? What use is Country Labor? <11> The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The boards of the electricity utilities are not chosen on a regional basis because, particularly in relation to the distributors, many of them are not regional companies. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has pointed out on a number of occasions, we will soon see full retail contestability in New South Wales. People in the NorthPower franchise area, the Energy Australia franchise area, the Integral Energy franchise area, or the CityPower franchise area in Melbourne—indeed, people across the entire eastern seaboard—will be able to purchase their power from the retailer of their choice. These companies are not regional companies, and the criteria—
The Hon. D. J. Gay: They are regional companies. The head office is in regional New South Wales.
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is a different thing, and it is very important. I am pleased that the Hon. D. J. Gay acknowledges that we have put the head offices of these utilities in regional areas. The criteria for appointment to these boards is basically the commercial background and qualifications of applicants.
ORANA JUVENILE JUSTICE CENTRE
The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: My question is directed to the Minister for Juvenile Justice. Further to the question asked by the Hon. D. F. Moppett last week, will the Minister provide to the House more detail on the commencement of services at the Orana Juvenile Justice Centre?
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Hon. I. M. Macdonald's question allows me to respond further to issues raised in this House last week by the Hon. D. F. Moppett. As I outlined to the House last week, the Orana Juvenile Justice Centre will be fully operational by the end of this month. At present the centre is operating with 35 permanent and six casual staff. A further eight people are undertaking training this week, prior to being placed on the casual roster. I am advised that a further seven permanent positions are awaiting final appointment. In addition, the Lincoln Education and Training Unit within the centre is operating with 10 permanent and part-time staff. With any new facility it is important to commence its operations in stages, so that appropriate procedures and routines are in place to ensure the security of the facility and the safety of staff and detainees.
Forty-six per cent of the staff at Orana are new to the department, so it has been particularly important to ensure that they have time to absorb their training and become accustomed to the demands of working in a custodial facility. Since taking its first admissions in February, Orana has been operating at a capacity of about 15 detainees. I am advised that as of last week there have been a total of 43 admissions to the centre. Fifteen of those admissions were on control orders, 25 were on remand, and three had lodged appeals. Twenty-seven of those 43 admissions were Aboriginal young people. At present a lot of work is being done to ensure that the centre's programs are relevant and culturally appropriate for Aboriginal clients.
Commencing in the second school term this year will be a program called Success Maker, an individualised numeracy and literacy program designed as an adjunct to regular classroom teaching. The program is also being trialled by the Department of Education and Training in a number of primary and secondary schools with large Aboriginal enrolments. The centre will use the services of a vocational instructor to assess the program needs of all detainees in the centre on an ongoing basis. I am pleased to report that the Orana Juvenile Justice Centre has been working to maintain community contact for detainees. Recently 12 local Aboriginal elders visited the centre in the first of what is planned as a regular program of visits. The aim is to provide positive role models for our detainees, to steer them away from criminal behaviour.
I am advised that the David Peachey, the well-known full-back for the Cronulla Sharks—a great team—visited Orana earlier this month and spoke to all the detainees. As honourable members will appreciate, that was particularly popular with the detainees. Visits by high-profile sporting personalities are a reasonably regular occurrence in our centres, and I will provide further details of that to the House at a later date. I cannot overstate the importance of such visits and the department's appreciation for sporting people who donate their time in this way. More than anything, our clients
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 23 need positive role models in their lives. I am pleased to report also that the Orana centre is achieving the desired result of allowing more regular family visits to detainees now that they are located closer to their communities of origin. The operation of the Orana centre to date has been extremely encouraging, and management and staff are to be congratulated on their efforts.
RAILWAY MAINTENANCE STAFF CUTS
The Hon. D. E. OLDFIELD: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Transport. How many State railway maintenance staff were there in 1995 and how many are there today? What are those staff numbers and changes when broken down into metropolitan and rural areas? What was the level of overtime worked by railway maintenance staff in 1995 compared to the overtime worked today? What performance indicators does the Minister have with regard to railway maintenance staff?
The Hon. E. M. OBEID: In view of the detail that is required to answer the honourable member's question, I will refer it to my colleague in the other House and provide an answer.
FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES PROGRAM
The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Women. The First Report of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice Inquiry into Crime Prevention Through Social Support notes that the core funding for the Family Support Services program has not been adjusted since 1988. It notes also that the department promised the inquiry that it would inject new funding for some of the services and investigate how service delivery could be improved. Will the Minister advise the House what progress has been made in this area, in terms of both funding and better service delivery?
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho has referred to a very comprehensive report. While I am obviously aware of the report, I do not have the detail to respond to the honourable member's question. I will refer it to the Minister in the other place and undertake to obtain a response as soon as possible.
MOTOR VEHICLE AIRCONDITIONING SYSTEMS
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question without notice is to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Attorney inform the House of the outcome of the WorkCover assessment of the current prohibition on the use of liquefied flammable gas in motor vehicle airconditioning systems?
The Hon. J. W. SHAW: In October last year the Regulation Review Committee considered the Dangerous Goods (General) Regulation 1999. This regulation carried over, with minor amendments, the previous Dangerous Goods Regulation, pending the development of a national standard for storage and handling of dangerous goods. The committee made a number of recommendations in relation to the regulation, which are contained in report No. 3/52 of October 1999. One of those recommendations was that I expedite, in accordance with the provisions of the Subordinate Legislation Act, an assessment of clause 242 of the regulation, which prohibits the use of liquefied flammable gas in motor vehicle airconditioning systems. The committee recommended that, upon finalisation of that report, it be tabled in Parliament. That assessment has now been completed by WorkCover and was tabled earlier today in this House.
WorkCover's conclusion, after review of submissions from stakeholders and available literature, is that there are potential hazards associated with the use of hydrocarbons in existing motor vehicle airconditioning systems without specific modifications and without measures being put in place to ensure safe handling. On that basis the authority's recommendation, which the Government accepts, is that the current prohibition under clause 242 remain for the time being. However, the Government is also committed to taking this issue forward. We recognise that there are environmental benefits associated with the replacement of existing fluorcarbon-based refrigerants with hydrocarbon gas refrigerants.
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 24 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
WorkCover has recommended that, if adequate criteria can be identified for the design, construction, installation and maintenance of motor vehicle airconditioning systems for use with flammable gases, the prohibition in clause 242 should be lifted and those measures referenced in a new provision. A new Australia-New Zealand standard for the safe design and construction of mobile refrigeration systems, including airconditioning systems in motor vehicles, has been under development for some time. Several organisations have contributed to this process, including companies that are seeking to supply hydrocarbon gas refrigerants to the New South Wales market. If this standard were to be finalised in the near future, it would provide a basis for control of any safety hazards associated with the use of alternative refrigerants, including hydrocarbons.
<12> However, I am advised that there is some doubt about whether an Australian standard can be finalised and agreed in a reasonable framework. I have been approached by the Greenchill Technology Association, which is an industry organisation advocating the use of hydrocarbon refrigerants. That association has proposed an industry-based processor for the development of a code of practice related to this area. I welcome that initiative. I believe that it provides a starting point for discussions with interested parties with a view to identifying a regulatory regime for the safe use of hydrocarbons in motor vehicle airconditioning systems. I have directed WorkCover to work with industry parties to agree on an industry-based process for development and finalisation of a code of practice or other appropriate control measures.
As part of that process, I will ask the interested parties to identify an independent chair who may be able to assist in resolving any disagreements. I will ask the parties to provide a working document for consultation by the end of May. I will ask for a final proposal reflecting substantial agreement to be provided by the beginning of September. I cannot force interested parties to come to the table or to agree. It will be up to the industry to develop the appropriate control mechanisms and to try to achieve consensus. If, as a result, a regulatory regime can be developed that satisfactorily resolves the current safety concerns, I will move to modify the regulations so that the use of hydrocarbon gas refrigerants will be permitted within that framework.
JENNIE GEORGE DELTA ELECTRICITY BOARD APPOINTMENT
The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: My question is to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Why was former Australian Council of Trade Unions [ACTU] president, Jennie George, appointed to the board of Delta Electricity as a director? What qualifications does she have to sit on the board of a State-owned electricity generator? Would it not have been more appropriate to appoint directors who have a clear knowledge of the electricity industry? Is this a second prize for Jennie George because no-one on the Treasurer's side of the House was prepared to vacate his or her seat for her?
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I thank the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn for his question. I hope that by now he has worked out the day on which the budget will be presented. One day he will even know what day is Christmas Day! The simple answer to his question is that Jennie George was appointed to the board of Delta Electricity because she was the Labor Council's nominee. As all honourable members would know, the legislation establishing the boards of public utilities provides that trade unions have a representative on each and every one of those boards. Jennie George was nominated by the Labor Council to fill the trade union position on the board of Delta Electricity.
I believe that the Labor Council made a very worthwhile nomination. It is not only an honour for Delta Electricity to have a board member who was the president of the peak union body in Australia, but also an honour to have a person with such enormous industrial experience. Jennie George will make a very good board member of Delta Electricity. My only regret is that when she is elected to Parliament she will have to resign the position.
JURY SERVICE
The Hon. R. D. DYER: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Is the Attorney aware of a recent decision of the Local Court which reaffirmed the importance of jury service and the contribution that jurors make to the justice system?
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 25
The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 10 April this year a southern Sydney company was convicted and fined for altering one of its staff's employment conditions because of that person's participation in jury service. As far as I know, the case was the first prosecution of its type in New South Wales. Marine and Engineering Pty Ltd of Caringbah pleaded guilty in the Downing Centre Local Court to an information laid under section 69 of the Jury Act 1977 which alleged that the company had altered one of its staff's employment conditions because that employee had served on a jury in a criminal trial in May 1999.
Magistrate Gyles fined the company $500 and ordered payment to the juror of $54 in court costs and $900 in compensation. When imposing sentence Ms Gyles noted that "Jury service is the jewel in the crown of our justice system. It must be protected by the courts." Honourable members may be aware that section 69 of the Jury Act provides that it is an offence for an employer to dismiss an employee, injure an employee in his or her employment, or prejudicially alter the employee's positioned by reason of the fact that the employee is summoned to serve as a juror. The section also provides that the court can order the employer to reimburse salary or wages lost by the employee.
The legislation is designed to protect those who serve on juries in New South Wales. The prosecution and conviction in this case sends a clear warning to all employers that the Sheriff's Office will not tolerate any action which prejudices jurors. The participation of members of the community as jurors is vital and essential to the proper functioning of our system of justice.
BAG SNATCHING ATTACKS
The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, and relates to a question asked earlier by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. Is the Attorney aware that bag snatching appears to be an epidemic in Sydney and that there have been some serious aggravated assaults associated with bag snatching in the past few days, including one young woman suffering apparent brain damage as a result of a bag-snatch attack? Does he agree that this is a particularly cowardly form of crime which can result not only in serious loss to an innocent and vulnerable woman but also possible serious physical injury? Given that the sudden and random nature of bag snatching makes preventive measures extremely difficult, will he consider reviewing penalties for bag snatching with a view to imposing heavier deterrent penalties—even specific penalties for this particular crime—to make it clear to would-be bag thieves that the Parliament and the community regard this type of attack as major, not petty, crime?
The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The answer to the question essentially is yes. Bag snatching is an abhorrent crime. Anecdotally, there has apparently been an increase in that type of crime in the central business district in recent times. I point out that there are already heavy penalties in place for that offence. In particular, a convicted person can be sentenced to 14 years imprisonment and if the offence involves an aggravated attack, the sentence can be 20 years imprisonment. One has to start with the assumption that heavy penalties already exist that act as a deterrent to the commission of that crime, but that does not detract from my fundamental answer to the honourable member's question, which is that the offence is deplorable and abhorrent. Obviously, consistent with the rule of law and consistent with the idea that in a civilised liberal democracy we do not have mandatory sentences, all reasonable steps ought to be taken to deter criminals from engaging in that type of criminal enterprise.
The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: Are any of these bag snatchers on home detention?
The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I do not know.
PRIMARY PRINCIPAL CLASSES 5 AND 6 SCHOOLS
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is directed to the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Has the Government ruled out the systematic downgrading of all primary principal class 5 [PP5] and primary principal class 6 [PP6] schools? Does the Government accept that such schools are often the centre of local communities and are key employers in small towns? Will the Government give an assurance that the identity of these schools will be preserved and not subsumed to become satellites of larger schools?
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 26 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I am not able to answer the honourable member's question. I ask her to be patient and I will obtain a response from the Minister as soon as possible.
<13> COAL INDUSTRY
The Hon. A. B. MANSON: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources. Minister, given the current problems facing the New South Wales coal industry how does the Government plan to protect the future of that important mining industry?
The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I thank my friend and colleague, the Hon. A. B. Manson, who is always concerned about the welfare of miners and, in particular, the areas south of Sydney.
The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: Don't let them regulate your pacemaker.
The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: Sleep with one eye open, Andy.
The Hon. E. M. OBEID: The Leader of the Opposition ought to give the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn the Axe. He did not even bother to read the requirements to be a director of energy companies. Someone set him up with that answer. He should look over his shoulder. The New South Wales Government is committed to encouraging the strategic planning and development of its valuable coal resources. In order to do that, comprehensive studies of the State's coalfields have been undertaken. Today I released a strategic study of the southern and western New South Wales coalfields. That study will help the New South Wales Government in its strategic planning for the Illawarra and western region. It provides practical recommendations to help secure the future of mineworkers and their families. Not only do these coalfields contribute significantly to their regional economy but they contribute to the economy of the whole of New South Wales.
Southern and western coalfields produced $730 million worth of coal in 1998-99. The new study indicates some good news for the western coalfields thermal coal producers: a predicted increase in world thermal coal trade until at least 2010. However, the southern coalfields produce mainly metallurgical coal and world forecasts are for only a limited increase. The new study forecasts that production from the western coalfields will rise from 8.2 million tonnes in 1998-99 to 9.3 million tonnes per annum in 2007-08. However, production from the southern coalfields is predicted to fall from the 1998-99 level of 11.5 million tonnes to 8.7 million tonnes in 2003-04.
There are no easy answers facing the southern coalfields. Coal resources are generally at greater depths than other resources, and a number of mines face closure as reserves begin to run out. The study predicts that the southern coalfields workforce will fall by approximately 600 by mid-2003. The New South Wales Government recognises that the Illawarrra is facing challenging times. The Government has acted to reduce rail freight and electricity charges and is currently considering industry's request for further assistance for the Port Kembla Coal Terminal. The Carr Labor Government has already created a $10 million Illawarra Advantage Fund. The fund assists in new ventures and job creation projects. The target under this Government initiative is to create 2,000 jobs within three years. My colleague the Minister for Regional Development has advised me that the Howard Government has heartlessly declined to match the Carr Government's financial commitment to the Illawarrra. The Carr Government has put $10 million into the fund to help the people of the Illawarra. We have asked the mean-spirited Howard Government to contribute an equal amount but it has failed to do so.
The Coalition should not talk about caring for the people of the Illawarra, because it is heartless. The Prime Minister is heartless. He took ages to look at the entitlements of the Oakdale workers. The Carr Government has asked him to contribute to a fund that will help create 2,000 jobs in the Illawarra. It has provided $10 million and John Howard has refused to put in one red cent. Shame on him! We wanted the Federal Government to work in partnership with us in the Illawarra, in the same way that we have worked in partnership in the Hunter. But the Federal Government has continued to ignore the people of the Illawarra. It has contributed nothing, zilch. The Federal Government does not care for anyone, it does not care for the people of the Illawarra, it does not care
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 27
for indigenous people, and I do not think it cares for average Australians. This study shows that the New South Wales Government is planning for the future of all its regional areas.
The Hon. D. J. Gay: Where is the Dubbo Advantage Fund? Where is the Illawarra Advantage fund? You have only got it in the labour electorates. I have not seen an advantage fund out of Newcastle or Wollongong. Where is there one? Where is there one outside Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong?
The Hon. E. M. OBEID: The Prime Minister has already indicated that he does not care about the people of the Illawarra. The Federal Government failed to agree to a partnership in the Hunter and now the Opposition here has confirmed that is its policy.
The Hon. D. J. Gay: Point of order: The Minister has completely misled the House about what I said. I asked whether there was an advantage fund outside Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong. Quite clearly this city-centric Government has not got one.
The PRESIDENT: Order I will take that as a personal explanation under Standing Order 70.
The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I confirm that this Government has set up a post-Pasminco fund for the Broken Hill area. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that this Government has not set up any funds outside the Hunter and the Illawarra. We have. We care for the people of Broken Hill. The Carr Labor Government will continue to assist industries and create and secure future jobs for the Illawarra and the western regions.
SOUTH SYDNEY FOOTBALL CLUB
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Attorney General. Considering the great contribution that the South Sydney football club made during the past 90 years—and continues to make—to its community, and considering that the only reason South Sydney football club was dropped from the rugby league competition was for television marketing reasons driven by Mr Murdoch's greed to maximise profits, has the Government considered the state of rugby league in this State? Has the Government considered ways to ensure that economically viable rugby league clubs that enjoy strong community support are not dropped from the national rugby league competition?
The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am entirely sympathetic to the legitimate claims of the South Sydney football club. It is extraordinarily sad that South Sydney has been dropped from the competition. I have regularly attended rugby league games at Leichhardt Oval for many years with my children. I think that a great working-class team such as South Sydney ought to be supported. Frankly, the capacity of governments to influence the course of events in that area is limited. That would have to be acknowledged by everyone, but whatever ought to be done in a practical sense should be done. It is extraordinarily sad that a team with a great tradition and great community support should be abandoned in this way.
<14> Ms LEE RHIANNON: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Government consider introducing legislation to safeguard rugby league as a people's sport?
The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Sympathetic as I am to the project that the honourable member propounds, I think the idea of governmental intervention by legislation would be a very serious, radical and unprecedented step. It is attended by all kinds of problems, and is a principle that really needs serious consideration.
NYNGAN POLICE STATION
The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I ask a question of the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Police. It is it true that the authorised strength of the Nyngan police station is six fall-time police officers? Can you confirm that staffing levels have dropped to only two full-time officers for a considerable period of time? What are you going to do to remedy this situation? And when are you going to get around to replying to the urgent correspondence from Bogan Council on this matter?
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 28 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I would have to make a full apology to the House if I have not responded to the correspondence from the Bogan Council. I do not recall correspondence from Bogan Council.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: No, the Minister for Police.
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Oh, the Minister for Police! How can I reply to correspondence sent to the Minister for Police? If the honourable member said that Bogan Council had written to the Minister for Police and had not received a response, I apologise. I thought he was directing his comments to me. I will remind my colleague the Minister for Police that he has a letter from Bogan Council and seek his response to the honourable member's question. I will ensure that Bogan Council gets a response to its letter.
TECHNICO SEED POTATO TECHNOLOGY
The Hon. A. B. KELLY: I ask a question of the Minister for State Development. Will the Minister please update the House on the latest success to emerge from the Australian Technologies Showcase program?
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am grateful for the question because almost every week impressive success stories are emerging from our Australian Technology Showcase [ATS] program. Those stories show the extraordinary depth of innovation and entrepreneurial drive in New South Wales, particularly in regional New South Wales. One such success story belongs to the company that I have spoken about in this House before, and a company with which I believe the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is familiar, Technico, one of the first companies to join the Australian Technology Showcase.
The Hon. D. J. Gay: You gave them some money—but not very much money!
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No. But, as all the Australian Technology Showcase companies point out, it is really not the money that is important. To some extent, it is the recognition, but, more importantly, it is the assistance that the ATS program can give them with exporting, marketing and so on.
The Hon. D. J. Gay: It was welcome, and it was timely.
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes. Let me tell the House about Technico, because it is a world leader in the production of seed potatoes, a world-class technology that the company has developed here—indeed, the best technology in the world. The company has developed a process that halves the time it takes to grow a commercial crop of seed potatoes, while at the same time making the seeds more resistant to disease. Since I last spoke to the House about Technico, the company has gone from strength to strength. In January, Technico won a $10 million investment from Rabobank, the world's leading specialist in funding food and agribusiness business, and Gresham Partners, a prominent Australian investment house. The money will be used to expand the company's seed technology business into Europe and the United States of America. It will also be used to continue the development of the company's existing offshore projects in China, Thailand and India. Since I visited Technico's production plant in Bowral in July 1998 the company has grown into a global business.
The Hon. D. J. Gay: Have you visited their site at Crookwell?
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No. I did go to Paddys River. Technico has increased its work force since July 1998 from 25 to 120, and it has plans to at least double that by the end of this year. The assistance that the ATS has given Technico has not gone unacknowledged. It is pleasing to hear David McDonald, Technico's Managing Director, recently say that the support provided by the Carr Government, through the ATS, has played an important part in the company's success. I wish David and his team every success, and I look forward to updating the House on Technico's activities in the future.
ETHNIC POLICE RECRUITMENT
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 29
The Hon. Dr P. WONG: I ask the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice- President of the Executive Council: How many police officers from non-English-speaking backgrounds, or speaking a local community language, are employed in the Greater Hume local area command? What is the ratio of the number of those officers to the number of residents from a non- English-speaking background? Does the Minister accept that one of the most efficient and effective ways of policing is to employ police officers who are able to speak different community languages? Will the Minister follow the example of the Victorian Government and launch a recruitment drive of police officers from ethnic backgrounds?
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: As honourable members are aware, I am not the Minister for Police, but I do understand—as I think other honourable members also understand—that in recent years the New South Wales Police Service has gone to great lengths to encourage and recruit people to its ranks from non-English-speaking backgrounds. I agree with the point that the honourable member makes. Nevertheless, as I am not an expert in the subject, I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Police and seek a response.
THE BUTTERY, BINA BURRA, RESIDENTIAL DRUG REHABILITATION BEDS
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My question is to the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer, and to the Minister assisting the Premier on structural reform and the Minister assisting the Premier on the Central Coast. I noted your announcement yesterday of 62 residential rehabilitation beds for New South Wales over four years. On the best information I have received, The Buttery at Bina Burra— the only drug rehabilitation residential service north of Newcastle, and a service with an excellent track record for success— will receive just two of the funded beds from this Government. Surely a centre with 10 per cent of the State population, with even a higher concentration of drug addicts than Sydney, deserves at least six of the 62 beds. Does the Minister agree that North Coast residents have been shortchanged and that the waiting lists and waiting times for treatment will still be unacceptable? Will the Minister review this matter urgently in view of the Drug Summit Rural Subcommittee recommendations?
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for acknowledging that yesterday I launched part of the Government's initiative under the Drug Summit Response, that is, those initiatives relating to long-term treatment and specifically rehabilitation treatment—
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It's a shame you did not consult the people at Bina Burra before you announced that.
The Hon. M. R. Egan: How can you tell someone before you tell them?
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: How can I tell someone before I tell them?
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: They still had not been told this morning when I rang them.
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I am very surprised by that. I will undertake to ascertain the precise circumstances of the complaint to which the Hon. Dr. B. P. V. Pezzutti referred in his interjection. That comes as a great surprise to me because this program was rolled out in consultation with the non-government drug counselling sector and the network of alcohol and other drug agencies. I assume that The Buttery—in fact, I would believe with near certainty—and all organisations funded under this program received adequate consultation and advice not just in the last 48 hours but in the period up to the formulation of the announcement.
I think the thrust of the honourable member's question is whether there will still be waiting lists for treatment facilities? The answer to that is that no doubt there will be. I think we need to focus on the positive nature of this program. This funding means that each year 521 more people from across New South Wales—including people on the North Coast, right throughout the Sydney metropolitan area and in other areas of this State—will be treated in long-term and medium-term facilities for drug addiction. <15> Loq: Della Bosca
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 30 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
The lives of 521 people will be turned around, or those people will have a greater chance of turning their lives away from the difficulties of addiction. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, as a medical doctor, would well know that these facilities are designed, or are appropriate, for those most deeply in the addiction cycle. A number of programs are being trialled specifically on the North Coast. The Government is looking at a range of options. We decided that one solution does not fit every region. We also decided—and I think most participants to the Drug Summit probably came to this view—that one solution does not necessarily work for each individual.
Some people, in order to break their habit of addiction, require long-term rehabilitative treatment of the sort provided by the Buttery and the other organisations that are to receive funding as a result of the announcement I made the other day. Other organisations have been experimenting with and have been successfully deploying home detoxification programs. At least five home detoxification programs are already in operation and others will be established. I think that those programs will be a valuable part of the armoury in the fight against addiction.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Are we getting our fair share?
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I think we are getting our fair share. The honourable member should be aware that, in response to the Drug Summit, the Government announced a $176 million program. The intensive rehabilitation program to which I referred earlier has been allocated a relatively small fraction of that amount. There are other specific initiatives for the North Coast. The North Coast has been a substantial beneficiary of the upgrade of methadone and counselling services. A new detoxification centre is expected to open at Lismore later this year. Two new programs which will focus on proven prevention schemes are also being trialled in the North Coast and Northern Rivers areas.
The drug offender compulsory treatment pilot program will enable drug offenders to obtain assistance and treatment. If people have been arrested and are identified as having drug problems, under the early court intervention pilot program they can undergo assessment and treatment as a condition of their bail. A wide range of initiatives will emanate from the $176 million program. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is aware of a number of important initiatives—both trials and permanent facilities—in the North Coast area of New South Wales. I have answered the thrust of the honourable member's question. The honourable member is overlooking this Government's commitment of $8.9 million to fund the construction of detoxification centres in prisons. A substantial component of that funding will go to Grafton.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is aware of a number of initiatives that will be implemented specifically in the North Coast area. This Government has allocated $176 million to implement the post-Drug Summit plan of action—something of which this Parliament and I and those who participated in the Drug Summit can be proud. I have yet to visit the Buttery, but I assume that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has. I have visited a number of these types of facilities and I was impressed with the facility that I saw the other day. I know that the Buttery is regarded as a wonderful institution.
My colleague the Hon. Janelle Saffin, and obviously the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, have an involvement in that institution. The Buttery received a mention in the famous Paul Kelly song To Her Door. The song refers to a troubled husband who went to the Buttery and said, "My singing days are long over", and he stayed about a year. I think that gives some idea of the scale of this intensive, high- cost, non-government facility. An important issue which was determined at the Drug Summit was that we would look for an Australian solution to these problems based on the principle that, if we look after and are responsible to ourselves and we look after our mates, things cannot go too wrong.
NEW SOUTH WALES FISHERIES
The Hon. H. S. TSANG: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. When will the Minister provide more detailed information on the state of our fisheries in New South Wales? What measures is the New South Wales Government taking to ensure the ecological sustainability of this valuable resource?
The Hon. E. M. OBEID: This question should have been asked by members of the Opposition, but unfortunately they are not concerned about fisheries issues. I am pleased to announce
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 31 that New South Wales Fisheries has just published the third annual edition of the "Status of Fisheries Resources of New South Wales." This outstanding report, a Carr Government initiative, is the most comprehensive of its type produced within Australia. The report demonstrates the Government's commitment to the sustainable management of our valuable fish resource, which is owned by the whole community.
The report includes assessments of many of our key commercial and recreational species such as rock lobster, abalone, bream and schnapper. It provides information about the development of our major aquaculture industries—another New South Wales Government initiative which I am actively encouraging. The report shows an increased production of major aquaculture species, including oysters, prawns and silver perch. I am pleased to say that this year's report provides more comprehensive information about our fish resource. It has been expanded, especially the section relating to ecologically sustainable development, or ESD as it is usually called.
Scientists in my department are currently leading a national study to develop a reporting system to ensure that all the critical elements of ecological sustainable development are adequately monitored. The report has also been refined. For example, in the commercial fisheries section, categories now include by-catch and discards issues, threatened or vulnerable species, habitat and environmental influences. Our important commercial fisheries continue to be monitored. Assessments indicate that in most cases, at current harvest levels, these species are not overexploited. Finally, the report on freshwater fish stocks and barriers to fish passage highlights the significant problems that face our inland rivers. All relevant State governments and the Commonwealth must work together to find effective solutions to this problem. I am pleased to announce that the "Status of Fisheries Resource New South Wales" report will shortly be available on the New South Wales Fisheries web site.
DHARAWAL STATE RECREATION AREA LEASE OF LAND
The Hon. P. J. BREEN: My question without notice is directed to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Is the Minister intending to proceed with the lease of land in the Dharawal State recreation area that is on the edge of Campbelltown to the Illawarra Shooters Association?. Is the Minister concerned about a rifle range causing serious injury or loss of life to people living at Appin, Wedderburn and Campbelltown? Is the Minister aware that the Dharawal State recreation area is one of the most pristine bushland areas in the Sydney Basin? What action does the Minister intend taking to prevent the destruction of this important natural resource by the activities associated with pistol, rifle and shotgun shooting?
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I do not have an answer to the honourable member's question. I must admit that I am not familiar with the issue at all. I will refer the matter to the Minister in the other place and obtain an answer as soon as possible.
HEALTH COUNCIL PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health. The report of the New South Wales Health Council, which contains recommendations about performance agreements of area health service boards and chief executive officers [CEOs], includes a recommendation that these agreements should be simplified and linked more closely to area health plans and that CEO performance agreements must include expectations about levels of consumer and community participation. Given that a performance agreement has just been negotiated for the New England Area Health Service CEO and that appointments are now being made by the Government to all the area health service boards, will these performance agreements contain Mr Menadue's recommended provisions? If not, why not?
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not familiar with the current process for the appointment of area health boards. I was involved with their appointment many years ago, I think in 1986.
[Interruption]
I remember that I was given the job of ringing up the ones who were going to miss out.
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 32 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
[Interruption]
<16> It was in 1986, when we were appointing the first area health boards. It was my job not only to help formulate the composition of the boards but to ring the hospital chairmen who were not going to be appointed and tell them of their fate. I remember one of the people I rang to tell him he was no longer on a health board was chairman of one of the hospital boards. Twelve months later he became one of my parliamentary colleagues. We never quite hit it off. It was not until years later that I realised he had a set against me.
The Hon. D. J. Gay: Was that the only reason?
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, there would probably be many others.
The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Like your dog that left.
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, the dog left, but the dog and I remain on very friendly terms. I see the dog every now and again. The dog gets very excited and jumps all over me and when I go home the dog will always go the other way. I will find out the answer to the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner’s question. I am sure it will be a very good answer. It was quite a good question, actually. I will let the honourable member know the answer as soon as I get it.
MOTOR VEHICLE FIRES
The Hon. I. COHEN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads. Has there been an increase in the number of motor vehicle accidents that result in explosions and fires? If so, could such an increase be related to the rising use of fuel additives such as toluene, which has a lower flashpoint, at 5 degrees centigrade, than uncontaminated fuel, which ignites at temperatures as high as 52 degrees centigrade? Will the Minister advise the House what action he is taking to ensure that there is no increased risk to human life because of fuel additives causing explosions and fires in motor vehicle accidents? Does the department keep records of the incidence of explosions and fires in motor vehicle accidents, and if not, why not?
The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I would like to get a very detailed and specific answer to the serious question asked by the Hon. I. Cohen, because he deserves a detailed response, not like the buffoons on the other side who never ask decent questions. I congratulate the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner for her question today, because she knows area health. I was trying to be nice to her today but she never gave me the opportunity. Tomorrow I will be nice.
INTEGRAL ENERGY INSIDER TRADING
The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: My question is to the Treasurer. At what stage are investigations into allegations of insider trading at Integral Energy? Apart from the current Australian Securities and Investments Commission [ASIC] investigation, what measures have been put in place at Integral to ensure that senior staff or employees are not involved in any further instances of insider trading?
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am certainly not investigating, nor is my department, any instances or allegations of insider trading. There have been references in the press to matters being referred to ASIC.
The Hon. J. H. Jobling: You have done nothing to stop any further reference?
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Why would I stop any reference?
The Hon. J. H. Jobling: You do not want to stop insider trading.
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: You said have I done anything to stop any further references.
The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Further instances of insider trading.
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 33
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I hope there will be no further references, as I hope there will be no further allegations.
PRIMARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: Earlier in question time the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked me a question about class P5 and P6 schools. The department's award application, filed with the Industrial Relations Commission on 1 November 1999, included in an explanatory note a proposal to annex hospital schools to larger schools. There appears to be a perception among some community members that annexation of class 5 and class 6 primary schools to larger schools was also proposed under the award application. There is no reference to annexation of small schools to larger schools in this award application or subsequent amended award applications. It is no longer proposed to annex hospital schools to larger schools.
Under the amended award application the salaries of primary principal class 6, PP6, and assistant principal, AP, and the salaries of primary principal class 5, PP5, and deputy principal primary would be aligned from the first pay period on or after 1 July 2003. Under the current award, the salaries of PP5 and PP6 are higher than the salaries of assistant principal and deputy principal primary respectively.
Under the Department of Education and Training's amended award application, small primary schools will continue to be self-managing. Under the amended award application, small primary schools will continue to have a principal. Principals of small schools will retain their position title. There will be no change to the role of the principal or the resourcing of small schools under the amended award application.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (FILMING) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [5.06 p.m.]: For the clarification of honourable members I wish to add further detail to some of the points I addressed on the bill. The Local Government Act does not apply in the unincorporated area of the State. However, I draw honourable members attention to the statement made by the Minister in the other House, in which he said:
I will ask my department to consult with the Western Lands Commission with a view to having the protocol adopted in the unincorporated area.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: That applies for the whole of the western division, though, because anyone with a pastoral lease has to have permission to use it for any other purpose. Anyone with a pastoral lease who wants someone to make a film there has to get the okay from the Western Lands Commission in the unincorporated area or in the shire.
The Hon. D. J. Gay: The western lands lease goes over the top of the Local Government Act. Only part of the Western Division is in the unincorporated area.
The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I have no doubt that your contributions will be noted. Although approvals in that area will have a different legislative basis, I expect that the principles underlying the protocol of partnership between the industry and the relevant agencies will be based on mutual understanding and co-operation. As I indicated earlier, the protocol agreed between the film industry, councils and government agencies will include a pricing model. The bill provides a streamlined method for determining fees and charges by adopting the pricing model in the protocol, and this will ensure consistency of pricing across different council areas and discourage excessive fees and charges being imposed by individual councils. I thank all honourable members for their contributions.
Motion agreed to.
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 34 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages. <17> FAIR TRADING AMENDMENT (SUBSTANTIATION OF CLAIMS) BILL
Second Reading
The Hon. E. M. OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries), on behalf of the Hon. J. J. Della Bosca [5.10 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The Fair Trading Amendment (Substantiation of Claims) Bill amends the Fair Trading Act 1987 to require traders to substantiate claims or representations made in advertisements and other statements. It will strengthen New South Wales consumer laws with the aim of preventing unscrupulous traders making offers that are too good to be true or peddling outright lies. The law will apply to false and misleading offers in print, in store, on electronic media and on the Internet, including get-rich-quick schemes promising windfall profits; dubious medical offers such as miracle diet patches, baldness cures, virility treatments and weight reduction programs such as "eat all you like and still lose weight"; ridiculously low prices for computers, Internet service providers or international phone calls; claims of "lowest prices in New South Wales"; unbelievable bonuses, gifts, offers, and special deals; and questionable product testimonials by sports stars or other prominent people.
Traders will be fined up to $5,500 if they refuse a fair trading written request for them to substantiate their claims. In short, advertisers will have to put up or Fair Trading will shut them up. This new law will mean the Department of Fair Trading can stop consumer problems before they start by targeting obvious rip-off merchants. This proposal gives effect to a pre-election commitment made by the Government and will add a major new weapon to Fair Trading's armoury against unfair traders. The proposal also implements a recommendation of the inquiry into the retail supply of personal computers and software, which was undertaken by the Fair Trading Advisory Council. That inquiry was initiated by the Government in response to an alarming increase in the failure by some members of the computer retail industry to provide goods and services as advertised.
More generally, the activities of traders and service providers who make claims which are without any basis in advertisements relating to goods and services have been of concern to me and, I am sure, to many other honourable members. Such claims have covered a range of goods and services, including computerised and mail order scams and misleading claims about potential land development use. The persons making these claims are often unscrupulous or fraudulent operators, or traders experiencing financial difficulties. Their claims mislead consumers, who are subsequently convinced to part with their money and then are left without the goods or services they were promised.
The inquiry into the computer retail industry found that many consumers were induced to purchase products by offers at very cheap prices through extensive media advertising. These offers were "too good to be true" as computer retailers were often not in the position to supply the goods as advertised. Many consumers had paid retailers in advance for goods, either deposits or full amounts, which retailers were using to fund the ongoing operations of their business, including the purchase of trading stock to fill prior orders. The inquiry found that the mechanisms currently available under the Fair Trading Act are not always fully effective in responding to these types of trader conduct.
For example, section 53 of the Fair Trading Act 1987, which makes it an offence to accept money with intent not to supply, may be difficult to apply in these circumstances. For such an action to succeed, proof must be adduced by the department that the defendant should have had reason to believe, at the time of accepting payment, that he or she would not be able to supply the relevant goods or services. Such information is often only within the knowledge of the defendant. It is also difficult to obtain an injunction to prevent a trader continuing to advertise where there is no clear proof that the trader will not or cannot supply the goods or services. This problem can be addressed by requiring the trader or service provider to substantiate his or her claims or representations. Similar provisions exist in fair trading legislation in South Australia and Queensland. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission supports the introduction of a substantiation provision and favours similar reforms to the Trade Practices Act.
I turn now to the detail of the bill. It provides the following. The director-general may issue a notice in writing requiring a person to substantiate a claim or representation made in a public statement. The notice must indicate the claim or representation subject to the notice, specify the time in which to respond to that notice, detail what a person must do to comply with the notice, and indicate that it is an offence to fail to comply with the notice within the required time. To comply with the notice a person must, within the time required by the notice, reply in writing to the director-general stating whether or not the person can provide information substantiating the claim or representation, and provide to the director-general such information substantiating the claim or representation as the person is reasonably able to provide.
Failure to comply with the notice or knowingly to provide information which is false or misleading would be an offence, with a penalty applying. Information provided by a trader in compliance with the notice would be inadmissible in criminal proceedings. However, the department would not be prevented from taking action under
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 35
another provision of the Fair Trading Act in relation to the claim or representation based on other evidence available. Substantiation of representations will not impose any significantly greater burden on business. Traders who operate in a normal prudent manner are not targeted by this important reform, which is primarily aimed at those traders who recklessly make misleading and false representations in their advertisements. The amendment to the Fair Trading Act 1987 will allow the Department of Fair Trading to quickly identify traders whose activities warrant further investigation and action, thereby minimising harm flowing to consumers. I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.10 p.m.]: The New South Wales Coalition supports this bill, which amends the Fair Trading Act 1987. It is a shame the Special Minister of State is leaving the Chamber, because this is an important bill for the people of the Central Coast. Once again, he is turning his back on them. This significant bill amends the Fair Trading Act 1987 to give the Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading the power to issue a notice in writing requiring any person or organisation to substantiate a claim made about a good and/or service in a published statement. The notice must indicate the claim subject to that notice, specify the period in which to respond, and detail what a person or organisation must do to comply with the notice. The bill provides for fines of up to $5,500 for failure to comply.
The bill will increase the protection available to consumers against unscrupulous merchants who make outrageous claims about their products or services. It is about truth in advertising, whether it be in the supply of goods or the supply of services. I suggest that the first candidate for such a notice is the Minister for Fair Trading because of his outrageous comments promising to reduce petrol prices in New South Wales. On 22 September last year the Minister told the other place:
I can advise the House that the next stage of Country Labor's fight for cheaper petrol prices in rural and regional New South Wales will start in the next few days.
That was the Minister's promise; that was his claim about his services. Let us consider what he delivered. Between March 1999, the time of his re-election to the Parliament and his elevation to the Carr front bench, and December 1999 the average price of unleaded petrol in country New South Wales rose from 73¢ per litre to 83¢ per litre, while in Sydney the average price for the same petrol rose from 66¢ to 76¢ per litre. This is despite the fact that the New South Wales Government collects 8.1¢ in excise levy on every litre of fuel sold in this State, totalling $619 million this financial year alone.
Clearly, the Government does not care enough to spend any money on the problem; it is happy simply to collect the money. The Minister promised cheaper petrol prices in rural and regional New South Wales but petrol prices increased. He exaggerated and misrepresented his service, and should be the first recipient of a notice under this bill because he is the original unscrupulous merchant—the shonky salesman; the Arthur Daley of State Parliament. Is it any wonder that the people of New South Wales have little confidence in the Minister's ability to deliver lower petrol prices? He made big claims but he could not keep up with his own rhetoric.
Of course, the Minister has conveniently worded the legislation in such a way that it cannot touch him. It only deals with those who are involved in trade or, indeed, economic matters. It does not deal with those who perpetrate upon an unsuspecting public a claim that simply will never be delivered. Nowhere is that more evident than in the claims made by the Minister for Fair Trading on petrol prices in New South Wales.
[Interruption.]
I have not finished my speech. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods should wait because there is more. Of course, she will come to the defence of her good friend from Ryde. She does not want to hear the truth. Given the way the Minister for Fair Trading rallies behind Country Labor, is it any wonder the people of country New South Wales have pleaded with the Minister and Country Labor to stop talking about petrol prices because every time they do the price goes up. The Minister and Country Labor members say they will bring the price down, but all they do is force the price up. And the Minister continually shifts the blame on to someone else. First, it was the oil companies, then it was the 3,500 unscrupulous merchants in New South Wales who were selling petrol at unrealistic prices. We all remember the hotline established by the Minister so he could do something about these people. He said he would crack down on people who were ripping off the unsuspecting public.
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 36 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
What did the Minister deliver? He delivered nothing but false expectation and false hope. He then blamed the petrol companies again and the Federal Government. Do not get us talking about toluene. When the issue of toluene was raised the Minister simply shifted the blame back to the Federal Government and said that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission should do something about it. It is all about truth in advertising.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Point of order: I know the Leader of the Opposition is confused, as we are, but I remind him that this bill is not about petrol; it is an important bill about various changes to the Fair Trading Act.
The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: It is about substantiation of claims. It is about truth in the message that is being sent to the public, and that is exactly what I am talking about. I am trying to distinguish the truth from what the Government fails to do and its rhetoric. I am using petrol prices as an example of a government that says one thing and does another—the same scenario for substantiation of claims as set out in the bill.
The Hon. R. D. Dyer: On the point of order: As the House would be aware, regulation of the sale of petrol falls within the jurisdictional competence of the Commonwealth Government, rather than the State Government. This legislation does not in any way impinge on the retailing of petrol and, therefore, the Leader of the Opposition's remarks are outside the leave of the bill.
The Hon. J. F. Ryan: To the point of order: An examination of the Hansard for the other place shows that the Minister's second reading speech extended to a few other topics with regard to advertising and consumer legislation generally. Indeed, there was a reasonably vigorous discussion of petrol prices and so on, and the debate was reasonably wide-ranging. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for the Leader of the Opposition to talk about petrol prices for a couple of minutes in relation to fair trading legislation.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: The honourable member doesn't have a clue what it is about.
The Hon. J. F. Ryan: I do, and I will be speaking to the bill shortly. It is perfectly reasonable to allow some latitude when discussing consumer legislation, and the Leader of the Opposition is well within that reasonable range. <18> The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. J. R. Johnson): Order! This House takes no carriage whatsoever of what happens in the other place. The Leader of the Opposition should confine his remarks to the bill.
The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: I will continue, within the leave of the bill, to speak about claims that are made in the community with regard to products or services that are sold or delivered and the dichotomy that exists between what is promised and what is delivered. There is a distinct difference between the two.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: We are looking forward to your remarks on the Federal Government, in that case.
The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: The Hon. Jan Burnswoods speaks about the Federal Government. This is the classic height of hypocrisy. In one breath she talks about my transgressing the standing orders in relation to this bill. She now calls for me to speak about the Federal Government. It is not something I say very often, but I look forward to the contribution of the Hon. Jan Burnswoods on this bill. I might have to listen to it from afar; I do not think I will have the intestinal fortitude to sit in the Chamber and listen to it.
We will not be talking about the Federal Government. What we will be talking about is what is occurring in the State of New South Wales. It may well be that the Government wants to step away from the fact that it has failed to deliver the promises that are now impacting on the people of New South Wales. The Government is quite happy to suggest that those involved in the retail industry must conform to truth in advertising. However, when the Government is confronted with some fairly sobering facts with regard to its lack of performance, when it is shown up for all the fraudulent ways in which it has misled an unsuspecting public with regard to certain very significant areas of concern
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 37 in this community, members opposite take points of order. They do not want to hear about the concerns of the community, which should be subject to the very same stringent measures that it is hoped this legislation will put in place.
I invite honourable members to look at the way in which the Government has said one thing and done another in relation to other issues debated in this House. For example, I refer to Olympic ticketing. The Government promised that the Games would be the people's Games. Everyone believed that they were in with a chance of securing tickets. But we all know now that not too many people had a chance.
The Hon. I. Cohen: They are getting away with it because of your support. You are the ones who are supporting it. On every major Olympics issue you are supporting them.
The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: If I were the Hon. I. Cohen, I would not talk about the Opposition's support. Members may recall that with regard to premium ticketing the Hon. I. Cohen was the first to ensure that there was not open accountability with regard to providing an opportunity for the people of this State to be amongst the lucky few to gain access to the tickets. The Hon. I. Cohen should not have this holier-than-thou attitude now. We recently heard his contributions on the Olympic arrangements bill, but he should not forget how he voted on the Olympic ticketing issue. It is extremely important to remember that decision of the Hon. I. Cohen. I hope this legislation will finally bring about a real and tangible result for the building industry. Time and again we hear promises from the Government, but it fails to deliver. As I alluded to earlier, we have seen it in relation to petrol prices and we have seen it in relation to the way the Olympic ticketing fiasco unfolded last year as a result of the general purpose standing committee's inquiry into Olympic ticketing. One area in particular that this legislation should have an impact upon is the building industry.
The Hon. J. F. Ryan will contribute to this debate. I do not intend to labour the point in relation to the building industry and the potential we hope this legislation will have to rectify some of the problems in the building industry. However, I wish to refer to a couple of aspects that I know will be supportive of what the Hon. J. F. Ryan will say. The Hon. J. F. Ryan has had extensive dealings with problems in the building industry. I am sure all honourable members would be well advised to listen to his contribution so that they may learn about what has occurred in the industry in recent times and about the Government's failure to deliver on its promises to an unsuspecting but trusting public in the people of New South Wales. Legislation designed to allegedly protect home owners has passed through this House. On 12 March 1995 a Labor Opposition declared that it would act on building complaints and bring shonky builders to heel. Again, what was promised and what we see today are two different things. On 27 February this year I was invited by the Building Action Review Group, known as BARG, to visit the dream home of the Chin family at Wentworthville. On that day more than 600 people toured the Chins’ property. Not only did we see unbelievable levels of competence by the builder in failing to deliver what was promised to the Chins, both leading up to and including the signing of a contract, but we also saw an ineffective and uncaring government that failed to deliver on the promises it made on 12 March 1995.
On 1 May 1997 the Labor Government enacted the Home Building Act and gave a guarantee of service to consumers. Once again we have seen legislation that continues to identify and reveal this Government for its inability to deliver on the promises it makes. Large numbers of families are still hamstrung by government regulation with regard delivery of service in accordance with contracts entered into with builders in building the family home. The Hon. J. F. Ryan will no doubt speak further about the problems in the building industry, and I again urge honourable members to listen to his contribution.
Some of the words uttered by the honourable Minister in another place in relation to substantiation claims are most commendable, particularly in relation to an aspect I have spoken about in the past, namely the rate reduction or, alternatively, the weight- or muscle-gain industry that has gripped our society in the past 10 to 15 years. I recall that last year I spoke about the closure of an eating disorder clinic at Westmead Hospital. I spoke about the number of magazines referring to weight-loss programs and weight- or muscle-gain programs that are available these days on newsstands, in newsagents, and so on.
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 38 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
<19> I understand that the Minister for Fair Trading referred in another place to a device consisting of adhesive pads placed on various parts of the body to convey electromagnetic pulses and effect weight reduction or body size reduction. The units are quite expensive and the producers prey on unsuspecting—some might say gullible—members of the public who pay large sums of money in the belief that weight reduction is simply a matter of applying the pads to the body, switching on electricity and watching excess weight disappear. An examination of gymnasium and fitness material reveals that the very same product is sold to people who want to increase their body mass or increase their weight.
The reality is that every magazine contains before-and-after photographs and a range of weight control regimes such as ancient Chinese and Russian remedies. They feature mystical weight control programs allegedly from the Middle East or far-flung countries and suggest that these are easy ways for people to either lose weight or increase their body size. The reality is that these products do not work, but each year unsuspecting members of the public pay large sums of money to find that out the hard way. I hope that this legislation will address clearly fraudulent activity which is being perpetrated on unsuspecting members of the public.
However, I doubt that it will be effective because the bill simply prescribes notices to be served, requiring companies or individuals to demonstrate the validity of their claims. I have no doubt that a market in substantiating weight loss or weight gain claims will emerge to ensure the continuation of profiteering enterprises that are most certainly operating in this State. I can find no mention in the legislation or in the Minister's second reading speech of vitamins. It will be interesting to find out whether this legislation will have any impact upon a determination of which vitamins work, which do not, and which simply represent a falsehood.
One has only to enter a vitamin store in any part of the country and recall a time when such a store might have sold iron supplements, B6, vitamin C and other nutrients to realise that the current range of vitamins represents a dramatic increase. People are absolutely mystified by the variety of alternative medicine products that are currently available. These products are being unleashed on an unwary public that believes there is an alternative way of beating ailments. The public is continually being given that message through magazines and other publications.
In conclusion, I indicate that the Opposition will support the bill. The Opposition will monitor implementation of the legislation and will examine the evidence of the effectiveness of the bill. Members of the Opposition do not accept at face value that this legislation will bring about the results touted by the Minister in his second reading speech and will observe the operation of the legislation with interest. I suspect that if the Government is serious about requiring producers to substantiate their claims and about truth in advertising, the legislation will need to be revisited in the future.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.34 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill which amends the Fair Trading Act 1987 to give power to the director-general to require persons who publish, or cause to be published, statements promoting the supply of goods or services or the sale or grant of interests in land to substantiate claims or representations made in those statements. The whole point of the bill is to provide an opportunity for the Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading to initiate action, including action that can be taken even before complaints are made.
I understand that the main impetus for this legislation was a number of consumers being misled by advertising shown on Channel 10. A program showed computers available for purchase at very low prices. When I saw the advertisements, I thought it was strange that the prices were so low and I wondered how the computers could be offered for sale for just a couple of hundred dollars. It later became clear that a limited number of computers were available at that price. Many people who sent money did not receive a computer. There was also doubt about whether the computers were new or were surplus equipment previously owned by government departments. That was a very serious matter.
Although I am not suggesting that Bert Newton had any role in the sale of the goods—often program comperes are not involved in arranging the advertisements that are booked by somebody else—I noted that he was involved in those advertisements. I have since noticed that Bert Newton now
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 39
does very little advertising on that Channel 10 program at all. He may have learned a lesson and decided not to be associated with products that might damage his reputation. Although I am certain that Bert Newton had no knowledge of the lack of availability of the computers, there is no doubt that viewers are influenced by the person who features in the promotion. When people see Bert Newton they automatically think that he is an honest person and he boosts the credibility of the advertising.
The same reaction occurs when John laws or anyone else who is well known advertises products— their recommendation adds weight to the claims made about the product. However, this legislation will offset that effect. When the director-general, merely as a result of observation by officers of the Department of Fair Trading, has reason to believe that advertising material contains overstatements or misleading statements the person or company responsible for the advertisement can be required—even without a complaint having been made—to provide information to substantiate their claim or representation. In those circumstances, the advertiser must provide such information that is reasonably able to be produced.
Proposed section 23B states that an advertising statement should include matters relating to the offer of the goods or services for supply at the advertised price for a period that is reasonable. A promoter may have only a small number of items for sale, which is what happened in relation to the computers, but when consumers respond to the advertisement they provide details of their credit cards when they place the order. The company selling the product draws money from the consumer's account immediately, retains the money and, when the consumer inquires about delivery, says that the product is not available pending delivery at a later time. After several months the consumer realises that the product will not ever be available.
That type of treatment of consumers really amounts to fraud. I believe that the Government is correct in tightening the statutory framework within which companies advertise goods for sale. It is quite often the case that when the details of newspaper advertisements change or are found to be incorrect, a newspaper will publish a correction by stating the correct price or informing consumers that an item is no longer available. That is a good practice. However, I have not noticed any advertising corrections being announced on television or radio. Advertisements are being telecast and broadcast freely to the consumer market. This legislation applies also to the electronic section of the media, and for that reason the Christian Democratic Party fully supports the bill.
<20> The Hon. Dr P. WONG [5.39 p.m.]: The Fair Trading Amendment (Substantiation of Claims) Bill is a positive and necessary addition to the fair trading mechanism, and will ensure better consumer protection in this highly commercial society. Information technology has enabled electronic messages to pass to consumers in a matter of seconds. Today consumers can easily be inundated with volumes of advertising material that draws them into a very competitive market. Unscrupulous traders can often take advantage and present advertising material in various forms that may be untrue or misleading. Because it is more difficult to regulate the increasing output of advertising material, individuals and companies can make huge profits by deceiving or confusing consumers.
Ordinary people living in a fast-pace commercial society are often made to feel the need for improved high-tech goods and services presented to them in a very glossy and appealing way by advertising companies and traders. I, like many people in the community, have seen people spend vast amounts of money on get-rich-quick schemes that promise large windfalls of money. Other advertising campaigns promise well priced high-tech packages of goods, and ask consumers to pay before they receive the products. As a doctor I have seen many people affected by projections about beauty or healthy lifestyle, largely imposed on them through the media, who accept dubious beauty and medical miracles, diet products or virility treatments. Often such products do not deliver the results expected by the consumer and, on some occasions, are very dangerous for the health of the consumer. Preventive systems and remedies exist in Federal and State legislation in response to those medical matters.
This bill further adds to the legislative mechanisms to protect consumers from exploitation by traders even before the situation arises. Under the legislation the director-general will be able to issue a notice in writing and to request the trader to substantiate the claim or representation made in an advertisement or other public statement. If the trader does not comply with that request he will commit an offence which attracts a penalty. I agree with many comments of the Leader of the
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 40 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
Opposition. I am aware of the case of the Chin family. My office and the offices of two other members of Parliament were contacted and, in turn, we approached the Minister responsible, Mr John Watkins, but the matter was not resolved and has consequently led to tragedy.
I fully support the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition that in this instance in relation to the building industry the Government failed many consumers miserably. Overall I am satisfied that the director-general will exercise his power as a result of complaints received from consumers and departments and the scrutiny of potential advertising material. This is therefore a proactive bill and the Government must be congratulated on it.
The Hon. J. F. RYAN [ 5.43 p.m.]: Whilst the Opposition does not oppose this bill, I am not wildly excited about it. Frankly, it is my view that this bill was designed to do nothing more than to give the Minister for Fair Trading an opportunity to get some good press on the radio and in the media for a couple of weeks. This is the most miserable consumer protection legislation I have had the displeasure to see. I intend to explain to the House chapter and verse why it is so miserable. First of all, if the Minister was in anyway serious about containing false claims in advertising the penalties would not be limited to the trader.
Apparently the person who publishes the false statements is in no way gathered in by this bill as it states, "…and may require a person who, in trade or commerce…" That does not include the publisher, the television or radio station that allows the advertisement to go to air, or the newspaper that publishes it. The Government will not take on the media because that would involve real political courage, but it will take on the trader. The bill creates an offence. The Department of Fair Trading has to issue a notice to the author of the advertisement.
If the author fails to respond to the notice—let us presume authors are totally unscrupulous and do not want to defend anything that they have caused to be said in a newspaper or magazine or on a television advertisement—they will be fined the huge sum of $5,500. That may seem an enormous amount of money but it should be remembered that one needs simply to place the value of the fine against the value of running the advertisement. The sum of $5,500 would not buy space after 11.00 p.m. amid the 1900 sex advertisements on television. The bill provides that a product can be extensively advertised on the radio at a cost of mega-thousands of dollars—
The Hon. I. Cohen: Is there truth in advertising in the sex advertisements?
The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I do not think there would be much truth in advertising in them. The advertisement could be for those things that the Minister referred to, such as computers and gadgets that are supposed to build a wonderful six-pack in three weeks. If the product is supported by false, unsubstantiated claims on television and radio and in magazines and, if the Department of Fair Trading is aware of it and sends out a notice to which it gets no response, the trader can be fined the princely sum of $5,500. In future weeks I will bring to the attention of the House the unbelievable understaffing of the Department of Fair Trading. This is hardly strong consumer legislation.
The Minister has designed this legislation because it looks good, but when it is examined it means absolutely nothing. I was entertained when earlier I heard the speech of my colleague the Leader of the Opposition. He said that the Minister may have been a possible contender for this legislation. The Leader of the Opposition made reference to a number of past claims of the Minister and said that if he is brought to account for them he might be fined $5,500. I inform the Leader of the Opposition that one of the defences provided for in this legislation is:
This Division does not apply to any statement published before the commencement of this Division.
The Minister has made sure that he will not be brought to account for what he has said about consumer legislation. Members of the Government in this House can be hairy chested about introducing new consumer protection legislation but this House, and the community at large, must consider whether the legislation will work. Are the penalties tough enough? I expect that there are loopholes in the legislation. Are there are any resources, such as inspectors, to underpin the legislation to ensure that the guilty are brought to book? I suspect that in this case the passage of this bill is all that will be heard about false advertising in New South Wales. I do not expect that the bill will often be used, but if it is I cannot imagine that people who make the sorts of claims that the Minister is
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 41
allegedly worried about will be deterred by a maximum fine of $5,500 for the worst possible offence. It may amount to even less than that.
It has been a habit of the Australian Labor Party to make claims about consumer legislation. The Labor Party does not have a wonderful record of introducing and supporting consumer legislation. I will refer briefly to the Home Building Act 1989, which, like this legislation, is hopelessly weak with loads of loopholes. I will illustrate how the Government made great claims about consumer legislation and then watched people drive trucks through it in its practical implementation. The Home Building Act 1989 is supposed to protect consumers from unscrupulous builders. We are dealing with protecting consumers in the most important financial transaction of their lives. My experience with various constituents leads me to conclude that the legislation is hopelessly weak. The greatest problem with the legislation is the time it takes for consumers to achieve a remedy through the bulwark of that legislation—the Fair Trading Tribunal, Building Division. <21> The overwhelming problem for consumers in that division is that it takes so long to get any serious matter heard by the Fair Trading Tribunal that many walk away from their disputes altogether—even to the extent of paying the builder to get him of their backs! The builders and traders in the industry know that. So what they do is wear down the consumer with endless manipulations of the legislation, until finally people decide that they can pay rent on their existing accommodation no longer, or can no longer do without their investment property, and it is cheaper for them to simply pay up and walk away.
One of the examples of the weaknesses of the Home Building Act that I have been referring to for some time in this House concerns a builder who owns a building company called Vital Homes, Rocco Vitalone. He has been the subject of 17 complaints that I have referred to the Department of Fair Trading, not to mention others that I understand have come in since. He has been the central figure in a number of television exposes. I was given an undertaking that most of the matters concerning Mr Vitalone would be brought to an end by February. I believed the Minister was genuine when he gave me a commitment that the matters would be brought to an end by February. I had hoped also that the complaints I had made about Mr Vitalone would result in the long-awaited completion of investigations into his business practices, and that he would be asked to show cause under section 63 of the Home Building Act why he should continue to hold a builder's licence. I started complaining about Mr Vitalone in January 1999, and we are now well into April 2000.
The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Is he still operating?
The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Absolutely! I am about to refer to a project that he is working on right now. Mr Vitalone at last has been asked to show cause—but only after Channel 10 a month ago made a telephone call to the Minister's office asking, "What are you doing about this matter that Mr Ryan has been complaining about for 14 months?" All of a sudden, that afternoon the announcement was made by Fair Trading, "He is going to have to come in and show cause." I thought, "At last, something is going to happen. This bloke is finally going to be brought in and brought to book."
But Mr Vitalone has found a way out. I wish to explain to the House that, no matter how good the intentions of the Department of Fair Trading are, no matter how strong the legislation appears to be, he has found the simplest way that one could imagine to avoid meeting his obligations. He simply produced a medical certificate and says that he cannot come to the hearings of the tribunal for at least six weeks. On 13 March Mr Vitalone was supposed to appear before the Fair Trading Tribunal in relation to a number of complaints made by a home owner called Mr Len Oskan. Mr Vitalone told the Fair Trading Tribunal, just before the scheduled hearing, that he could not attend because he had to be at another court. Consequently, the matter was adjourned, and Mr Oskan continues to wait.
The complainant will have to wait a long time before his matter is heard because, as I said, Mr Vitalone apparently cannot come to court for at least another month. But the fact is that Mr Vitalone was not required to be at a court anywhere in New South Wales on that day. In fact, quite accidentally, that very day a member of the Fair Trading investigation branch, Mr Paul Dengate, met and spoke with Mr Vitalone, who was working on a job in Hassall Grove. It will come as no surprise that the reason Mr Dengate was on that Hassall Grove property is that he was investigating yet another complaint against Mr Vitalone. So a staff member of Fair Trading spoke to Mr Vitalone on the day
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 42 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council that he was supposed to be in the Fair Trading court. On the very day he said he could not be there because he had to be at another court hearing, he was sprung working on one of his building sites. But it gets worse!
Later that month, on 27 March, Mr Vitalone was due to attend a three-day hearing at the Fair Trading Tribunal to respond to complaints by a Mr and Mrs Stejanovic. Their complaints included: that they had been massively overcharged for concrete piering, that there were serious structural faults in the roof of their house, and that the wrong coloured mortar had been used throughout the brickwork of their home. Honourable members might recall that this particular case featured in a Channel 7 report some months ago. One working day before that hearing was due to take place Mr Vitalone submitted a medical certificate to staff of the Fair Trading Tribunal, stating that he would not be able to attend the hearings of the tribunal for at least a month. He was successful in having that three-day hearing adjourned. I am sure the people of the Fair Trading Tribunal understand the significance of the adjournment of a three-day matter: it means that it will now be months before the tribunal is able to find three spare days to hear that matter.
Mr Vitalone was also successful in having adjourned every other one of the matters on which he was supposed to appear before the tribunal. Those matters included Mr Vitalone appearing to respond to complaints made by a Mr and Mrs Blackmore of Oakdale about serious faults in their home, including non-connection of the stormwater drainage system, overcharging for various extras that Mr Vitalone promised to add to the house, and other serious structural faults. Mr Vitalone's medical certificate also has prevented the tribunal from setting down a two-day hearing into complaints lodged by Mr Photios and his son and daughter-in-law about the matter of a building in the Campbelltown area. Since January this year they have been waiting for another day's hearing for their matter, which has been before the Fair Trading Tribunal for more than 12 months.
Of course, Mr Vitalone had also prevented the Department of Fair Trading itself from issuing a summons to get him to come in and respond to the department's show-cause matter. So, with one medical certificate, he has been able to wipe out all of that action and cause all of that delay—all because he claimed to be sick! Well, Mr Vitalone was not too sick this morning to attend, along with staff of Campbelltown Council, a site inspection for a home that it he is currently building in the Glen Alpine area of Campbelltown. I do not need to get a statutory declaration about that; Mr Vitalone was there with staff of Campbelltown Council, checking the steel formwork for a home that he excavated only a week ago. He was too sick to come to the Fair Trading Tribunal at the same time as he was on a bobcat! I have two people who are prepared to give statutory declarations to the Department of Fair Trading, if they want those, that on that day Mr Vitalone was operating a bobcat and working on a property from 7.30 in the morning until late in the evening. He simply flouts the order of the Fair Trading Tribunal.
This home building legislation is, for those reasons and others, a complete joke. I want to know why Mr Vitalone is allowed to so blatantly rort the provisions of the Home Building Act. I want to know why the Department of Fair Trading has not been able to bring him to book, particularly when its own officers know that he has been making false statements before the Fair Trading Tribunal. I want to know why the tribunal itself allows such a blatant contempt of its jurisdiction. The Department of Fair Trading must have teeth in its powers and provide the necessary resources to prosecute complaints. I take, as an example, the building inspection division of the Fair Trading Tribunal. The Department of Fair Trading each year receives about 6,000 complaints about home builders. It has three people in Sydney to investigate complaints that arise from breaches of the Act, and two other officers out in the country.
There is no point having tough legislation unless there are adequate resources to back it up. I do not think the Department of Fair Trading provides those resources. In fact, during the time that the Labor Party has been in office the resources of the building division of the Department of Fair Trading have been massively wound down. The division used to have 50 inspectors operating under the old Building Services Corporation legislation. Now it has just three officers in Sydney and two others outside Sydney. Unless they are prepared to resource this legislation and start to be serious about builders who treat the department with complete contempt and use every trick in the book to delay progress of matters, the department will never have teeth.
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 43
Mr Chen—whom I will tell the House about on another day—was in the tribunal yesterday and was mucked around by an insurer. His matter was to take just one day to hear. The insurer spent nearly the entire day reading his brief of evidence, knowing full well that that would take up half of the available hearing time, and that very little time would be left for Mr Chen to put his case—even though everybody in Sydney knows about Mr Chen's house. At the end of the day, Mr Chen went away knowing that his matter is adjourned for at least another two months, because that was the order of the tribunal.
This is the Labor Party's own Home Building Act. It is a joke! This legislation is a joke. While the Labor Party is in office I believe the people of New South Wales cannot have any expectation of fair, rigorous consumer legislation that has any teeth at all. I am sorry to be so harsh on honourable members opposite, but I have got to the stage, after dealing with these and other matters for a more than 18 months, after getting promise after promise and getting nowhere, that I can only come to the conclusion that the only things that the Labor Party is serious about regarding consumer legislation are the press statements made by its Minister. After that, no effort whatsoever is made to make sure that its legislation works. <22> The Hon. I. COHEN [6.00 p.m.]: The Greens support the Fair Trading Amendment (Substantiation of Claims) Bill. After discussing the bill with the Australian Consumers Association I have established that it, too, supports it. I listened with interest to the contribution of the Hon. J. F. Ryan and I appreciate what he had to say about those aspects of the bill relating to building. A great many things need to be taken into account with respect to consumer protection. The Greens believe that it is worth supporting legislation which appears to be tightening up loopholes in existing laws. One loophole allowed unsubstantiated claims to be made by advertisers and suppliers of goods and services.
Building is only one of many areas that must be investigated to establish the effectiveness of this legislation, which will amend the Fair Trading Act 1987. I agree with the point made by the Hon. J. F. Ryan about the inappropriate and ineffectual fines in this bill. The provisions in the bill dealing with false advertising in newspapers could have a deterrent effect. This legislation could be effective. The Greens acknowledge that these provisions are a small but significant step towards consumer protection. Clearly, people must be prevented from making outrageous claims in the media. There are too many peddlers of snake oil, both inside and outside this House. In certain circumstances it would be appropriate for such things to be controlled.
Earlier the Hon. P. Wong referred to electronic communication and advertising. I am sure that many honourable members are suffering from the same avalanche of material in the electronic media—an area that requires a degree of control. This bill will go a significant way towards rectifying that. Outrageous claims have been made by people in the beauty industry. I am interested in the health food industry as I am a consumer of its products. Honourable members will recall the unsubstantiated claims that were made some time ago relating to weight loss tea. I am a user of herbal remedies and believe in their fantastic application and efficacy. However, in some circumstances unsubstantiated claims have been made about them and it is reasonable to expect a degree of control.
The provision in this legislation of a $5,500 fine could have a significant impact in many areas and lead to the protection of consumers. The Hon. J. F. Ryan referred to other matters that have not been covered by this legislation, but the Greens believe that this legislation is a substantial step in the right direction for consumer protection—something that is sorely needed. Why was a fine of $5,500 included in the legislation? I imagine that the business community, which will be up in arms about that provision, will put pressure on the Government. I wonder if the Opposition would have dealt better with this type of issue if it were in government?
The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: [6.04 p.m.]: Is a limp lettuce better than no lettuce at all? Is this small bill—which pretends to deal with a large problem; perhaps it does not even pretend to deal with a large problem—better than doing nothing at all? The Government thinks it has achieved something in this regard but, given what the Government really ought to be doing, this bill is a rather poor excuse. I am inclined to agree with Hon. J. F. Ryan. One of the problems in the building industry is that advertising is exaggerated. My experience in advertising, given my interest in tobacco, has been considerable over the years. Advertising was managed—if that is the appropriate word—by the Advertising Standards Council. I used to satirise that name by calling it the Advertising Double
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 44 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
Standards Council on the grounds that, if standards were good, double standards were clearly twice as good.
The most famous case involving advertisers concerned an advertisement depicting someone eating a banana, which within two days was withdrawn because it had sexual connotations. However, it took about 18 months to withdraw a cigarette advertisement with Paul Hogan, who it was claimed was a person of major appeal to children, because the policy was that no personality would be used if he or she was of major appeal to children. So advertisers were forced to take a banana advertisement off the screen in two days, but with the Paul Hogan advertisement they held out for 18 months, which was the time scheduled for the advertisement to run. It was a delaying tactic which rendered the so- called regulatory system a farce.
Of course, the Advertising Standards Council was abolished as a bad joke because it was funded through a levy on advertisers, which I suspect they did not like paying. A system even more farcical than that has now been implemented. I do not have much time for advertising. But let us go back to those times when the Advertising Standards Council was in its heyday. If an advertisement exaggerated a little, it did not matter, because it was just that: a bit of an exaggeration. If a shop owner advertised a product as being the best in the world, that was puffery. Although it was absurd for a shop owner with a tiny shop in the middle of nowhere to claim he had the best product in the world, everybody knew it was simply puffery, and they did not care. It was an simply outrageous claim without any real basis—a claim that was used to encourage patronage of the shop. So, if it was a slight exaggeration or if it was puffery it did not matter. In either case an advertiser could say what he liked.
The bill reasonably requires anyone dealing with or advertising building substances to substantiate a claim. The Building Action Review Group [BARG] is a group of home owners who have been totally ripped off by the building industry. It is a group that the Department of Fair Trading singularly fails to adequately protect. This bill could be regarded as an opportunity cost. If there are not many more bills in the pipeline—and I have not been informed of any—this bill will deal only with a small number of shonky builders. It does not really deal with the problem. BARG puts on defective homes exhibitions, which reveal extraordinary work. Some homes are built on clay of the wrong consistency. As the clay dries out the slab, which is far thinner than it should be in the specifications, buckles and cracks into some sort of crazy paving, all the windows are at funny angles and cracks extend right up to the roof.
A builder who tendered for some of that work told me that it was impossible to repair because inspectors would act only on an owner's specific complaint. If an owner said, "There is a crack at the top of my wall", the building services section of the Building Services Corporation would only fix the crack. If the foundation was the cause of the crack and the slab kept on moving, the crack would just keep getting bigger. The solution to the problem was far more expensive than filling in a crack with a bit of filler. It involved the construction of piers, perhaps a new slab and, in some cases, pulling down and rebuilding the house. Inspectors who told people that their houses were fatally flawed would not put that in writing because, as engineers, they had to survive within the building trade. If they were seen as being highly critical of builders and buildings they would get no work. So a lot of them gave verbal advice but would not put it in writing, which, of course, meant that it could not be used in court.
<23> The problem is that building inspectors come from the building trades and they are reluctant to burn their bridges as far as working in the building trade is concerned. The privatisation of building inspectors has done nothing to improve the situation. There is a large problem in the building industry, and this bill deals with a very small percentage of those claims and problems. As such, as far as it goes it is okay, but one has to reflect that it does not go very far.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.10 p.m.]: As my colleague the Hon. I. Cohen said, the Greens will support this bill. It is one of those subjects on which we get a great deal of correspondence, because many people feel they are being ripped off. They read an advertisement that alludes to great things happening, and when those things do not happen they feel conned. But more and more we find that community awareness about these issues is growing and that people are getting angry because many traders continue to get away with it. So, we are relieved to see this legislation introduced.
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 45
However, we also agree with the concerns expressed by the Hon. J. F. Ryan. He was obviously feeling a great deal of anguish, as many of us do, because it seems that many traders get away with their advertisements. Once this legislation comes into effect, one of the jobs the Greens have given ourselves is to monitor how effective it is. We will be asking the Minister to give us feedback on how many notices are issued and how the prosecutions are going. People are wasting money and are being seriously misled, and this can have a dramatic outcome on their lives and business and on how they look after their children. It can be quite detrimental in all sorts of ways on an individual basis as well as on businesses and organisations. So, it is something we will give a great deal of attention to.
We thank the staff in the Minister's office for giving us information on this and for being quite co-operative on explaining how it will work. We got the same feedback from a number of community groups: they felt they have been consulted. We are pleased that these new measures are coming in but, like so many things, the proof will be in the pudding, and we hope the eating will be pleasant. We hope that the legislation achieves good outcomes and that it is able to curb much of the disreputable advertising that dominates the city and State.
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [6.12 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Leader of the Opposition, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, the Hon. Dr P. Wong, the Hon. J. F. Ryan, the Hon. I. Cohen, the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans and Ms Lee Rhiannon for their contributions to the debate and the support they have indicated for the Fair Trading Amendment (Substantiation of Claims) Bill.
I would like to respond to the issues raised by honourable members, particularly by the Hon. J. F. Ryan. Listening to the Hon. J. F. Ryan's speech, members might have been confused about whether he was supporting or opposing the legislation. Although he quite clearly indicated he supports it, he made a number of claims and was quite dismissive of it. This seems rather odd, given that similar legislation is in place in South Australia and Queensland, and as it was recommended after an independent inquiry. The Hon. J. F. Ryan seemed to indicate a great level of concern that this was toothless legislation, but I think he has misunderstood its intention.
The legislation is designed as a power to be used at the beginning of an investigation and is designed to make the job of Fair Trading easier. It does not supplant the provisions of section 42 of the Fair Trading Act relating to false and misleading advertising. The maximum penalty for false and misleading advertising is $110,000. I do not know whether honourable members would be aware of that after listening to the comments of the Hon. J. F. Ryan. The $5,500 fine referred to in the legislation is imposed if one fails to substantiate a claim. One could also be subject to prosecution for false and misleading advertising, for which the maximum penalty is $110,000. The Hon. J. F. Ryan also forgot to mention that the Director-General of Fair Trading can stop traders from advertising. That is, by virtue of this bill the problem and the harm can be stopped at an earlier point. That is the advantage and benefit of this legislation. The Minister would be very interested if advertisements that are of concern to Ms Lee Rhiannon were referred to Fair Trading. We undertake to keep Ms Lee Rhiannon and the Greens informed on how the laws are working. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
CONVEYANCERS LICENSING AMENDMENT (PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE) BILL
Second Reading
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [6.16 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill we now read a second time.
I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated into Hansard.
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 46 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
Leave granted.
The Conveyancers Licensing Amendment (Professional Indemnity Insurance) Bill amends the Conveyancers Licensing Act 1995 to overcome current difficulties in approving policies of professional indemnity insurance for Conveyancers. The Conveyancers Licensing Act was introduced to protect consumers of conveyancing services by providing that non-solicitor conveyancers must be licensed, accountable and meet certain standards of competence. To be granted a licence a person must be at least 18 years of age, fulfil certain educational and practical experience requirements, not be a disqualified person and contribute to the compensation fund established under the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act. All licensed conveyancers must be covered by an approved policy of professional indemnity insurance with the exception of conveyancers employed by solicitors, who are exempt under the Conveyancers Licensing Regulation from the need to carry their own indemnity insurance. As employees they are covered by their solicitor employer's law cover policy. It is intended to continue this exemption.
Professional indemnity insurance covers against the risk of professional negligence which may cause financial loss to a client. An approved insurance policy is one where the insurer and the terms of the policy are approved by the Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading. Legal advice received by the department raises doubts about whether the professional indemnity insurance policies currently held by licensed conveyancers strictly comply with the Act. The difficulties arise because of wording in the Act which provides that a policy cannot be approved unless it indemnifies the licensee "regardless of when any claim is made in respect of any such liability". Current policies provide for run-off cover in circumstances where the conveyancer is no longer licensed. However, the viability of the run-off cover is dependent on the insurer continuing to be an insurer for the scheme. Generally, if an insurer were to withdraw or become insolvent another insurer would take its place but this is not absolutely certain. As the Act now stands it would appear impossible for a licensee to obtain a policy which provides indefinite run-off cover as required by the Act.
The bill before the House amends the Act to overcome this difficulty and makes the professional indemnity requirement for conveyancers similar to solicitors. It repeals the existing provisions relating to the approval of policies and in their place the bill provides that an approved policy of professional indemnity insurance is one which is approved by the Minister by order published in the Gazette. The ministerial order will specify those policies which are approved by the Minister. Any conditions set out in the order must be complied with. The amendment also validates any licences which may have been in doubt because the insurance policy held by the licensee may not have been technically an approved policy under the repealed provisions.
The bill removes the provisions that result in a licence automatically being of no effect during any period where an approved policy of insurance is not in force in respect of the licensee or where the licensee has not paid a levy or a contribution to the Compensation Fund. This will protect consumers who unknowingly deal with a licensee whose licence may be of no effect. In this regard claims under the Compensation Fund may only be made in respect of acts or omissions by the holder of a licence which is in force. The director-general will still be able to suspend or cancel a licence if the holder no longer has insurance or fails to pay the contribution or levy. The amendments contained in the bill will not result in any diminution in the level of protection to consumers. In fact, they are designed to sure that protection up.
Since 1992 all licensed conveyancers have been covered by professional indemnity insurance and will continue to do so. The bill will ensure that insurance policies of the kind currently provided by the insurance market can be approved. The Department of Fair Trading will consult with the Law Society, the Attorney General's Department and industry groups on the terms and conditions of future policies to ensure that they continue to provide an adequate level of protection. I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [6.16 p.m.]: The object of the Conveyancers Licensing Amendment (Professional Indemnity Insurance) Bill is to amend the Conveyancers Licensing Act 1985 to enable the Minister for Fair Trading to approve professional indemnity insurance policies for conveyancers by publishing orders in the New South Wales Government Gazette. This proposal reforms the current system, which requires the approval of the Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading. The Coalition hopes that the bill, as the Minister claims, will increase protection for consumers and former licensed conveyancers by providing that their professional indemnity insurance continues beyond the expiration of their licence, as set out in the bill. This may occur due to retirement, career change or even expulsion. The bill should provide protection for both parties in the event of a liability arising after the conveyancer's licence has expired.
The Coalition notes that the bill is supported by the Property Industry Council, the Australian Institute of Conveyancers, the Master Builders Association, the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales, the Stock and Station Agents Association and the Insurance Council of Australia. I am also pleased to note that since the estimates committees last year the Minister has seen fit to spend time— although on only a few occasions—talking to a number of the shareholders. Until the estimates committees last year he failed to even acknowledge their existence. The Coalition does not oppose the bill.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [6.18 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Conveyancers Licensing Amendment (Professional Indemnity Insurance) Bill. The bill is to overcome
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 47
what could be and appears to be a loophole which raises doubts as to whether professional indemnity insurance policies currently held by licensed conveyancers strictly comply with the Act. Difficulties arise because of the wording in the Act, which provides that a policy cannot be approved unless it indemnifies a licensee regardless of when any claims are made in respect of such liability. The bill will provide protection. I remember that when we first debated the Conveyancers Licensing Act in 1995 I indicated some reservations. I preferred that a conveyancer should work under a solicitor. Because of the value of property being purchased and sold, and because of the importance of ensuring a professional standard, it should be done only by solicitors. That was my view on that occasion. <24> This bill seeks to tighten up the insurance provisions if there is a problem with a conveyance. Therefore I support the bill, but I suggest that it would not be necessary if conveyancing were conducted only by solicitors.
The Hon. M. I. JONES [6.20 p.m.]: I agree with the thrust of the Conveyancers Licensing Amendment (Professional Indemnity Insurance) Bill. However, I am concerned that consumers might have the perception that professional indemnity insurance offers them a seal of respectability and responsibility. I seek clarification from the Minister that the regulations will ensure that once the policy is issued and the premium is paid the insured is covered. It might sound like a contradiction of terms but, in these days of compliance, professional people can be insured but a claim can be denied if examination of the compliance reveals a breach of their code of conduct. If that happens, the professional's client loses the substantial advantage of being able to claim on the professional's policy.
There is a way of overcoming this. The insured could undergo a compliance audit at the time of effecting the insurance, but this would add to premium costs and/or the costs of acquiring insurance. If the audit revealed that the insured has a record of compliance, the insurer should guaranteed that a claim will be met. Special consideration would have to be given to new operators and dormant operators who seek to restart business. The Act refers to a policy of professional indemnity insurance approved by the Minister. As I have just mentioned, all too frequently claims can be denied on the basis of non-compliance with codes of practice. I seek clarification from the Minister on that point before the conclusion of the second reading debate.
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [6.23 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Leader of the Opposition, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. M. I. Jones for their contributions to the debate and for their support for this legislation. With regard to the concern raised by Hon. M. I. Jones, currently the Conveyancers Licensing Act is under review and an issue paper is to be released. I undertake to provide the honourable member with a copy of that paper, which may resolve some of his concerns. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
[The President left the chair at 6.25 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.] <25> CONVEYANCING AMENDMENT (LAW OF SUPPORT) BILL
In Committee
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedule 1
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [8.00 p.m.], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:
No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [1], lines 8 and 9. Omit ", or not to omit to do anything,".
No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1 [1], lines 24 to 28. Omit all words on those lines.
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 48 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
Amendment No. 1 removes the reference to omission to do anything in the duty of care being created by this bill. That means that a person will still be liable for acts of commission, such as excavating a hole, but not for omissions to act, for example, failing to take action to stop a loss of support from occurring. Originally, it was intended that only the Crown would not be liable for omissions to act. Opposition and Independent members expressed concern about putting the Crown in a privileged position in comparison to other parties, and this amendment addresses that concern. The Crown was originally exempted because it was not thought feasible for it to be aware of physical events occurring on all parts of the vast lands that it manages and to take action to stop those physical events from leading to a lack of support for other land. However, it may be just as difficult for other landowners to be aware of such events and to take action, and, accordingly, they will also be exempted.
This is consistent with the situation in Queensland, where section 179 of the Property Law Act imposes a similar duty in relation to acts of commission but not in relation to acts of omission. Furthermore, it is clear from reading the Law Reform Commission report No. 84, on which this bill is based, that the commission was concerned with acts such as excavation, rather than with omission. Given that there is no longer a duty in relation to omissions, it is not necessary expressly to exempt the Crown. That is covered by amendment No. 2.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: The first bit was commission, was it?
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: That is right.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: So the Government has exempted the Crown and other bodies from acts of commission.
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: No. The Crown is exempted from omissions.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: So under amendment No. 1 no-one is exempted.
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The amendment removes the reference to omissions.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I thought you said "commissions".
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: No. People will still be liable for acts of commission. The Crown and other people will be liable for acts of commission but not omission.
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [8.03 p.m.]: The Minister has levelled the playing field but has removed acts of omission for everyone. I think that will weaken the legislation. I suppose the Minister is trying to accede to the my request and that of the Opposition in removing the Crown exemption for omission but she has removed omission totally. Therefore, the provision that my amendment and that of the Opposition would have removed has become redundant. These amendments will weaken the legislation, and I can hardly support a weakening of the legislation.
The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [8.04 p.m.]: I thank the Minister for the generous accommodation she afforded the Opposition and, indeed, the House in delaying the Committee stage so that we could consider our position—although the Opposition had drafted an amendment—and the Committee could have the benefit of a more mature consideration of both the Opposition's amendment and the identical amendment foreshadowed by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. I thank the Minister's advisers for making themselves available to answer any questions we had. We were grateful for the briefing that was provided to the Opposition—I am sure it would have been available to other honourable members who were interested in the outcome of the Committee's deliberations. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones summarised the position succinctly by saying that both of our proposed amendments will be otiose if the Government's amendments are passed. He then proceeded to qualify his appreciation of the situation by saying that he thought the bill was weakened.
The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: It is.
The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I will address that matter shortly. I remind honourable members that this bill was generated by a study conducted by the Law Reform Commission into developments in this area. The commission's report was the basis of the framing of this legislation.
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 49
Interestingly, during a contribution to the second reading debate the Hon. R. S. L. Jones expressed concern about salination, because that had been raised by the Law Reform Commission as an unfounded addition to its inquiry. Virtually all of the examples in the commission's report addressed acts of commission. Indeed, that narrowed to excavation of land adjacent to other land which withdrew support that had been afforded by the land in question.
The idea of acts of omission is a hypothetical addition, and the Opposition's reaction will be to take an interest in future court proceedings that may be initiated as a result of this new duty of care being imposed on land-holders. The Opposition will be interested to see whether a denial of natural justice is alleged in cases involving an act of omission. At present, there is no history of that being a matter that should be addressed in legislation. People who have a cautionary approach to the drafting of legislation would ask why a government would extend the scope of the legislation to produce an inclination to litigation when there is no case history on which to base it. We are simply saying that ultimately this will extend possible litigation that might arise in cases involving damage to a building resulting from action or inaction by the adjoining land-holder.
That goes well beyond the brief given to the Law Reform Commission. The Opposition does not agree with the position of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones in stating that the bill is weakened. In my view it is strengthened immensely by removing the discriminatory way the Government would be dealt with compared to other land-holders. I compliment the Government on accepting that that contentious issue should be removed from the bill. <26> Our first objection was that the Crown was going to be dealt with in a different way from private land- holders. Beyond that, I commend the Government for going that one step further—
The Hon. M. R. Egan: We are a good Government.
The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I would not say that you are a good Government but when you do something that is commendable it behoves us all to recognise that.
The Hon. M. R. Egan: We are a commendable Government.
The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: Your action is commendable in this instance. I have probably offered enough compliments to the Government for one night. The bill in the amended form will be much more acceptable to the consumers: the people who will be in the legal field, the people who are the owners of land on which some damage may eventually manifest itself as a result of activities on adjacent land. The example was given of somebody's building being threatened by beach erosion, erosion of the bank of a river or something like that. The bill would have opened an avenue for action on the basis that the erosion and undermining of the adjacent land should have been foreseen and there was a duty of care on either a private land-holder or the Government to be responsible for it.
I think that that is a pretty fantastic sort of construction and certainly one that should not be embarked upon without having some concrete example in mind. The extension of mischievous litigation arising from this concept of acts of omission extending to any area of the State where Crown land was bordering on private land would be irresponsible and unconscionable by this Chamber. This is just another of the many examples of the Legislative Council playing a critical role in improving legislation and delivering to the people of New South Wales a workable model of legislation which might otherwise have gone through and been passed in a form which would impose on the Treasurer—I know how he worries about the finances of this State and the financial position of future generations—
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Just say no.
The Hon. M. R. Egan: No.
The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: It is the only word that he understands. The Legislative Council has removed the liability that perhaps would have devolved on him at some future time had the door been opened to unlimited litigation on the basis of acts of omission by the Government. If this is a matter that would worry the Government, my God, what would it have been like for a private individual to contemplate the liabilities that he was exposed to under the concept of duty of care,
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 50 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
including acts of omission. I commend the Government's amendments. Mr Chairman, I probably do not have to take any action. I am sure that you will declare our amendments to be somewhere between otiose, superfluous, redundant and superseded.
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [8.13 p.m.]: I have never heard such absurd hyperbole from the honourable member. He is usually quite sensible in discussing amendments.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: It is only because you have a short-term memory.
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I have a very long-term memory. I can remember your contributions to this Chamber going back a long time. What he has not addressed is the fact that anybody can now, through neglect, cause the subsidence of an adjoining property without problem. The Opposition has indicated that it will support the amendments. Through omission or neglect people will be able to cause lack of support on an adjacent property and get away with it, basically. By supporting the Government's removal of "omission" the Coalition will allow, through omission or neglect, people to get away with what they have been getting away with for many years. No doubt honourable members would have read the speech of the Minister in the other House. He lauded that "omission" was in the bill. Now the Minister is removing it, which I find very odd. Mr Chairman, I ask that the questions on the two amendments be put seriatim.
The CHAIRMAN: Order! The amendments have been moved in globo but as there has been a request to put the questions on them seriatim I will do that.
Question—That Government amendment No. 1 be agreed to—put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 20
Mr Bull Mr Moppett Mr Egan Mr Obeid Mrs Forsythe Dr Pezzutti Mr Gallacher Mr Ryan Miss Gardiner Mr Samios Mr Gay Ms Tebbutt Mr Hannaford Mr Tsang Mr Harwin Mr Hatzistergos Tellers, Mr Lynn Mr Jobling Mr Manson Mr Primrose
Noes, 8
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Tingle Mr M. I. Jones Mr Oldfield Tellers, Mr Ryan Mr Cohen Mrs Sham-Ho Mr R. S. L. Jones
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Government amendment No. 1 agreed to. <27> Amendment No. 2 agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN: Order! It is not necessary to put the Hon. R. S. L. Jones's amendment No. 1 and Opposition amendment No. 1 as they have been superseded.
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 51
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee with amendments and passed through remaining stages.
Message forwarded to the Legislative Assembly seeking its concurrence with the Legislative Council's amendments.
ZOOLOGICAL PARKS BOARD AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [8.25 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The Zoological Parks Board Amendment Bill makes changes to the composition and size of the Zoological Parks Board of New South Wales, which was established in 1973 by the Zoological Parks Board Act. This Act not only established the board but put in place the statutory framework for the operation of our State’s two great zoos, Taronga Zoo at Mosman and Western Plains Zoo in Dubbo. Taronga Zoo has become an important contributor to the fabric and culture of Sydney and New South Wales since its establishment at Mosman in 1916. Western Plains Zoo was established later, in 1977.
Our two zoos are not only important to the people of this State but they are also important in global efforts to preserve, protect and learn about animal species, many of which are endangered or threatened in the wild. Over the last 10 years in particular, the Zoological Parks Board has performed a vital role in international conservation and education programs, such as those aimed at the preservation of the critically endangered black rhinoceros in Africa and the malleefowl in western New South Wales.
The Zoological Parks Board of New South Wales is a conservation agency with a primary role and responsibility in the preservation of animal life on earth. The board plays a major role in species preservation, protection and research, as well as broad conservation education. The main purpose of the amendment bill is to create a structure for the Zoological Parks Board of New South Wales which more effectively supports the development and growth of the Board’s primary activities in species conservation. The new board structure will bring together a range of specialist skills and commercial acumen to the task of securing financial support for its conservation activities.
This bill recommends a change in the size and format of the membership of the Zoological Parks Board, in essence to reflect the changed responsibilities that have occurred since 1973. The new format will also serve to make the board contemporary with regard to both commercial and community interests. It is particularly important, given the position that our zoos have in our communities that strong community involvement is reflected in the make up of the board. The bill provides for a reduction in the size of the Zoological Parks Board from 13 to 10 members. Within this structure, four positions are specifically designated to represent local communities at both Mosman and Dubbo city and the many thousand members of the Association of Zoo Friends at both zoos.
One of the new positions on the board has been specifically designated for a person with expertise in zoology, veterinary science or animal welfare or in research relative to one or more of these fields. This position demonstrates an ongoing commitment to the outstanding work of the board in species preservation, research and conservation education. The format of the board established in the 1973 Act allows for five persons to be appointed as nominees of the appropriate Minister.
This Bill also provides for the appointment of five persons selected by the Minister, but importantly it establishes a criteria for the appointment of these persons, being that they, in the opinion of the Minister, have qualifications, knowledge, expertise or experience appropriate to the functions and activities of the board. The bill also provides for ministerial appointment of the chairperson and deputy chairperson from among the 10 appointed members. The period of appointment of members to the board will remain as it is prescribed in the current legislation, that is, for a period of up to five years. Reappointment at the expiration of the term of appointment is allowed under this draft legislation.
In summary, the bill provides for the recomposition of the Zoological Parks Board of New South Wales and its reduction in size from 13 members to 10 members to reflect the contemporary management of our State’s two great zoos. This format will provide the flexibility and opportunity to attract relevant professional, scientific and
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 52 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
community representation. The board in its new format will provide strong leadership aimed at the further development of the State’s two zoos as among the best in the world.
The Hon. J. F. RYAN [8.24 p.m.]: The Opposition supports with pleasure the Zoological Parks Board Amendment Bill. The philosophy behind this legislation is to establish a smaller and more commercially focused board for those great New South Wales icons—Taronga Park Zoo, located in Sydney, and the Western Plains Zoo, located in Dubbo. Essentially, the bill updates the legislation that governs the Zoological Parks Board. The Zoological Parks Board was established under former legislation, more for a hands-on management role than for an arm's-length management role.
The running of zoos has become somewhat more complicated than previously. Nowadays it is not simply a matter of managing what was previously considered an exhibit of animals. The board is now called upon to manage matters such as visitation rates and gate takings, sponsorship from corporations, ranging from small sponsorship by schoolchildren to large corporate sponsorship by organisations such as banks. One fast food company that normally cops a bad time in this place has also been a strong contributor to zoos. The board is now required to supervise more complex marketing programs and attractions that do not simply involve the exhibition of animals. For example, I understand that in the near future Taronga Park Zoo will establish a new cable car, as well as a safari—a wonderful experience that is available to people at the Western Plains Zoo in Dubbo.
The work of zoos has become a great deal more complicated. Zoos not only exhibit animals, but they have now become involved in very complex, scientific activities including the re- establishment of species such as the black rhino, a program of worldwide significance, and, perhaps of more local significance, the breeding program for the bilby. I think the zoo would be somewhat proud of exhibits such as the orang-outang enclosure which focus not only on the exhibition of the animal but on exhibiting them in an environment that is close to their habitat in the wild.
Essentially, the legislation removes three people from the membership of the board. Those removed include residents of the Orana region, which is considered to be more than adequately represented by Dubbo City Council. Because of the planning issues involved in the legislation it is important that the council be represented. I believe it is probably more appropriate that groups such as the Dubbo branch of the Association of Zoo Friends be represented. Such people would not only have the interests of Dubbo at heart but would be committed to the progress and furtherance of zoos.
One of the people to disappear from the board is the official member. I understand that that person was a public servant whose role was to represent the Minister. Now that zoos are statutory corporations that operate as government trading enterprises, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to have such hands-on involvement from the Minister. There is no need for such direct representation when ultimately the zoo reports to the Minister on all of its activities and its performance in those activities and the Minister is more than able to have an influence on the activities of the board.
I understand that an area that may be the subject of an amendment and discussion in this House is the appointment of a representative of an animal welfare organisation. No-one would suggest that animal welfare is not a key area of performance for places such as zoos.
<28> This issue is better provided for by a regime of inspections by the Department of Agriculture under the Exhibited Animals Protection Act and also by the establishment of an animal ethics committee, and both these regimes operate at a zoo. In the last Parliament I had the pleasure of serving on the Regulation Review Committee, which carried out an extensive review of the Exhibited Animals Protection Act and other legislation relating to the supervision and use of animals in experiments and on exhibition. It was the view of the committee that animal ethics committees were effective, and that was particularly true with respect to zoos.
It has been my experience that nowadays zoos place greater emphasis on animal welfare than most other organisations that interact with animals. Even research organisations probably do not have the same focus on the welfare and protection of animals. Zoos focus strongly on animal welfare because they are in the business of looking after animals. As well as animals being a valuable biological asset, they are an economic asset. It is not good business for animals to be mistreated in a
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 53 zoo. People would not be interested in visiting the Western Plains Zoo or Taronga Park Zoo if high standards of animal welfare were not maintained.
The position of registered veterinarian will also be abolished from the board. In the old days not many people studied veterinary science, and if they did, it was usually more profitable for them to establish a business. The Zoological Parks Board now employs six veterinarians of its own, who work within the zoo. They have a significant impact on the day-to-day management of the zoo, far more than a member of the board dealing with marketing, gate takings and so on.
The philosophy behind the legislation is to create a smaller board. This will mean it will be easier to brief the board, it will be less expensive and easier to hold meetings and the board will be more commercially focused. People with special expertise will now handle the areas that traditionally have been the concern of the board and will be employed by the Zoological Parks Board. If that expertise is required, I am sure that the board will interview and question the relevant experts appropriately.
The Government has not left the board entirely without representation of people who take an interest in animal welfare, veterinary science or the other fields no longer represented on the board. Only one person capable of representing those fields will be on the board. The bill is sound and the Opposition looks forward to its success. The Opposition is committed to the success of zoological parks, which are not only magnificent scientific organisations but icons for our State.
I do not usually advocate that honourable members in this House read the speeches of members of the lower House but I do on this occasion because the honourable member for Dubbo made an outstanding contribution to the House. He explained the chequered history of the Western Plains Zoo. When the proposal was first made to establish an open range zoo in Dubbo, there was violent community opposition to it. People were worried about lions escaping and eating their livestock and exotic diseases being spread within the Dubbo area. The community feared that it would have an adverse impact because it would interfere with primary producers. Of course, the community now recognises that the zoo is a $92 million industry that operates within Dubbo and brings more than 200,000 tourists each year to a town that despite its charm would not have had the potential to draw that number of tourists but for the Western Plains Zoo.
Finally, I should like to pay tribute to the late Dr John Kelly, who was the former chairman of the board. Despite his medical difficulties in the last four or five years of his service in that position, he played an outstanding role in changing the overall focus of the zoos, particularly Taronga Park Zoo. It used to be a reasonably lacklustre exhibition of animals but during Dr Kelly's time it became more vibrant, with the addition of exhibits such as the orang-outang enclosure. There is little doubt that Dr John Kelly added enormously to zoos on behalf of the people of New South Wales. It has been more than 12 months since he left us and he has been sorely missed.
At that time I was the chairman of the select committee on the Northside Storage Tunnel. A couple of days before Dr Kelly died—and it was probably one of the last things he did—he made a submission to the committee. Essentially the thrust of his submission was to explain the joint venture with Sydney Water in cleaning up a water discharge from the zoo into Sydney Harbour. He illustrated how joint ventures of that nature could work favourably to improve the quality of Sydney Harbour. On the day that Dr John Kelly died members of the committee, on behalf of the Parliament, paid tribute to the passing of a tremendous Australian and a great servant of the people of New South Wales by standing for a minute's silence. We all miss him and acknowledge the great contribution he made to the science of zoology in New South Wales. I support the bill and look forward to further outstanding achievements by the Zoological Parks Board.
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [8.37 p.m.]: I wrote to the Minister on 16 July 1999 pointing out that there had not been an animal welfare representative on the board since September 1996. Michael Kennedy, a well-known conservationist who heads Humane Society International, left the board because of his busy work with animals around the world and with Humane Society International, the world's largest animal welfare organisation. The International Fund for Animal Welfare is the second largest and has many millions of members.
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 54 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
I pointed out to the Minister that it was illegal not to have an animal welfare representative on the board. The Minister replied to my letter on 27 July and 24 August. Instead of appointing someone to the board the decision was made to restructure the board so that there was not an animal welfare person at all. I have received a number of letters from various organisations, and other members have also received those letters. I received a letter from Animals Australia, which represents many groups around the country. That organisation believes it is crucial that a person with expertise in animal welfare be a member of the Zoological Parks Board in his or her own right. <29> A letter written by Glenys Ooogjes, who is the director of this very large and very worthwhile organisation, states in part:
The Government's amendment proposal removes that current animal welfare position, and provides only for a single position to be drawn from three areas of expertise (zoologist, veterinarian or animal welfarist). Indeed, on animal research ethics committees (under the Animal Research Act), this distinction is recognised and three of the four mandatory positions provide for each of animal welfare, veterinarian, and scientists (familiar with the work). It is recognised that a single person cannot possibly provide unbiased expertise in all three disciplines!
A good example of the need for outside and independent advice on the animal welfare aspects of the management of zoo animals, in all areas (not only in relation to research), is the recent inquiry conducted at the request of the Zoological Parks and Gardens Board in Melbourne. The Melbourne Zoo (including its Werribee Open Range Zoo) came under sustained public scrutiny after its management of 'euthanasia' (read killing) of unwanted animals at the zoo was published in newspapers in late 1999. The independent review then sought the input of Animals Australia and the RSPCA Victoria, including requests for our assistance in resolving the Zoo's policy relating to euthanasia and to ways we could contribute to ongoing education and communication. In the February 2000 report of that Review, Chaired by Associate Professor Andrew Vizard BVSc MPVM, the Review Committee recommended that an Advisory Group be established, including to provide 'ethical advice'.
Further, it is incorrect and misleading to suggest that the Animal Ethics Committee at the Zoos, established under the 'Animal Research Act', will look at anything other than research, and thus reduce the need for a Board member with expertise in animal welfare. general housing and husbandry, management of animals, euthanasia policies and the like, are not covered by that Act and are not the responsibility of the Animal Ethics Committee.
Ms Oogjes concludes by urging the Minister and honourable members to ensure that there is an animal welfare representative on the board.
I also received a letter signed by Julie Hughes from the Humane Society International, which is the largest organisation in the world, stating that it is essential to have an animal welfare representative on the Zoological Parks Board. The letter states in part:
Although the Zoological Parks Board does have a duly constituted animal ethics committee under the Animal Research Act 1985, this committee only reviews protocols for research not the general animal welfare impact of zoo practices. The Animal Research Act does not include matters of animal husbandry and this exemption means that that the only matters put before the Animal Ethics Committee relate directly to research protocols. Therefore there is no consideration of animal welfare issues relating to matters such as culling programs within the zoo, design of zoo facilities, or animal use strategies - such as a reported move to include animal rides within the zoo.
The New South Wales Animal Welfare League sent me a letter. It was signed by Barry Wilton, the chief executive officer. The letter states in part:
We are at a loss to understand how a government who alleges having concern over the wellbeing of animals have allowed a vacancy of an animal welfarist on the Zoological Parks Board to continue since 1996 and is now seek to have the position filled by a person having expertise in zoology or veterinary science and expect these to have a commitment to animal welfare is ludicrous in the extreme and inconsistent with other animal legislation and Codes of Practice.
...
The NSW Animal Welfare League deplores any attempt to reduce the quality and content of debate on issues affecting the lives of animals.
Animal Liberation, which has a membership that is growing daily, was founded originally by Christine Townend after publication of a book by Peter Singer. That organisation has written a letter stating strong support for an amendment to include an animal welfare representative on the board, which should have been the composition of the board over the past four years. The letter points out
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 55 that not having an animal welfare representative on the board was a breach of the law. The letter states in part:
Animal Liberation believes that animal welfare issues should be addressed by a person who will act independently of ministerial pressure, a person likely to have the best interests of the animals in mind at all times, and who will place those interests above any commercial or research imperatives, and will not be constrained by any notions of efficiency arising out of those imperatives.
Animal Liberation has grave reservations that even basic animal welfare concerns will be met under this Act (administered by the Department of Agriculture). Animal Care and Ethics committees are legally bound by secrecy provisions based on the protection of commercial and/or intellectual property rights.
From what we know about the operations of such committees, we believe they function as a rubber stamp for decisions already taken by researchers. Animal welfare representatives constitute a tiny minority in a committee usually comprised of in-house appointees.
Cases have come to light where animal welfare representatives who question the nature or validity of a research protocol have been denied information, forced to resign, or in one case at least, actually dismissed.
This Act, which covers animals in other forms of captivity such as circuses, does not guarantee best practice in regard to the care of an animal forced to spend its entire life in captivity. From our experience we know the Standards, [of the Exhibited Animals Protection Act] which are supposed to be mandatory, are not always enforced. The Act is administered by the Minister for Agriculture, with only three, perhaps four, inspectors to ensure compliance with its provisions. We understand there is only one inspector stationed in Sydney.
...
Can Taronga Park Zoo always guarantee that the welfare of the individual animal will have first priority over commercial and research concerns? We at Animal Liberation would like to think this would be so, but our experience of the market economy, where everything has a price, tells us that this is not always the case.
The RSPCA has also written a letter that I understand the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho intends to cite. The International Fund for Animal Welfare, which is the world's second-largest animal welfare organisation with many millions of members including 30,000-odd in the State of New South Wales, has also expressed concern about the removal of the animal welfare representative on Zoological Parks Board. The Hon. J. F. Ryan mentioned Gerry Peacocke and although Gerald Beresford Ponsonby Peacocke may well become a representative of the board, I point out that he is now Mayor of Dubbo City Council. Although the Government finds the appointment of Gerry Peacocke acceptable, it refuses to appoint a person who actively supports the animal welfare cause and who represents the animal welfare movement which has a very large membership indeed in this State.
During the course of my animal welfare work, I have visited many zoos throughout the world on a number of occasions. I went to the Gerald Durrell zoo, which I thought would be a pretty good place. I had read a great deal about it and about its breeding programs that were bringing animals back from the brink of extinction. But I was actually quite appalled at the condition in which the animals were kept at that zoo and at many other zoos. I also visited a zoo in Penang which had an orang- outang. People were poking sticks at the orang-outang which was a young male approximately seven years old. The orang-outang was obviously suffering because of the taunting by these people, so I moved them away.
The orang-outang grabbed me, wrapped three limbs round me and took from me my T-shirt which bore the slogan, "Save the Whale". The orang-outang put on the T-shirt correctly and paraded around its cage. I thought it was rather amusing that an animal facing extinction was wearing a T-shirt supporting an animal that was also facing extinction. The orang-outang played with the T-shirt for a while and then I indicated that I had to leave. The orang-outang took off the T-shirt and handed it back to me through the bars. I noticed that the T-shirt had been torn, so I gave it back to the animal, whereupon the orang-outang gestured a response which I thought was roughly equivalent to saying, "Beauty!" Orang-outangs are highly intelligent animals.
From time to time over many years, I have visited the orang-outang exhibit at the Taronga Park Zoo. Throughout that period, the zoo has been, and is now, a most appalling place for animals. I visited the zoo recently and formed the opinion that many of the facilities are far below world standards, and that conditions are still very cruel for the animals. It is quite clear to me why the Government does not want to have an animal welfare representative on the board. Animal welfare activists know that some of the conditions in which zoo animals are kept are well below acceptable standards and are unquestionably cruel.
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 56 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
Anyone looking into the eyes of the gorillas at the Taronga Park Zoo can see that they are pretty miserable even though they now have a better enclosure than they had previously. They are all lined up in a row looking miserable, wishing that they were back in their forests rather than being viewed by people—the white gorillas. Although conservationist breeding programs have been undertaken, those programs have not been altogether successful. Zoo animals, such as the rhinos in the Dubbo Zoo that bashed themselves to death trying to escape, live under very stressful conditions. Many animals have died at that zoo. What has happened to animals that used to be there?
Taronga Park Zoo is not concerned with the protection and breeding of animals. It is really a place where animals are exhibited and people go there to look at them. The zoo is not making a profit and is still being subsidised by the Government. No doubt financial details will be revealed during the hearings of Estimates Committees when crossbench members will able to ask questions of the Minister. Obviously members of the Opposition will be supporting the Government in their usual Tweeedledum and Tweedledee fashion—the "Lib-Lab" party. The animal welfare organisations to which I have referred should become unofficial animal welfare representatives and, while not being members of the board, should nevertheless visit the zoo regularly to find out whatever they can as outsiders. They should point out to members of Parliament as such as the Hon. J. M. Samios, the Hon. I. Cohen, Ms Lee Rhiannon, and me things that are going wrong at the zoo.
If it is not possible to have an animal welfare representative on the board, then monitoring has to be done by outsiders. If the Government removes the animal welfare representative, obviously there are reasons for doing so, just as there would have been reasons why there has not been an animal welfare representative on the board for the past four years. One can only wonder what the Government has to hide by not allowing an animal welfare representative to be a member of the board. Clearly there is something wrong that nobody knows about yet, so perhaps more investigative work should be done.
[Interruption]
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I acknowledge that that there are some board members who are people of goodwill. I have made enquiries and the board obviously consists of members of goodwill who absolutely love animals. But the fact of some of the board members loving the animals does not mean that the animals are not being kept in the substandard conditions. Some much-loved animals are kept in appalling conditions. The Government's failure to include an animal welfare representative on the board is very wrong. Clearly the board and the zoo do not want an animal welfare representative. Such an appointment has been resisted for four years, and the Minister and his advisers have finally been persuaded to remove the animal welfare representative, as well as any legal obligation to appoint a person of that ilk.
<30> The Hon. I. COHEN [8.50 p.m.]: I share the concerns expressed by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. I have visited zoos and also participated in protests against them, and I have seen animals suffer when zoos changed their priority from saving and protecting animals to profit. The main purpose of the Zoological Parks Board Amendment Bill is to reduce the size of the Zoological Parks Board from 13 to 10 members. No good reason has been provided to justify this reduction, which will result in reduced community participation on the board. In a briefing on the bill, it was suggested that the existing structure had become "unworkable", but no further explanation was offered. The bill removes an existing board position designated for an animal welfare representative and it is essential that this position be retained.
Animal welfare must be at the top of the list of priorities for zoo management and the Greens are concerned that the removal of this position could result in a downgrading of the importance of animal welfare issues by zoo management. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones referred to a considerable number of organisations that are extremely concerned about the loss of this animal welfare position. I know that many honourable members turn up their noses at certain animal liberation organisations, which they consider to be extremist or radical. However, I think everyone respects the role played by the RSPCA. I have received a letter from Ros Riordan, the Chief Executive Officer of the RSPCA, which states:
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 57
RSPCA New South Wales seeks your urgent consideration of the proposed Zoological Parks Amendment Bill 2000, which will remove the requirement for a member of an animal welfare organisation to be a member of the Zoological Parks Board.
The Bill proposes to reduce the number of members of the Board from 13 to 10. To achieve this several categories of members are proposed to be deleted, while one category is to be a person who has, "in the opinion of the Minister, expertise in zoology, veterinary science or animal welfare, or in research relating to any one or more of those fields".
The RSPCA believes the input of a Board nominated by an animal welfare organisation is vital to the Zoological Parks Board. Further, RSPCA believes that persons with professional expertise in animal sciences or research are not acceptable to either the animal welfare industry or the community as appropriate advocates for the welfare of animals.
In particular, RSPCA does not accept that because an animal welfare person is represented on an institutional Animal Care and Ethics Committee it obviates the need for animal welfare representation and advocacy on the institution's governing body.
On behalf of RSPCA NSW, I ask that you support the amendment being moved by the Honourable Richard Jones and thus ensure that the Zoological Parks Board continues to comprise at least one person who is nominated by a recognised animal welfare organisation.
The RSPCA is hardly a radical animal rights organisation, so why is it so strident in its opposition to this aspect of the bill? If the Government has got it right, why does it not have the RSPCA on side? I grew up with the RSPCA; I gave out badges for that organisation at an early age. One wonders what the Government is doing if its actions do not accord with the ideas and concerns of the RSPCA. Animal welfare must be at the top of the list of priorities for zoo management. The Greens are concerned that the removal of this animal welfare position could result in a downgrading of the importance of animal welfare issues by the zoo management.
It is interesting to note that both the Zoological Parks Board Act 1973 and the bill allow for five representatives to be appointed by the Minister. If the board is too unwieldy in its position, the Greens ask why the restructuring was not achieved by reducing the number of ministerial appointees. Community participation in organisations such as zoos is a valuable avenue for ensuring accountability. It also acts as a mechanism for making management aware of community opinion. There is no evidence that the management of the zoo will be more effective under the board structure proposed in the bill. Therefore, the Greens urge honourable members to support the existing structure and reject the bill. I would like the Government to reconsider the situation in light of the evidence presented to the House tonight. The Government is moving in the wrong direction. Let us consider the priorities of zoos globally and the tradition of the zoo in New South Wales. Sir Edward Hallstrom was at the helm of that zoo when I was a child and he was a magical figure. However, it was discovered over time that his ideas were old fashioned. As a child, I remember zoos with concrete enclosures.
The Hon. D. J. Gay: Remember the elephant ride?
The Hon. I. COHEN: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is trivialising the issue; I am not reminiscing. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones mentioned the conditions of the gorillas at the zoo. Many animals were kept in captivity in extremely cruel conditions: that was part and parcel of the zoo culture of the past.
I have not visited the zoo for some time but, on my last visit, I noticed that certain enclosures had vastly improved. That is a fantastic development. I receive reliable information about the zoo but perhaps I should visit it again. I have seen other animals in captivity being treated in a far less than acceptable fashion. Sir Edward Hallstrom ran the zoo in his era, but we have not yet advanced far enough in the ecology and animal ethics areas. We must consider how we treat animals kept in enclosures. I believe it is a retrograde step for the Government to remove the animal welfare position from the board. Animal welfare is vital if a zoo is to be run properly and the Government's move to remove that position is unconscionable.
The Hon. Dr P. WONG [8.57 p.m.]: The Zoological Parks Board Amendment Bill introduces changes relating to the size and composition of the Zoological Parks Board of New South Wales. It reduces the number of board members from the current 13 to a proposed 10. I am concerned that the Government has not given a acceptable reason for this change, but I will support the bill on the condition that it is amended to enable the mandatory representation of bodies or organisations that
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 58 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
are principally concerned with animal welfare. As it stands, the bill requires that one member of the board have:
expertise in zoology, veterinary science or animal welfare, or in research relating to any one or more of those fields.
Leading animal welfare groups have written to us expressing their grave concerns that basic animal welfare might be at stake as a result of the bill's current form. Over the years, animal welfare groups have contributed greatly to the board through their direct involvement in education, conservation and research. They are in the best position to continue to play an important role in the protection of animal welfare. I understand and support their argument that, while veterinarians and other persons with professional expertise in the animal science or research fields are concerned with animal health, they are not necessarily advocates for animal welfare. Although both professions are concerned with animal health, they may have a completely different philosophical and ethical focus. For example, some animal scientists may endorse killing or hurting animals for scientific research while the priority of animal welfare groups is the life and welfare of animals. Just as all doctors are not necessarily welfare officers, so too veterinarians are not the best advocates for the welfare of animals.
<31> I therefore urge that the bill be amended to allow for the appointment to the board of a representative from animal welfare groups who is likely to have the best interests of the animal in mind at all times. I understand that in the Committee stage the Hon. R. S. L. Jones will move an amendment that will address this concern. I will support that amendment. I believe that the board will continue to be efficient in its key functions of managing zoological parks, conducting public education, promoting awareness and making recommendations to the Minister with regard to the functions of the bill if it is amended.
The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [9.00 p.m.]: The Zoological Parks Board Amendment Bill changes the size and composition of the Zoological Parks Board from 13 to 10 members. The bill also provides for the ministerial appointment of the deputy chair of the board. The bill does not make any other changes to the operations of the board itself. The Australian Democrats are fundamentally opposed to the removal of the position on the board held by a person from the animal rights sector of our community, and do not support that section of the bill. We note that the Government is seeking to remove the number of board members drawn from the general community—the Association of Zoo Friends for Taronga and Western Plains zoos—that is, those members with animal care and welfare expertise and experience.
The Democrats believe it is entirely inappropriate to remove the representation of animal care experts from the board. How will the board adequately consider issues relating to animal care without appropriate representation? Animal welfare can only be addressed adequately by a person who is learned in that field of expertise. While individual veterinarians are obviously concerned with animal welfare issues, they do not represent a sector whose primary role is the care of animals and lobbying for the protection of animal welfare. The Australian Democrats believe that those representing the animal welfare sector can advocate on behalf of the best interests of animals and place those interests above any commercial or research imperatives.
We do not believe that the Zoological Parks Board should be deprived of the input of members who can bring that important perspective to the operations of the board and therefore of the zoos. We therefore reject the Minister's assertion that this bill creates a structure for the board which will more effectively support the development and growth of its primary activities in species conservation. The Democrats do not believe that the proposed board structure will have the range of specialist skills to enable it to undertake that vital task. The board should be concerned with more than securing financial support for its activities. It should also be concerned with fundamental issues of animal welfare.
To that end, the Democrats believe that only a board member drawn from that sector will provide zoos with such expertise and advice. We believe that the zoo still has quite a long way to go. Recently I visited the zoo and noted its improvements in the 10 years since I had been there. I was disappointed with its progress. The Australian Democrats do not believe that the board should have to make the choice of one member drawn from a very diverse range of skills and interests from zoology, veterinary science, animal welfare or research. I am sure that both the animal welfare and veterinary
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 59 science sectors will attest to the fact that people with those skills and expertise are not interchangeable.
The necessity to have a person concerned with animal welfare and ethics on the board was shown on a recent 7.30 Report in relation to elephant seals. An ethics committee had allowed seals to be branded in a conservation experiment 10 years ago. The seals had a large brand put on their backs with a hot iron. As they rolled over on the stony ground of their island home, small stones got into the wounds. The wounds became infected and would not heal because of the foreign material in them. They festered for years, but were not observed until about seven years ago, when the whistle was blown by an. While the brands easily identified the seals and kept track of them, the animals were quite sick from the festering sores. The idea that an animal welfare person can be dispensed with is complete fiction. That experiment had been condoned by an ethics committee.
The Minister's office has provided advice which suggests that an animal welfare representative is not required because all research and animal welfare issues in zoos are covered by the Animal Research Act 1985. That cannot be further from the truth. The Democrats are concerned about whether the Animal Research Act 1985 can be mindful of animal welfare issues in spirit or in practice. Animal care and ethics committees are legally bound by secrecy provisions in relation to their research, based on protecting commercial and/or intellectual property rights. More often the animal welfare sector questions the nature and validity of animal research protocols. It is the animal welfare sector that has pointed out the ill-effects of farming practices on animals—battery hens and force-feeding practices—that have resulted in changes to such practices.
The Minister has also advised that the Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986 governs standards for animal care and husbandry for animals displayed in New South Wales. The board is required to conform with the standards contained within the Act for the display and care of animals within the Western Plains and Taronga zoos, and that will not change under the bill. However, the Democrats are advised that the Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986 relates to animals in some form of captivity, such as a circus, but is not adequate protection on its own to guarantee the care of an animal that spends its entire life in captivity.
Resourcing issues in regard to the operation of this Act need to be upgraded. I, and other crossbenchers, have been advised that there is only one inspector in Sydney. I welcome the Minister's clarification in that regard. Without the indefatigable efforts of the animal welfare sector, the reporting of instances of standards under the Act not being met will go unheard. The Democrats simply do not believe that economic rationalist principles can be applied to issues of animal welfare. As areas of native habitat increasingly decline all over the world, zoos are being looked at to promote captive breeding programs for animals whose chances of survival in the wild are increasingly slim.
The Democrats believe that commercial imperatives will have priority over welfare concerns. We believe that the animal welfare sector is the appropriate sector to monitor the excesses of animal researchers and seek to protect captive animals. We are also of the opinion that the animal welfare sector can ensure that practices of all forms of animal husbandry comply with the principles of biodiversity. We therefore believe that the animal welfare sector should have a position on the Zoological Parks Board in its own right, not as a matter of winning a race between competing sectors. In that regard the Democrats support the amendment moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, which provides for a ministerial appointee to the board from the animal welfare sector.
The bill also provides for the Minister to appoint the deputy chair of the board rather than the deputy chair being elected by members, as is currently the case. The Democrats oppose the provision for ministerial appointment of the deputy chair. We believe that the board has the right to determine its own executive positions without undue ministerial interference. The Democrats therefore oppose that section of the bill. In closing, I thank the RSPCA, Animal Liberation, and the New South Wales Animal Welfare League for their considered advice and assistance. I thank also the Humane Society International and Animals Australia for provide advice to all crossbenchers.
The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [9.08 p.m.]: Like other crossbench members I will voice a concern expressed to me in many letters from leading animal welfare groups—the RSPCA, the Humane Society International, New South Wales Animal Welfare League, Animal Liberation, Animals Australia and the International Fund for Animal Welfare. The Zoological Parks Board
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 60 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
Amendment Bill is generally acceptable to them but they are concerned about one matter. New section 6 (1) (a) of the bill will give the Minister discretion to decide whether to appoint an animal welfare representative or an expert in zoology or veterinary science. Animal welfare groups are concerned that the bill will remove the rights of an animal welfare representative to sit on the Zoological Parks Board in its own right. That is unacceptable to them.
The proposal to provide for only one position to be drawn from three areas of expertise— zoologist, veterinarian or animal welfarist—is shortsighted. That move would not be favoured by animal research ethics committees under the Animal Research Act 1985. In fact, the distinction is recognised under that legislation and three of the four mandatory positions provide for each of the three areas: welfarist, veterinarian and scientist. It is recognised that a single person cannot provide unbiased expertise in all three disciplines.
<32> The lack of a designated position for such a representative also means that the Zoological Parks Board cannot guarantee an appointment with the interests of the animals primarily at heart. The groups have grave reservations that basic animal welfare concerns will be met under the bill. Past experience has led many to believe that their essential voice acts as a counter in a process otherwise at risk of being merely a rubber stamp for researchers. We cannot expect an expert in zoology or veterinary science to have a commitment to animal welfare.
For example, under this bill and without an animal welfare group representative, there will be no consideration of animal welfare issues relating to culling programs within the zoo, design of facilities, or animal use strategies, such as rumours that animal rides will be introduced within the zoo. Those concerns have been expressed by many groups, and I sympathise with them. I foreshadow that I will support the amendment moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to item [1] of schedule 1. I hope that the Government will consider accepting that amendment.
The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [9.11 p.m.]: Originally I did not intended to speak to this bill, but I am having some difficulty following the great concerns expressed about what is claimed to be the exclusion of an animal welfare representative from the Zoological Parks Board. My understanding of the bill is that one of the five members is to be a person who has, in the opinion of the Minister, expertise in zoology, veterinary science or animal welfare, or in related research. I pay tribute to the personal commitment of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to animal welfare, but I do not quite understand where the animal welfare organisations get off mounting what is tantamount to a slur on veterinarians and people involved in zoological work. The letter from the RSPCA is quite extraordinary. It states:
The RSPCA believes the input of a Board nominated by an animal welfare organisation…
Who is talking about a board nominated by an animal welfare organisation? But the RSPCA's letter states:
…an animal welfare organisation is vital to the Zoological Parks Board. Further, RSPCA believes that persons with professional expertise in animal sciences or research are not acceptable to either the animal welfare industry—
an interesting word "industry"—
or the community as appropriate advocates for the welfare of animals.
I am not quite sure how anyone can say that people with that professional expertise would not be concerned about the welfare of animals. The New South Wales Animal Welfare League goes a step further. Its letter continues:
…seek to have the position filled by a person having expertise in zoology or veterinary science and expect these to have a commitment to animal welfare is ludicrous in the extreme and inconsistent with other animal legislation and Codes of Practice.
Says who? Who can say that it is ludicrous for people to be expected to have a commitment to animal welfare? All the veterinarians I have known have been the most committed animal welfare people I have ever come across. The RSPCA letter states also:
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 61
RSPCA does not accept that because an animal welfare person is represented on a institutional Animal Care and Ethics Committee it obviates the need for animal welfare representation and advocacy on the institution's governing body.
On my reading of the bill and briefing paper that animal care and ethics committee has the right of veto on all animal research activities undertaken by the Zoological Parks Board. There are two representatives of an animal welfare organisation on the committee. I understand their concerns. But I am no lover of zoos; I feel most uncomfortable in them. The last time I was in a zoo was in 1981, when I attended a wedding at the Western Plains Zoo, Dubbo. That is about the only reason I would go to a zoo. I agree with the Hon. R. S. L. Jones that they are not the nicest places. However, I cannot understand the assumption that one person appointed by the Minister will not be someone who is involved in animal welfare and the correlated suggestion that veterinarians and zoological experts do not care about animals. I find that suggestion offensive, and it is totally unsupported by any letters I have received, or by letters other crossbenchers have received, from various animal welfare groups. I support the bill.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.14 p.m.]: I had not planned to speak to the Zoological Parks Board Amendment Bill as I thought it had the support of all members of the House. I sympathise with, and support some of, the remarks made by the Hon. J. S. Tingle. The object of having a welfare advocate, someone who is a campaigner, on the board would be to have his or her input. The Government makes the role of the board very clear. The board has significant statutory responsibilities for education, conservation and research. The board is also classified as a government trading enterprise and is required to meet financial and operating targets, agreed to by the Government on a yearly basis. In other words, this is an expert board.
The bill states that the proposed structure of the board will provide flexibility and enable the Government to appoint members with expertise in areas that are directly relevant to the board's statutory responsibilities, ensuring its ongoing efficient operation as a leading conservation agency and government trading enterprise. The implication is that perhaps the previous board did not fulfil the role as the Minister and/or the Government had hoped. I have not heard any criticism of the previous board, but there must be some reasoning behind the Government's introduction of the bill. The restructured board will have five persons who have, in the opinion of the Minister, qualifications, knowledge, expertise or experience appropriate to the board's powers, authorities, duties and functions. No-one in this House knows who those five people will be; they could possibly be from the RSPCA. It is left to the Minister to make that nomination. Subsection (1) of new section 6 provides:
(b) one is to be a person who has, in the opinion of the Minister, expertise in zoology, veterinary science or animal welfare, or in research relating to any one or more of those fields, and
(c) one is to be chosen by the Minister from a panel of 2 persons nominated by…the zoological park in Mosman…
I would assume that they have a deep interest in the successful operation of the zoo, and in the welfare of the animals. New subsection (1) (d) provides for one member to be chosen by the Minister from a panel of two persons nominated by an organisation determined by the Minister. That refers to the Association of Zoo Friends, representing the Dubbo branch. I asked the honourable member for Dubbo whether this would reduce the input from the Dubbo area because the Western Plains Zoo is administered by this board. He indicated that he had no problem with the bill; he and Dubbo council were happy. I take what he said to be accurate.
New subsection (1) (e) provides that one member is to be chosen by the Minister from a panel of two persons nominated by Mosman council, and subsection (1)(f) provides that one member is to be chosen by the Minister from a panel of two persons nominated by the Dubbo City Council. It is quite obvious that the new board structure will maintain a strong community involvement through retaining two positions to represent the 45,000 members of the Association of Zoo Friends, Mosman and Dubbo zoos. The representatives from Dubbo and Mosman councils will ensure local community interest is maintained in the board's operation. Obviously if the board does not do its job and problems are reported, it will be open to the House to take remedial action. Let us give that organisation an opportunity to operate. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.
<33>
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 62 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.19 p.m.]: I join my colleague the Hon. I. Cohen in expressing concerns about the Zoological Parks Board Amendment Bill. I approach this bill with great interest because I have fond memories of the zoo, which may sound unusual to some people. For a number of years in the 1960s I worked at the Taronga Park zoo, where I held a number of jobs: I worked in a shop, assisted the public relations officer, and then became a keeper. In fact, I was the first female keeper at the zoo. I worked at the Taronga Park zoo from 1967 to 1970, a period of great change in the way in which the zoo was managed. I make comment on that period because it is indeed relevant to the issue that is under debate, because from the upheaval in the change of management that occurred at that time we have learned many lessons. Those lessons have relevance to the present constitution of the Zoological Parks Board and what can be lost through the passing of this bill into law.
My colleague the Hon. I. Cohen referred to what happened at the zoo in the 1960s. At that time the Taronga Park zoo was the fiefdom of Sir Edward Hallstrom. I do not deny that Sir Edward— because human beings are complex creatures—had the best of intentions for many of the zoo animals, but some of the work that he undertook was very detrimental to the animals under his care. There was a real lack of professional input into the management of the zoo, a fact which by the 1960s was discrediting Sir Edward himself and the whole of the zoo's management. He was regarded as a self- made man. Many would recall that he made his fortune from the Hallstrom refrigerators.
Although Sir Edward Hallstrom put a great deal of his money into the zoo, what happened to the animals at times was unsavoury. I will relate some of the incidents that I saw, not to relive the memories of my youth but to underline the problems that arise when there is not strong community representation on the board and to demonstrate what we will lose through the bill introduced by Minister Debus. Some of the incidents that I saw were not pleasant. One was the extraordinary circumstances that occurred when a tiger had extreme difficulty when giving birth to her cubs. Hallstrom led a whole lot of gynaecologists from Macquarie Street. I heard about this from the keepers. I did not actually see it myself, but I saw photographs of what happened on that occasion.
The incident was quite ugly for the animals concerned. The gynaecologists could not find a solution; they had no experience in assisting a tiger to give birth. The ridiculous situation was eventually relieved when a keeper was brought in, because many of the keepers at the zoo then and now have an intimate knowledge of the animals. The point is that a veterinarian was needed. I have heard other honourable members say that there are now six veterinarians at the zoo and that they are doing an extensive job. However, the Greens make the point that we need a board of 13 people, not 10, and that some of the board positions should specifically be earmarked for different categories of representation, one being most specifically a veterinarian. Another incident I will relate shows the problems that occurred when Sir Edward Hallstrom used the zoo to satisfy his personal obsession.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: That is a mealy-mouthed remark.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: It is not: that is the way the man ran the zoo.
The Hon. D. J. Gay: How long ago was this? It has to be at least 30 years ago.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge that. If the honourable member had listened, he would know that I gave the dates. What I am saying is relevant because it relates to the role of veterinarians and professional people in the running of zoos. That is the point of the story. Also, when Sir Edward Hallstrom ran the zoo, he did experiments on koala bears, which eat only one species of gumleaf. He concocted compounds from the leaves and injected them into the koala bears, a most unsavoury thing to do.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: They are not koala bears; they are koalas.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I know, from my zoologist background, that they are not koala bears. I apologise for calling them koala bears, but I am sure honourable members knew what I meant. I was referring to the koalas. Another of Sir Edward's obsessions related to albino animals. The accusation was made against him many times—and it is one of the problems with zoos—that he was involved in the illegal trafficking of animals. He put some of the animals in special breeding programs so that the zoo could have a whole range of albino animals. Many honourable members would remember the albino kangaroos, koalas and birds that he had on display
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 63
Another issue was the appearance of the zoo: it was covered in concrete. So it was a big breakthrough, in 1969 I think, when Dr Ronald Strahan, whom I was fortunate enough to work with when I was a keeper at the zoo, became the director. He brought in a new era. I believe it was in 1973 that, for the first time, the zoo had a board that was representative of a range of community interests. It is tragic that we will lose such representation if this legislation is passed. One problem will be that we will no longer have some independents on the board because the Minister will have discretion to appoint whomever he wishes to those positions. The Greens immediately have a problem with the proposal to reduce the board from 13 to 10 people. In this era of increased community consultation— although that often turns out to be quite a facade—comes recognition of the fact that the people have a right of input into the way in which many of the different institutions of this country should work. It is a retrograde step to cut back on community representation on the board of one of this State's most important institutions. The loss of three members of the board, the Greens believe, is most significant.
The Greens support the recommendations of the various organisations that have expressed their concerns about this issue. Those come from Animal Liberation, the RSPCA and various other organisations that have said they regard this as a backward step by Minister Debus. The Greens endorse the comments made by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Humane Society International and the New South Wales Animal Welfare League, because the passage of this bill poses a real risk to the wellbeing of zoo animals, at a time of more animal experimentation and, in some quarters, a desperation to maintain species outside their natural habitat. This can end up being a rubber stamp for researchers who may not be bound by ethical considerations. The Greens express their strong concern about the provision that will result in a reduction in the number on the Zoological Parks Board and where those people are to be drawn from, particularly as responsibility for their selection will rest with the Minister. In this bill we see the ghost of Hallstrom haunting the zoo.
The Hon. M. R. Egan: Are you talking about Sir Edward Hallstrom?
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I am most certainly talking about Sir Edward Hallstrom. I have a serious problem with the way he managed Taronga Park zoo, and now I have a serious problem with how Minister Debus will manage the zoo. That will be to the disadvantage of the animals and to the detriment of all people in New South Wales who enjoy those facilities.
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [9.28 p.m.]: I promise to be brief. I am sorry that I did not join in the fair trading debate that took place earlier, but I was driven away. I will speak only briefly in support of the Zoological Parks Board Amendment Bill because this debate has been somewhat lengthy. In the first place I stress again, in answer particularly to what was said by Ms Lee Rhiannon, that the position of animal welfare representative is not specifically required, because all research and animal welfare issues in the zoos are covered by the Animal Research Act 1985. <34> The Act requires the board to have a properly constituted Animal Care and Ethics Committee, involving external advisers and representatives, including at least one representative from an animal welfare organisation. The board's Animal Care and Ethics Committee has the right of veto on all animal research activities. There are two representatives and an animal welfare organisation on the committee. The Exhibited Animals Protection Act, which is administered by the Minister for Agriculture, governs the standards of animal care and husbandry for animals displayed in New South Wales. The board of the zoo has to conform with those standards.
I want to refer to some points that were raised by honourable members in this debate. I was shocked to hear the argument against members of the board being appointed at the discretion of the Minister. I am pleased that we are gradually replacing appointments by the Governor with appointments by the Minister. My republican instincts suggest that it is a good thing to remove the Governor from appointments and include the Minister. That process is in line with what is happening in many places. In the current legislation appointments are narrowly prescribed and do not give bodies such as Mosman and Dubbo councils the right to choose their representatives. Under the existing system, names are submitted to the Minister who makes a nomination.
It is strange that members would attack a bill that provides scope for broader representation, including community representation, on the grounds that it excludes highly specific people such as a Mosman Council representative, a public service department official or a resident of a particular
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 64 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council region. The bill sensibly widens the groups that can be represented and play a role within zoos and animal welfare and research issues. When honourable members in debates such as this support narrow special interest groups who want a representative on a board, they represent a special breed of wedge politics. Members come into the House clutching three, five, seven or 25 letters and proceed to make a speech which suits the interests of a small group of people. Then they send their wonderful speeches to those people. They target these tiny groups. In their contributions, they do not only say that X should be appointed to the board, they also complain that Y and Z will not be appointed. There is now a tendency in this House to make narrowly based partisan speeches in support of the last organisation that wrote to the members involved. That tendency should be discouraged. I am concerned about some of the contributions I have heard in this debate and in other debates that focus on the membership of boards.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: They are all the same. They all read out the same letter, the whole lot of them.
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: I do not often agree with the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, but on this occasion he is right. A number of representatives of minor groups in this House, although certainly not all of them, compete with each other to appeal to the same narrow wedge in the community. That tendency has concerned me for some time. I raise it in this debate because this bill deals specifically with board membership.
The Hon. M. R. Egan: There has always been the same problem with factions in the communist movement.
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: While the Treasurer's objection from where he is sitting on the Opposition benches has thrown me slightly; the content is wrong. Some of the honourable members I refer to have never been members, in reality or de facto, of a communist party.
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [9.34 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who contributed to this debate. I thank the Hon. J. F. Ryan, who led on behalf of the Opposition and expressed the support of the Opposition for the bill. He made a particularly thoughtful contribution, which I am sure was appreciated by all members in the House. His good wishes for the success of the Zoological Parks Board will be appreciated by the new board. Other honourable members who made contributions were the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, the Hon. I. Cohen, the Hon. Dr P. Wong, the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans, the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, the Hon. J. S. Tingle, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, Ms Lee Rhiannon and The Hon. Jan Burnswoods. I do not intend to comment in detail on the contributions of each of those members. I will comment on the need for representation from an animal welfare organisation when we are in Committee. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods put her arguments succinctly, and I do not intend to repeat them.
I will reply to two points made by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans. He said that there were no longer positions for representatives of the Association of Zoo Friends. That is not correct. Four positions are specifically designated to represent local communities at both Mosman and Dubbo and the many thousands of members of the Association of Zoo Friends at both zoos. The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans tried to drag the issue of elephant seal branding into this debate. The research project involving the branding of elephant seals was under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. It is inappropriate to draw any association between that research project and projects undertaken by the Zoological Parks Board of New South Wales. It is also totally inappropriate to relate that project in any way to the work of the Animal Care and Ethics Committee of the Zoological Parks Board of New South Wales. I will take up the other issues in Committee. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
In Committee
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedule 1
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 65
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.37 p.m.], by leave: I move my amendments Nos 1 to 5, in globo:
No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [1], line 8. Omit "5". Insert instead "4".
No. 2 Page 3, schedule 1 [1], line 33. Insert after "Dubbo":
, and
(g) one is to be a representative of a body, the principal activity of which is the promoting of animal welfare.
No. 3 Page 6, schedule 1 [9], line 18. Omit "(a)–(c)". Insert instead "(b) or (c)".
No. 4 Page 6, schedule 1 [9], line 21. Insert "(a)," after "6 (2)".
No. 5 Page 6, schedule 1 [9], line 23. Insert "(g)," after "6 (1)".
The amendments serve to ensure that there is a representative on the board of a body the principal activity of which is the promotion of animal welfare. I do not refer to minor bodies. The Premier is the patron of the RSPCA. I am sure he would not be at all thrilled with some of the comments of the Hon. Jan Burnswoods and the Minister. The Premier is a genuine animal lover, unlike some members of this House. I am sure that if the Premier had been aware of the legislation he would have ensured that organisations such as the RSPCA were represented on the board. That is the first thing he would want to do. I have no doubt that the next time he meets with the RSPCA he will be asked how he, as Premier and patron of the RSPCA, allowed the animal welfare representative to be omitted from the Zoological Parks Board. He might ask a few questions, as honourable members will in this House during the next few months. <35> Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.40 p.m.]: The Greens support the amendments moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. The Minister has not yet provided an answer to the question that has been asked. Is it fair to reduce the membership of the board from 13 to 10? How would such a board successfully represent the needs of the Taronga Park and Dubbo zoos?
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Point of order: Do we really have to put up with the blatant blabbering that is going on? It is just a repetition of what has been said.
The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: To the point of order: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is extremely insulting. He should not be in the Chamber if he cannot do any better than that.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: To the point of order: Surely we are able to debate legislation, listen to the contributions of other honourable members and consider the bill which is before us?
The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I believe that the board membership should remain at 13. It would obviously have a serious and detrimental effect on the running of both Dubbo and Taronga Park zoos if the membership were reduced. The maintenance of the present board membership is an important issue. The Greens support the amendments moved by Hon. R. S. L. Jones as they will clearly establish board representation. At the moment, board membership is at the discretion of the Minister.
The legislation states that board members should have an interest in animal welfare issues and a range of other issues, but that does not mean that they would definitely represent those issues. We must try to quarantine and safeguard those measures. When the board was first established in 1973, people had the foresight to recognise that the positions of certain groups should be safeguarded. Before 1973 the organisation was run virtually as the fiefdom of Sir Edward Hallstrom—a period from which we have moved away. Because of the actions of this Government and this Minister, to some degree we have been taken back to an era from which we had moved on—a most detrimental step.
The Hon. J. F. RYAN [9.43 p.m.]: The Opposition considered the amendments moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and determined that it could not support them. Apart from the fact that the
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 66 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council number 13 is a lucky number—or unlucky, depending on people's beliefs—there is no special reason why the board membership should be 13, 12 or 10. Rather, it is a matter of ensuring that board members have the necessary expertise and that there is a sufficient number of members for the board to be representative. Essentially, the Government is attempting, through this legislation, to rebuild the board to what it ought to be, not in the 1970s or the 1960s, but in 2000 and beyond.
I do not think an adequate case has been made out as to why a member representing an animal welfare organisation would necessarily make the sort of contribution to the board that has been suggested. As a member of the board such a person would be required to keep certain matters confidential. He or she would be bound up in all other decisions made by the board and be part of the zoo management. A good thing about zoos is that all zoo exhibitions are in public. Anyone who wants to see those exhibitions can simply walk around and view them. Zoos are open to absolute scrutiny by all animal welfare organisations and they operate at arm's length. They do not need to be part of a board or bound up in the difficulties of managing a zoo; that scrutiny can occur at arm's length with complete independence. I have no doubt that if somebody from the RSPCA wanted to scrutinise anything that happened at the zoo he or she would need only to ask and permission would immediately be given. If it was not I would have no doubt that that would be news.
The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Their exclusion would be news.
The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Their exclusion would be news. Finally, reference was made earlier to ethics groups, on which there are animal welfare representatives. Those people would be knowledgeable and intimately aware of all activities occurring at zoos. The people who are most likely to reveal breaches of animal welfare are not likely to be members of the board, and those sorts of things are not likely to become apparent to board members. The most likely people to become aware of breaches of animal welfare are those who work with animals in a zoo every day. They are more likely to blow the whistle on issues of animal welfare. So the right place for animal welfare representatives would possibly not be on such a board but on ethics boards, which again I imagine would have free access to every aspect of the zoo.
Even though not everything that a zoo does is necessarily tied up with research, I am sure that those representatives would have free access to scrutinise and examine any activity of the zoo from an arm's length position, without being responsible for any of the management decisions of the board and without being encumbered by any of the requirements of confidentiality. They would be in a position to blow the whistle on any issues relating to animal welfare. It is possible that it would be a good thing if people from animal welfare organisations were not represented on the board.
The Hon. R. S. L. Jones, in arguing for the adoption of these amendments, should establish clearly why one vote on the board—and that is all that it would be—would make such a substantial difference to a focus on animal welfare. In the view of the Opposition the Hon. R. S. L. Jones has not made out a strong case, Even though the Opposition has seriously considered the amendments moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones—and Opposition members admire and in fact endorse his concern for animal welfare—it is not necessary to have an animal welfare person at board level addressing those issues.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.46 p.m.]: The Hon. J. F. Ryan said that a case had not been made out to support the appointment to the board of someone representing animal welfare rights. Let me go back to my experiences when I was at the zoo. I hope that members of the major parties listen to what I have to say. When I was at the zoo in the late 1960s and early 1970s there was no board and there were many abuses of animal rights. Many keepers were concerned about those abuses but they had no avenue open to them to do anything about it. They talked amongst themselves a great deal, they talked to other people, but they did not have an avenue open to them to voice their concerns and achieve a solution.
So to say it is better to keep zoo administration at arm's length is just not satisfactory. I suggest to Government members and to members of the Coalition that they have not established why this person should not be prescribed. That is the question that we should be debating. This person is clearly needed on the board. One position must be quarantined for somebody who has those interests as his or her primary concern. At the moment there is no guarantee that somebody on the board will
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 67
have that commitment. This is a serious matter. A case has most definitely been made out for such a board member. The Greens support the amendments moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [9.48 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendments moved by Hon. R. S. L. Jones. I will restrict my comments to the two issues that have arisen in debate. The first related to board membership and to the members required to enable the board to operate effectively. Honourable members asked what would be an adequate number of board members to enable the Zoological Parks Board to operate effectively. Due to vacancies, the board is currently operating—it has done for some years now—with 10 members. I have not heard of any major issues raised by concerned people that have created enormous problems.
The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: I have
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Hon. R. S. L. Jones expressed concern about the lack of an animal welfare representative, but he has not referred to the question of the board operating with 10 members as opposed to 13. A number of other organisations operate with similar numbers of members on their boards and they seem to do so effectively, including the Powerhouse Museum, the Art Gallery of New South Wales and the Australian Museum, which have nine members, and the Commonwealth Bank, which has 10. With regard to the more substantive concern, whether there should be a specific designated position for a representative from an animal welfare organisation, the bill does not exclude a person from an animal welfare organisation being appointed to the board. It simply does not specifically specify such a position.
<36> A person with expertise in zoology, veterinary science or related research is as relevant to the operations of the board as a person representing an animal welfare organisation. It is stretching the truth to suggest, as the Hon. R. S. L. Jones has suggested despite his best intentions, that the Government is concerned about the management of animals at the zoo and wants to keep a lid on things, and that is why a position has not been created specifically for a person from an animal welfare organisation. That is not the case. The implementation of the Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1989 requires the Zoological Parks Board of New South Wales to be registered, and requires the board to conform to conditions for the care and display of animals in its two zoos. The Minister for Agriculture administers the Act.
The Animal Research Act 1985 provides for an objective and independent review and assessment of the board's activities in animal research. This Act requires the board to have a properly constituted animal care and ethics committee comprised of external advisers and independent representatives, including at least one representative from an animal welfare organisation. The board's animal care and ethics committee presently comprises two people from an animal welfare organisation. The committee meets six times a year, and its right of veto on animal research projects is independent of the board. The committee has the ability to approve or disapprove of research involving animals in the care of the zoos.
The animal care and ethics committee has a role in the review of all research activities undertaken by the board, and it also undertakes inspections of animal facilities at both zoos on a regular basis. It reviews animal facilities when applications are made. Those points should put to rest the concerns raised by honourable members about whether the absence of a designated position for a representative from animal welfare organisations will be detrimental to animal welfare being the primary consideration of the board. I commend the bill as drafted to the Committee. The Government opposes the amendments.
Question—That the amendments be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 6
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Tellers,
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 68 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
Mr Cohen Mrs Sham-Ho Mr R. S. L. Jones Dr Wong Ms Rhiannon
Noes, 24
Mr Bull Mr Manson Dr Burgmann Revd Nile Mr Dyer Mr Oldfield Mr Egan Dr Pezzutti Mrs Forsythe Mr Ryan Mr Gallacher Mr Samios Miss Gardiner Ms Tebbutt Mr Gay Mr Tingle Mr Hannaford Mr Tsang Mr Harwin Mr Hatzistergos Tellers, Mr M. Jones Mr Moppett Mr Lynn Mr Primrose
Question resolved in the negative.
Amendments negatived.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.
<37> ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [10.01 p.m.]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
NEW SOUTH WALES REGIONAL SCHOOLS
The Hon. H. S. TSANG [10.01 p.m.]: I take pleasure in reporting to the House on my recent visits to a number of schools in rural and regional New South Wales. It is important for members of Parliament to take every opportunity to engage our children and youth and to understand them. That is why I was pleased to represent the Government at a number of school openings, including Sandon Public School in Armidale, Ingleburn High School, and Bargo and Oakdale public schools, both in the Southern Highlands. I am very impressed with Sandon Public School's modern building design and bright colour scheme. I was even more impressed that the school was well equipped to cater for students with special needs. I was moved to witness the kid's compassion in looking after their school mates with disabilities. The parents and teachers took great pride in protecting the caring environment of the school.
I was delighted to learn that Ingleburn High School has a strong focus on student discipline and encourages students to take responsibility for their actions. It is this example of civic pride that leads to the strengthening of our community. I was also impressed that the headmaster took the kids to the Pizza Hut as a recompense for the excellence of their achievements. At Bargo Public School I
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 69
found that the kids were very imaginative and creative in their many endeavours and are keen on sports. I had great fun having the four school captains and deputy captains work with me on a poster of their smiling headmaster to replace the missing plaque that marked the opening of the school. The headmaster was pleasantly surprised with the kid's quick thinking and ingenuity.
In Oakdale I found the school environment truly exceptional. The magnificent grounds were well kept and the school buildings are kept in good shape by the voluntary labour of the parents. I found the children well behaved, innocent and very loving. Surprisingly, they told me that they aspire, like many young children in regional New South Wales, to have all the things that city kids have so readily—things such as a big swimming pool with water slides, a theme park and a large shopping complex with movie theatres. It is interesting that when I visit city schools all the city kids wish for are green open spaces and the strong supporting community of country schools like Oakdale and Bargo.
Despite the apparent differences and aspirations, one element of school activities brings them together: the desire and interest in finding out more about Australian history and what it means to be an Australian. I found, as a life member of the RSL and one who takes great pride in marching with the RSL State Executive on Anzac Day, that kids from both the city and the country take pride in participating in Anzac Day activities. Tomorrow Sandon Public School will have an Anzac Day public commemoration ceremony, observing a minute's silence and the playing of the last post, followed by a discussion on the meaning of war and the value of peace. Last year Oakdale had a similar ceremony and invited a Vietnam veteran to talk to the schoolchildren and their parents about his experience. <38> In each class the students are making their own wreaths from flowers they brought from home.
At Bargo Public School this morning a special school assembly was held with a solemn commemorative ceremony during which the children were encouraged to bring a flower to pay respects to all Australians who sacrificed their lives for the peace we enjoy today. Like many other high schools in the State, Ingleburn High School has a long-standing tradition of commemorating Anzac Day. As this special day is fast approaching, I commend those schools I have mentioned for their efforts in acknowledging such an important day. I urge all schools and committee groups to embrace the Anzac spirit and celebrate our freedom that was gained through the sacrifices of thousands of Australians who fought in wars and paid the ultimate price so today we can enjoy the wonderful unique Australian way of life.
NEW SOUTH WALES TOURISM
The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.05 p.m.]: I congratulate the Hon. H. S. Tsang on his contribution and on his obvious empathy with the children he has visited in the schools he mentioned. I offer my congratulations and respect to a political opponent. Tonight I raise the concerns and frustrations of a couple who planned a holiday to New South Wales earlier this year. Mr and Mrs Roger Chin planned an opal fossicking trip to northern New South Wales in good faith and extended their leave arrangements from work so they could enjoy their holiday. Unfortunately, their trip was frustrated by bureaucratic red tape and delays, which I am sure honourable members will agree proved to be entirely unacceptable.
The Chins gathered as much information as possible about fossicking in the Glen Innes area from the Department of Mineral Resources and New South Wales Tourism and paying for several publications, including the New South Wales Fossicker's Guide. They also contacted the relevant departments by telephone to double check the information they received. They were told that although camping was not permitted on fossicking fields in the Glencoe area, they would be allowed to camp anywhere near the rivers and creeks in the region. In a letter to me Mr Chin stated that he believed the information in those guides would be helpful and the money he paid would prove to be well spent.
Unfortunately, when the Chins reached Glen Innes they were told at the Tourist Information Centre that all the information they had gathered was wrong. All Crown lands in the area, including fossicking fields, were closed. This meant fossicking was permitted only on private properties, which had been listed with the tourist centre. It was indicated also that they could have been fined for fossicking on Crown land. The result was that two people had travelled from Darwin to enjoy some
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 70 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
time on the Northern Tablelands of New South Wales only to find they had been given totally incorrect information which meant they could not do what they had planned to do for more than six months.
No-one could supply a reason for the Crown lands being closed, so the Chins abandoned their plans for a holiday in New South Wales and continued to Melbourne. I agree with Mr Chin, who stated in his letter that he was annoyed with the maps and publications supplied to him as the information contained in them was misleading and incorrect. Had this couple known this, they would not have bothered to extend their holidays into New South Wales. Mr Chin estimates that he and his wife could have saved about $1,000 by not travelling through northern New South Wales. He correctly states that the false and misleading publications could have resulted in him being fined for fossicking on Crown land.
It was lucky that he checked at the Tourist Information Centre before proceeding with his holiday plans. I have responded to the concerns of Mr Chin and indicated that this unfortunate experience should not deter him from planning another trip to New South Wales. I support also his call for the appropriate government departments to withdraw the incorrect publications and make a clear public announcement clarifying which parts of the State are designated fossicking areas. It is not enough just to blame the department; each department has a responsible Minister and they are Minister Nori, Minister Amery and Minister Obeid. Those Ministers have a responsibility to remove these misleading publications. <39> If there is any decency in this State, the Chins, who came here in good faith, should be extended the hospitality of the State at the expense of the Ministers who misled them.
WORKPLACE SAFETY COMMITTEE
The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [10.09 p.m.]: I draw the attention of honourable members to the 1997 inquiry of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice into workplace safety, the recommendations of which had the unanimous support of members of the committee. In particular, I highlight recommendation 32 in the interim report, which states:
… the Occupational Health and Safety Act be amended to provide for the establishment of a Joint Parliamentary Committee on Workplace Safety, to be known as the WorkSafe Committee.
I seek the support of honourable members and ask the Government to implement that recommendation. In recent days much concern has been expressed about the safety of rail workers. It is interesting to note that we spend most of our adult lives at work, yet for many people, especially rail maintenance workers, workplaces pose an unacceptable level of risk to their health and safety. In 1997-98 there were 58,604 employment-related injuries and 181 fatalities in New South Wales. Each year workplace-related accidents involve more people and cost us more than road accidents.
Australia wide, workplace injuries cost the Australian economy $15 billion a year. Needless to say, there are also many indirect costs involved, such as a higher level of absenteeism, increases in premiums, staff replacement and retraining, and loss of expert knowledge. These indirect costs have been estimated to be about four to 10 times more than direct costs. As I noted in my contribution to the take-note debate on the interim report, recommendation 32 is one of the key recommendations to come out of the inquiry into workplace safety in New South Wales.
The potential significance that a joint parliamentary committee on work safety would have in helping to raise the profile of workplace safety, and of signalling to the community that members of Parliament care about this issue, cannot be underestimated. The idea of a worksafe committee to promote and develop workplace safety, and to monitor the effectiveness of WorkCover, was inspired by the success of parliamentary committees such as the Staysafe committee in New South Wales in improving road safety. It was envisaged that a worksafe committee would operate along similar lines.
I am aware of the large number of parliamentary committees and the costs associated with committee inquiries. Therefore, I submit that the committee operate under the umbrella of the Staysafe committee to save costs and to enable the committee to tap into the experience and expertise of the Staysafe committee staff. For the benefit of honourable members, at pages 96 and 97 the interim report states:
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 71
The submission received from Advocates for Workplace Safety called for the establishment of a permanent Parliamentary Committee on Workplace Safety. Advocates reasoned that such a Committee would raise the profile of workplace safety in the same way Road Safety Committees have:
Advocates suggests that the principal reason why road safety has such a high profile in both the media and the community is because of the continued existence of Parliamentary Committees in Victoria since the late 1960s, in New South Wales since the 1980s, and Queensland and Western Australia in the 1990s which review and report on road safety matters.
There is no reason that the same level of success cannot be achieved in relation to workplace safety. All it needs is the political will to bring this important recommendation to fruition. A committee would provide an important overseeing function to existing structures in place, such as WorkCover, as well as provide an additional forum at a bipartisan parliamentary level from which workplace safety policies can be initiated and reviewed. I have already consulted the Attorney General about this issue, and he was sympathetic, receptive and responsive. The Law Society has already expressed its full support of the proposal. I again urge honourable members to consider this recommendation in the workplace safety report, and I hope the Government will implement it as soon as practicable. <40> JERILDERIE MULTIPURPOSE CENTRE
The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS [10.14 p.m.]: I report to the House on my visit to Jerilderie on 23 and 24 January this year on behalf of the Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs. During my visit I met representatives of the local shire council, in particular residents and members of the Jerilderie multipurpose service steering committee. I had the opportunity to inspect Jerilderie District Hospital, which was established in the 1800s as a typical rural country hospital servicing an area ranging up to 60 kilometres from the hospital. During the Wran years of the early 1980s it was entirely refurbished at considerable cost and was unique in its design for using solar panels through which energy for the complex was driven. Indeed, I noted that my very good friend the former Minister for Health, Kevin Stewart, was the person who opened the refurbishment.
The complex also includes a community centre and preschool. The hospital's importance increased as a consequence of the community losing its local pharmacy, so the residents needed the hospital to obtain prescribed drugs. At the same time, however, the hospital was suffering some decline. It lost its radiology facility and its operating theatre and the equipment was transferred to Finley Hospital. However, a commitment had been made by the previous Minister for Health, Dr Refshauge, for the establishment of a multipurpose service at Jerilderie. Indeed, the local Federal member, Tim Fischer, also made a commitment to support such a project. The community had raised a considerable amount of money towards the $100,000 target of assistance in anticipation of the multipurpose service being established.
The inquiry into health services in small towns, which was concluded recently by the Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair actually recommended against a multipurpose service centre be established at Jerilderie. However, I reassured the community of the Government's commitment towards establishment of such a facility. Indeed, recently the Minister for Health, the Hon. Craig Knowles, was able to announce as part of a $19.3 million increase in health funding for the Greater Murray that the multipurpose service will be established in Jerilderie during 2000 and 2001. It would not surprise people to know that the community was elated at this response. In fact, the Mayor of Jerilderie wrote a letter to me thanking me for my efforts and the efforts of the Carr Government in securing continuing, adequate health services for the community.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You are a Johnny-come-lately. It was over before you even got here.
The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS: I would like to know how many letters you wrote about the issue.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: We had an inquiry that lasted about four days.
The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS: Do not worry; people will get to read your comments about this. Whilst in Jerilderie I was also privileged to open the new works depot. Over the last two financial
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 72 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council
years council has been constructing a new works depot at an estimated cost of $1.124 million. The new works depot incorporates a workshop with three work bays, a stores and amenities block, machinery sheds and a truck wash bay. The depot forms an integral part of delivering services to shire residents. The facility expands the council's already significant role in the provision of private works to its rural community. Indeed, it plans to tender for the construction of fire tankers for the New South Wales Rural Fire Service. Construction of the new depot also meant that the previous old depot, which was sited in a residential area, could be closed, which pleased the surrounding residents.
During my visit I also spoke to various local farmers, in particular rice farmers, and gained some insight into their problems. I sincerely thank the Mayor of Jerilderie, the general manager of the Jerilderie council and all the councillors and residents who made my visit such an enlightening experience. I particularly thank them for their warm hospitality. I congratulate them all on a commitment to their community.
<41> FLORIANO VOLPATO
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [10.19 p.m.]: I wish to add to the eloquent contributions of Mr Thomas George, the honourable member for Lismore in the other place, and the Hon. Janelle Saffin on the death of Floriano Volpato.
The Hon. M. R. Egan: It sounds as though he was a great fellow.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: He was a great fellow. I knew Floriano for almost 20 years. During that time he was a leader in the Lismore community on the North Coast, particularly for the Italian-Australian community who came to Australia after the war. He was typical of the immigrants who came to Australia at about that time.
The Hon. M. R. Egan: He was an economist.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: He was an economist; he had a degree. But many others who came to Australia after the war were learned and held high degrees, and made this country what it is. Floriano took the time to help his local Italian community. He became honorary consul and the consular agent in Lismore, serving 40 years in that capacity. He made certain that the cultural needs and cultural expression of the Italian community were at the forefront and contributed to the Lismore community. Floriano became involved in the New Italy Museum project, which is a celebration of the arrival of my forebears to New Italy during the early Italian migration there. As the older members of that organisation became less active, Floriano, together with the new Italian community that arrived after the war, took on the important task of building. In addition to his involvement in the establishment of the museum complex, his persuasive influence encouraged the Italian Government to bring the Expo building to the Expo site in Brisbane. He was also associated with the construction of a mud-brick, three-bedroom house, which had a ristorante below it. Just recently he completed the construction of a 400-seater auditorium. He not only ensured community involvement, he also encouraged the establishment of one of the best Aboriginal art centres in the country. I understand that a number of the pieces purchased there by the Governor-General, Bill Hayden, found their way to Government House, Yarralumla.
Floriano Volpato was a very important person. Brief, but very moving, eulogies were delivered at his funeral by Dr John Rawle, a general practitioner in Lismore, whom Floriano had taught to speak Italian so that he could minister to the Italian community; Mr John Crowther, a long- term mayor of Lismore with whom Floriano had worked in an endeavour to improve the commercial centre in Lismore and improve the business outlook of the town to make it more outward-looking; and his son Luca, who is a pharmacist in Brisbane. His son Nicola now takes over as the Italian consular agent in Lismore, and will keep up his good work. Floriana left to his family a thriving business of some 20 travel agencies around the country; and a number of important investments, including the Australian Government building in Lismore, which he turned into a successful commercial centre. His foresight and ideas were always big, his ambitions were always grand, and he was always honest. He was able to attract thousands of people from Coffs Harbour, Brisbane and Sydney to all the festas held in the New Italy Centre at Lismore and make them big events. He has been recognised for his services
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. Legislative Council Thursday 13 April 2000 73
by the Australian people and also by the Italian Government. In conclusion I reiterate some of the words uttered by his son Luca in his eulogy about his father. He said:
He went, and we all know of the goodness of his heart and the purity is of his soul. Arrivederci.
<42> FRED McKAY TRIBUTE
The Hon. R. T. M. BULL [10.24 p.m.]: I acknowledge the recent passing and life of the Reverend Dr Fred McKay, AC, CMG, OBE, known and loved by everyone in the Royal Flying Doctor Service simply as Fred, is a sad yet joyous occasion. It is a time of celebration and gratitude for the life of a great man. Fred touched the hearts and souls of everyone he met. He was universally regarded as a kind, gentle, man who had the courage to speak up for his beliefs. He could blend vision, reason and courage with his personal commitment to those who live in the bush. People who met him saw in Fred a deeply spiritual man filled with the love of God. His deep Christian commitment was apparent, yet unobtrusive. Fred's great strength was his capacity to lead by practical example, instead of by preaching.
He was an icon in the Royal Flying Doctor Service, after taking up the position from the Reverend John Flynn, who as Flynn of the inland, set up the Royal Flying Doctor Service. Fred McKay, who grew up in Queensland on a sugarcane farm, joined the Royal Flying Doctor Service and took up the excellent work of John Flynn. One of his first tasks was to set up a hospital at Coopers Creek. He ran planes out of Alice Springs, Cloncurry and many outback areas of Australia. He certainly got things done. Many an outback child owes his or her education to Fred's intervention.
The flying doctor aircraft Fred McKay, St Philip's College Alice Springs, the Old Timers' homes, the John Flynn Memorial Church, which he built in memory of John Flynn, are just some reminders of Fred's practical commitment to the people of the bush. They will also endure to remind us of Fred's capacity to inspire other generous people who shared his vision. He was an outstanding Australian and at his funeral one of the leading mourners was the Governor-General, Sir William Deane. He was known throughout Australia for his work and practical Christian beliefs. Certainly, Fred led by example. As Australians we should commemorate his life and excellent work in inland Australia. Like Flynn of the inland he was Fred McKay of the inland. I was privileged to attend his memorial service last Friday at St Stephen's Uniting Church. I should like to conclude by quoting the last verse of the hymn that was sung to celebrate his life:
Thine be the glory, risen, conquering Son, Endless is the victory thou o'er death has won.
I extend my condolences and sympathy to Mrs Meg McKay and the family.
LIVE ANIMALS EXPORT
Ms LEE RHIANNON [10.27 p.m.]: The export of live animals from Australia received a setback today because of the combined actions of the Newcastle Trades Hall Council, the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, the Maritime Union of Australia and Animal Liberation.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Shame on them!
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I note the interjection, which is interesting because the House has heard that a number of farmers have refused to sell their animals to Elders Ltd, the company involved. Today Elders said that it no longer planned to ship the 13,000 live steers from the port of Newcastle. It was the first time that live exports were to be sent out of a populated port. Until now this company and all other companies involved in live exports had continued this practice away from scrutiny, from small ports, such as Portsmouth, Victoria. The Elders company is on the run from communities that are becoming increasingly aware that the export of live animals is an archaic practice that has no place in Australia or, indeed, anywhere.
<43> Last Monday night a combined meeting of community organisations resolved to support the unions in their struggle to protect jobs and agreed that animals being prepared for export should be
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only. 74 Thursday 13 April 2000 Legislative Council slaughtered and prepared in Australia prior to export. Surely that is a cause that members of the National Party can support. The groups also resolved to support the animal liberation movement and the RSPCA in their campaign against live cattle exports. Those groups maintain that whenever live animals are exported, the Australian code of conduct should apply. Those organisations respect the right of unions and community groups to protest against cattle exports and will assist whenever possible. They intend to work against present industrial relations laws that prevent unions from taking industrial action.
It is certainly a breakthrough when animal liberation and community groups work in alliance with unions to achieve positive outcomes. These organisations also stated that the Australian Labor Party will be called upon to repeal current industrial relations legislation if successful at the next Federal election. Those aims certainly augur well for the forging of a dynamic alliance between unions and community organisations. Concern over animal welfare is increasing because people have now seen for themselves the horrors of live export of cattle. At last Monday night's meeting, a film which has recently arrived in Australia was shown at the Newcastle Trades Hall Council. The film graphically depicted the condition of animals when they arrived in the Middle East. Many had collapsed and had to be forced to their feet by having fingers stuck in their eyes. Some animals had to be winched.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Oh, what rubbish!
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I commend the film to my colleague. The film will be shown in the Parliamentary Theatrette and I hope the honourable member will attend. The film shows some animals being winched from the ground either by a leg or a horn. The film also clearly shows one animal falling from a sling while being winched and dropping to the ground. It was left there and took a day and a half to die. Live export of cattle is a horrific practice. The Greens support the demands being made by the unions and community involvement in the campaign for a review of national legislation dealing with the live export of animals. The campaign aims to ensure that no animals will go to a country that does not have animal welfare protection legislation that is either equal to, or better than, that in Australia. [Time expired.]
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at 10.31 p.m.
______
Uncorrected Hansard Proof: Available to Authorised Persons Only.