7750
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Wednesday 31 March 2004 ______
The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.
The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers.
FAIR TRADING AMENDMENT BILL
Bill received, read a first time and ordered to be printed.
Motion by the Hon. John Della Bosca agreed to:
That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.
Second reading ordered to stand as an order of the day.
GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 4
Report: Budget Estimates 2003-2004
The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, as Chairman, tabled report No. 9, entitled "Budget Estimates 2003- 2004", dated March 2004, together with transcripts of evidence, tabled documents, answers to questions taken on notice, and relevant correspondence.
Report ordered to be printed.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [11.04 a.m.]: I move:
That the House take note of the report.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner.
PETITIONS
Freedom of Religion
Petitions praying that the House reject legislative proposals that would detract from the exercise of freedom of religion, and retain the existing exemptions applying to religious bodies in the Anti-Discrimination Act, received from the Hon. Patricia Forsythe and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Withdrawal of Business
Private Members' Business item No. 26 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by Ms Sylvia Hale.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Postponement of Business
Government Business Notices of Motions Nos 1 and 2 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly. 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7751
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.06 a.m.]: I move:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 90 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to an order for papers for any contract between the Government and the Axiom Education consortium, be called on forthwith.
Contracts between the Government and the Axiom Education consortium need to come into the public domain as there is information that was not provided by the Government in its release of documents yesterday, and therefore the motion needs to be debated.
Motion agreed to.
Order of Business
Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:
That Private Members Business item No. 90 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.
AXIOM EDUCATION CONSORTIUM CONTRACTS
Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.08 a.m.]: I move:
That, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 21 days of the date of the passing of this resolution the following documents in the possession, custody or control of the Department of Education and Training or New South Wales Treasury:
(a) any contract between the Government and the Axiom Education consortium of ABN Amro, St Hilliers, Hansen Yuncken and SSL Facilitates Management (Spotless), including annexures and attachments, excluding any technical drawings, plans, designs or specifications, for the construction of Horsley Public School, Mungerie Park Public School, Perfection Avenue Public School, Shell Cove Public School, Mataran Road Public School, Rosebery Road Public School, Poole Road Public School, Glenwood Public School and Horningsea Park Public School under the "New Schools Privately Financed Projects", and
(b) any document which records or refers to the production of documents as a result of this order of the House.
Nine school contracts have already been signed and four are now operational. The contract with Axiom Education consortium runs until 2032—nearly 30 years—with only minor options for variation by the State. We clearly have a responsibility to get this contract into the public domain to show what it is. Yesterday the Minister released a summary of contracts dated 2002. It is interesting that the Government has sat on it for 10 months. We have to ask why members of the public were kept in the dark.
Payments to the contractor already add up to $9.492 million per year for all nine schools. That is an annual return on investment for the contractor of between 10 and 20 per cent, so we are looking at a pretty good financial arrangement. It is an excellent return on investment, especially given that many of the major risks are still taken by the Government and not the contractor. That is why we need to see this contract, and it has to be in the public domain. The community should be able to expect the highest quality service. The summary of contracts states that payments to the contractor—monthly service fees—are performance based. That is, payments are reduced when performance does not match the requirements set out in the concession deed.
There is also the issue of benchmarking and market testing. Every five years the contractor conducts a benchmarking exercise on which it can adjust up payments it receives from the Government if it can show that the cost of services in a comparable industry is higher. We believe this presents a massive opportunity for rorting—another reason this contract should be in the public domain. This contract should be in the public domain also because of the issue of child care. At the moment the arrangements whereby the contractor pays the Government a fixed amount of $350 per student per year but keeps the rest of the profits seem to be very generous. The full details of the contractual arrangements should be in the public domain to secure against rorting. It should be in the public domain also because of community access to schools.
The summary of contracts describes the arrangements for three classes of access to schools: school, community and third party. The contractor keeps 50 per cent of revenue from the third party and thus could be a 7752 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004 massive source of additional creaming of profits to the contractor. While it is the lowest priority of the three classes of uses, it is not clear from the summary of contracts how conflicts between these classes of uses would be resolved. They are additional reasons to get this matter in the public domain. It is essential that these contracts are available not only for members but for the public so that their operation is fully accountable. I commend the motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.
ADMISSION OF THE TREASURER INTO THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Consideration of the Legislative Assembly's message of 30 March.
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)) [11.13 a.m.]: I move:
That this House agrees to the request of the Legislative Assembly in its message dated Tuesday 30 March 2004 for the Honourable M. R. Egan, MLC, Treasurer, Minister for State Development and Vice-President of the Executive Council, to attend at the Table of the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday 6 April 2004 at 11.00 a.m. for the purpose of addressing the House.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [11.14 a.m.]: This motion is, without a doubt, one of the biggest stunts we have seen in this House for some time. The motion should state that the Leader of the Government, the Treasurer in this House, be dragged before the Legislative Assembly to explain to the people of New South Wales where the money has gone. The Government had a record budget in New South Wales. But why? Because it has been sucking the money in from every person at every opportunity—looking under every stone, looking up every pipe, looking into everyone's pockets to drag in the money. Now it is saying, "We have been ripped off by the Grants Commission and we are going to have to extract more money, more blood from the people of New South Wales."
But it comes down to one thing: The Government has mismanaged the budget of this State, and the Treasurer should be in the Legislative Assembly today apologising to the people of New South Wales for what the Government is about to put them through. To make out that this is some sort of formal process and that the House is being recalled to consider a mini-budget is a completely false proposition being put out by the Government. There is no appropriation bill and there is no legislation. What we have is a media stunt, with members of the Legislative Assembly being used as props for a press conference. It is nothing but a ministerial statement dressed up as a press conference for the purpose of giving some legitimacy to what the Government and the Treasurer are about to inflict on the people of New South Wales.
It is absolutely pathetic for the Minister to suggest that this is a legitimate process. And what is even more pathetic is that the Minister believes that this House will actually swallow it. There is no basis for recalling the Legislative Assembly next Tuesday at who knows what cost to the people of New South Wales. There is absolutely no benefit in doing that. It is nothing more than a press conference. The Government is using the forum of the Legislative Assembly as a prop to legitimise its incompetence in dealing with the budget. The Treasurer should be here apologising to the members of this House for his mismanagement of the budget, and he most certainly should be dragged before the Legislative Assembly to explain why he has so fraudulently perpetrated this as an emergency measure to try to recoup some money when it all comes back to the fact that the Government has totally mismanaged the many taxes it has inflicted on the people of New South Wales.
Where has the money gone? The Deputy Treasurer, the Hon. John Della Bosca, is not here. If the Treasurer wants to explain to the Legislative Assembly where the money has gone, perhaps the Deputy Treasurer could explain to the members of the Legislative Council where it has gone—but not next Tuesday or the week after. This is a matter that should be debated in the Legislative Council this week. There is ample opportunity to debate it tomorrow. I can say on behalf of members outside the Government that we would welcome the Government putting aside private members' business tomorrow to hear the ministerial statement detailing exactly what is proposed. That would give both Houses an opportunity to consider it without inflicting more cost on the people of New South Wales by recalling the Legislative Assembly for minutes, rather than a full day. It would also ensure that there is some probity and transparency in what the Government is trying to get away with.
Members of the Opposition are aware of it. I suspect members of the public are aware of it. It now falls to members on the crossbench to say, "We will not stand by and allow this stunt to be perpetrated on the Parliament to devalue the budget process." This House needs to send a very clear message to the Treasurer and 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7753 the Government that we will not stand by and allow this to take place. We will send a message to the Government that there is a proper process. We should have legislation, there should be an opportunity for the Parliament to consider it, and—as with all budgets in the past—a representation should be made in both Houses at exactly the same time.
This is nothing more than a media stunt, and we cannot allow the Legislative Assembly to be used as a mere prop for that stunt. If the Minister so wishes, he can make his media statement on the steps of the House or at Governor Macquarie Tower, but he should not use the Legislative Assembly.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.19 a.m.]: I support my colleague the Leader of the Opposition in this place. The mini-budget is about ramping up taxes and cutting front-line services.
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It is not a budget; it is a blow-out.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It follows a blow-out in a climate where the Government has had record returns and a budget overrun in every year. In handing down a mini-budget to overcome the blow-out, the Government will spend another $1 million to recall the Legislative Assembly.
The Hon. Tony Kelly: How much?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It could be up to $1 million to fly members here.
The Hon. Tony Kelly: I am told it is $29,000.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: All right, $29,000 to recall Parliament, which is equivalent to the salary of one teacher in New South Wales.
The Hon. Tony Kelly: You do not think much of teachers.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: That is the starting salary, or it used to be when my wife was teaching. It is approximately the cost of one teacher or one nurse. The Government is wasting money so that the Treasurer can use the Legislative Assembly as a stunt and a backdrop. He could save that money—it could be the first savings of the year—by going down to the press gallery, sorting through the boards down there, pulling out the green board with "Legislative Assembly" on it, climbing up on his bricks, standing behind the podium and delivering his rubbish to the people of New South Wales. He should start now to save money. It is not necessary to recall the Legislative Assembly, and it would be twice as bad to suggest also recalling the Legislative Council. To save money the mini-budget should be handed down while both Houses are sitting. I support my colleague. This is a waste of money, and if the Treasurer wants to save money from his gross overruns he should be honest and not recall the Legislative Assembly.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.23 a.m.]: The motion is flawed. By having the motion of the Hon. Carl Scully pushed through the Legislative Assembly, the Premier has seriously misused the parliamentary process. The Premier and the Treasurer tell the people of New South Wales that times are tough, savings are needed and taxes will rise. The rhetoric is in place but their actions show that this so-called mini-budget is nothing more than a stunt. The motion is a request from the Legislative Assembly for the Treasurer to appear before the lower House on Tuesday 6 April. All that will happen on that day is that the honourable member, who likes to tell us that he is a great Treasurer, will give a speech. No bill will be introduced; there will be nothing but a lot of words from the Treasurer. The speech will be signed off not by Treasury but by the spin doctors, who dominate the Government.
To recall half the Parliament—the Legislative Assembly—for one day is another fanfare from a Government that has lost its way. And it will backfire. Honourable members opposite must surely realise that most people see through these contrived acts of desperate politicians. This motion is a disservice to the people of New South Wales and, if passed, will reflect badly on the Parliament. We have a responsibility to curb the excesses of the Government. If this were a real mini-budget the Government would recall the Legislative Council next week so that the required legislation could be passed. If this were a real mini-budget which put more money into public services and raised money in a fair and responsible way, the Greens would back it.
My colleagues and I are on the record as having said time and again that when Labor has policies that meet the needs of the majority of people and the environment, we will back them. However, this mini-budget is 7754 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004 all about spin, so substance is not necessary. That is why the Legislative Council will not be recalled next week. Legislation will not be introduced to back up the mini-budget and, therefore, it is irresponsible of the Government, the Premier and the Treasurer to waste taxpayers' money in recalling the Legislative Assembly. The Treasurer could present his speech at Governor Macquarie Tower next Tuesday. Does he really need an audience of 93 members to deliver his speech? Having seen his performances in this place over the past five years I realise that the Treasurer enjoys an audience.
The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Point of order: Madam President, I draw your attention to the fact that a member of the Government is reading a newspaper, which is against the standing orders.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members that they are expected to observe the standing and sessional orders and the conventions of the House.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: Why is the Premier playing this game? His judgment in allowing the charade to proceed is seriously flawed. It is widely agreed that we are witnessing the final months of the Carr premiership. I wonder what future historians will make of this twilight time of the Carr-led Government. The Premier, as a lover of history, would know too well how cruel history can be. Great moments for some can, in time, end up as nothing more than a few lines and a date in our history books. Future historians will be hard pressed to identify the current Premier's achievements for this State. He certainly has been an artful dodger when it comes to putting a positive spin on his own actions. But historians do not have to rely on press releases and pushy spin doctors with trolleys. When these buffers are stripped away the Carr legacy will be thin on the ground on vision and actions in delivering to the public good of this State. This latest mini-budget stunt is a public relations fix, not economic management. Although it is not a key issue for this debate, it is worth noting that this action further damages the Premier's once considerable stature.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.27 a.m.]: The message from the other place states:
The Legislative Assembly requests the concurrence of the Legislative Council for the Honourable M R Egan MLC, Treasurer, Minister for State Development and Vice-President of the Executive Council to attend at the Table of the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday 6 April 2004 at 11.00 a.m. for the purpose of addressing the House.
Obviously, there has been some publicity in the media about what may occur next Tuesday. No-one really knows for certain what will happen. The Treasurer will make a statement about the impact of Federal financial policies, which have had a dramatic effect on the New South Wales budget. The Treasurer has the authority to make whatever statement he wishes and the Legislative Assembly can take whatever action it thinks fit, in the same way that members of this House can vote to recall the Legislative Council. Honourable members would object strongly to any interference in the running of the business of this House. Therefore, I am uneasy about opposition to the motion. I regard it as a request from the Legislative Assembly, in line with previous conventions where the Treasurer has presented the Budget Speech in the Legislative Assembly because of the unusual situation of the Treasurer being a member of the Legislative Council. Normally that does not happen, and I think this is probably the only time it has happened.
That creates some machinery problems because, in parliamentary terms, the State's finances are controlled in the lower House. As honourable members know, this House has limited powers in terms of introducing money bills. Money bills are introduced in the other place, and normally the Treasurer would be there. Therefore, the other place must request that the Treasurer attend and perform his duty, whatever that duty may be. If we vote against this motion I imagine that we will not be asked for our concurrence in the future, and I believe that that would be a break down in the relationship between the two Houses.
The other place is asking us to concur with this request, and I believe that on this occasion we should agree to it. I understand the undercurrent: a political debate is taking place—as happens; that is the nature of politics—with the Opposition likely to use the opportunity to attack the Government over its mismanagement of the State's finances, as the Opposition sees it. Obviously, the Greens feel that they are on a wave and would like to make as much mileage as they can out of this. The Opposition must be careful when joining forces with the Greens on these issues.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: It is not just the Greens; there are other crossbench members as well.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I see the Greens as the ones who are driving this decision. Contrary to what has been said—and I ask the Minister to confirm this—I understand that it will not be a five-minute sitting simply to hear from the Treasurer but a one-day sitting. I understand also that the Leader of the 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7755
Opposition will have an opportunity to respond to the Treasurer's statement and there will be question time. Perhaps the Minister can give an assurance in that regard. There is no need to oppose this request from the other place. We must behave in a gentlemanly way when dealing with the other place.
The Hon. JON JENKINS [11.32 a.m.]: The Government will remember my stance on the recent censure motion. If this is simply a public relations exercise, I remind the Government that my view of public relations exercises has not changed. I would like the Government to answer some questions. Will any legislation be presented at the sitting next week? Will debate be held? Will question time be allowed? Will the Opposition get a chance to examine and question the Government on both the mini-budget and the Government's financial performance?
Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.32 a.m.]: I do not intend to speak at length but this debate gives me the opportunity to make one point. I have been appalled by this process, especially the behaviour of the Treasurer when he dramatically appeared in front of television cameras and said, "I feel like slitting my wrists." What I found so offensive was the way that trivialised and demeaned the situation of people who find themselves in desperate situations. The Treasurer's preparedness to use this imagery is deeply offensive, particularly because it trivialises a desperate situation in which many people find themselves. But again it was done. It was done for no other reason than as a public relations stunt, an attempt to manipulate the media, to somehow dramatise the Government's position. The imagery and the analogy were totally inappropriate. Today the Government is resorting to tactics that will cost this State a great amount of money—money that could be better spent on social services and community workers—and it is doing it for no other reason than to posture and strut in front of the public. I find that as offensive as the Treasurer's remarks the other day.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE [11.34 a.m.]: This disgraceful exercise by the Government follows on from the Premier's absolutely appalling statements over the past couple of months, in which he compared what he says are reductions in funding to the State with the number of nurses and teachers that could be employed by the State. The fact is that the crisis now facing New South Wales has nothing to do with funding from the Commonwealth. Indeed, it has a great deal to do with the Government's mismanagement and waste of money throughout its term. That mismanagement and waste have been exacerbated since the Government was returned to office: before it was returned it covered up all the blow-outs it could possibly cover up and diverted as much money as possible to this year's budget. The Government has wasted money on capital expenditure gone wrong and been negligent in managing projects, and there have been general blow-outs in its expenses.
Those blow-outs are reflected in large part in the massive salaries that seem to be going to Labor mates. The most recent one identified by the Leader of the Opposition only last week was the appointment of young Mr Whelan to a specially created job in transport with a salary of $199,000. That is extraordinary. The Government has absolutely no shame when it comes to appointing its mates, brothers, sons, daughters, cousins, nieces and nephews to jobs on the public payroll. That has nothing to do with the Government's friends. To pick up the Premier's outlook on all this, and to assist the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I remind honourable members that according to the Premier the average salary, or cost to the State, of a nurse is $67,000 and the average cost to the State of a teacher is $73,000.
The Hon. Rick Colless: And that includes on-costs.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Obviously that includes on-costs. Looking at the impact of some of the Government's incompetence on the number of nurses and teachers currently available, I shall give a couple of examples. The Liverpool to Parramatta bus transitway blow-out of $117 million would have given the State 1,740 extra nurses or 1,600 extra teachers. The north-west bus transitway blow-out of $102 million would have given us 1,520 nurses or 1,390 teachers. What about the Millennium train blow-out of $104.3 million? That is just the known capital that was swept under the carpet by the budget Cabinet committee before the election so the Government could hide it. That would have given us 1,550 nurses or 1,420 teachers. What about displaced public servants? We do not have the current figures on displaced public servants.
The Government has woken up. It no longer displaces public servants; it simply sacks them and then pays them $500,000 to go away. The final figure—it was quoted in the Daily Telegraph, because I gave the figures to the Daily Telegraph—was $17.4 million. That would have given us only 250 nurses or 230 teachers. We all know about the State Debt Recovery Office mismanagement, which has been reported a number of times in the newspapers. That was $32 million, which would have provided 470 nurses or 430 teachers. I shall stay on transport for a while. The Hunter and outer suburban train carriages blow-out was $78 million, which would have provided another 1,160 nurses or 1,060 teachers. 7756 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004
What about the Minister for Transport Services' transport consultants and legal fees, which he thought were so disgraceful but he admitted to—$23.5 million? That money would have provided 350 nurses or 320 teachers. Why not talk about the other consultants' bill for 2002-03 of $99 million, as admitted to during estimates committee hearings? That money would have employed 1,470 nurses or 1,350 teachers. I refer to Rehame Media Monitoring. The Premier gets someone to keep newspaper clippings for him because he cannot handle papers, just as he cannot write a cheque—
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Or drive a car.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Or drive a car. I suppose that is not too bad if one does not mind not having nurses and teachers. It cost only $3.2 million last year, which would have employed 47 nurses or 43 teachers. What about the Sydney Water billing system disaster, which cost $51 million? That is the equivalent of 760 nurses or 690 teachers.
The Hon. Charlie Lynn: What about the storage tunnel?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The northside storage tunnel had a blow-out of $166 million. More incompetence and mismanagement by this Government! Naturally, the Ministers have been moved on because the Premier is not going to sack them. He moves them on and then sacks the senior public servants. He pays them off, gets rid of them, and makes sure they cannot come to estimates committee hearings. The northside storage tunnel blow-out of $166 million could have employed 2,470 nurses or 2,270 teachers. Of course, I could go on and on—because this Government's mismanagement goes on and on. Just a couple weeks ago there was the Austeel blow-out. That was just another stunt. When the Government announced this $21 million—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind all members that interjections are always disorderly.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Austeel was a disgrace. The Treasurer is not game to be here to defend himself on any of these things. The aborted Austeel project costs—dragged out of him, as usual—were $21 million. According to Premier Carr, that would have given us 310 nurses or 280 teachers. What other example would honourable members like to hear?
The Hon. Duncan Gay: The Pacific Highway.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The Pacific Highway?
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: Anybody who has the intelligence to look at our Notice Paper would see that it shows the business we are dealing with and would know that we are halfway through a private member's debate on the upgrade of the Pacific Highway. We have been dealing with that motion, and we are due to debate it again on Thursday. It is improper for the Hon. Greg Pearce to raise arguments in relation to the Pacific Highway and the expenditure of moneys on the upgrade of the Pacific Highway in this debate because the matter is already before the House. Mr Deputy-President, I ask you to direct him to refrain from commenting on those matters. I know he is very enthusiastic about getting all his work on the record, but he should have known better than to do that. Some areas are off limits because they are already the subject of debate in this Chamber.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: To the point of order: I do not think that by doing the calculation that the $660.5 million wasted on the Pacific Highway would equate to 9,850 nurses or 9,040 teachers can in any way be described as traversing the private member's motion, but I will not go anywhere near that.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Tony Burke): Order! I am advised that the point of order is correct. I ask the member to amend his speech accordingly.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Other members wish to speak on this matter. Therefore I will not take up much more of the time of the House, except to refer to two other new liabilities that have been disclosed. One is the WorkCover deficit, which has increased by another $181 million, notwithstanding all the pain and suffering that the workers of the State have been put through and the extra expense to employers. That extra deficit—one year's worth—is the equivalent of 2,700 nurses or 2,470 teachers. At the same time, the liabilities of the workers compensation dust diseases area have been crystallised at $826 million—another $826 million that this Government is going to have to find. That could employ 12,320 nurses or 11,310 teachers. This exercise by the Government is nothing but a disgrace. It is designed to cover up the waste and incompetence this Government 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7757 has imposed on New South Wales. The people of New South Wales will start to see how these issues are costing the State a fortune, and no doubt in due course they will turf out the Premier and his Government.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [11.45 a.m.]: I support the motion. We have seen pathetic posturing from Opposition members on this matter. We should be looking at why the Legislative Assembly has asked the Treasurer to go to the other place next week to present a mini-budget. On Monday of this week the Premier announced that we needed to have a mini-budget as a result of the way New South Wales has been shafted by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. We all know that is the case. The fact that the other States have agreed to a review of the way the Commonwealth Grants Commission handed out the money has vindicated the position of the Premier and the Treasurer that New South Wales is getting a raw deal from the Commonwealth Grants Commission. On Monday this week the Premier announced that the Treasurer will deliver a mini-budget on Tuesday 6 April because of the decision by the Prime Minister and the Federal Treasurer last Friday to accept recommendations from the Commonwealth Grants Commission to cut $376 million from the New South Wales budget.
The Treasurer has said that he does not mind New South Wales revenue that goes to the Commonwealth being used to support the smaller States such as the Northern Territory. However, the fact that it is propping up States such as Queensland is inappropriate. Victoria and Queensland should no longer be shafting New South Wales with an inequitable distribution of funds from the Commonwealth Grants Commission. New South Wales needs to be protected from these cuts. We need to protect our front-line services in health, education, public transport and police. We have to isolate these areas from the cuts by Canberra. The people of New South Wales deserve a better deal. When John Howard accepted Peter Costello's decision to cut funding to New South Wales he delivered a major blow to the New South Wales budget.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: It was not Peter Costello; it was the Commonwealth Grants Commission.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: The Grants Commission makes recommendations. The Federal Government has the power to overturn them if it wants to. It does not want to give the people of New South Wales a fair deal. The Deputy Prime Minister comes from New South Wales. Why will Opposition members not lobby John Anderson to get a better deal? They do not care about the people of New South Wales. They would rather play petty, political stunts that make sure that the people of rural and regional New South Wales got a fair deal from the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The fact that members opposite were not prepared to lobby John Anderson shows that The Nationals are a spent force in New South Wales. They cannot even get the ear of the Deputy Prime Minister. They are an absolute disgrace. They have failed the people of regional and rural New South Wales.
Now we have to see what we can do in New South Wales to fill this $376 million gap in our budget. We need to look closely at how much we are spending, where the money is coming from and what we can do to protect our front-line services. Families in New South Wales expect and deserve the best possible services. Under the actions of the Federal Government and the Commonwealth Grants Commission the possibility of providing those services to families in New South Wales has been made that much harder. I am determined to ensure that we support the people of New South Wales and that our Government can give them a good level of service, given the budgetary constraints we face as a result of the actions of the Commonwealth Grants Commission.
I refer to what has happened with the Commonwealth Grants Commission. From 1995 to the end of the new Federal Government funding agreement in 2010, $36.5 billion in taxes collected in New South Wales will be taken by the Commonwealth and given to the other States. That is a massive amount of money. The other States do not need those subsidies and we could well do with that money coming back to New South Wales. The Commonwealth takes that revenue out of New South Wales and unfairly does not give it back. The Hon. Greg Pearce gave analogies about how many teachers and nurses could be employed. Let us have a look at what we could do with the $36.5 billion that is being robbed from the people of New South Wales.
The amount of $36.5 billion is equivalent to paying for the Sydney Olympics 20 times over, or providing free travel on rail, buses and ferries for 30 years. It is equivalent to eliminating all State debt and having enough money left in the bank to earn interest of $1 billion a year, which would hire 13 million new nurses. It is enough to abolish all stamp duty on property for a decade or to rebuild every school and TAFE twice over. That amount of money is enough to build the Snowy Mountains scheme four times over or to give $6,000 to every man, woman and child in New South Wales. We do not want to do those sorts of things; we just want our fair share coming back from the Commonwealth Grants Commission. That is not the only way that the Federal Government has shafted New South Wales. 7758 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004
Other recent Federal Government hits to the State budget include a cut of $105 million over five years by the Federal Minister for Health to the health care agreement and $51 million this year in national competition policy fines. That is another way in which the Federal Government is making it hard for the people of New South Wales. The Opposition thinks it is all right to play games and fuss around with this matter, but every member of this Chamber and the other place is elected to do his or her best for the people of New South Wales. By the Opposition refusing to lobby the Commonwealth Government and by The Nationals refusing to lobby Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson to come to the party and fix up this budgetary impost that we are facing in New South Wales, they have shown that they are not doing their job in representing the people of New South Wales. They should be ashamed of themselves.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: If it could be varied you would have a commitment out of Mark Latham, and you haven't. That's how hypocritical you are.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Stunned.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I am not stunned; I have a sore throat.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: She will not even acknowledge the interjection.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: She did.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I was not acknowledging the interjection of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition because his interjections are inane. I want to refer to the comments made by the Hon. Greg Pearce.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You have a fixation with Greg.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: Yes, I have a fixation with Greg because I do not trust a single thing he says. He is too slippery.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You're not the first.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: But I'm not a blonde. The Hon. Greg Pearce alleged a litany of overexpenditure by the State Government. He did not talk about what was left over from the previous Coalition Government in New South Wales. It left us with some terrible debts.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: You've got a good memory!
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: The people of New South Wales have got a good memory about what the Coalition did to them. What the Coalition did to the people of New South Wales when it was last in government was appalling. We are still paying the price for it now. One thing the Hon. Greg Pearce did not talk about was the cost of repairing the earth mounds at Eastern Creek. We had to repair them because under the previous Coalition Government contaminated soil was used to construct the mounds. Coalition members are pathetic; they do not know anything. They do not care about their responsibilities to the people of New South Wales.
The Hon. Henry Tsang: Point of order: I am interested in the Hon. Amanda Fazio's speech but I cannot hear her because of the interjections from the Opposition. I ask that Opposition members be directed to hold any conversations outside the Chamber because I am interested in hearing what the Hon. Amanda Fazio has to say.
The Hon. Peter Primrose: To the point of order: Standing order 84 (3) states:
A member not addressing the House may not converse aloud or make any noise or disturbance during debate.
That is clearly what is happening here. I am totally unable to hear the points being made by the Hon. Amanda Fazio. Indeed, for the sake of us who are interested, I would ask her to repeat some of those matters we have not been able to hear in the last few minutes.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Tony Burke): Order! The member with the call should be heard in silence. I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times. 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7759
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: It is very important that the members of this Chamber and the other Chamber are united in their work to ensure that the people of New South Wales get their fair share of the GST revenue. Opposition members do not care what happens to the people of New South Wales. They do not care about the impact of the $376 million shortfall in the budget. They should be ashamed of themselves.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Michael has arrived.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I have not finished. We did not want to have a mini-budget. However, because the Opposition would not support the New South Wales Government's call for a fair shake from the Commonwealth Grants Commission we were forced into that position. By not supporting a request from the Legislative Assembly for the Treasurer to go to that Chamber next Tuesday to deliver the mini-budget, Opposition members are being nothing more than churlish and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their behaviour is dreadful. I urge Opposition members to rethink their position. I know they have had their party room meeting upstairs to try to work out their pathetic tactics to frustrate the workings of the Government and the needs of the people of New South Wales. They should act responsibly and support the motion so that the Treasurer can go to the other Chamber next week and deliver his mini-budget. They should not complain if any of the budgetary decisions affect their constituencies, because they have not worked for them and they have failed in their responsibilities.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______
TRAINS VIGILANCE CONTROL SYSTEM
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport Services. Does the Minister recall his commitment to the House on 16 March to seek advice from RailCorp boss Vince Graham about concerns I raised that the vigilance control system on trains may be overridden? Given that similar concerns have been raised in the media today by the union and train drivers, will he now provide an absolute assurance to the House that the vigilance control system cannot be circumvented?
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I do not remember my answer precisely, but I remember it was along the lines that I am not a technical expert on vigilance control systems. I reiterate that point. Any discussion about these matters should be with the people who have the appropriate expertise. I do not intend to make comments on matters outside my expertise.
CONSTRUCTION SITES OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
The Hon. HENRY TSANG: I direct my question to the Minister for Commerce. Will the Minister inform the House about how the Government is working to improve health and safety on New South Wales construction sites?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am pleased to answer this question. Some honourable members will recall that last week I launched a series of seminars to support the release of WorkCover's new code of practice for moving plant on construction sites. The seminar series and the development of the code have occurred as a result of collaboration between WorkCover, employer groups and New South Wales unions. This type of co-operation is a key feature of the Carr Government's approach to workplace safety. The Government sees the availability of guidance material such as the code as integral to improving workplace safety. For honourable members who are unaware, the term "moving plant" refers to machinery which moves under its own power or is pulled or pushed by the moving plant, and which moves on or around a construction site, enters or leaves the site or moves past the site, including vehicles such as tip trucks.
The code provides safe work guidance procedures on planning work, controls for the safe operation of plant, practical steps for controlling hazards, and workplace supervision and training. The release of the code should assist in further reductions in the rate of injuries in the construction industry, and help to ensure the fulfilment of government targets for reductions in workplace injuries and fatalities. As honourable members are aware, the Carr Government has committed to working with industry to reduce the number of workplace injuries by 40 per cent by 2012. The Civil Contractors Federation of Australia is hosting 14 seminars in workers and leagues clubs, motels and pubs across the State in association with WorkCover's Construction Industry 7760 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004
Reference Group to ensure that the message of construction safety is delivered to those it affects most—that is, locally based employers, contractors and their workers.
The seminar series is an important initiative in helping industry to improve workplace safety and to keep up to date with the latest legislative requirements with available assistance. It is a welcome example of how industry must help itself in the improvement of health and safety. Other key parties that have been integral to the consultation process surrounding the development of the code include the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the Australian Workers Union, the Master Builders Association, the Master Plumbers Association, the Housing Industry Association, Employers First, the Roads and Traffic Authority, and the Local Government and Shires Associations.
The code is an excellent example of how the Government is working closely with industry in the development of policy and legislative decisions. The code replaces the "Safety guide for moving plant on construction sites" and the "Code of practice for excavation". Work on the upgrade of the code began in 2002, and considerable consultation with all interested parties took place to incorporate industry opinion and changes to legislation in an appropriate manner. The consultation process clearly demonstrated that industry supported the proposed code adopting the risk-management approach, which is a key feature of the Carr Government's occupational health and safety reforms. Throughout last year the code was the subject of an intensive review and refinement process, incorporating further industry feedback about its format, technical discussion and practical utility. A final draft of the code was presented to WorkCover's Construction Industry Reference Group in October 2003. Following the opportunity for employers, unions and industry associations to provide final comments, the code was finalised and gazetted in January this year. The code and the supporting seminar series is another example of this Government's working with industry to improve workplace safety throughout New South Wales.
PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AGENCIES RESTRUCTURE
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I direct my question to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Does the New South Wales Government have plans to merge NSW Agriculture, NSW Fisheries and the Department of Mineral Resources to create a New South Wales Department of Primary Industries?
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Is that why your eyes are red?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: My eyes are certainly not red. I will take that question on notice.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I have a supplementary question. In light of the answer, can the Minister give the House a simple yes or no?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I will take that question on notice.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROP TRIALS
The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: I direct my question to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Is it true that the Minister has received recommendations from the New South Wales Advisory Council on Gene Technology regarding crop trials? Will he make them public by tabling the relevant document in this House? Is he also aware that other States have extended their moratoriums—Victoria until 2008, Western Australia until 2008 and South Australia until 2007? Is the Minister aware that member companies of the Insurance Council of Australia, including QBE, Elders, CGU, Allianz and WFI, have said that they will not issue insurance cover? The council has said that there is a perception among insurers and the community that genetic engineering is dangerous, characterised by an extremely diversified risk profile? In view of this concern and keeping in mind his ministerial responsibilities, will the Minister publicly declare that a full moratorium on all genetically modified crop trials in New South Wales will be extended until 2008?
The Hon. Rick Colless: Will you take that one on notice too?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am happy to talk about this.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: The last one really hurt.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Really hurt—fabulous! 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7761
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Where did the leak come from? Who will be shot? Who is going to be sacked?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No-one will be sacked. Just wait; all will be revealed. The Government will be making a decision in the not too distant future about the proposals that have been put to the Advisory Council on Gene Technology. I am considering what the Government's response will be and, in due course, I will reveal that to the House in all its detail. It is up to the other States what they do. I will not propose any changes to the legislation at this time.
The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: I have a supplementary question. In view of that reply, can the Minister tell the House whether the Labor Party or any of its members have received donations from Bayer, Monsanto or their subsidiaries, including companies or any other interests associated with the proliferation of gene technology?
The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: This is not a matter for which the Minister is responsible. It does not come within the Minister's portfolio responsibilities.
The Hon. Dr Peter Wong: To the point of order: It is related. I asked whether the Minister has any personal or public interest. It is very much related to the question.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind honourable members that the sessional orders state that questions may be asked of a Minister about the public administration over which he or she has charge. The Hon. Dr Wong's question did not relate to that part of the Minister's administration and is therefore out of order.
AUSTRALIAN SURGICAL DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE PTY LTD
The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: I direct my question to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Minister inform the House about the New South Wales Government's support for an award-winning company making breakthroughs in the field of orthopaedic engineering?
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I thank the honourable member for this question. Last Wednesday night Australian Surgical Design and Manufacture Pty Ltd, a member of the Australian Technology Showcase, was named the winner of the 2004 Clunies Ross Award for Innovation in Manufacturing. The award, which is presented by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, recognises innovative scientists and engineers who make a real difference to Australia economically, environmentally or socially. The company's Managing Director, Dr Greg Roger, fits that bill. The St Leonards-based company is Australia's only producer of artificial knees.
[Interruption]
I do not know what is funny about artificial knees. Australian Surgical Design and Manufacture uses a unique surface finishing technology to remove irregularities, thereby allowing its artificial knee joints to last much longer. For example, the failure rate for the first 1,000 artificial knees the company produced was less than one-third of the failure rate of its competitors. Dr Roger had the inspiration to produce a better artificial joint when, as a young intern 20 years ago, he noticed that artificial joints in hips were wearing out quickly.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You're starting to wear a bit thin, too.
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: It will be a matter of interest to the Leader of the Opposition very soon. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition and I were out exercising during a dinner break recently, and I have to say that I beat him back to the Parliament by a good 10 metres. Dr Roger's company grew from small beginnings, from employing two staff in a small facility near Wollongong to 40 staff and an annual turnover of almost $10 million. More than 2,000 total knee replacement units manufactured by the company have been implanted, and the company is now looking to expand exports to the United States of America, Europe and South-East Asia. Australian Surgical Design and Manufacture is also focusing on developing an artificial hip using the same technology it developed for knee joints.
Another award-winning local company working in a similar field of medical technology is the Matraville-based Portland Orthopaedics, which is led by Doctor Ron Sekel. I have spoken about this on previous occasions. The company, which has also been supported by the Government through the Australian 7762 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004
Technology Showcase, produced a new hip replacement system called the Margron. The system uses an innovative cone-shaped stem component that locks securely into the thighbone and reduces the risk of loosening.
I was pleased to attend the official opening of the company's new manufacturing facility at Matraville with the Premier a couple of years ago. Together with Portland, Australian Surgical Design and Manufacture is leading the world in innovative surgical design. I am pleased that the significant work being undertaken by Dr Rogers and his company, Australian Surgical Design and Manufacture, has been recognised by this prestigious award, and I wish them every success.
LEGAL FEES INQUIRY
The Hon. PETER BREEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Justice, representing the Attorney General. Has the first meeting of the legal fees inquiry taken place and, if so, were the terms of reference finalised? What provision has the Attorney made for public input into the inquiry, particularly from law consumers? Will the Attorney ensure that the inquiry includes a review of the role of lawyers acting as cost assessors to avoid the perception that the mice are weighing up the cheese?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The answer to the first part of the honourable member's first question is yes, and the answer to the second part is no. The answer to the second question is, nil at this point. The panel is in the process of determining the appropriate method of obtaining public input, but it will ensure that extensive public consultation takes place and that the issue will be considered at future meetings of the panel. The answer to the third question is that the Attorney General's Department is currently undertaking a separate comprehensive review of legal cost assessments.
NON-GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCIES BUDGET SURPLUSES
The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. How much money does the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care expect to recoup from non-government agencies for unexpended surpluses relating to the 2001-02 and 2002-03 budgets, and from overpayments of amounts provided to compensate agencies for increases to the Social and Community Services Award? Why did it take the department so long to seek recovery of unexpended surpluses relating to the 2001-02 budget? How much of this debt has been written off? Are any agencies experiencing difficulties in repaying these funds?
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Hon. John Ryan has rolled a number of issues into the one question; however, the issues are related and concern the way in which the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care funds non-government providers. As I have previously advised the House, the department funds more than 750 non-government service providers and more than 100 local councils to deliver services under its program. Therefore there is an extensive relationship between the department and non-government organisations. In 2003-04 the value of these contracts is more than $630 million.
As I have previously advised the House, there is an extensive program of improvement under way across the department's funding programs. This program of improvement is focused on stabilising funding arrangements with these organisations and establishing a sound basis for future funding and service delivery. As I have previously indicated, the changes that were required as a result of the Social and Community Services Award increases were somewhat complicated and complex, so the department has been through a process whereby it has audited non-government organisations to ensure that they are being provided with the appropriate base funding. The department has found that in some cases non-government organisations are receiving slightly more than their base funding entitlement, and in some cases they are getting slightly less. The department is going through a process to manage this.
The department is also completing a review of all the details held on its grants administration systems to ensure that funding levels in 2004-05 are correct and reflect the services that are to be delivered. I have previously provided information to the House on that issue. The process has been complicated and complex, and it has taken longer than was envisaged, but discussions will continue to take place with a small number of providers about how best to resolve the issue. In the meantime, the allocation of new growth funding for the 2003-04 financial year is progressing, as is the regionalisation of contracts with non-government providers. The department is also undertaking regular funding administration activities such as financial acquittal processes, whereby providers are required to account for their expenditure of the Government contribution to their services. 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7763
I am sure all members of this House would agree that if, for whatever reason, a non-government organisation was delayed in setting up the service for which it received Government funding and it did not spend the full amount of that funding, there should be a process for the department to recoup that money. That simply makes sense. I accept that the department's processes with regard to the acquittal processes have been somewhat slow. It is an area in which we will make improvements, and I have made that commitment to non- government organisations.
I have also indicated to some non-government organisations with whom I have had discussions—who clearly understand and accept this process—that, nonetheless, if they can demonstrate to the department that the funding was spent, or that they perhaps used some of their own funding to get the service up and running because of delays in the department's processes, those issues will need to be taken into account. I think we can manage this amicably with the non-government sector. The department's goal is to ensure that all non- government organisations enter 2004-05 with a clear understanding of their funding base, and that if Government funding has not been spent on the purpose for which it was provided, there needs to be a process to return that money to Government.
The Hon. JOHN RYAN: I ask a supplementary question. Perhaps the Minister missed the portion of the question in which I asked her how much money was involved. I understand the processes. I ask the Minister how much money is being recovered and whether any of that debt has been written off.
The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: That is not a supplementary question. The Hon. John Ryan is claiming that the Minister has not answered part of the question.
The Hon. JOHN RYAN: To the point of order: I was asking the Minister to elucidate her answer with regard to one specific matter, that is, the amount of money involved. If the Government wants to cover up how much money was involved, that is fine. The public is entitled to know how much money is involved and how much money the Government is having to claw back from non-government agencies. As such, the supplementary question arises from the Minister's answer.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The rules governing supplementary questions are the same as those that govern questions, and supplementary questions must not contain argument. However, part of the question genuinely seeks elucidation of the Minister's answer and that part is in order.
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I do not have information to hand that would substantially answer the honourable member's question. It is my understanding that it is not significant amounts of money that the department is seeking to recoup. As I have already indicated, the department is going through this process in close co-operation with non-government organisations. I am happy to provide the House with further information if it is available.
I point out that the Hon. John Ryan seems to be concerned about some sort of global figure. Of course, the discussions that are occurring with the individual non-government organisations are relevant. A global figure may well be totally irrelevant if it does not provide information about the unders and overs in expenditure by the individual non-government organisations. I do not see that as a terribly relevant issue to the overall question but, nonetheless, I am happy to provide the honourable member with whatever information is possible to be provided. There has been no secret about this process. There has been a committee of non-government organisations that has been working through this process with the department. There has been no attempt to try to deal with this in a secret manner—obviously there could not be if we are seeking to recoup money from non- government organisations; it is pretty hard to do that in secret. I am happy to provide the honourable member with whatever information is available that will usefully resolve the issues he is concerned about.
RURAL FIRE SERVICE
The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is directed to the Minister for Emergency Services. Will the Minister update the House on the latest information regarding the work of the Rural Fire Service this bushfire season?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the honourable member for her continued interest in this issue. Firefighters were given a welcome break this summer after their hard work over the previous two extended fire seasons. The traditional end of the New South Wales bushfire season is today, 31 March. This is when the statutory bushfire danger period finishes and fire permits are no longer required. This year most local 7764 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004 government areas—except some in southern New South Wales where lack of rain and hot weather continue to cause fire concerns and in those areas with year-round fire restrictions—will end their bushfire danger period by 31 March.
The 2003-04 fire seasons saw over 57,000 hectares burned and one residential home and four unoccupied dwellings destroyed. This is compared with 1,465,000 hectares burned and 86 homes destroyed last year and 754,000 hectares and 109 homes in 2001-02. It must be said that even though bushfires were less extensive this year, firefighters were very actively protecting their communities by attending fire calls, accidents and providing flood and storm relief and search and rescue services. The New South Wales Rural Fire Service reported 658 significant incidents between July 2003 and March 2004, compared with 2,596 last year.
The significant fires in September and October 2003 were in the north-eastern part of the State from the Hunter region to the Queensland border, and in December and January they were in the Shoalhaven, Dubbo and the Warringah/Pittwater areas. But brigades were attending smaller incidents as well, providing the day-to-day emergency services that do not get media attention. The State's 2,099 brigades reported 17,026 brigade attendances at 13,136 incidents this year. However, it is fair to say that the number of long campaign bushfire events witnessed in recent years did not eventuate this season. I am told that there were fewer long-running bushfires because of generally milder weather conditions, which resulted in a normal fire season this year, rather than the extreme seasons experienced over the past two years.
The extreme weather conditions of 2002-03 where consecutive days of hot, dry, windy weather persisted were noticeably absent. There were fewer section 44 bushfire emergency declarations required to co- ordinate firefighting operations on major bushfires. This year 10 declarations affected 23 local government areas compared with 61 declarations affecting 81 local government areas last year. There were 74 task forces made up of over 1,800 personnel who travelled away from their homes to attend emergencies this year, while 485 task forces with 11,836 personnel were deployed last year. This is an increasing activity of the Rural Fire Service, moving away to help neighbours outside their areas. These firefighters were coming back for a third season after two very hard years to form these task forces, and that really highlights their dedication.
I would like to personally and also on behalf of this House thank all the emergency services personnel for their hard work this summer. The New South Wales Rural Fire Service, the New South Wales Fire Brigades and the State Emergency Service will continue to protect their communities over the winter. I would encourage members of the public to contact those agencies for advice on winter, fire and storm safety.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROP TRIALS
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Did the Victorian dairy industry express relief that the Bracks Government would not allow large-scale trials of genetically modified canola, as it would affect its export markets? Has the Minister or his advisory council consulted with our dairy, pork, feedlot, pulse, fish farming and honey industries, the seed cleaners and graders, seed producers, crushers and millers and stockfeed producers who will be affected if the Minister decides to go ahead with large-scale trials of genetically modified crops? Would it not be grossly irresponsible to consent to these trials if the industries have not been consulted and the Minister's decision would impact adversely on them?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have every faith in the advisory council to widely consult with the vast range of stakeholders, which I can inform the House it has done.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: When are they going to release a report?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I will be making an announcement in the not too distant future and I think everyone can wait until then.
COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION FUNDING
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. Will New South Wales actually be $132.3 million better off from Commonwealth Government grants in 2004-05 than the Treasurer expected at budget time due to the fact that although New South Wales will receive less goods and services tax revenue than the Treasurer budgeted, he will receive $479.3 million more in specific purpose payments than he expected? Why has the Treasurer been blaming the Federal Government for the State's budget problems when it is giving New South Wales more money than that for which he budgeted? 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7765
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The Hon. Patricia Forsythe is probably the only person in Australia who believes that New South Wales has been advantaged by what happened in Canberra.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Address the point of the question.
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I will answer the question. In 2004-05 the general revenue assistance grants that New South Wales will receive will be some $9,669 million. In per capita terms that is a decline of $28 per person compared with the grants that we received in 2001-02. Over three years there has been population growth and inflation and the per capita grants that we are getting from the Commonwealth for general government assistance have declined by $28 per head of population in New South Wales. Let us have a look at what is happening in some of the other jurisdictions. In 2004-05 compared with 2001-02 the Northern Territory will be getting an extra $1,367 per head of population; the Australian Capital Territory an extra $261 per head of population; Tasmania an extra $340 per head of population; South Australia an extra $204 per head of population; Western Australia $255 per head of population; Queensland an extra $310 per head of population; Victoria an extra $69 per head of population, but in New South Wales there has been a decline of $28 per head over three years.
So we are not only behind in real terms but also behind in nominal terms. This includes specific purpose payments. If the honourable member were to disaggregate the two, the general assistance grants and the specific purpose payments, she would also find that we have been short-changed on the specific purpose payments because they do not keep up with the rate of inflation and the rate of population growth. So we are being disadvantaged not only on the general assistance grants but also on the specific purpose grants.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Her figures are right.
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No, she is wrong. The general revenue grants that we get account for almost 30 per cent of our revenue and over the past three years that revenue has declined. It has declined not only because of the $376 million we got dudded last Friday but also because the year before we lost $123 million, the year before that $200 million and the year before that $92 million. That is why, over the past eight or nine years, the subsidy from New South Wales to the other States has increased from approximately $1.25 billion to now $2.9 billion. For the Hon. Patricia Forsythe to try to pretend that is not a fact means she either is ignorant or is trying to have us all on.
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I ask a supplementary question. Is the Treasurer denying that he is receiving $479.3 million more in specific purpose payments than he expected?
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I expected, at the Treasurer's conference on Friday, that the Commonwealth Government would see the injustice of what it is doing to New South Wales and would rectify the Commonwealth Grants Commission's recommendation.
KINGS CROSS ADOLESCENT UNIT
The Hon. TONY BURKE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. What action is the Government taking to provide assistance to young people with drug and alcohol problems in inner Sydney?
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: There is no doubt that few things are more devastating in our society than the effect of drugs and alcohol on young people. That was made apparent during the Drug Summit, which was held during May 1999 and which resulted in significant Government action through a range of different programs. It is an unfortunate fact that some areas of the inner city and Kings Cross draw vulnerable young people into a destructive web of abuse. The Government is committed to assisting these young people to turn their lives around. One program that does just this is the Kings Cross Adolescent Unit, which is a service provided by the Department of Community Services. From January 2003 to January 2004, 158 young people have been provided with regular support by the unit.
The unit was developed as a specialist adolescent unit of the Department of Community Services to target particularly young people deemed to be at risk in the Kings Cross and inner-city areas. The unit has been carrying out this important work since 1986 as a response to the New South Wales drug offensive initiative. The unit locates, engages and removes children and young people who are at risk by diverting them away from the high-risk environment of Kings Cross and the inner city. It helps them gain access to services that will address 7766 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004 their needs. It is an unfortunate fact that many vulnerable young people are attracted to Kings Cross and the inner city because they think services are in those areas. Often their drug and/or alcohol problems at the time are not significant, but when they become caught up in that scene, their problems worsens. The unit seeks to address that issue.
The unit also provides casework support to local community services centres, when required. It operates seven days a week on an after-hours basis, providing nightly patrols and joint street patrols with police. At night unit workers patrol Kings Cross, Darlinghurst, Woolloomooloo, Central station and George Street. Workers visit strip clubs, brothels, prostitution beats, squats, parks and railway stations. The unit responds to requests for assistance from inner-city police stations as well as refuges, street work agencies, health agencies, hospitals and the community. In addition, the unit compiles, on a weekly basis, a list of missing young people and delivers the list to the relevant agencies and police stations in the area. Young people assisted by the unit are often plagued by alcohol and drug use, abuse, risk-taking behaviour, a destructive lifestyle and transient behaviour patterns, all of which make it difficult for the Department of Community Services to implement case plans. This is just a small description of the important work carried out by the Kings Cross Adolescent Unit. I am sure that all honourable members would join me in thanking Kings Cross Adolescent Unit staff for their dedication and hard work. It is not easy work; it is work that does not always bring returns, but when it does, it is incredibly satisfying.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED CANOLA TRIAL
Mr IAN COHEN: I ask a question without notice of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. The current application to conduct genetically engineered [GE] canola trials around New South Wales is designed to allow 0.9 per cent cross-contamination to non-GE canola. Despite this seemingly minimal level of contamination, is the Minister aware that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has advised that producers will be in breach of the Trade Practices Act if they use the powerful marketing term "GM free" where even 0.9 per cent GE contamination is present? Will the Minister guarantee the liability of non-GE farmers who may inadvertently sell as genetically modified free a crop that has been contaminated as a result of these trials, in breach of the Trade Practices Act and attracting penalties of up to $1.1 million?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: As I have said about several other questions in relation to genetic engineering of crops, we will be making an announcement in the not too distant future and all these issues can then be canvassed. Mr Ian Cohen is talking about organic farmers with genetically engineered canola—
Mr Ian Cohen: No, I am talking about the Trade Practices Act and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. I was quite specific.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No, you are talking about the level of contamination within it. I am aware of all these issues and they will be dealt with in due course.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROP TRIALS
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Does the Minister recall his guarantee of 18 March relating to genetically modified crops that, "I will not issue an exemption order until the issue of liability is resolved in a manner which guarantees farmers are protected."? Does this mean that the Minister would make it a condition of any exemption order that trial proponents provide all participants with third party insurance specific to trial conditions so that not just growers in that trial but neighbouring farms and grain storage and handling groups are protected from any financial losses and, if so, for how long?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Again these issues will be dealt with in considerable detail.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: You said you would deal with them before.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: If there are any trials and any decision is made in this regard, these issues will be canvassed.
The Hon. Rick Colless: So when will the report be released?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: There is no report. They have put a submission to me on the proposals and I will deal with that in due course. 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7767
RICE INDUSTRY
The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Can the Minister update the House on the latest developments affecting the New South Wales rice industry?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: This is a significant time for rice growers in New South Wales, not the least of all because 2004 is the United Nations International Year of Rice. This is an excellent opportunity to promote our local rice industry, which is world renowned for being highly productive and competitive. Rice is an agricultural product that is the staple diet of more than half the world's population. The local industry has set high new benchmarks for water use efficiency, which has increased by 60 per cent in the last 10 years. Incidentally, 99 per cent of the total Australian rice crop is produced in the Riverina, where the rice harvest is in full swing this week.
In honour of the International Year of Rice, the Rice Growers Association and SunRice will have a special display at the Royal Easter Show, which opens this Friday. In regional New South Wales the rice industry will also be celebrated during the bi-annual Leeton SunRice Festival, which kicks off this Saturday. The festival will include the traditional camel races, hot-air balloon championships and the famous street parade, which attracts 15,000 people. The Carr Labor Government is also working to give industry more security by protecting the existing rice vesting arrangements. As I have previously mentioned in this place, the Rice Marketing Act is one of a number of significant pieces of agricultural legislation targeted by the National Competition Council in its penalty payment pool.
The Act includes the invaluable vesting arrangements that allow our rice growers to compete against heavily subsidised rice products from other countries. Under a new, negotiated position the National Competition Council has indicated that it will not recommend a permanent deduction to the 2004-05 competition payments for New South Wales for the Rice Marketing Act if an independent review of the legislation is held shortly. I assure the House that we are now focused on making sure that the review takes place. I should point out the results of two previous reviews into the same issue. One of these, in 1995, established that the net public benefit of rice vesting was between $36 million and $45 million in 2000-01. Another independent study in 2001 estimated the net public benefit to be even higher, at about $60 million. Nevertheless, as I have said before, if this additional review will help protect our local industry, the Government is more than happy to make sure it takes place.
It is highly appropriate that we take the opportunity during the International Year of Rice to help our local industry compete on a level playing field with rice producers from other countries. The industry cannot afford to compete without rice vesting arrangements in one of the most supported agricultural markets in the world, and the New South Wales economy cannot afford to do without the significant contribution of the local rice industry.
HOMELESSNESS
Ms SYLVIA HALE: I direct my question to the Minister for Community Services. Is the Minister aware that the State Library, next door to the Parliament, is currently constructing a fence to prevent homeless people from sleeping under the protection of the building's eaves? Does she think that this is an appropriate way to deal with homelessness? Does she think that it is reasonable that being homeless is not in itself sufficient reason for being eligible for emergency accommodation? Is she working to ensure that additional emergency housing will be available for homeless people now that the nights are getting cooler and homeless people need to sleep in railway tunnels to keep warm?
The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: There are two prongs to my point of order. First, the State Library does not come within the portfolio of the Minister for Community Services. Second, the question sought an opinion on a number of occasions. The purpose of question time is for members to ask questions to elicit information, not to seek opinions. I would not mind having a different set of sessional orders or returning to the practice before we adopted the current sessional orders for question time. However, we have adopted the sessional orders and while they are still the rules we should abide by them.
Ms SYLVIA HALE: To the point of order: The question did not deal with the State Library; it dealt with homelessness. There was a specific question: Is the Minister working to ensure that additional emergency housing will be available for homeless people now that the nights are getting colder and homeless people need to sleep in railway tunnels to keep warm? It was put in the context of what was happening next door to this building. 7768 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004
The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind Ms Sylvia Hale that questions must not contain argument or ask for opinions, and they can only be asked of a Minister relating to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected or to any matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible. The Minister may answer a small part of the honourable member's question if she feels like it.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Does the Minister feel like it?
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I am not sure I do, but given that it is my job I guess I should. First, homelessness is an issue that confronts all of us; second, obviously it requires a whole-of-government response and commitment. A number of agencies are involved in addressing homelessness in New South Wales, including my agency, the Department of Community Services [DOCS]. The issue also requires a partnership between the Commonwealth Government and the State Government because the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program is a joint Commonwealth-State program. The Department of Housing is the lead agency in the partnership against homelessness. The partnership has improved the response to homeless people, particularly those in the inner-city area, in a number of ways. The partnership brings together 11 agencies that fund or administer programs for homeless people across government.
The aim of the partnership is to improve services, for example, by assisting homeless people to access services, to co-ordinate support services, to improve access to crisis accommodation and to facilitate the move to long-term secure accommodation. DOCS is a key agency within the partnership and the program is an important part of the Government's response to homeless people. The Supported Accommodation Assistance Program is a $110 million program and, as I said, is a joint Commonwealth-State initiative. It funds about 25,000 men, women and children per year and 400 community-based services. The causes of homelessness are complex and many issues need to be addressed. One matter that many services in both the inner-city area and now in the Parramatta area have been dealing with is that providing a bed just for the night is not an appropriate response to the multifaceted issues that homeless people are often dealing with.
The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: It's better than nothing.
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I agree with the Hon. Patricia Forsythe that is better than nothing, but the reality is that in years gone by many services have had that response, and only that response, as their rationale. Clearly, we need to move beyond that. I congratulate many of the non-government providers of support for homeless people in the inner-city area because, first, they have grappled with this issue in a way that has required them to work together, and work together effectively—that is not always easy when there are competing interests. Second, they have had to work out ways that they can more effectively support homeless people not only by providing them with a bed for the night, important as that is, but also by looking at those involved and their range of needs and working out ways to address their health needs, to look at employment opportunities and, most importantly, to move people on to more permanent accommodation options. It is very easy to make glib statements in this House about homelessness and take cheap political shots, but that does not advance us much further along the path of resolving homelessness. It would be much better if this House engaged in dialogue that recognises the complexity of homelessness and that there is no one sole responsibility with regard to either the level of government or the government agency.
Ms SYLVIA HALE: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate her answer in relation to providing a bed for the night to the homeless people outside the State Library, who are currently being dispossessed?
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The honourable member has asked a question about an area that is clearly not within my portfolio responsibilities. I have nothing further to add to the information I have already provided to the House.
TAMWORTH REGION LOCAL COUNCILS AMALGAMATION
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Local Government. Is the Minister aware of concern expressed by a number of communities affected by the new boundaries of Peel Regional Council and adjoining councils to the north and south? Will the Minister undertake to sympathetically receive submissions from affected communities that wish to have the regional council boundaries further revised? In particular, will the Minister undertake to give favourable consideration to cases submitted by people in parts of the former Barraba shire who are unhappy at being included in Gwydir council and communities like Gowrie, Currabubula and Werris Creek, the residents of which have expressed concern about the new boundaries? 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7769
The Hon. TONY KELLY: This morning the Governor proclaimed a new name for Peel Regional Council—Tamworth Regional Council—in accordance with the wishes of the residents in the area, thanks to representations by the Hon. Christine Robertson, Country Labor, a number of other people and the administrators. The Boundaries Commission originally suggested a name because it wanted to ensure that some smaller communities did not believe the amalgamation was a takeover. The Tamworth area is unique in that Tamworth is a product name as well as the name of an area.
I understand that the administrator spoke to the former mayors of all the areas, and they were supportive of the new council being called Tamworth Regional Council in order to sell the product name. I have also had discussions with the honourable member for Tamworth in the other place and the Hon. Christine Robertson about this issue. The Boundaries Commission held a thorough investigation in the area, including conducting extensive public consultation—on top of the consultation conducted by Chris Fardin during the regional review of the area. I implemented this proposal on the recommendation of the Boundaries Commission. However, I will consider representations from the honourable member for Tamworth and the Hon. Christine Robertson, and take in more views of the community.
BUSINESS ENERGY CONSUMPTION REDUCTION
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer inform the House of the role New South Wales businesses are playing in reducing energy consumption?
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The Government campaign to encourage energy conservation in the business community has received a massive boost with seven major companies, including Telstra and one of Australia's biggest commercial property owners, joining the energy smart business program. The companies have agreed to implement energy-efficient projects across 75 per cent of their New South Wales operations— potentially generating huge savings in greenhouse gas emissions. The seven companies signing up for the energy smart program are Telstra, Investa Property Group, Sony Australia, Sony Music Entertainment, Panthers Entertainment Group, ING Retail Property Fund Australia and Cement Australia. The potential savings are huge.
For example, the Investa Property Group owns a portfolio of 29 office buildings worth more than $4 billion. Energy savings will apply across that portfolio. That means fewer greenhouse gas emissions and a further step towards reducing the impact of climate change. Through Investa's participation in the program, managers and tenants of its buildings are set to benefit through lower energy costs and improved working conditions. Investa is looking to work with the tenants to improve environmental performance further by reducing the heat load and the need for airconditioning. At Sony, installation of energy-efficient lights and upgrades to manufacturing processes and airconditioning systems are set to save the company an impressive $114,000 on annual energy costs and more than 2,400 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.
One of the most significant greenhouse reductions could come from the efforts of Telstra, which uses a lot of energy in the lighting and cooling of network facilities, and these are the targets of its energy-saving initiatives in New South Wales. Telstra anticipates a reduction of about $800,000 per annum in its energy bill in New South Wales, arising from its current program of works. That $800,000 is about 3 per cent of its annual energy bill. These businesses are playing an important role in improving our greenhouse performance and reducing the 35 million tonnes of carbon dioxide generated every year by the Australian commercial building sector. I commend the businesses participating in the Government's energy smart business program and congratulate them on their attempts to improve our greenhouse performance.
KOSCIUSZKO NATIONAL PARK ABORIGINAL LAND CLAIMS
The Hon. JON JENKINS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment. At the start of the Kosciuszko National Park plan of management process Mr Mick Dodson convened a meeting of the Aboriginal advisory committee in Jindabyne. Subsequent to that meeting one of the members of the plan of management advisory committee, Mr Russell Dunn, asked, in his role as an Aboriginal advisory committee member, for independent legal advice concerning land claims. Independent legal advice is sought on the following: one, using the Munard Yammer 1999 High Court decision as a precedent, does the current Wilderness Act contravene parts of the New South Wales Aboriginal land rights legislation? Second, as the 25-year plan of management is a "future Act" under the Federal native title legislation, does the Federal Act take precedence in this matter? Third, there are currently native title claims 7770 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004 over some of the Kosciuszko National Park. Under the Federal native title legislation all parties to that claim are to be part of any negotiations affecting the land. As an example, Mount Morgan has native title over it, yet today none of the claimants has been contacted with regard to the current plan of management. If and when will they be consulted? There is to be a joint Kosciuszko National Park advisory committee meeting—[Time expired.]
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Large slabs of that question were more of a statement seeking legal opinion. I will refer such parts of the question that may be in order to the Minister for the Environment and obtain an answer.
LOCAL COUNCIL AMALGAMATIONS
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Local Government. Following the local government elections across some parts of New South Wales, will the Minister rule out further council amalgamations? In particular, what conversations has the Minister had since Saturday about amalgamating the council areas of Nambucca, Bellingen and Coffs Harbour following the poor showing of the mayor and former Federal Labor candidate Jenny Bonfield? Is it true that the Minister said of Coffs Harbour City Council, "If they're going to do that, I'll abolish it"?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: Obviously I cannot rule out any amalgamations anywhere in the State, because the Local Government Act allows any council in the State, or any group with 10 per cent or 250 people, whether it be a ward or a riding, to submit an amalgamation proposal. If the honourable member bothered to read Crikey.com this morning—
The Hon. Michael Egan: You should not be doing that.
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I do not usually read Crikey.com, but this morning it had a very good analysis by Anthony Green on the local government elections, which showed that the Labor Party increased its vote by 1.3 per cent in the elections in the city area.
[Interruption]
The Greens have joined in. If they would care to look at the result in Botany—they have whinged about Botany for years—they will see they came second to the informal vote!
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. Clearly I asked the Minister about Coffs Harbour council elections and a threat he made to abolish that council area. I ask you to direct the Minister to be relevant in his answer.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The first part of the member's question asked about future amalgamations. Consequently, some general reference to councils and council amalgamations is in order. The Minister may continue.
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I was distracted by the interjection, but I just had to advise honourable members how well the Greens did in Botany! To come second to the informal vote is unbelievable. The Greens complained that the mayor had some sort of a gerrymander, but when the mayor agreed to an open vote of all the people in Botany he received 85 per cent of the vote. The public voted; there was an open vote, but it is still suggested that is a rort. The Greens obviously do not understand local government. As I said, many independents did poorly in the local government elections. Honourable members will see from the analysis when it is published that the Labor Party did exceedingly well in the elections.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: What did you say to Jenny?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I have not spoken to Jenny.
EMU PLAINS CORRECTIONAL CENTRE INMATE PROGRAMS
The Hon. IAN WEST: I address my question to the Minister for Justice. Will the Minister advise what special programs are available at Emu Plains Correctional Centre to help reduce recidivism in the female correctional centre population?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: One of the Government's successes in reducing reoffending can be seen at Emu Plains. Inmates at Emu Plains are involved in a wide range of education and life skills courses 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7771 that will prepare them for a better life upon release. These programs include literacy and numeracy, English as a second language, computer studies, occupational health and safety, art, Aboriginal culture, office traineeships and a range of correspondence courses and basic skills for employment. One of the programs deserving praise that recently came to fruition is a quilting project called "The Circle of Love". This program is the initiative of quilter Julie Routledge, a volunteer, who turned to quilting after a period of sadness in her life. She felt quilting was an activity that engendered a positive healing experience and therefore an activity that would greatly benefit those in a correctional environment. She thought it was particularly advantageous for women inmates to experience communal activity involving quilting. About 25 inmates have participated in this project over the past 12 months, working closely with a group of quilting instructors who monitor their progress.
Working in groups of 10 and 12, they present the quilts to women who have experienced the death of a child through sudden infant death syndrome, miscarriage or other causes. Three quilts have already been presented to two inmates and a custodial officer who experienced the loss of a loved one to sudden infant death syndrome: The custodial officer lost a baby to the syndrome. One inmate lost a baby to the same syndrome, and another inmate took the quilt to the funeral of her niece. All agreed that the quilt assisted them during the grieving process. In all cases the inmate quilters agreed for the quilts to go to these people. Twelve quilts were presented to representatives from Nepean Hospital by her Excellency the Governor, Marie Bashir, on 2 March during her visit to Emu Plains. Inmates wanted to give something back to the hospital, where Emu Plains inmates are usually hospitalised if they require medical treatment. The inmates involved in this program have come to realise the value of utilisation of leisure time and the rehabilitative effects of empathetic thinking.
Emu Plains is also the location of Jacaranda House and the successful Mother's and Children's Program. Honourable members may recall that last year a furore developed, particularly on the part of the Opposition, over complaints that prisoners were being treated as human beings at Jacaranda House because they were allowed to purchase Christmas food hampers. The shadow Justice spokesperson at that time asked the Government to explain how prisoners could "get a festive feast, a banquet, at such a low price" and said it was an affront to victims. The fact is that the hampers were not subsidised, and the inmates paid for them out of their earnings and shared them with their children on Christmas Day. Three hampers only were sold.
The ignorance surrounding those remarks was compounded by the honourable member for Davidson, who, on an overseas study trip, praised a similar program that was operating in California and advocated for its use in New South Wales. He was unaware that we had established the Mother's and Children's program in this State in 1996. However, it was encouraging that the view he expressed on that occasion was not shared by other Coalition members, particularly Federal member Jackie Kelly, who, on 19 December 2003, said on a radio program:
I couldn't speak highly enough of Jacaranda House...
If you go by the system, you can make it to Jacaranda House and you can get the money together and you can have a Christmas dinner ... ln that home I met women who were learning to budget for the first time ...
The presenter responded, "What a terrific practical program!" Any person who violates the laws of a society should certainly be punished, but should also be rehabilitated. Appreciating how to budget, how to buy healthy food and how to use leisure time constructively is part of rehabilitation. The women at Emu Plains Correctional Centre are learning about quilting, computers and carpentry, but they are also learning about goodwill, sharing, teamwork and engaging with the community around them. Judy Leyshon, the Governor of Emu Plains Correctional Centre, and her staff, as well as all those who have participated in the projects I have outlined, including the inmates, should be proud of their efforts in helping to develop the life skills and attitudes that will allow the inmates to re-enter society and not to reoffend.
JUANITA NIELSEN MURDER INVESTIGATION
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for Police, a question without notice. Is the Minister aware that the recent publication Killing Juanita by Peter Rees contains new evidence by an eyewitness, Loretta Crawford, concerning the murder of Juanita Nielsen in July 1975? What progress is being made to solve the murder of Juanita Nielsen and find her body? Has the Juanita Nielsen murder case been closed? If so, why?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Someone kindly sent me a copy of that book but I have not read it yet. I do not know what is in it. I will refer the details of the honourable member's question to the Minister for Police and obtain an answer in due course. 7772 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: If honourable members have any further questions, I suggest they put them on notice.
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On 25 February the Hon. Dr Peter Wong asked me a question without notice about mental health care. The Minister for Health has provided the following response:
The tragic death of Mr Mohamed is under investigation by the New South Wales Coroner and the New South Wales Sentinel Events Review Committee. It would be inappropriate to comment in detail about possible causes of the incident at this time. South Eastern Sydney Area Health Service has advised me that mental health beds were available within the area on the day of Mr Mohamed's death.
The Government opened 227 new mental health beds in 2002 and 2003, and almost 200 new beds will open in 2004 and 2005.
More than 2400 admissions to New South Wales mental health units occurred in January 2004.
CAMDEN HOSPITAL OBSTETRICS SERVICES
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On 25 February the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans asked me a question without notice about obstetrics services at Camden Hospital. The Minister for Health has provided the following response:
Camden obstetrics services opened for deliveries on 17 February 2003. From 1 March 2003 to 29 February 2004 expenditure for the delivery suite and the maternity ward was $3,499,317.
An obstetrics services contract has been entered into with two specialist obstetricians to provide a comprehensive 24 hour 7 day a week service to Camden Hospital, at a cost of $3,873.20 for any two days, regardless of the number of deliveries.
518 deliveries were made at Camden Hospital between 1 March 2003 and 31 December 2003 at an average cost per delivery of $5,415.76. This figure includes the cost of specialist obstetricians, anaesthetists and antenatal and postpartum services throughout each person's confinement and is therefore not comparable with other figures available.
Questions without notice concluded.
[The President left the chair at 1.05 p.m. The House resumed at 2.35 p.m.]
GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 2
Report: Budget Estimates 2003-04
Debate resumed from 17 March.
The Hon. JOHN RYAN [2.36 p.m.]: General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 held budget estimates hearings, and I will comment in some detail on the estimates hearings relating to the Department of Community Services [DOCS]. During the hearings the committee closely examined the performance of the DOCS Helpline and, of course, some important questions were raised about the administration of disability services in this State. Honourable members might recall on the day on which the estimates hearings were held an interesting media report appeared dealing with comments made by the Director-General of DOCS, Dr Neil Shepherd.
An advertisement for a senior position in the department told potential applicants that the job was impossible and that the competing demands for resources and the requirements of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act made the department unmanageable. Somehow or another, the successful applicant was expected to take on that task. I guess the Director-General was saying something about the task he had to undertake. Only a fortnight ago the Director-General of the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care walked away from this Government when she discovered that it was impossible to complete the task confronting her with the resources available. I understand that, apart from anything the Minister said in this House, the departure was not completely amicable.
Margaret Allison, to her credit, decided she could no longer face the task of meeting the growing demands in the disability services area with the budget allocated to her by the Carr Government, which constantly says it is increasing resources for people with disabilities. While it may be possible for a variety of reasons to say that the amount allocated to the disability services area is increasing, the simple truth is that the 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7773
Government has done almost nothing to increase services. The Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care makes almost no attempt to report its outputs. We find out a lot about how many additional dollars have been allocated in the budget each year, but salary increases for personnel working under the social and community services award account for almost the entire increase in expenditure.
The problem with referring to any increase in expenditure is that it does not translate into additional services. This Parliament has produced two reports highlighting the need to increase services dramatically because the level of demand is steadily increasing, but the Government is doing nothing about it. It did only one thing in the last budget—it provided an additional $2 million for 2003-04 for 100 personal attendant care services. A fortnight ago the Minister said that only 21 of those places had been allocated. She corrected me and I said that I got it wrong and that the money was meant to be allocated next year. I will now correct her: It is in this year's budget and it has not been spent.
The Treasurer is talking about cutting expenditure and increasing taxation, but the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care has not spent the money that has been allocated for a particularly important program to provide attendant care services. They are the services which get people out of hospitals, nursing homes and so on, and which allow them to live in the community with some level of decency and dignity. It is the only program for which the Government promised an increased level of service, but it miserably failed to do so. Further inquiries and investigations will be conducted into that matter in the future.
We have witnessed a significant change in the way the Department of Community Services is managed. The Minister told the estimates committee that the purpose of one of the significant new management schemes is to devolve management to the regional level. I have had an opportunity to investigate that proposal in part, and I have discovered that there is no such thing as regional management in the department. We tried to pin down the Minister about how that would occur. Apparently a budget is allocated for each region, but, except for the total, the budgets are secret. We have no idea of the break-up of the budget between Atlas programs, permanent accommodation and the service access scheme. We are told those programs are now administered regionally.
During the recent parliamentary recess I had a meeting with a regional director. He told me that head office provides a disability services budget, that if the regional office wishes to have its budget changed in any way it must make a submission to head office, and that if head office agrees to the change the regional office may allow for a variation in the budget. It is not as though regional managers are engaging in anything like regional allocation of funding. For reasons which I suspect will become apparent over the next fortnight or so, pending the Ombudsman's report into children's services provided by the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care, all decisions with regard to children's services are made at head office.
I do not know why the department has spent a considerable amount of money employing and resourcing a level of regional management. Indeed, I have been informed that regional management simply does not operate, that funding management is still as centralised as it ever was, and that effectively all it has been able to do is keep the management details secret and therefore not subject to scrutiny. Whenever we ask a specific question at the head office level as to what is going on in that department we are told that decisions are made at the regional level and that they are made flexibly. We are not given the details because they are available only from the bowels of the department at its regional level. As we work towards the next budget and the next level of estimates committee hearings we will not accept that level of scrutiny on the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care. We will delve a lot deeper.
The Director-General of Community Services informed the committee that there was a 31 per cent call abatement rate on the DOCS Helpline. In other words, 31 per cent of callers—people reporting child abuse and mistreatment—simply gave up waiting for someone to answer the call. Late last month I asked the Minister whether those figures had improved, and she simply refused to answer the question. She answered another question, which had nothing to do with my question. She went back to what I call the party line on the DOCS Helpline. She said that calls had been reduced over the last three years from 15 minutes waiting time to 5 minutes waiting time, but she was unable to tell me whether there had been any reduction in the level of caller dropout rates.
It was revealed in the estimates committee hearings that the DOCS Helpline currently retains about 5,000 faxes that have been received but not allocated to the Department of Community Services centres. The faxes have been examined in part, but have not been allocated or entered into the computer. As a result, the department's resources and information base are much poorer because of the significant backlog. Recently I 7774 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004 asked the Minister for an update as to whether there had been an improvement, and she simply ignored the question. To ensure that she did not overlook the question I asked it again by way of a supplementary question, then again by way of interjection, and again she simply ignored the question. I can only presume that the Minister does not want to answer the question either because the situation is no better or because it is worse. That level of response in regard to the Department of Community Services Helpline is not acceptable.
The computer system that receives complaints for child abuse and mistreatment has recently been revamped, and is now able to provide a great deal of statistical information. However, the statistical information that the helpline cannot give—and obviously no-one wants us to give—is whether a call is allocated at the appropriate level. We all know that calls about child mistreatment are classified according to one of four levels of urgency, and that the calls rated at the highest level of urgency are supposed to be answered and responded to with a visit within 24 hours. However, the computer system is unable to track whether the calls rated at the highest level of urgency receive that level of attention.
When we asked the Minister for those details we received a deceptive answer, to the effect that some of the calls are reassessed. Of course some of them are reassessed! I cannot believe we have a system in which calls are rated at a high level of urgency yet no-one knows whether they receive that level of attention.
[Time for debate expired.]
Motion agreed to.
GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 5
Report: Local Government Amalgamations
Debate resumed from 24 February.
Mr IAN COHEN [2.49 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak to the report of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 entitled "Local Government Amalgamations". As chair of the committee, I found it an extremely interesting and illuminating process looking at what has, in recent times, been a vexed issue. The report details clearly the concerns of the community when faced with the prospect of forced amalgamations of their local councils and shires. It reveals how strongly people feel about local government, and the fear and anxiety that has been caused by the State Government's structural reform package.
The inquiry received more than 200 submissions and took evidence from 87 witnesses across the State. The committee made some 21 recommendations, which I will address later. The focus of much of the evidence was the threat of amalgamations and their potential impact on local communities. Witnesses and those who provided submissions accepted the need for change. However, they wanted to be involved and consulted, instead of having change imposed by the State Government. People from all walks of life, from both city and country areas, voiced their concerns about a declining sense of community in today's world.
Many people see their council as integral to the community spirit. They feel that a larger local government body will lead to a loss of social capital and that smaller councils engender a sense of belonging. Most people accepted the need to make local government more efficient but recognised that amalgamation is only part of that equation. The committee was persuaded that amalgamations do not necessarily lead to greater efficiencies and economies of scale. Neither academic expert bureaucrats nor councillors who had experienced amalgamations could demonstrate that there was an economic benefit to amalgamations.
The most immediate problem facing local government is finance. Local government is expected to provide more and more service with little or insufficient funding. Even the Director-General of the Department of Local Government, Mr Garry Payne, acknowledged that the number of dollars required to bring local infrastructure up to scratch was a large figure. Consequently, during the period of hearings on this matter the concept of unfunded mandates was raised. Unfunded mandates developed from State Government legislation that left local councils responsible for undertaking the directives that came from State Government. That is something that needs to be properly looked at.
The report recommends that the State Government must provide local government access to a growth revenue base if it is to continue to deliver the services local communities have come to expect. Committee members were impressed with several councils who were seeking to improve economies of scale through joint 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7775 planning or resourcing and sharing. One group of councils—Wellington, Blayney and Cabonne—have established a strategic alliance to identify areas of potential cost savings and service improvements. By all accounts, that alliance is working and could be emulated by other councils. This is a much better solution to forced council amalgamations, a policy that has so spectacularly misfired on the Government, as can be seen in the results of the latest round of local government elections.
While Labor has been focused on delivering control of local councils to itself, it failed to consider that the community might have other ideas. Last weekend the community voted overwhelmingly to return control of local councils to the community. The community has rediscovered its voice through the Greens and through strong Independents. The Greens now have more than 50 councillors, a doubling of its representation in local government. This success reflects the party's accountability to the community, unlike some others that now may be more accountable for the donations they receive. Instead of simply voting along traditional party lines, residents in Western Sydney have elected three Greens to Ashfield council for the first time and two Greens have been elected to Penrith council for the first time.
The Hon. John Hatzistergos: The People's Republic of Leichhardt.
Mr IAN COHEN: The Minister disparages Leichhardt council, but I do not think we have had successive Greens and Independents since we saw the shock to Labor of the Cunningham by-election, where we saw a member of the Greens elected. Labor should take note of the fact that its support is significantly eroding in its heartland.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: So it was their thuggery rather than your policies?
Mr IAN COHEN: No, it is a balance of both. People in the community are saying that they want to have more confidence in their candidates and they want to know what they stand for. The results of the most recent local council elections have been outstanding. The Greens history in New South Wales politics has been relatively—
The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: I hesitate to take a point of order in relation to a committee report, but the honourable member has been speaking for some minutes now about the local government elections last weekend and particularly about the Greens' so-called performance in those elections. Mr Cohen should be asked to address the topic of the debate: his committee report, not the council elections.
The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Did they get anyone into Woollahra?
The Hon. Greg Pearce: No, they didn't. They certainly did not do very well as a political party.
Mr IAN COHEN: To the point of order: The Hon. Greg Pearce has shown the relevance of the council elections to this topic, as so much of the debate on amalgamations has reflected on the elections. In his criticism of me he talked about the results of the council elections and asked whether we got a Green in Woollahra— which we did.
The Hon. Greg Pearce: You haven't got the results yet.
Mr IAN COHEN: If it is not yet the case, I would say that it is very close. I am trying to make the point that the member has taken a point of order and made a complaint. However, the last round of council elections is relevant and part of the subject matter of this debate, which is the structure of local councils. I believe I am within my rights to discuss the recent council elections.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: To the point of order: The Hon. Greg Pearce anticipated the point of order I was going to take. I stress that this is a take note debate on a report dated December 2003. Any suggestion that the Hon. Ian Cohen is in order in discussing events that occurred nearly four months later is quite outrageous. Perhaps the Hon. Greg Pearce should not have succumbed to the temptation of interjecting.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! The terms of reference of this inquiry are certainly broad ranging as they relate to the social, political and economic impact of local government amalgamations. While I believe there is a point to be made that the report is dated December 2003 and in discussing it one must be mindful of events of the past, the fact is that the terms of reference refer to the political impact of amalgamations, and to that extent the member is in order and may continue. 7776 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004
Mr IAN COHEN: It is quite clear that this inquiry related to the very culture of local communities. I find that I am saying over and over again, both in the House and to other people, that the concept of the community rediscovering its voice through the Greens and other Independents is something that many people yearn for but has been lost in technological society, big government, forced amalgamations and the concept that somehow bigger is better. On many occasions during the inquiry there was a feeling that social capital in the community is important and that people want a sense of belonging. We saw gains for those community candidates and Greens candidates in many areas, both in the city and in the country.
The Greens have an historical opportunity to show responsible, practical and creative ways to care for those communities as well the environment. I believe both go hand in hand. I have an interest in rural issues because of my home location. People in rural areas are complaining about being overrun by city government and big government. I give special thanks to the people who ran for the Greens on the west of the divide. We had successes in Orange with Jeremy Buckingham and in Wagga Wagga with the expected declaration of Ray Goodlass. On the South Coast the Greens had success in Kiama, Shoalhaven and Eurobadalla shires. On the North Coast we held our ground. We saw a strong backlash against development in Tweed shire with a Green, Henry James, being elected again on twice the vote, as well as other progressives.
In the Byron shire—my home town—the incumbent Greens were blamed for all the woes of the last council, which were inflicted in many cases by the past mayor, Tom Wilson, and a central block of increasingly unrepresentative independents. It certainly looked like the pendulum might swing back to the right and to an unabashed supporter of development, Councillor Ross Tucker, who is a canny operator and an incumbent of well over a decade. It was a hard campaign, where the truth was often lost in vitriolic attacks on Greens candidates in local and national media. Our candidates stuck with their principles. In particular, Deputy Mayor Jan Barham, as mayoral candidate, did not sway in her resolve not to be acrimonious and to present a clear vision to the community. We had a significant victory with four councillors: Richard Staples; third term councillor Tom Tabart; John Lazarus, a keen environmentalist and dreadlocked hippie with attitude; and John Bailey, a former barrister and author, and now councillor. Some of them were quite surprised.
Despite intense pressures, the Byron Bay community is prepared to stand up for itself. Mayor Jan Barham worked in my parliamentary office from 1995 to 1999 and is a woman of immense political understanding and integrity. She is the first popularly elected Greens mayor in Australasia and the first female mayor of Byron shire. I am confident of a co-operative relationship between local government and the State Government with Mayor Jan Barham at the helm. The results of last week's elections reflect many of the findings of the local government inquiry.
The committee found that underlying many of the problems that beset local government is a lack of agreement between the three spheres of government on their respective roles and responsibilities. As such, the committee recommended that the Government convene a summit on local government to canvass these issues. A recent Federal parliamentary inquiry into local government and cost shifting also called for a summit on intergovernmental relations to develop a blueprint for the future. Forging a partnership between local and State government is the only way we will overcome the serious problems facing local government today. The committee looks forward to the early uptake of its recommendations by the Government.
I thank all members of the committee who worked constructively on this inquiry, including Ms Sylvia Hale, the Hon. Rick Colless, the Hon. Kayee Griffin, the Hon. Charlie Lynn, the Hon. Henry Tsang and the Hon. Ian West. I thank the secretariat staff for their support work. I also thank members of the community who gave submissions to the inquiry or appeared as witnesses. The committee eventually came up with 21 recommendations, which I hope are positive contributions to debate on the vexed issue of the relationship between local government, State Government and the various power relationships. Some of the recommendations are simple yet worthy of consideration. For example, recommendation 5 states:
That section 230 of the Local Government Act 1993 be repealed by extending the term of councillor-elected mayors from one to two years.
This is a bone of contention in the debate between popularly elected mayors and those elected by their peers. Indeed, one year is too short a time for someone to gain a reasonable foothold on the position and act effectively. Often we hear complaints that councils lobby for the next round of elections at the end of one year rather than carry out their work. Recommendation 6 states:
That the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal undertake an inquiry into councillor remuneration, including the need and the likely impact of remunerating councillors on a full time basis. 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7777
In the vast majority of cases councillors work very hard for the community and it is reasonable for them to be remunerated with an appropriate pay package. This will help guarantee that we have professional people serving the community because, in most cases, it is a multimillion-dollar business and carries significant responsibility. Recommendation 7 states:
That the NSW Government review the resourcing and location of the Department of Local Government with a view to enabling it to fulfil its charter.
This was highlighted by the fact that Garry Payne, the Director-General of the Department of Local Government, had to travel from Nowra to appear before the committee. I was a member of the Standing Committee on State Development that inquired into hubbing of air transport throughout New South Wales, which is a difficulty for local government officers. I commend the report to the House. [Time expired.]
The Hon. RICK COLLESS [3.04 p.m.]: I shall make a few brief comments about the process. As committee members travelled around the State concern was expressed across the board about the manner in which the amalgamation reform process has been conducted. The general opinion was that the Minister for Local Government did not seem to have any grand plan but was going with the flow and agreeing that everything would be okay. Recently I spoke to the former mayor of Barraba Shire Council, who expressed the same view. Barraba Shire Council has been dissolved, with Guyra Shire Council taking over responsibility for half the former shire and Tamworth City Council the other half. The Minister told residents not to worry, to submit their reports and that the council would be fine. However, that has not been the case, and the Barraba community has been torn apart. Some residents are happy to be in Tamworth shire and others are happy to be in the Guyra shire, but many have expressed concern at the council being split.
All the committee's recommendations are important, but I highlight a couple of key ones. Recommendation 3 refers to a funding agreement that provides local government with access to a growing revenue base—something that local government requires the most. If this measure were in place prior to the reform process, many councils would not now be in a delicate financial position, resulting from underfunded mandates imposed upon them; more and more State Government responsibilities are being handed down to local government. Recommendation 21 states that the Department of Local Government should investigate the feasibility and cost of applying a logical model for determining local government boundaries.
The committee heard a comprehensive address from Professor David Brunckhorst from the rural affairs department of the University of New England. He developed a logical process for determining where local government boundaries should be located, based on where people naturally gravitate to shop and for social interaction. He made the interesting point that the boundaries could be drawn on any scale. For example, a small council such as Barraba could have been drawn on a small scale but would remove those who naturally gravitate to Bingara, Manilla, Narrabri or other towns on the boundaries. If one preferred a larger scale this could be done, and eventually that scale could have been used as boundaries for regional councils or even for State or Federal electorates.
Unfortunately, the Government missed the opportunity to use a logical process to determine local government boundaries, resulting in shire councils around the State, such as Barraba, being split in half. Such a move is not in the interests of local communities; it is disheartening and demoralising, and is not something from which they will recover easily. With respect to the future, Garry Payne, the Director-General of the Department of Local Government, said during one of the last hearings that the regional review process would continue for the next four or five years. He gave me the impression that councils that missed out this time can rest assured that the process will be applied to them some time over the next few years. That spells a word of warning to those councils that think, "We kept our head down and we kept out of the bun fight on this." Over the next few years there will be a new round of regional reviews and councils that missed out this time may well be caught up in that. The general demeanour of the committee and the way it was conducted was excellent. All the members contributed positively to it, and I commend the report to the House.
The Hon. IAN WEST [3.10 p.m.]: First, I congratulate the members of the committee on the way the inquiry was conducted and the co-operative way we were able to put together a report that I believe sets out, in the main, the views of the committee and the numerous witnesses we spoke to during our vast deliberations. The committee's public hearings involved 87 witnesses. Three hearings were held in Parliament House, and hearings were held also in Orange, Tamworth, Wagga Wagga and other areas of the State. I thank the committee staff for their unstinting patience with all committee members and the various witnesses, and for taking care of our various idiosyncrasies. 7778 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004
The perceived concerns of various witnesses about amalgamation are understandable. Change of any nature, fear of the unknown and fear of lack of control of outcomes, which are perceived by people in all spheres of life, cause us to have all sorts of perceptions as to outcomes. It does not necessarily mean that the outcomes are not to our advantage. Not all the problems of local government are imposed on it, and in our deliberations it was clear that the vast majority of witnesses were supportive of the need for change and the need to look at improvements and more innovative ways of bringing about the changes that were obviously desperately needed in this particular sphere of government.
A view in local government of a preoccupation with gaining additional revenue, rather than coupling that objective with the need to improve services to ratepayers and become more efficient and effective, was reflected by a number of the witnesses. It was clear that they were being a little hard-nosed and blind in the way they approached the need for change. In some respects the report does not acknowledge that there is a clear level of dissatisfaction with some councils both within the broader community and as evidenced by the level of complaints to ICAC. I understand that 25 per cent of all complaints involve local government, and that more than 3,000 complaints a year relate to local government.
In the light of this, it is clear that the Minister for Local Government, on behalf of the Government, was mindful of the need to make changes to improve the position. Looking back at the history, the number of councils in New South Wales in 1906 was 327; the number of councils in New South Wales on 11 February 2004 was 168. The 1858 municipalities legislation allowed municipalities to be created upon the petition of 50 households of a city, town, hamlet or rural district, and the introduction of the Lang Government bill in 1931 reduced the number of authorities from 69 to 28. The reforms through the years show that the number of councils in New South Wales has reduced substantially or by roughly two-thirds between 1906 and February 2004.
The 21 recommendations that the committee put forward for consideration by the Minister go to some rather detailed issues, such as the remuneration of councillors, and some machinery issues such as whether we should increase the amount of time that the council or elected mayor should be in office, from one year to two years. Many of the recommendations deal with fairly mundane, machinery-type issues, and the committee came to grips with some issues in terms of recommending to the Minister that the rate-pegging system and the like should be reviewed. I support the comments made by other honourable members that the report was supported by all members of the committee. During our deliberations there was some dissent as to the wording of various recommendations.
The committee members were extremely liberal in the way they accepted other members' views, and perhaps some would like to have seen the wording of some recommendations changed. However, there was unanimous support for the report before the House today. I was impressed with the committee secretariat and the way it was able to bring together many divergent views and put together a report which shows that ongoing change in this tier of government is necessary. There is clearly a need for the Minister to facilitate the environment in which change can be made, and there is a need for councils in a number of regional council areas throughout the State to take heed of the fact that they must get up to speed and ensure that they take charge and control of their future, as opposed to having it imposed on them.
It is fairly clear that the vast majority of councils and councillors around the State—with very few exceptions—are supportive of change. I cannot remember any of the 87 or 88 witnesses saying that we must not have any change. If there were any, they were clearly in the minority. The Minister was damned if he did and damned if he did not. He asked to be told what he should do. When he did that he was accused by some of not having a plan—but not by too many of the witnesses around the State. I commend the report to the House.
Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.20 p.m.]: I am a new member of the House and this was my first opportunity to sit on an inquiry. I was most impressed by the evidence presented to the inquiry, the demeanour of my fellow members and the co-operative assistance of the staff. Other people have said to me that they believe it to be an example of the best of the parliamentary committee system at work. It addressed in a timely manner an issue of enormous concern to the people of New South Wales and gave them an opportunity to express their views. The committee genuinely considered the evidence put forward and made a unanimous report, delivering a message to the Government that it did not then and does not now wish to hear. I am proud to have been a member of the committee and a part of this inquiry.
The report was unanimous and there was relatively little dispute as to the content or wording of the recommendations. This unanimity—with the committee made up of members of the Labor Party, The Nationals, 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7779 the Liberal Party and the Greens—is indicative of the overwhelming strength and persuasiveness of the evidence placed before the committee. It also reflects the composition of the committee in that a majority of its members had experience of local government, although, with the exception of the Hon. Rick Colless, that experience is confined to city areas. I refer to the Hon. Kayee Griffin, the Hon. Henry Tsang and me. The manner in which people conducted themselves and the persuasiveness of the arguments they produced were instrumental in producing a unanimous report.
The result in last Saturday's council elections have demonstrated amply the anger and disgust of communities right across New South Wales with a Minister and a Premier who seemed determined to ride roughshod over local democracy, community identity and commonsense. The report outlined some steps the Government could take to turn around that perception. The 21 recommendations of this inquiry range from a requirement to assess the cost impact of State legislation on local government to details of how public consultation on amalgamation proposals should be carried out. Some honourable members have already indicated what they believe to be some of the most important recommendations, but from my perspective the first recommendation—and it is no accident that it is our first recommendation—was that a formal process be established whereby all State government policy and legislative proposals are assessed for their financial impact on local government. If that recommendation were put into effect, it would have a salutary impact on some decisions made in this House.
The failure to introduce such a process obviously suits the government of the day because it enables it to shift costs, as other honourable members have pointed out, onto local government, onto another tier of government, and to be unaccountable for that process. Recommendation 3—that the State Government enter into a funding agreement that provides local government with access to a growing revenue base—and the rider to that recommendation are incredibly important and need to be addressed now rather than remain a pious hope. Recommendation 10 is important. It reads:
That for any future structural reform proposals the Department of Local Government reject any proposal affecting boundaries of other councils unless the council making the proposal can demonstrate it has consulted widely with those councils and the affected residents prior to making the submission.
This aspect came out also in the inquiry. Because the Government and the Minister insisted that councils come up with proposals for structural formal, it encouraged in councils a predatory view. It set councils that had previously co-operated with each other against one another. Smaller rural shire councils frequently went through a detailed process of consulting with their residents. They were subject to larger councils that may have wished to take over their area or at least take over their rate base. They were subjected to claims by those councils, yet those councils singularly failed to consult their own residents. Recommendation 12, which is also important, states that the report of regional reviews should indicate the extent of the consultation process by providing details of the meetings, including times, numbers of those present, transcripts of evidence and numbers and details of submissions received.
Another theme that came up again and again was dissatisfaction with the regional review process, the fact that many people perceive the commissioners as not really being interested in what they were saying. They found abhorrent the failure to make those submissions available. They found it really contemptuous of communities that the recommendations that came out of those regional reviews should have in no way reflected the opinions of meetings of residents or the submissions received. This was obvious in the disdain with which the Government treated the overwhelming number of submissions that were made to the Boundaries Commission in relation to the amalgamation of the councils of the City of Sydney and South Sydney. In that case, the citizens of the new council have responded in a mostly adamant and public way with their view of the process that was foisted upon them.
As I say, this was a particularly important report. Running as a common thread through the report is the urgent need for the State Government to respect the role, autonomy and value of local government. The committee held six hearings around the State attended by local government representatives, council staff, residents and an impressive array of experts. I think I speak for many on the committee when I say that it was an eye-opening and humbling experience to see the range of services and activities that councils and shires engage in, the great regard and affection that many communities feel towards their local governments, and the preparedness of citizens to volunteer their time, energies and money for the good of the community to provide essential services such as hospitals, buildings, community centres and swimming pools.
Local government gets a lot of bad press. I have no doubt that among the thousands of councillors across the State there are those who can be accused of corruption, maladministration or incompetence. However, 7780 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004 all too often those few bad examples are used to discredit the whole sector. The committee was forcefully reminded that many of the positive cliches about local government were also true. Local government is the level of government closest to the people. It supplies the basic services that support our standard of living, and it increasingly takes responsibility for the social, environmental and economic needs of its community. Regardless of the performance of individual councillors, the institution of local government creates the kind of loyalty and commitment that is unheard of at other levels of government.
The Minister for Local Government and the Premier are clearly too caught up in the self-importance of their roles to acknowledge, as the broader community does, the vital importance and value of local government. It is a shame that Government members are not more engaged with the responsibilities, rather than the perks, of their positions. If they were, perhaps our public services, such as trains and hospitals, would not be in the condition they are in. Instead the Minister is blindly pursuing an agenda to crush local government and silence the voice it gives to residents. I have spoken before in this House about the inappropriately close links that the Government has with the property and development industry in this State. [Time expired.]
The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN [3.30 p.m.]: Like other members of the committee, I spent a considerable amount of time at hearings both in the Sydney metropolitan area and in country and regional New South Wales. I place on record my thanks to the secretariat and all those who contributed submissions to the inquiry. I have been an elected member of a large metropolitan council and also had the privilege in my position as an organiser for the Municipal Employees Union to visit a substantial number of rural and regional councils across New South Wales. Up until last year my career in local government spanned 22 years. I believe I can speak with some knowledge about the issues that relate to local government in general and also about vexing issues in various local government areas.
The committee heard a great deal of evidence about the financial status of councils. Some comments made to the committee that were not placed on the record may have been a recognition that change was needed and an acknowledgement that some councils and local government areas do not manage well financially. That is not necessarily because they are without funds but because of particular issues in local areas and because of poor management. Consequently, the residents and ratepayers in those areas do not receive the necessary services. Unfortunately, the notoriety of some councils has caused local government to come into disrepute. As someone who has worked a long time with local councils I do not appreciate some of the criticism that is directed at local government.
I do not apologise for the fact that I support structural reform. Over a number of years many councils have wanted reform but were not able to undertake the process. When the Government talked about structural reform last year, it was not something new, that no-one had ever heard of. A number of councils, particularly those that gave evidence at the inquiry, spoke of informal innovative processes they had been involved in. Such processes benefit local government in the long term and show that communities can work together. The artificial boundaries around local government areas do not stop neighbouring councils working together—although we heard evidence about neighbouring councils that did not want to participate or help to fund services they used but were not within their local government boundaries.
I would like to comment on the Local Government Amendment (Council and Employees Security) Bill, which is currently before the House. In 1993 the new Local Government Act was enacted. It is not so new now because it was enacted 12 years ago. The old Act included provisions for the protection of staff in an amalgamation process, particularly in rural areas, but those provisions were not included in the new Act. The omission of those provisions was a matter of concern to the major local government unions, including the Municipal Employees Union. I fully support the bill, which provides for employment protection, and I believe it needs to be legislated sooner rather than later. The provision of employment protection was a recommendation in the report.
During the committee hearings we were told by one council that it underwent a very successful amalgamation process. It is pleasing to see an amalgamation process, boundary change or structural reform that is successful. However, the council said that although its amalgamation process was successful, it had yet to deal with the issue of rates. There was still a differentiation in rates between the two amalgamated areas and that issue would not be dealt with until after the election. If a local government area agrees to an amalgamation process but cannot sort out rating issues, I do not believe that the initial amalgamation has been successful. That issue needs close attention. Some ratepayers are advantaged or disadvantaged depending on their place of residence. That was one of the arguments put by councils as to why there should not be a change in boundaries. 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7781
As I said at the outset, I support the structural reform process. I believe there are different issues to be dealt with in rural and regional areas as opposed to metropolitan areas. The main issues in metropolitan areas relate to boundary adjustments and changes and a better support network between councils to assist them in structural reform and to work together in the future. Those issues will need to be addressed in metropolitan Sydney over the next 12 months. There were some important issues raised during the committee hearings that need further consideration. As to the financial status of local government areas, often the argument is put that a council does not have sufficient funds to provide the necessary services. It is sometimes an unwarranted criticism that there are not sufficient funds. Perhaps the problem relates to the financial management by the local government. It is difficult for councillors who are newly elected to council after an election such as the one we had on 27 March to immediately be experts on everything, particularly on vexing and complex issues.
Pursuant to sessional orders debate interrupted.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE AND ETHICS
Report
The Hon. Peter Primrose, as Chairman, tabled report No. 28, entitled "Parliamentary Privilege and Seizure of Documents by ICAC No. 2" dated March 2004.
Ordered to be printed.
CHILDREN (DETENTION CENTRES) AMENDMENT BILL
CIVIL LIABILITY AMENDMENT (OFFENDER DAMAGES) BILL
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AMENDMENT (TERRORISM AND CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE) BILL
BOTANY BAY NATIONAL PARK (HELICOPTER BASE RELOCATION) BILL
Bills received.
Leave granted for procedural matters to be dealt with on one motion without formality.
Motion by the Hon. Ian Macdonald 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 readings of the bills stand as orders of the day for a later hour of the sitting.
Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL
Bill introduced, read a first time and ordered to be printed.
Second Reading
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill introduces a number of minor but important amendments to the Fisheries Management Act 1994. In broad terms, these changes support ongoing implementation of share management in our fisheries, give effect to a government election commitment to increase penalties for illegal commercial fishing and introduce minor changes that will greatly improve practical administration of the Act. Specifically, the bill defines the concept of a commercial fishing business. This will allow for recognition of current fishing operations and reinforce current controls on fishing effort as share management is progressively implemented. It provides for the catch history associated with a fishing business to be retained for future use, should this be required, in conjunction with a share management plan. To create a fairer and more flexible charging scheme, it provides for management charges and community contributions to be levied in accordance with individual shareholdings and at a rate specified in a management plan. 7782 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004
The bill also simplifies the current arrangements for a fisher to nominate another fisher to operate a fishing business on his or her behalf. It provides for commercial fishing licences, fishing boat licences, and charter fishing boat licences to be issued for longer than the current one-year period. It also provides better protection of important fish habitat by improving the current definition of "harm" to marine vegetation. A number of minor changes that increase the efficiency of general administration of the Fisheries Management Act are also introduced.
Before I discuss the specifics of each amendment I would like to set the context for these changes. As many honourable members know, the seafood industry in New South Wales is worth $500 million dollars to the State's economy and employs about 4,000 people. The commercial fishing sector of the industry is an important and highly valuable part of the economy of many New South Wales coastal communities. To ensure commercial fishing is conducted in a sustainable manner it is carefully managed against environmental, economic and social objectives. Management tools available under the Fisheries Management Act include fisher and boat licensing arrangements, controls on the types of fishing gear, fishing closures and mechanisms to cap the number of fishers in a fishery. The Act also provides for additional incentives that encourage fishers to adopt the most modern fishery management practices, particularly through the allocation of property rights or shares in a fishery. Share management has been available for use as a management tool since the current Act was proclaimed in 1995. It gives fishers greater security of access to a fishing resource and provides a real incentive for fishers to protect their fishery.
Until recently, abalone and lobster fisheries were the only two of the State's significant commercial fisheries that were administered as category 1 share management fisheries. The shares held by fishers working in abalone and rock lobster fisheries are automatically renewed every 10 years—they are issued in perpetuity. Moreover, compensation must be paid if the fishery is removed from the Act as a share management fishery. Recently I announced that the remaining major commercial fisheries had been included in the schedule to the Act as category 1 share management fisheries. This is a significant development for the many hard-working people in these fisheries. It is a change that will give the overwhelming majority of the State's commercial fishers the highest available level of security over their resource.
Commercial fishers have shown their willingness over many years to help develop and implement fishery management changes, and that they are good environmental managers. Issuing category 1 shares significantly upgrades the level of tenure fishers have over their access rights to the resource and provides an appropriate incentive to manage their fisheries in a sustainable way. This change provides an important incentive for fishers to make decisions in the long-term best interest of a fishery. The level of permanency and asset security provided by this change significantly improves current arrangements. It is important that honourable members are aware that the move to category 1 share management, and the changes proposed in this bill come after very thorough consultation with the commercial fishing industry. At each step along the way the proposed share management changes and the Act amendments have been discussed with industry advisory bodies. As recently as 23 March, for example, almost 30 members of the fishing industry and other key stakeholders met in Parliament House to discuss the draft bill. I had occasion to meet with them at that time. Ideas and suggestions raised in that forum have been incorporated into the bill.
I will turn now to the specific amendments in this bill. First, a procedural amendment introduces a definition of a fishing business into the Act. A definition is currently contained in the regulation to the Act, but this amendment is necessary to ensure the concept remains legally consistent with other share management provisions of the Act. The term "fishing business" as currently used refers to all the various components of a fishing business, including the boat or boats, fishing gear, and validated catch history. The concept of fishing business is now well established within the industry and is used as a basis for managing overall levels of commercial fishing activity.
The bill makes it clear that the individual components of a fishing business, including the boat, fishing gear, and the validated catch history, cannot be sold individually, except in accordance with agreed policy or regulation. The bill also allows the validated catch history to be preserved for future use if necessary for more precise species or effort-based management programs. Validated catch history will also be able to be used to create a new class of shares in the future, where provided for by a share management fishery management plan.
Another important amendment concerns fishing business nominations. The Act provides that fishing business owners can allow others to fish on their behalf only if the department is advised and approves the nomination of that person—a very bureaucratic and cumbersome process. Under the proposed amendment, they will be able to do this much more quickly than is currently the case. Fishers will be issued with a card that lists 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7783 their fishing entitlements. They can then give this card to another licensed fisher who can work the fishing business on their behalf, and then simply notify the department that this has occurred.
Limiting the number of active fishers by the nomination process means that only one fisher can work the business at any one time, which greatly reduces the risk of an increase in fishing pressure. Some of our more sensitive fisheries, like the estuary general fishery, have chosen not to have this scheme and have a strict owner- operator only policy to limit fishing pressure from inexperienced operators in their fishery. The new arrangements will provide greater flexibility, as well as administrative and operational efficiencies.
The bill also introduces a practical proposal for new supporting plans. A supporting plan is a vehicle for the creation of generic rules that apply across two or more shared-management fishery management plans. Some examples of supporting plans that would ensure that common provisions appeared in just one place, and not in multiple plans, are: for a structural adjustment share trading scheme whereby, for example, minimum shareholding rules will aim to control fishing pressure for new entrants to the industry; for a uniform penalty point scheme for serious offences which can lead to licences being suspended or cancelled and, in some severe cases, shares cancelled; and for cost recovery, where we are developing a scheme that moves away from the current flat charges to one that better reflects the different levels of access that fishing businesses have.
When a section of a supporting plan is amended, the change will affect all fisheries identified as being subject to that section of the plan. Using supporting plans therefore enables us to make fishery management plans a simpler document, requiring less revision as only one document would need to be amended: the supporting plan. It is important to note that a supporting plan will apply only where the share management plan says that it applies; it cannot override a provision of a share management plan.
Another issue addressed in the bill is the community contribution and industry management fees paid by fishers. The Government is supportive of diversified fishing businesses and arrangements that encourage operators to move to fisheries where stocks are more abundant and take fishing pressure off other stocks. At present the Fisheries Management Act provides that fishery management charges and the community contribution are levied at the same rate, irrespective of the number of fisheries a fisher can work in. This practice creates a financial disincentive for fishers to operate in more than one fishery.
The proposed amendments will allow arrangements that encourage fishers to remain or become diversified. For example, the management charge could be set so there is a fee for the first fishery a shareholder operates in, with a reduced fee for each additional fishery. Having the same charge for every fishery would discourage fishers from maintaining diversified operations. A practical example of how this might operate can be found on the Clarence River, where I spent some time recently looking at new net designs that substantially reduce the by-catch of fin fish in the prawn trawl fishery.
Many Clarence River prawn trawl operators work in the prawn trawl fishery during the summer months when prawns are abundant, and move into the estuary fishery to catch fish like bream, whiting and mullet when prawns are scarce. This diversification takes pressure off the prawn resource while still providing fishers with a relatively steady income stream. In the winter months many of them diversify again into the ocean beach haul fishery to catch sea mullet for the export market.
The Government believes we must have a charging system that does not penalise fishers for being diversified and, in fact, that charging systems should be capable of being structured so they actually encourage diversification. The proposed arrangements will allow management fees and community contributions to be set in accordance with the provisions of a share management plan, and thereby to better reflect the circumstances of individual fishers.
I turn to the amendments concerning fishery management strategies. Before final shares are issued, management strategies and environmental impact statements must be prepared for significant commercial fishing activities. These environmental impact statements are required under the New South Wales Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. So far, fishery management strategies have been finalised for the estuary general fishery, the ocean hauling fishery, and the estuary prawn trawl fishery. Strategies for the abalone, lobster, ocean trap and line fishery, and the ocean trawl fishery are well under way.
The bill makes minor changes in relation to fishery management strategies to reduce bureaucracy and provide for the timely uptake of new information. One amendment will allow provisions in new or revised fishery management strategies to apply to existing strategies when this is necessary. For example, this means 7784 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004 that when we find out something new about a fish stock that is common to more than one fishery and should therefore be recognised in another strategy, we can adopt this change simply, with minimum administrative effort and cost. Industry has suggested that to ensure transparency there should also be a provision to co- ordinate actions under various strategies and set priorities for these strategies. The bill provides for this to occur.
I now turn to charter boat, commercial fishing boat and commercial fishing licences. Amendments in the bill will provide for longer term licensing arrangements. At present licences are issued for one year or less, and renewed annually. To reduce administration cost, the proposed changes to the Act will make it clear that licences can be issued for more than 12 months. The bill implements one of the Government's election commitments: the commitment to increase penalties for unlicensed commercial fishing.
Illegal commercial fishing is a matter of great concern to many commercial fishers and the community in general. For example, on the North Coast there are reports of 50 kilogram catches of garfish being taken by unlicensed fishers in scoop nets, and on the Hunter River large catches of prawns being taken in illegal trawl nets. However, as well as undermining the viability of a commercial fishery, illegal commercial fishing also usually operates outside food safety regulations, which creates a very real public health risk. The bill will ensure that individuals who fish on a commercial scale without a licence will be subject to a maximum penalty of $110,000. For corporations the maximum fine will be $220,000.
I now address the amendments concerning harm to marine vegetation. At present sections 204 to 205B of the Fisheries Management Act deal with the protection of certain marine vegetation. Those provisions contain a definition of "harm" to these types of marine vegetation, and prohibit anyone harming such vegetation without a permit. However, the current definition of "harm" does not cover harm to vegetation caused by deliberate alteration of the environment. Consequently, people are not restricted from making certain changes to the environment that harm vegetation such as mangroves and seagrass, which are important fish nursery and habitat areas.
Honourable members may be aware of the significance of mangroves and seagrasses to juvenile fish as nurseries for future stocks. Without mangroves and seagrass areas, many of which have already been lost, stocks of fish and other marine species will be further depleted. The shading of seagrass by structures such as jetties that are sometimes built across seagrass beds is one example of the type of activity that this amendment is directed towards. The actual construction work may do very little harm to the seagrass, but the resultant shading from the structure will eventually kill it.
To make sure this type of outcome is subject to controls and prevented when necessary, an amendment to the current definition of "harm" is proposed. I point out that the proposed amendment does not impact on any developments that have already been subject to an approvals process. Finally, the provisions in the Act dealing with overdue management fees and payments, and associated interest, will be amended to make it clear that interest will be charged only after a reasonable sum has accrued. This is commonsense and will avoid the costly exercise of sending out bills for small amounts of interest that cost more than they raise.
The bill, although brief, brings important changes to the legislation. These changes will help implement real changes to the State's commercial fishing industry. The bill is the product of close consultation with commercial fishers and the seafood industry over the past year, and the fishing industry is supportive of the proposals contained in it. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Rick Colless.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Postponement of Business
Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 1 and 2 postponed on motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang.
ROAD TRANSPORT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PUBLIC TRANSPORT LANES) BILL
Second Reading
The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [3.59 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time. 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7785
The purpose of the bill is to improve the effective operation of road-based public transport infrastructure by discouraging illegal use of public transport lanes, in particular T-Way lanes and bus lanes, through enhanced enforcement. The bill will amend the relevant provisions of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999, the Road Transport (General) Act 1999, the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) (Road Rules) Regulation 1999.
I seek leave to have the remainder of my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave not granted.
The introduction of approved traffic lane camera devices and associated operator onus provisions for public transport lane offences will improve the management of road-based public transport infrastructure by providing a practical alternative means of enforcing these important community facilities. Since the early 1990s bus lanes have been progressively introduced in Sydney's central business district [CBD] and at a number of other locations throughout the metropolitan area. The primary purpose of these lanes is to provide priority for buses, particularly during commuter peaks. The implementation of bus lanes assists in maintaining acceptable and consistent travel times for users of road-based public transport. A more equitable sharing of the road is achieved for the various classes of road users. Implementation of these priority lanes supports the Government's commitment to improving road-based public transport efficiency in order to offset increasing road congestion that is caused predominantly by the high use of single-occupant private vehicles.
As the second reading speech is lengthy I seek leave to have the remainder of it incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The Liverpool to Parramatta Transitway commenced operation in February 2003 and will be fully completed by December 2003. Since the commencement of operation the Liverpool to Parramatta Transitway has demonstrated a pleasing upward trend in patronage.
The Liverpool to Parramatta Transitway and all future Transitways include a combination of new purpose built bus only roadways and Bus lanes on existing roads. The purpose built bus only roadways, or T-Way lanes, can only be used by Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) authorised T-Way vehicles and emergency vehicles.
Bus lanes can be used, for travel, by buses, taxis, private hire cars, motorcycles, bicycles, emergency vehicles and motor vehicles being operated by or at the direction of the RTA and proceeding to the scene of an accident or other emergency. Other vehicles may only be driven for up to 100 metres in a Bus lane to enter or leave the road, move to or from a place at the side of the road, to overtake a vehicle waiting to turn or to avoid an obstruction.
Surveys of Bus lanes undertaken by the RTA in 2002 indicate 35% average illegal use of Bus lanes with maximum illegal use as high as 48% in some locations.
Although there has been some reduction in illegal use since the introduction of red surface colouring on all Bus lanes in the Sydney metropolitan area and the delivery of a number of public education campaigns to increase road users' awareness of how to use Bus lanes, illegal use continues to have a detrimental effect on the efficiency of these lanes by impacting on bus travel times and adding to operating costs.
The current infringement notice penalty for travelling illegally in a T-Way lane or Bus lane is $228 and 3 demerit points (4 demerit points if the offence is committed over a long weekend).
Presently police undertaking enforcement of Bus lanes are required to stop the offending vehicle so that details can be recorded and an infringement notice given to the driver. There is difficulty in undertaking enforcement in many instances due to the lack of locations with clear and safe areas to stop motorists. Stopping an illegal user within a Bus lane is counter productive due to the added disruption it would cause to legal users of the lane. This has been identified as a particular problem in restricted areas such as the Sydney CBD and has resulted in limitations on the ability of the police to undertake regular enforcement for moving violations on the Bus lane network.
Based on the difficulties experienced with regard to the regular enforcement of Bus lanes, it is clear that the routine enforcement of T-Way lanes by the police could also present a similar problem. To ensure the considerable benefits to the public of the Transitway network, it is important that there is regular and effective enforcement of unauthorised traffic on the T-Way lanes and Bus lanes.
The legal mechanism proposed for enforcement is operator onus. Section 43 of the Road Transport (General) Act 1999 currently deems the responsible person guilty of a limited range of offences as if that person was the driver. These offences are camera detected traffic light offences, camera recorded speeding offences and parking offences. It is proposed to adopt this existing mechanism by adding the offence of driving in a T-Way lane and in a Bus lane to these existing offences.
Of course, in addition to the defences of the vehicle being stolen or illegally taken or used and the defences available to the driver, the responsible person must nominate the name and address of the driver at the time of the offence unless the person does not know them or cannot with reasonable diligence ascertain them. 7786 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004
Digital imaging technology incorporating Optical Character Recognition (OCR) functionality is currently used successfully in NSW by the RTA for enforcement of Toll avoidance and for Safe-T-Cam to monitor heavy vehicle movements. Digital image recognition technology of this nature can equally be used to identify illegal T-Way lane and Bus lane users.
The proposed traffic lane camera devices, which would require approval of the Governor under the terms of the Bill, would utilise digital imaging technology that involves the use of digital cameras capable of producing an image that can be stored digitally on a local or remote computer-based storage system. The Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software used to process images produced by the digital cameras will recognise number plates, and will produce the number plate identification as text alongside the image. This procedure provides built-in checking of the image recognition and camera system operation as part of the processing of incoming images.
For security, the Bill proposes that a unique identifier like that applying to digital speed cameras consisting of a series of 48 characters that is an individual combination of letters, numbers and symbols would be incorporated onto a photograph recorded by an approved traffic lane camera device.
The image would include both a close-up view of the vehicle number plate together with a wider-angle context view to identify the environment in which the vehicle was being operated.
The T-Way lane traffic lane camera device would consist of a single checkpoint that would capture two separate images of each vehicle travelling past that point. The system shall only store the images if a potential violation has been detected through automated matching of the number plate with an electronic list of authorised Transitway vehicles. The system will automatically exclude images of authorised Transitway vehicles from the potential violation record.
The Bus lane traffic lane camera device would consist of two checkpoints positioned in excess of 200 metres apart. Each checkpoint shall capture an image of each vehicle passing through that point. The system shall only store both images if a potential violation has been detected through automated matching of the number plate at both checkpoints. The system will automatically exclude images of legal Bus lane users from the potential violation record.
Mandatory operational procedure requirements will be established for the selection of Bus lane traffic lane camera device locations to accommodate the various exceptions that allow general traffic use of Bus lanes in certain circumstances.
Since 2001 the RTA has installed three Bus lane traffic lane camera device trial sites on Oxford Street at Paddington, York Street in Sydney CBD and the Warringah Freeway at North Sydney to test the digital imaging technology and image matching capability between two checkpoints.
The trial sites have indicated that a system incorporating digital camera based technology and Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software can effectively detect and record illegal use of Bus lanes with a high degree of reliability.
The aim of introduction of traffic lane camera devices and associated operator onus provisions for public transport lanes is to improve the efficiency of road based public transport infrastructure by providing a practical alternative means of enforcement.
The introduction of these measures will improve the management of these important community facilities.
I commend the Bill to the House.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [4.02 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Public Transport Lanes) Bill, whose purpose is to improve the effective operation of road-based public transport by discouraging the illegal use of public transport lanes, and in particular T-Way lanes and bus lanes, with enhanced enforcement measures. As members will be aware, certain types of vehicles are allowed to use T-Ways and bus lanes. Bus lanes are used not only by buses but also by taxis, private hire cars, motorcycles, bicycles, emergency vehicles, motor vehicles being operated by or at the direction of the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA], and vehicles travelling to the scene of an accident or another emergency.
These lanes were designed to assist in road-based public transport and the free flow of traffic, particularly during commuter peak times. However, sometimes unauthorised use of these lanes by other vehicles causes considerable strife. An infringement caused by unauthorised traffic using the lanes in peak hour, particularly in T-Ways, can cause complete havoc to the flow of traffic―for example, if a police vehicle has to stop an offending vehicle and then find a safe place for the offending motorist to pull over. There are, of course, occasions when vehicles must use public transport lanes, for example, in the case of a driver wishing to avoid an accident or if indicating to take an upcoming turn from an outside lane. They are just two examples of legitimate use of a public transport lane.
This bill does not aim to target those drivers using the public transport lanes legitimately—such drivers should not be affected by the new provisions—but it does provide a mechanism whereby there can be a crackdown on drivers who contravene the proper usage of public transport lanes sometimes to simply, illegitimately, expedite their own journey. Therefore, the bill proposes to implement greater regulation of the use of the public transport lanes using cameras equipped with digital technology and incorporating optical character recognition [OCR]. Such technology is currently being used by the RTA to enforce toll avoidance and also in the Safe-T-Cam installations which monitor heavy vehicle movements on our highways. Such technology will be used to identify illegal T-Way lane and bus lane users. 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7787
The cameras will utilise digital imaging technology that involves the use of digital cameras capable of producing an image that can be stored on a local or remote computer-based storage system. This OCR software will be used to process images produced by the cameras. It will recognise numberplates and will produce the numberplate identification as text alongside the image. This technology provides built-in checking of the image recognition and the camera system operation, so we are told, as part of the processing of incoming images. The proposed bus lane camera device will consist of two checkpoints which will be positioned 200 metres apart. The camera will store an image if the numberplate has been automatically detected passing through both of those checkpoints.
Under this bill a unique identifier, such as that applying to digital speed cameras, consisting of a series of 48 characters that is a unique combination of letters, numbers and symbols would be incorporated onto a photograph recorded by an approved traffic lane camera device. The image will include a close-up view of the vehicle's numberplates and a wider view to show traffic conditions in which the car was operating. An officer from the RTA will check the images to see whether there was a legitimate reason for the motorist to use the bus lane, such as to avoid an accident, and such checking will be done prior to the issue of any traffic infringement notice.
The T-Way traffic lane camera device will operate by taking two separate images of the vehicle travelling past a particular point. The image of the numberplate is automatically matched with an electronic list of transitway vehicles and the system is designed to store images where there is a potential violation of the traffic rules. Since 2001 three Sydney bus lanes have had the installation of this technology by way of a trial. The trial apparently shows that the digital imaging and image matching technology appear more than capable of photographing and matching offending vehicles.
One important provision of the bill is that the onus of proof lies with the responsible person. That person would usually be the owner of the vehicle. An owner will be guilty of an offence as if that person was the driver, unless the owner can prove that another person was responsible. The responsible person must nominate the name and address of the driver at the time of the offence, unless the person does not know that offender or cannot, with reasonable diligence, ascertain the identity of the person who was responsible for the alleged violation.
In 2002 the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] conducted a number of surveys, which indicated that in some locations the incidence of illegal use of bus lanes averaged 35 per cent and at certain times increased to 48 per cent, which defeated the purpose of bus lanes. If those statistics are correct one can understand the motivation for this bill, particularly in light of increased road congestion caused by the Carr Government's chaotic rail network. Solutions must be found to ease the gridlock on the Sydney road system, and the Opposition would support those solutions. The bill will need to be carefully monitored to ensure that this measure is not just another revenue-raising exercise by the cash-strapped, financially incompetent Carr Labor Government. The majority of road users are responsible, and the few who misuse our roads must not be allowed to be a burden on others. The Opposition does not oppose the bill but will monitor its impact on traffic flow and ensure that it is not another revenue-raising exercise.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [4.11 p.m.]: This bill intends to tackle the illegal use by private vehicle drivers of public transport lanes on Sydney's transitways. The main mechanism to facilitate this will be the use of cameras to monitor and enforce the prohibition of private vehicles using bus- only public transport lanes. Under rule 158 (2) (c) of the Australian Road Rules a person is permitted to ride a bicycle and drive a taxi or motorbike in a bus or transit lane. Bus-only lanes are for the exclusive use of public and authorised private sector bus operators. They can be found along the Liverpool to Parramatta transitway route. Schedule 1 outlines provisions relating to traffic lane camera devices, photographic evidence and the conduct of proceedings for a public transport lane offence. Schedule 2 seeks to amend the Road Transport (General) Act 1999 and outlines the liability of people responsible for vehicles used in the offence.
Although the bill places more emphasis on bus transport than rail transport, I am still inclined to support it because it will make bus travel more efficient than private motor vehicle travel. This morning I took the unusual step of driving to Parliament. The trip usually takes 20 minutes by ferry, but it took me an hour to drive. It is clear that Sydney roads are gridlocked. I have some reservations about the bill. It will be a great way to raise revenue. I hope that the Government will adequately inform Sydney drivers about the consequences of driving in a bus-only public transport lane. I suppose it will be no different to motorists being hit with a speeding fine after having been caught on a speed camera. 7788 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004
Since I have been a member of Parliament I have had three staffers who were enthusiastic motorcycle riders. Indeed, approximately 400,000 motorcycle licence holders do not get the attention they rightly deserve in public policy making. I received an email dated 2 March from a former staff member, Simon Disney, who is a motorcycle rider and was the victim of arbitrary police action. He said that on that day at least a dozen motorcycle riders were fined as they came off the bus lane into York Street, Sydney. I ask the Minister to tell me how many riders were actually charged at that spot on that day because Simon believes the number was much higher than a dozen.
According to the RTA rules, motorcycles, taxis, hire cars and bicycles are permitted to use bus lanes. However, that bus lane changes to a bus-only lane, and riders are afforded no escape when the lane changes. It is not surprising that the riders regard this as a revenue-raising exercise. Indeed, one police officer said that it is perfectly legal for motorcyclists to use a bus lane that is not a bus-only lane. Indeed, the infringement notice states, "Disobey No Entry Sign". The law permits motorcyclists to use the bus lane from North Sydney all the way across the Sydney Harbour Bridge to traffic lights at the beginning of York Street, where they are confronted with a sign that reads, "No Entry—Buses and Taxis Only—6.30 a.m.-9.30 a.m. Mon-Fri".
In the morning peak period the bus lane narrows from two lanes into one lane by way of moveable median strips, so motorcycles are effectively funnelled into one lane by RTA traffic managers, not by police. They have no possible means of turning around, changing lanes or exercising any other option; they must go through the "No entry" area, or risk a hire car, taxi or bus slamming into the rear of their motorcycle. Logic dictates that if the lane is not a bus-only lane—and clearly it is not—the "No Entry" sign should be much larger and should read, "No entry—Buses, Taxis, Hire Cars and Motorcycles Only—6.30 a.m.-9.30 a.m. Mon-Fri". Upon entry to the bus lane at Falcon Street, North Sydney, or thereabouts, the large bus lane sign clearly states that buses, taxis, hire cars and motorcycles only are permitted to use the lane. This leads motorcyclists and hire car drivers straight into the lane that ends with the ridiculous "No Entry" sign at the beginning of York Street.
My informant did not report that any hire cars were pulled over, but the police interpretation of this sign would suggest that hire cars using this lane should also be fined. This is a ludicrous situation. I ask the Minister to correct the anomaly of inconsistent signs where riders have no opportunity to change lanes and, therefore, risk being fined. Proper signage is important to ensure safety on our roads and to ensure that road users are not unfairly accused of breaking the law. I was once fined for being in a transit lane in an area with which I was unfamiliar and I missed the sign. I was also fined for speeding in an area where I grew up because the speed limit, which had been 70 kilometres per hour for the past 25 years, had changed to 60 kilometres per hour. Where traffic conditions change, police officers should ensure that enforcement measures are reasonable in the circumstances. I ask the Minister for Roads to address this anomaly. I hope that the bill will not further discriminate against motorcycle riders or people who do their best to obey the law but are fined because of inadequate signage.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.19 p.m.]: The Greens support the Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Public Transport Lanes) Bill. We see it as a small bit of good news. As a result of this legislation being passed, one hopes that bus lanes will be less impeded and, therefore, public buses will get a clearer run through the city and suburbs. To ensure that the Government does not think that it is off the hook when it comes to public transport, let us remember that this bill is only a small contribution to the necessary upgrading of public transport. Unfortunately, there are many bad news stories. CityRail is in a shambles and CountryLink still faces the axe in terms of being a train-based service. We also have the extraordinary developments with the ferries. We have a lot of problems all round in public transport. This is all within the context of the broken promises of the Government's Action for Public Transport 2010. I remember debating Mr Scully on this much-lauded Government promise back in 1999, and it clearly has not been delivered. Now we have Mr Costa as the Minister for Transport Services, so all is not good for public transport.
However, we are pleased to support the Government on this issue. Another issue that arises among constituents who contact our office is that of cars occupying bus and transit lanes. Those who support public transport are often angered by the sight of buses being held up by selfish car drivers moving into these lanes. This bill is clearly welcome as it should help largely, but not totally, to alleviate this problem. By alleviating this problem, one would think that our buses are more likely to run on time or close to it. We hope that the Government will follow up this bill by providing more bus lanes, including bus-only lanes. We believe that this will help encourage more people on to public transport and buses in particular. Certainly, people need to be encouraged back onto public transport because the many actions of the Minister have put people off public transport. We need to tell the Minister that putting up fares does not encourage people to use public transport. 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7789
Building motorways and tunnels, cutting services and squeezing the budget, and failing to train enough drivers do not encourage people to use public transport. The Greens are pleased to support bus lanes and ways to ensure that bus lanes work in the manner they were intended. But we are looking for much more from this Government. Sadly, though, the Minister for Transport Services is Michael Costa, so I do not think changes will come easily. We will need to apply considerable pressure to bring sense to the Minister.
The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [4.23 p.m.]: I acknowledge that the purpose of the Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Public Transport Lanes) Bill is to provide for what is supposed to be a more effective operation of road-based public transport so that the illegal use of transit lanes is discouraged by stepping up the level of enforcement through the use of cameras. Cameras will detect users who do not fit the profile of legal users of transit lanes. Currently, I understand that motorists in single occupancy vehicles use transit lanes because other lanes are heavily clogged with traffic. The Government has devised a new way of catching out these hapless characters through the use of more cameras. Currently, the way transit lanes are enforced is that police hide behind trees, street furniture such as signage, around corners and in bends in the road, and then rush out into the path of motorists while holding up a sign stating, "Stop, Police" when they sight a driver of a single occupancy vehicle using a transit lane, pulling them over and fining them $160.
All the years of extensive training for police at the Goulburn academy have come to these paltry displays, catching commuters who are trying to be punctual. The police should be using their training to catch real criminals. The majority of drivers are simply fed up with waiting in the bumper-to-bumper, traffic-clogged single lane relegated to them that is supposed to carry all other traffic. Out of stress and frustration, and in order to get to work on time, motorists try their luck in transit lanes. All road users should be legal users at peak times. Of course, the roads are clogged because of the high use of single-occupancy motor vehicles. Why? It is because Sydney commuters cannot rely on public transport to be on time. Therefore, many are forced to drive into the central business district. The public transport system in New South Wales is catastrophic and totally unreliable. I know of a person who abandoned using his car to catch a ferry, only to find that the ferries cannot run on time either. New South Wales public transport causes punctuality problems for all who use it.
Instead of introducing cameras to catch drivers who are simply trying to arrive at work on time, the money and time would be better spent on improving the public transport system and, indeed, putting in light rail to alleviate congestion wherever necessary. Will the Minister give an undertaking that the money collected will be used to improve roads and public transport? Where does the Government intend to spend the extra money it will collect from commuters? Or will the extra money go into their pay packets? As soon as the coffers start to fill up, will the Government seek a wage rise, like the pay rise it sought for the Deputy-Speaker? As with most things, the Government is totally out of touch with the needs of Sydney's commuters and motorists because Ministers are driven around in ministerial vehicles at peak times.
For example, a light rail service between the northern beaches and the central business district to alleviate the shocking conditions on Pittwater Road, The Spit Bridge and Military Road, and then the Cahill Expressway, would be useful. However, the Carr Labor Government would never consider fixing roads and public transport. Indeed, a former Labor member of this House confided in my staff that the Labor Government would never do it as there are "no votes in it". For example, when the subject of the tunnel at The Spit Bridge was up for discussion she told my staffer that a tunnel would be built only if commuters were prepared to pay a toll. A trip that takes 18 minutes from Balgowlah outside peak hours takes more than an hour and a half in peak times.
Further, I see the Government's use of this expensive, invasive and time-consuming method of policing the transit lanes as simply another bandaid measure. See it for what it is—a revenue raiser and another invasion of our privacy! We have enough cameras documenting our every move; we cannot move in this city without being watched and monitored. I have serious concerns about whether the use of cameras is warranted; after all, would it be more useful for commuters in Sydney to offer them clean and efficient public transport? Is that not the real issue? Then commuters would not be forced to use their cars in the first place. I will not vote in favour of this bill. The Government must lift its game. Sydney is a sprawling area with waterways in need of efficient ferry services, as well as great stretches of roads that need to be serviced properly with efficient, non-polluting light rail, for example. The Government must stop penalising and monitoring motorists and commuters for what is essentially a problem of waste and mismanagement in the Government's Ministry for Transport.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.29 p.m.]: I make one small comment in relation to the Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Public Transport Lanes) Bill. Bus lights, are part of the overall package, and I would like to refer to the bus light on Cleveland Street as one crosses South Dowling 7790 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004
Street. The bus light turns green 5 or 10 seconds before the lights for the rest of the traffic. The bus—sometimes two or three buses—pulls out ahead of the traffic, goes 20 metres up Cleveland Street and then stops. The rest of the traffic is held beyond the light while the bus picks up and puts down. That is not the best way to move traffic around Sydney. There has to be a better way. I have given an example of a bus light that does not work.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [4.30 p.m.]: I will be brief in my comments in support of the Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Public Transport Lanes) Bill. In doing so, I note the comments of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The point of having bus lanes is to try to encourage more people to use public transport. The fact that drivers in private cars might be inconvenienced is one of the necessary side effects. The idea of the lanes is to ensure that vehicles that can carry up to 70 passengers at a time are given priority. The majority of private cars have one person in them—the driver. At most they might have two people in them.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: It is a Labor Party plot.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: It is not a Labor Party plot. Bus lanes are a deliberate strategy to promote more use of public transport. More efficient public transport results in more people using it and fewer private cars on the road. It is a win-win situation for everybody. I will confine the rest of my remarks to the bill, which aims to stop people who are not entitled to use bus lanes from using them. People in my local area know that I am a member of Parliament. They say to me, "Can't you stop those cars taking shortcuts up the bus lanes? Bus lanes are for buses and taxis. How come all these people are using them to take shortcuts? Why don't you have police cars there booking them?" That is not a practical response, but this bill is. The use of cameras to identify cars that are illegally using bus lanes will do two things. First, it will speed up the timing of the buses and, second, it will decrease the level of aggravation that law-abiding drivers who stay in the car lanes feel when they see people driving in bus lanes.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Did you drive to work today? Did you have anyone in the car with you?
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: Yes, I usually do. I do not start my journey in my car by myself everyday. I drop people off as I progress towards the city. For the honourable member's information, I drive a silver car, not a white car. I have always driven silver cars since I stopped driving black cars. Since I stopped driving my private black car I have driven my private silver car. I have had other silver cars and I think they are much nicer. Despite the strange little interjections I have been getting, this is a good bill. It will help to promote the use of public transport. It will stop people from inappropriately using bus lanes. It will make law-abiding drivers feel that little bit better. When they see the camera light flash they will know that somebody who is illegally using a bus lane will be booked for doing so. We should be encouraging public transport.
The Hon. David Oldfield: You are probably just a dobber.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I could refer to members of this Chamber who told me that they sometimes illegally use bus lanes, but I will not do so. I think it is inappropriate to do such a thing. If honourable members are illegally using bus lanes they should not do so again—they certainly should not do so after the cameras are installed. I support the bill.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [4.34 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Opposition and the Greens for their support of the Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Public Transport Lanes) Bill. I note the comment of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans about the sign located in York Street at the entry to the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The sign reads "No entry—buses and taxis excepted". It is not a bus lane within the meaning of the Australian road rules. However, the Government will take advice from the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans and will review the sign to ensure that its visibility and message are clear. The Government will also take note of the wonderful suggestion of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about the location of the bus stop in Cleveland Street. The Government will look at the positioning of this bus stop to ensure it is efficient. I thank honourable members for their wonderful contributions. This is what good debate does—it gives the Government suggestions. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7791
ADMISSION OF THE TREASURER INTO THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Message
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:
Madam PRESIDENT
The Legislative Assembly informs the Legislative Council that it has this day agreed to the following resolution:
That the Honourable M. R. Egan MLC, Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council be requested to address the House on Tuesday 6 April 2004 at 11.00 am.
Legislative Assembly J. AQUILINA 30 March 2004 Speaker
Consideration of message deferred.
THOROUGHBRED RACING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [4.37 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The object of the Thoroughbred Racing Legislation Amendment Bill is to amend the Thoroughbred Racing Board Act and the Racing Appeals Tribunal Act to address the matters raised in the statutory five-year review of the Thoroughbred Racing Board Act. As the second reading speech is lengthy, I seek leave to incorporate the remainder in Hansard.
Leave granted.
Additionally, the Bill provides for a change of name of the New South Wales Thoroughbred Racing Board to Racing New South Wales, and to change the name of the Act from the Thoroughbred Racing Board Act to the Thoroughbred Racing Act.
The change of name was requested recently by the Board to bring its formal name into alignment with its adopted usage of Racing New South Wales. The formal change of name will be accompanied by the renaming of NSW Racing Pty Ltd, the company which represents the three codes of racing in its dealings with TAB Ltd, to a name which will avoid confusion with Racing NSW.
Accordingly, the Bill principally arises from the requirement in section 53 of the Thoroughbred Racing Board Act that there should be a review within 12 months of the fifth anniversary of the commencement of the Act. Such reviews are a standard part of modern practice which envisages a regular review of legislation .
Honourable Members will recall that following the recommendations of the Temby Review, legislation was introduced in 1996 which transferred the control and regulation of thoroughbred racing from the Australian Jockey Club to the newly created New South Wales Thoroughbred Racing Board.
Essentially, the "controlling body" functions were transferred from the Australian Jockey Club to the New South Wales Thoroughbred Racing Board to overcome the perception of any possible conflict of interest, and also to provide greater industry representation in respect of the membership of the body responsible for the governance of the thoroughbred racing industry in this State.
The five-year review was conducted during the latter part of 2001 and the review report was tabled in Parliament in June 2002.
Twenty-two submissions were received following a public invitation to participate in the review process, which was limited to:
(a) Whether the policy objectives of the Act remain valid; and
(b) Whether the terms of the Act remain appropriate for securing those objectives .
The statutory five-year review requirement was an opportunity for interested parties to comment on the operation of the Act, and to propose any improvements.
The Review Report concluded that the existing structure and composition of the Thoroughbred Racing Board should be retained.
The Review Report also recommended that there should be certain amendments to the relevant legislation.
Taking the legislative proposals in the Bill in turn, they relate to the following matters. 7792 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004
Schedule 1 of the Bill proposes amendments to the Thoroughbred Racing Board Act. The first matter dealt with is the change of name from the New South Wales Thoroughbred Racing Board to Racing New South Wales.
The second matter dealt with relates to the Thoroughbred Racing Board's registration and licensing functions to ensure that persons so registered or licensed are, in the opinion of the Board, fit and proper persons to be so registered or licensed.
Persons in that category essentially include a trainer, jockey, stablehand, bookmaker and bookmaker's clerk.
As a result of submissions to the review process, the relevant provision has been strengthened so that a person with a criminal conviction will not be registered or licensed if, in the opinion of the Board, the circumstances of the offence concerned are such as to render the person unfit to be so licensed or registered.
For example, a person with a non-spent conviction involving sexual assault would be given close scrutiny by the Board if they were involved in a workplace which included young persons.
The third matter dealt with in Schedule 1 relates to the membership and functions of the Racing Industry Participants Advisory Committee. The RIPAC, as the advisory committee is known, is a statutory body established to advise the Board on industry policy and strategic direction.
At present one of the members of RIPAC is a person nominated by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre to represent consumers of racing and betting services.
The proposed amendment provides that the Public Interest Advocacy Centre should submit three nominations to the other members of RIPAC to select the consumer representative.
The proposed amendments further provide for improved communications between the Board and RIPAC by:
(a) requiring recommendations made by RIPAC to the Board to be tabled at the next meeting of the Board;
(b) requiring the Board to respond in writing to those recommendations; and
(c) requiring the minutes of any joint meeting of RIPAC and the Board to be circulated among the members of both bodies.
These proposed amendments arise from the review process and are in the nature of minor but necessary improvements to the operation of the relevant parts of the Act.
A finetuning of the Act, if you will.
The fourth matter dealt with in Schedule 1 is to clarify that the Board has a right of appeal to the Appeal Panel against various decisions of a racing authority.
For these purposes a racing authority consists of the stewards of the Board, or of a race club, or of a regional racing association.
At this stage it is appropriate to indicate that in New South Wales there is an independent two-tier system of appeal for persons aggrieved by decisions of a racing authority.
The initial body is the Appeal Panel constituted under the Thoroughbred Racing Board Act, and headed by Peter Capelin QC.
A further appeal is possible to the Racing Appeals Tribunal constituted under the Racing Appeals Tribunal Act 1983.
The current Tribunal is His Honour Mr Barrie Thorley, who is an eminent retired District Court Judge, and the Acting Tribunal is Mr Justice Wayne Haylen QC from the bench of the Industrial Relations Commission.
The intention of the proposed amendment is to permit the Board to appeal where, in its opinion, there is a need to express its views as to the consistency of penalties.
For example, the circumstances where the Board may wish to lodge an appeal include where a charge against a person for contravention of the Rules of Racing is dismissed, or where a penalty is inconsistent with that imposed in earlier similar cases.
I will deal later with the similar proposed amendments that provide the Board with a right of appeal to the Racing Appeals Tribunal in relation to decisions of the Appeal Panel.
The fifth matter dealt with in Schedule 1 relates to the nature of appeals to the Appeal Panel.
The proposed amendments clarify that a hearing by the Appeal Panel is in the nature of a new hearing, and that fresh evidence may be given on the appeal.
The proposed amendments also set out the powers of the Appeal Panel to determine the appeal and make it clear that the Appeal Panel may vary the decision appealed against by substituting any decision that could have been made by the racing authority that made the decision appealed against.
Schedule 2 of the Bill proposes amendments to the Racing Appeals Tribunal Act 1983.
Essentially, the Racing Appeals Tribunal is established to hear appeals against decisions of the Appeal Panel and decisions of the Board. 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7793
The first matter dealt with in Schedule 2 of the Bill is to clarify that the Board has a right of appeal to the Racing Appeals Tribunal against decisions of the Appeal Panel.
Further, under the Thoroughbred Racing Board Act some decisions may be appealed against and heard by a regional association instead of the Appeal Panel.
The proposed amendments to the Racing Appeals Tribunal Act make it clear that those decisions may be appealed against to the Tribunal in the same way as decisions of the Appeal Panel. Such a right of appeal would be provided to the Board or any other aggrieved person.
The intention of the proposed amendments is the same as that for the corresponding proposal to enlarge the right of appeal to the Appeal Panel. It is to permit the Board to appeal where; in its opinion there is a need to express its views as to the consistency of penalties.
The second matter dealt with in Schedule 2 mirrors the proposed amendments to the nature of appeals to be heard by the Appeal Panel.
The proposed amendments clarify that a hearing by the Tribunal is in the nature of a new hearing and that fresh evidence may be given on the appeal.
The proposed amendments also set out the powers of the Tribunal to determine the appeal and clarify that the Tribunal may vary the decision appealed against by substituting any decision that could have been made by the body that made the original decision.
There are compelling reasons put for the proposed revisions to the appeal structure.
His Honour Mr Barrie Thorley, sitting as the Racing Appeals Tribunal, and the Thoroughbred Racing Board have argued strongly for them.
I take this opportunity to quote a passage from one of Judge Thorley's judgements as the Racing Appeals Tribunal:
However, before leaving this appeal I again record that there is, in my opinion, a need to amend the legislation to ensure that this tribunal does have the power to increase penalties in cases that come before it, whether or not any specific appeal be lodged to that effect.
I reiterate also the recommendation made in a previous case that a right of appeal be conferred on the Thoroughbred Racing Board to appeal against the inadequacy of orders made either by the Stewards or the Appeal Panel.
Without that power there could not be said to be any true accountability within the Thoroughbred Racing Board itself.
The third matter dealt with in Schedule 2 of the Bill is to amend the Racing Appeals Tribunal Act so that the powers of the Tribunal to compel witnesses to attend hearings and produce documents are set out in the Act rather than in the regulations to the Act.
Similarly, provisions in the regulations relating to the service of instruments are considered to be substantive matters and are transferred to the Act.
The fourth matter dealt with in Schedule 2 of the Bill provides for the Minister to be able to appoint a third person to act as the Tribunal.
At present the Racing Appeals Tribunal Act allows the Minister to appoint one person as the Tribunal and a second person to act as the Tribunal during the illness or absence of the first person.
The proposed amendment makes it clear that the appointment of the third person may be made at any time, including as a standing appointment, as long as the third person acts as the Tribunal only during the illness or absence of the second person.
The proposed arrangements have been requested by the Tribunal to assist with the management of casework.
I believe that the Bill represents an appropriate update of the provisions of the Act. That update flows from the consultation process associated with the statutory five-year review.
The Carr Government acted early to establish the Thoroughbred Racing Board as the independent non-government body responsible for the governance of the racing industry in this State.
That initiative has been well accepted, and the proposed refinements contained in this Bill respond to changing needs over time.
I note that it is now the practice that all Bills will be scrutinised by the Legislation Review Committee. The Committee's obligations are set out in the Legislation Review Act 1987 and I believe that this Bill does not contain any provisions that fall within the areas of interest to the Committee.
The Bill does not contain any provisions that make rights, liberties or obligations unduly dependent upon insufficiently defined administrative powers or upon non-reviewable decisions.
I commend the Bill to the House. 7794 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [4.38 p.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose the Thoroughbred Racing Legislation Amendment Bill. The New South Wales Thoroughbred Racing Board was established in 1996 as an independent, non-government body responsible for the control and regulation of thoroughbred racing in New South Wales. The need for this bill has arisen following a required review conducted under the principal Act. The review was conducted in 2001 and the report was tabled in Parliament in June 2002.
The amendments will change the name of the New South Wales Thoroughbred Racing Board to Racing NSW. It is a clearer, more distinguishable name to people throughout New South Wales and I believe it is a sensible amendment. The racing industry is a significant contributor to the State's economy, particularly in regional areas. The Hunter, Cowra, Cootamundra, Bowral, Mittagong and parts of northern New South Wales have significant racing infrastructure, and some of the nation's best racehorses are trained and stabled in country New South Wales. Racing also plays a significant part in the social activity of people across New South Wales, whether in the regions or in the city. The Golden Slipper, a highlight of the State's racing calendar, will be held on Saturday. The huge number of picnic races and annual race days, which are fun and have a sense of community spirit, are held throughout the year in rural New South Wales and the major regional cities. People who are not regular racegoers attend those races for their annual fix.
The bill will amend the principal Act to ensure that any individual who Racing NSW licenses or registers is a fit and proper person in the opinion of Racing NSW to be so registered or licensed. Further, a person cannot be registered if he or she has had a conviction and Racing NSW is confident that the circumstances of the offence concerned are such as to render the person unfit to be registered or licensed. The principal Act provides for a person aggrieved by a decision by a racing authority a right of appeal to the appeal panel. The bill gives Racing NSW the same right and, in addition, Racing NSW will have the right to appeal a decision to dismiss a charge against a person for contravention of the rules of racing. The amendments provide that an appeal is in the nature of a fresh hearing and that new evidence may be given at the appeal against the inadequacy of penalties imposed by stewards or the appeal panel in cases where the appeal is being heard by the Racing Appeals Tribunal. In addition, the body hearing the appeal may substitute any decision of the body that originally heard the case.
The amendments in schedule 2 generally mirror the amendments to the appeals panel. This is clearly apparent in respect of a fresh hearing and new evidence. In addition to those changes, the Racing Appeals Tribunal can compel witnesses to attend hearings and produce documents. The bill will also amend the acting arrangements for the Racing Appeals Tribunal to add a third person in addition to Judge Barrie Thorley and Mr Justice Wayne Haylen, QC. The bill commences on proclamation. The Legislation Review Committee did not agree with the statement of the Minister for Gaming and Racing in his second reading speech that the bill does not raise concerns with its jurisdiction under section 8 of the Legislation Review Act. The committee reminded the Government that commencing an Act on proclamation may amount to an inappropriate delegation of legislative power. That is because it delegates the power to commence whenever the Government sees fit after assent.
Therefore, the committee has written to the Minister seeking an explanation for the delay. I am unable to inform the House of the progress of that matter. I thank the committee for its work. When preparing for these bills the information provided by the Legislation Review Committee is more often than not illuminating. The shadow Minister for Gaming and Racing, the Hon. George Souris, has had wide consultation with the industry stakeholders to ensure that what they sought was within the bill. He spoke with the Thoroughbred Racing Board, the Australian Jockey Association and the Sydney Turf Club. Judge Barrie Thorley has long been an advocate of having a fresh hearing and new evidence being given at an appeal. The Opposition will not oppose the bill.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [4.44 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Opposition for its sensible support and I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (COUNCIL AND EMPLOYEE SECURITY) BILL
Suspension of Standing Orders
Motion by the Hon. Dr Peter Wong negatived:
That standing orders be suspended to allow the moving of a motion forthwith that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole that it has the power to consider amendments relating to the dismissal of mayors and councillors and the appointment of administrators. 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7795
In Committee
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.50 p.m.]: The Opposition requests that the Committee oppose schedule 1. All changes relating to council income should be rejected. The Treasurer is about to hand down a mini-budget and the Government is passing unfunded mandates to local government and imposing a scheme which it did not request and does not want, and which it will be required to finance. I spoke at length on this issue during the second reading debate, so I do not need to add anything. The Opposition rejects this schedule.
Question—That schedule 1 be agreed to—put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 26
Mr Breen Mr Egan Ms Rhiannon Dr Burgmann Ms Griffin Ms Robertson Mr Burke Ms Hale Ms Tebbutt Ms Burnswoods Mr Hatzistergos Mr Tingle Mr Catanzariti Mr Jenkins Mr Tsang Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Kelly Dr Wong Mr Cohen Mr Macdonald Tellers, Mr Costa Reverend Nile Mr Primrose Mr Della Bosca Mr Obeid Mr West
Noes, 14
Mr Clarke Mr Gay Mr Pearce Ms Cusack Mr Lynn Mr Ryan Mrs Forsythe Mr Oldfield Tellers, Mr Gallacher Ms Parker Mr Colless Miss Gardiner Mrs Pavey Mr Harwin
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Ms SYLVIA HALE [5.00 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 7 to 11 in globo:
No. 7 Page 6, schedule 2 [2], proposed section 318B (1), line 16. Insert "at least 3 months before the election concerned is required to be held" after "Gazette".
No. 8 Page 7, schedule 2 [2], proposed section 318B (4), lines 16-18. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 9 Page 7, schedule 2 [2], proposed section 318B (5) (a), lines 22-24. Omit "including with respect to an election for which the election requirements of this Act were in operation when the order was made,".
No. 10 Page 17, schedule 4 [3], schedule 8, lines 19-28. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 11 Page 18, schedule 4 [3], schedule 8, lines 15-16. Omit all words on those lines.
Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.
FAIR TRADING AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)) [5.02 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time. 7796 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The Bill I introduce today builds on the previous amending legislation passed by the Parliament in July last year, which, among other important reforms, strengthened the enforcement powers under the Fair Trading Act 1987.
This Bill has a similar focus in that it aims to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of Fair Trading compliance and enforcement activities.
A new section 9A will be inserted in the Act to clarify powers currently inferred by the Fair Trading Act and the Department of Fair Trading Code of Practice and make such powers explicit and transparent. These provisions will facilitate the exchange of information between the Office of Fair Trading and other agencies, subject to privacy considerations. The powers to disclose and receive information will be limited to investigative, law enforcement, licensing, disciplinary and complaint handling functions, as well as probity assessments and reference checks and similar information to protect the interests of consumers. The Commissioner for Fair Trading will be empowered to enter appropriate agreements regarding the release and exchange of information and to refer matters to, and receive matters from, other law enforcement and regulatory bodies, and to undertake joint investigations.
In terms of trading, we live in a borderless society. Now, more than ever before, there is a need for co-operation between agencies, states and other nations in order to give the consumers in New South Wales the protection they expect from this government. Technology has acted to increase the speed and coverage of major scams and government needs the power to prevent and respond to those scams.
I am, of course, mindful of the legitimate concerns about privacy considerations in respect of personal information. The Fair Trading Privacy Code of Practice, gazetted on 30 June 2000, currently provides relevant exemptions from the Information Protection Principles of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998. The Bill is consistent with that Code of Practice and will facilitate interagency cooperation, reduce duplication between agencies and enhance efficiency in law enforcement functions.
The enforcement powers under the Fair Trading Act will be further enhanced by a new Section 19A, which will allow an investigator, having reasonable grounds for believing that a contravention of the Act has occurred, to apply to an authorised justice for a search warrant to enter any place, search for and seize anything that the investigator reasonably believes will provide evidence of a contravention.
My colleagues in this House might be surprised that investigators do not already have such powers, which would appear essential for the enforcement of laws that set out to protect consumers from being defrauded by unscrupulous operators. Hardly a week goes by without news of a scam which has been uncovered by the Office of Fair Trading, or their interstate counterparts.
These powers are being added to the statute since current powers under the Act do not reflect the reality of the marketplace. The Act requires a two tiered approach, where initially, investigators can enter premises but can only inspect and make copies of documents and inspect and buy goods found on the premises. This is essentially a provision used in the past to test the seriousness of any matter.
Clearly, most businesses today use computers and this is not recognised in the current drafting. Any evidence stored in a computer could disappear before the investigators returned. The loss of computerised records is a critical concern for the Office of Fair Trading.
I will give an example of the inadequacy of that approach. In an application to the Supreme Court for injunctions and other orders against the first internet-based pyramid selling scheme operating in this State, orders were sought requiring the defendant to deliver up their personal computer to OFT for computer forensic examination.
The Court refused to exercise its discretion to make the order on the basis that OFT had no powers to seize articles, and the Office of Fair Trading was denied the opportunity to look at the scam program being used by the promoter.
These provisions are not only aimed at computerised records. In another example of the need for these provisions, a trader was subject to a compliance program under which toys and specified other products were required to be removed from sale and tested to the appropriate Australian Standard. However, examples of unsafe or non-compliant toys were subsequently detected in the defendant’s stores. On one occasion, the defendant refused to sell the item to an investigator and the powers in section 19 were rendered ineffective.
It is clearly not appropriate for enforcement powers to be reliant on the co-operation of the trader under investigation, as this could effectively subvert the operation of the law.
The Bill therefore will enhance the capacity for investigators to prevent scams and the circulation of dangerous goods by operators whose intention is non-compliance.
The proposed powers to seize evidence of a contravention of the Act are to be subject to the requirements of the Search Warrants Act 1985. In addition, OFT will be required to return anything seized for evidentiary purposes to the owner, if it is no longer needed for evidence, unless it is unlawful to possess it.
A new Part 5D also aims to make compliance activity more effective, as well as giving greater certainty to legitimate businesses. I refer to the replacement of the current provisions which prohibit pyramid selling with provisions drafted on behalf of all states and territories as well as the Federal government by the Parliamentary Counsel’s Committee. 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7797
Pyramid selling is prohibited in all fair trading law. It is a sales scheme that concentrates on recruiting new salespeople into the scheme rather than selling products or services. It is often intentionally disguised as a multi-level marketing scheme, which is a legitimate business.
The new provisions will make interpretation easier and enforcement more effective. They will be consistent with the Trade Practices Act and the ACT Fair Trading Act. The majority of the other states and territories also have consistent changes on their legislative agendas. The benefits of consistent legislation are undeniable in our borderless marketplace.
These amendments will further improve the effectiveness of the Government’s efforts to ensure fair trading in this State.
I commend the Bill to the House.
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [5.03 p.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose the Fair Trading Amendment Bill. Ostensibly the bill gives the Office of Fair Trading more power to seize articles and investigate issues of unfair trading. It amends the Fair Trading Act 1987 to ensure clarification and enhancement of the enforcement regime. The bill will facilitate the exchange of information and ensure interjurisdictional consistency in enforcing consumer protection legislation. Currently the Office of Fair Trading has no power to seize articles. Indeed, some time ago the Supreme Court refused permission for the Office of Fair Trading to seize a personal computer for forensic examination relating to an Internet-based pyramid selling scheme operating in New South Wales.
The purpose of the bill is to increase the powers of the Commissioner for Fair Trading—referred to in the Act as the "Director-General"—to disclose information to, and receive information from, fair trading agencies, law enforcement agencies and other relevant agencies. The bill will empower an investigator who, on reasonable grounds believes that a contravention of the Act has occurred, under the authority of a search warrant, to enter and search any place—which includes a vehicle—for evidence of that alleged contravention. It replaces the current provisions that regulate pyramid selling with provisions that mirror those contained in the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act 1974, to ensure consistency between State and Federal legislation.
The bill expressly authorises the director-general to disclose and receive information limited to investigative, law enforcement, licensing, disciplinary and complaint-handling functions, probity assessments and reference checks. This information-sharing agreement will enable information to be shared between other fair trading agencies in Australia and overseas, as well as certain agencies that exercise functions with respect to matters affecting the interests of consumers. The director-general and the relevant agency will have the power to authorise, request or disclose information only to the extent that the information is reasonably necessary to assist in the exercise of the function under the Act or the functions of the relevant agency.
The bill is subject to privacy considerations of the Fair Trading Privacy Code of Practice, which was gazetted on 30 June 2000. That code of practice currently provides exceptions from the information protection principles of the Privacy and Personal Information Act 1998. New section 19A will enable an investigator, under the authority of a search warrant, to enter and search any place—including a vehicle, vessel or aircraft— and seize anything that the investigator believes, on reasonable grounds, is connected with a contravention. With regard to the Office of Fair Trading being denied permission to seize a personal computer for forensic examination, the Office of Fair Trading will now be able to seize such evidence.
An investigator exercising the powers under section 19A must show his or her identification if required to do so. With regard to two current enforcement issues as highlighted in the Minister's second reading speech— that the Act makes no provision for seizing computer records, and an investigator may enter premises and take goods only when the investigator pays fair price—the power of seizure relates to anything that will provide evidence connected with a contravention of the Act.
Currently certain pyramid selling schemes—sales schemes that focus on recruiting new salespeople into the scheme, rather than selling actual products—are prohibited by section 56 of the Act. The Act will be amended to include new pyramid selling provisions to mirror the Commonwealth Government amendments to the Trade Practices Act in 2002. The bill prohibits both participation in, and inducing a person to participate in, a pyramid selling scheme, although it does not provide a specific penalty for such participation.
As is her usual practice, the shadow Minister in the other place, Katrina Hodgkinson, consulted widely with the relevant stakeholders—the Appliance Industry Association, the Australian Consumers Association, the Australian Direct Marketing Association, the Australian Retailers Association and the Direct Selling Association of Australia. It appears that those organisations are reasonably supportive of the bill. I point out that the bill is being passed through the Parliament swiftly; indeed, the shadow Minister received notice of its 7798 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004 introduction as recently as 16 March. However, despite the fairly speedy process, the shadow Minister has sought comments from all the relevant stakeholders.
The Opposition does not oppose any measures that will protect consumers from shonky business people. The Office of Fair Trading provides protection from people who deliberately try to take money from, and make life difficult for, those who may not know better. The Opposition supports measures that ensure that the Office of Fair Trading acts in accordance with the Trade Practices Act, and therefore we do not oppose the bill.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.09 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Fair Trading Amendment Bill. This very practical bill will improve the enforcement powers under the Fair Trading Act in a number of areas. One important improvement in new section 19A will allow an investigator having reasonable grounds for believing that a contravention of the Act has occurred to apply to an authorised justice for a search warrant to enter any place and search for and seize anything that the investigator reasonably believes will provide evidence of a contravention. Another improvement relates to accessing computer records. The loss of computerised records is of critical concern to the Office of Fair Trading, which in some cases has failed in the courts to get access to computer records to prosecute a case. This bill will provide the Office of Fair Trading with the power to access such records. Strangely, in the past a fair trading officer had to actually purchase what he or she thought was a dangerous item. Now, however, an officer will be able to seize evidence if he or she believes the Act has been contravened. These powers will be subject to the requirements of the Search Warrants Act 1985. The bill also strengthens the powers of the Department of Fair Trading against pyramid selling in this State. The new provisions will make interpretation easier and enforcement more effective. We are pleased to support this bill to protect consumers.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [5.11 p.m.]: I support the Fair Trading Amendment Bill because I believe it will bring about great improvements for consumers in New South Wales. The Fair Trading Act 1987 is the principal statute that protects New South Wales consumers from deceptive and dishonest commercial conduct. It was amended in 2003 to include direct selling provisions and post-sale consumer protection provisions and to make changes to provide more effective enforcement in a changing marketplace.
The purpose of this amendment bill is to build on those amendments to provide powers that are necessary to address practices resulting from technological change and practices that cannot be dealt with under the current regulatory regime. Currently powers to exchange information are not expressly authorised in the Fair Trading Act but are drawn from certain powers of the commissioner in the Privacy Code of Practice. The bill expressly authorises the director-general to enter into an agreement with the relevant agency for the purposes of sharing or exchanging information—limited to information concerning investigations—law enforcement, assessment of complaints, licensing and disciplinary matters, probity assessments, reference checks and any other information affecting the interests of consumers. The bill authorises the director-general to exchange such information only to the extent that the information is reasonably necessary to assist in the exercise of functions under the legislation administered by the Minister for Fair Trading or the functions of the other agency concerned.
The bill also authorises the director-general to refer any matter with respect to fair trading to a fair trading or law enforcement agency and to conduct a joint investigation into any such matter. Relevant agencies in this legislation include fair trading agencies in Australia or overseas, law enforcement agencies, any other agencies of the State or Commonwealth or overseas, and any other person or body that exercises functions in the public interest that involve protecting the interests of consumers. The Fair Trading Act currently does not include seizure powers. Investigators have been unable to obtain evidence of contraventions or to act in a timely manner to prevent scams because of this omission.
The bill authorises an investigator to apply for the issue of a search warrant where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Act is being or has been contravened. The issue of a warrant authorises an investigator to enter into a place for search, examination and seizure of anything that the investigator has reasonable grounds for believing is evidence of or connected with a contravention, and for the return of anything seized that is not needed as evidence of a contravention and which is lawful for the person to possess from whom it was seized. The provisions in the Act that prohibit pyramid selling are difficult to interpret and enforce and do not clearly distinguish pyramid selling from other lawful multilevel trading schemes. The bill replaces the current provisions with template provisions drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel's committee and which have been included in the Trade Practices Act 1974. 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7799
The consultation process that was gone through in developing this bill is fairly important because we need to be sure that this bill will be workable and will not impede reasonable retailers who go about their business in a lawful manner. The matters addressed by this bill essentially deal with the enforcement compliance powers and the inability of the current legislation to deal with certain contraventions of the law. That being the case, extensive consultation would not have been appropriate and, therefore, there has not been a huge public consultation process; the consultation has taken place with relevant stakeholders.
Following the circulation of a Cabinet minute that proposed the amendments, comments were received from the relevant Ministers in the New South Wales Government—the Attorney General, the Minister for Roads, the Treasurer and the Minister for Small Business. Following Cabinet approval the Office of Fair Trading consulted the Attorney General's department in a meeting that was attended by a representative of the Privacy Commissioner. Consultation with the Attorney General's Department continued until the final bill was agreed. The Minister for Small Business and the Minister for Roads have also been consulted on the bill and, importantly, the Australian Retailers Association was consulted and its concerns assessed. The final bill has adequately addressed any concerns expressed by that organisation.
In looking at this legislation we should look at why some of the particular powers that this legislation will bring about are necessary. First let us look at why the seizure powers are necessary. The reason is that the investigators in the Office of Fair Trading have experienced numerous occasions when their attempts to enforce the Fair Trading Act have been frustrated by a lack of such powers. One such circumstance is due to the fact that much information is now stored in computers rather than on hard copy. Current laws permit inspection of documents or require certain documents to be produced by the trader. Realistically a rogue trader is not going to offer to print off material on a computer, and any evidence of a contravention stored in that way can be deleted before any action can be taken through the courts if the trader is forewarned. The court has refused to require a computer to be handed over to the Office of Fair Trading because there is no express seizure power in the Fair Trading Act.
Another circumstance involved goods that had been declared noncompliant with the safety standard but which were subsequently found in stores. The trader refused to sell for a fair price, as is currently required under the Fair Trading Act. In such a case it should not be necessary to be reliant on the co-operation of the trader in order to enforce the law. There are instances also of mobile traders who sell potentially dangerous goods from car boots, and also traders who operate scams from vehicles that involve bogus repair services. I am sure from time to time everybody in this Chamber has read articles in the Sydney newspapers about people who drive around selling very cheap audio speakers from the back of trucks. These sorts of people will be caught up by these new amendments. But not one of the circumstances I have outlined is able to be dealt with under the laws as currently drafted.
The next question we should consider is what protection there will be against abuse of the seizure powers. That is a very legitimate question and that is why the Privacy Commissioner was involved in the consultations that were held. The requirement under the amendment bill for an investigator to request a search warrant to seize goods means that there will be a judicial overview before any action is taken. As well, the investigator must have reasonable grounds for believing that a contravention has occurred, so there must be sufficient information to hand to justify any application for a warrant. The Search Warrant Act 1985 requires a number of administrative procedures to be undertaken prior to and following interviews. It is unlikely that the power will be used unless there is sufficient cause.
As well, the issuer of the warrant is required to consider the reliability of the information on which the application is based and whether there is sufficient connection between the things sought and the offence to which the warrant relates. It should also be noted that any action of a government agency is subject to scrutiny by the courts and also by the Ombudsman. Complaints can be made to the Minister for Fair Trading and also to the Commissioner for Fair Trading—
The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Madam Deputy-President, I draw your attention to the state of the House.
[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Kayee Griffin) left the chair at 5.20 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [8.00 p.m.]: As I said earlier, I will put a number of questions that have been asked about the operations of the Fair Trading Amendment Bill. Will traders be able to manipulate these powers in their favour by dobbing in a competitor? The Australian Retailers Association raised this issue. The 7800 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004 requirement to request a search warrant and to have reasonable grounds for believing that a contravention has occurred will mean that no action can be taken without the Office of Fair Trading being in receipt of convincing information that a contravention of the Act has occurred or is occurring. The fact that a trader gives information about another trader is not necessarily a manipulation of the law. The Fair Trading Act applies to behaviour between competitors, as well as between traders and consumers. Often, traders are in a better position to identify dishonest traders than are consumers and many of the complaints made to the Office of Fair Trading are from traders about their competitors who are not competing fairly.
Will the retention of anything seized mean a trader's business is compromised? In the event of a computer being seized and retained, the bill requires the Office of Fair Trading to return anything seized to the person from whom it was taken if it is not required to be used in evidence and if the person can lawfully have possession of it. If goods are taken that may be in contravention of the Fair Trading Act, they may have been seized to prevent them being offered for sale—such as the usual pre-Christmas unsafe toys scenario. Therefore, it would not be possible to return them before the proceedings in the matter had been resolved. It should be noted that the requirement for a search warrant where there are reasonable grounds for believing a contravention has occurred or is occurring means that the circumstances for using such powers will be very limited. If there is sufficient evidence for a warrant to be issued and for removal of anything that may constitute evidence, it is extremely unlikely that legitimate traders will be affected.
How will the Government ensure that the exchange of information powers will not trespass on a person's privacy? As I have already noted, the Privacy Commissioner was involved in consultation on this bill. All the powers formalised in the bill are currently in the spirit of the Department of Fair Trading Privacy Code of Practice made under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998. That code sets out the circumstances in which the Office of Fair Trading is authorised for the purposes of exercising its functions to access and disclose certain information that might be protected under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act. The bill limits the exchange of information to information concerning investigations, law enforcement, licensing, disciplinary matters and assessment of complaints, as well as probity assessments, reference checks and other information affecting the interests of consumers.
Further, the bill states that the information sharing arrangement is authorised only to the extent that the information concerned is reasonably necessary to assist the agencies concerned to carry out their functions. The Privacy Commissioner has been consulted in the drafting of the bill and changes have been made in the expression of the powers, which meet the commissioner's concerns while ensuring that the Office of Fair Trading is able to carry out its functions. What powers for the exchange of information does the bill allow which are not in the current privacy code? The bill will allow probity assessments and reference checks in relation to the providers of goods and services—for example, ratings will be given to the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care on applicants to provide goods and services to Seniors Card holders—and private contractors on Department of Commerce procurement panels.
The bill will also enable the exchange of information affecting the interests of consumers. This may include information concerning, for example, the bona fides of a director of an organisation if an investigation is under way. The exchange of information will occur only to the extent that it is reasonably necessary in the exercise of functions of relevant agencies. The latter has been defined to include entities such as the Consumer Credit Legal Centre. I have advised the House extensively about the ways in which this bill will enhance the rights of consumers. The bill provides the Office of Fair Trading with additional powers to investigate traders who use new technologies to conduct illegal activities. The bill protects retailers and traders who operate within the constraints of the law and provide a fair service to customers and consumers. When considering the bill I ask honourable members to take into account the extensive consultation process that has been entered into with the appropriate stakeholders prior to the bill being brought before the House. The Government has ensured the rights of consumers by providing a fair trading environment in which to buy goods and services. I urge all honourable members to support the bill.
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)) [8.06 p.m.], in reply: I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages. 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7801
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (COUNCIL AND EMPLOYEE SECURITY) BILL
In Committee
Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.
The CHAIRMAN: Order! I remind the Committee that Ms Sylvia Hale has moved Greens amendments Nos 7 to 11 in globo to schedule 2.
Ms SYLVIA HALE [8.09 p.m.]: The Greens oppose the incorporation of schedule 2 into the legislation and will vote against it. However, in order to improve the outcome should the schedule be adopted we propose to amend it. The effect of our amendment is to require the Minister to give three months notice of any proposal to delay a council election. The Minister already has the power to dismiss councils and to delay elections. We saw ample evidence of that in the lead-up to last weekend's local government elections. The Minister has the power to require elections to be delayed when gross mismanagement has occurred and a council has been dismissed. He can also delay elections in the case of amalgamations or boundary changes if all councils concerned have applied for and agreed to a postponement. The Minister can determine the timing of the election for a newly gazetted council. However, he cannot force a council to postpone an election against the wishes of the council and/or the community. The Local Government Amendment (Council and Employees Security) Bill is designed to give the Minister carte blanche to delay elections at his discretion. If passed it would allow the Minister to postpone elections for up to two years in any case in which a boundary change or amalgamation was under consideration. It is deliberately vague on the definition of "under consideration". The bill proposes that the Minister may postpone elections when:
(a) an amalgamation proposal or boundary proposal affecting the council:
(i) is being formulated or is under consideration for formulation, or
(ii) has been made by or to the Minister, or
(b) the council is the subject of …
(iii) an investigation by an authority (as defined in the Dictionary at the end of this Act) under any Act …
The term "under consideration" is clearly open to ministerial interpretation and discretion. There is nothing in the bill to stop the Minister delaying any council election at any time simply by claiming that he is considering a boundary change. If a council were under investigation, presumably for anything by any authority, the Minister could postpone an election. The recommendation for a regional review would certainly qualify as justification to postpone an election. These are wide-sweeping powers designed to make it easier for this Government to delay elections willy-nilly and to buy it as much time as it needs to ram through its agenda of forced amalgamations. The Greens do not support these provisions and will support the Opposition's proposal to remove schedule 2.
However, we will pursue these amendments, which will require the Minister to give a minimum of three months notice of any postponement. Candidates, sitting councillors and the voting public have a right to democratic certainty. Communities and councils should be given a reasonable amount of time to adjust budgets and planning for any proposed delay. The charade witnessed in the weeks leading up to last weekend's local government elections, which involved councils being sacked after pre-polling had begun and candidates had paid their registration fees and election materials having been printed and staff employed, makes a total farce of the Government's claim that amalgamations are about cost savings. The Greens urge all honourable members to support these amendments, which will give councils and the community greater democratic certainty by requiring the Minister to give three months notice of any election delay.
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)) [8.14 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendments moved by the Greens. Despite Ms Sylvia Hale's fanciful allegations about the motivation behind this bill, the Government has introduced the deferral of election provisions as a means of saving councils money. Obviously, the Government would prefer not to have to defer council elections once the preparations have begun, but it appreciates that in some cases elections may need to be deferred at that stage. If it becomes clear that a public inquiry into a council is required, as happened at Liverpool, or the Local Government Boundaries Commission considers a proposal, the ultimate cost to the council and ratepayers is less if the election can be deferred. That is why the Government opposes these amendments and amendments Nos 10 and 11, which are consequential. 7802 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.16 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose, but will not support all the Greens amendments because schedule 2 should be deleted in its entirety. We appreciate Ms Sylvia Hale's indication that if the amendments are not passed the Greens agree that the schedule should be removed.
Ms SYLVIA HALE [8.17 p.m.]: These amendments were designed to patch up an extraordinarily faulty piece of legislation. These amendments are a safeguard against schedule 2 being passed. I note the Minister's comment that, despite my fears to the contrary, the Government is not motivated by sinister desires. I find it appalling that this Parliament would pass a piece of legislation whose operation is so dependent upon the goodwill or otherwise of the Minister of the day. That is the problem with this bill—it is open to ministerial discretion. Although the current Minister may see himself as a perfectly good fellow—a view not shared by many in the community—it is not an appropriate way for the Government to operate. If this schedule is passed a key aspect of the electoral process will be open to manipulation. We all know that results can be manipulated, which we witnessed in the amalgamation of Sydney City Council and South Sydney City Council. Fortunately, that was greeted with a notable rebuff.
If these amendments were passed at least councils would be given three months notice, which would allow for a proper planning process. It would prevent the situation we have seen so often in the past few weeks of councils being required to foot the bill for expenses incurred as a result of training electoral officers, scrutineering and counting the vote in other council areas despite the fact that they are not going to an election themselves. These amendments are designed to introduce an element of sanity, responsibility and accountability into the bill by preventing the Minister deferring an election within three months of the scheduled election date. These are perfectly sane and sensible provisions, but not sufficiently sane or sensible to save schedule 2. Nevertheless, they should be there as a safeguard.
Amendments negatived.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [8.19 p.m.], by leave: I move Christian Democratic Party amendments Nos 1 to 3 in globo:
No. 1 Page 6, schedule 2 [2], proposed section 318B (1) (a), lines 19-23. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 2 Page 7, schedule 2 [2], proposed section 318B (3), lines 12-15. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 3 Page 9, schedule 2 [3], lines 3-8. Omit all words on those lines.
The Government sought to refine the bill by removing matters that were causing concern for local government. Amendment No. 1 seeks to delete paragraph (a) of section 318B (1), which provides:
an amalgamation proposal or boundary proposal affecting the council:
(i) is being formulated or is under consideration for formulation, or
(ii) has been made by or to the Minister, or
The terminology used in the provision is extremely vague. In particular, the words "under consideration" almost give the Minister a blank cheque. I believe the Committee should support the amendment, which will remove from the bill what is, in effect, the only controversial aspect. Amendment No. 2, which is consequential upon amendment No. 1, seeks to delete subsection (3) of section 318B, which provides:
a further order referred to in subsection (2) (b) may be made, in the case of a proposal that is being formulated but has not been made, only if the Minister is satisfied that substantial progress has been made in the formulation of the proposal.
The proposal referred to relates to subsection (2) (b), which provides:
if the postponement is extended by a further order under this section, 31 December in the calendar year following that in which the first such order was made.
The deletion of section 318B (3) removes uncertainty from the bill. Amendment No. 3 seeks to delete item [3] of schedule 2, which inserts in the Act the following definitions:
amalgamation proposal means a proposal under Chapter 9 for the amalgamation of two or more areas.
boundary proposal means a proposal under Chapter 9 for the alteration of the boundaries of one or more areas. 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7803
As I said in my contribution to the second reading debate, the bill is constructive; it provides certainty in the areas where it is required. An important aspect of the bill is that it provides certainty with regard to security for council employees. Indeed, that is why the words "Council and Employee Security" are included in the long title. Other provisions are equally important. The Opposition opposed the provision relating to council rates, which has already been passed. The provision simply gives councils the power to apply for rate increases, and that is why we did not support it.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: It let the Government off the hook and left the ratepayers to pay.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: It was still left in the hands of councils. They have enough intelligence to know what is best for ratepayers. I urge the Committee to support my amendments.
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)) [8.24 p.m.]: The Government supports the Christian Democratic Party amendments. They represent a good balance between the need for the power to defer elections in certain circumstances, the power that will save councils and their communities money, and the need for councils to have greater clarity about the conditions under which their elections can be deferred. I understand that this proposal has been of concern to many crossbench members, and we are therefore pleased to have been able to negotiate with crossbench members to reach this position.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.25 p.m.]: As with the Greens amendments, the Opposition does not oppose the Christian Democratic Party amendments. However, I indicate that the Opposition will move an amendment to remove schedule 2 from the bill, which we believe is a better solution.
Amendments agreed to.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.25 p.m.]: For the reasons indicated during the second reading debate, the Opposition will divide on schedule 2 and vote against it.
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)) [8.25 p.m.]: I wish to comment on amendments foreshadowed by the Hon. Dr Peter Wong in relation to the dismissal of a council. Whilst they were outside the leave of the bill, the Hon. Dr Peter Wong's intention by way of his amendments was to seek to have the Government table the reports in both Houses of Parliament within 15 days of the dismissal of a council. I have no intention of seeking to circumvent that, so I provide a commitment to members that within a fortnight of the reports being delivered to the Governor and a council being dismissed, both reports will be tabled in both Houses of Parliament.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.26 p.m.]: I acknowledge that a commitment by a Minister in a second reading speech has a degree of binding, and I accept the Minister's word on that. As the Minister just indicated, he considers this commitment to be binding. We agree with what the Hon. Dr Peter Wong was seeking to do by way of his amendments, and we thank the Minister for his commitment.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [8.27 p.m.]: I have had a number of discussions with the Hon. Dr Peter Wong about this matter. The Minister's commitment seems to be the best way to deal with the matter. On behalf of myself and the Hon. Dr Peter Wong, who is absent from the Chamber at this time, I thank the Minister for his assurance.
Question—That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to—put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 22
Dr Burgmann Mr Hatzistergos Ms Tebbutt Mr Burke Mr Jenkins Mr Tingle Ms Burnswoods Mr Kelly Mr Tsang Mr Catanzariti Mr Macdonald Dr Wong Mr Costa Reverend Nile Mr Della Bosca Mr Obeid Tellers, Mr Egan Mr Oldfield Mr Primrose Ms Griffin Ms Robertson Mr West 7804 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004
Noes, 17
Mr Breen Mr Gallacher Mrs Pavey Dr Chesterfield-Evans Miss Gardiner Mr Pearce Mr Clarke Mr Gay Mr Ryan Mr Cohen Ms Hale Tellers, Ms Cusack Mr Lynn Mr Colless Mrs Forsythe Ms Parker Mr Harwin
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.35 p.m.]: The Nationals amendments Nos 1 and 2 are consequential upon the previous amendments, which were lost. We will reserve the right to vote against the bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee with amendments and report adopted.
Third Reading
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)) [8.37 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
The House divided.
Ayes, 27
Mr Breen Ms Griffin Ms Robertson Mr Burke Ms Hale Ms Tebbutt Ms Burnswoods Mr Hatzistergos Mr Tingle Mr Catanzariti Mr Jenkins Mr Tsang Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Kelly Dr Wong Mr Cohen Mr Macdonald Mr Costa Reverend Nile Tellers, Mr Della Bosca Mr Obeid Mr Primrose Mr Egan Mr Oldfield Mr West Ms Fazio Ms Rhiannon
Noes, 13
Mr Clarke Mr Gay Mr Ryan Ms Cusack Mr Lynn Mrs Forsythe Ms Parker Tellers, Mr Gallacher Mrs Pavey Mr Colless Miss Gardiner Mr Pearce Mr Harwin
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a third time. 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7805
HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS AMENDMENT (SPECIAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY) BILL
Bill received, read a first time and ordered to be printed.
Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:
That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.
Second Reading
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)) [8.45 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Government established the Special Commission of Inquiry into Campbelltown and Camden Hospitals headed by Mr Bret Walker, SC, after the report of the Health Care Complaints Commission [HCCC] was presented in December 2003. The HCCC report and investigations undertaken by the HCCC had numerous shortcomings. The interim report of the special commission, released today, has highlighted just how flawed the previous HCCC investigative process has been. Mr Walker's interim report highlights "what appears to be a serious avoidance by the HCCC of its mandatory statutory function when it received complaints concerning the conduct of medical practitioners".
The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: Mr Deputy-President, we are in the middle of a second reading speech on a bill that is not available in the Chamber.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Are there copies of the bill available?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: Mr Deputy-President, to suit the convenience of the House, I suggest that you do now leave the chair until the ringing of a long bell.
[The Deputy-President (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile) left the chair at 8.47 p.m. The House resumed at 8.49 p.m.]
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)) [8.49 p.m.]: Mr Walker is particularly critical that the Health Care Complaints Commission "substantiates" complaints about individual patient care, without regarding those allegations as complaints against particular doctors. He describes this as "offensive to a sense of fairness". The failure of the Health Care Complaints Commission to address issues of individual accountability was one of the crucial reasons why the Government established the special commission of inquiry. One of the key tasks of the special commission has been to review the clinical incidents the subject of the complaints and identify the most serious clinical incidents requiring further investigation. Mr Walker has now completed part of that task and has recommended that a number of matters be investigated by the Health Care Complaints Commission with a view to instituting disciplinary action. He has also recommended that some matters be referred to the medical board for performance assessment.
Some people might ask why we are sending these matters back to the Health Care Complaints Commission for investigation when the commission failed to completely deal with the complaints the first time round. As is noted in the special commission's interim report, Parliament has given the Health Care Complaints Commission the responsibility and power to carry out these investigations. The Medical Tribunal and the Nurses Tribunal are the bodies responsible for determining whether sanctions should be imposed on practitioners. Mr Walker does not have the power to conduct disciplinary proceedings against practitioners. Indeed, Mr Walker expressed the strong view at recent public hearings that it would not be appropriate for him to seek to carry out such a role.
The special commission's resources are best used to identify the most serious clinical incidents requiring further investigation. It is therefore appropriate that these matters be referred to the Health Care Complaints Commission. The Government is confident that the Health Care Complaints Commission will be able to carry out this task competently and quickly. The Government has recently taken steps to improve the operation of the Health Care Complaints Commission. Steps include the appointment of a new acting 7806 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004 commissioner, His Honour Judge Taylor. The Government has also provided additional funding to establish a specialist Macarthur team to carry out these investigations. The Macarthur team is headed by counsel from the private bar. Multidisciplinary teams will pursue these matters to completion. I am advised that not one of the staff involved in the initial Health Care Complaints Commission investigations is a member of this team.
Mr Walker has recommended that the Government introduce special remedial legislation to facilitate the implementation of the further actions recommended in his interim report. This need has arisen because the existing complaints legislation does not contemplate or permit intervention such as the special commission. Mr Walker has expressed the view that a subsequent prosecution may be subject to an argument that it is unlawful because of this interference in the decision-making process. Mr Walker has said that this is by no means an argument that may be safely ignored. The bill is necessary to prevent legal challenges on this and other technical grounds by health practitioners who will be subject to further investigation. Practitioners should not be able to avoid disciplinary sanctions on the basis of a technicality.
This legislation will ensure that the merits of the case against them can be argued before the relevant tribunal or professional standards committee, if such proceedings are instituted. The need for this legislation also arises because of the necessity to prevent further delays in this already lengthy process. The Government wants to ensure that the families and patients affected by the incidents at Campbelltown and Camden hospitals will be confident that these matters have been properly examined as quickly as possible. This bill will ensure that that happens.
I turn now to the provisions of the bill. Clause 2 of new schedule 5 to the Act will require the Health Care Complaints Commission to investigate the matters that the special commission recommends be investigated. The clause streamlines the existing statutory process so that investigation can proceed without further delay. The procedural requirements in the Health Care Complaints Act to assess a matter prior to an investigation are deemed to have been complied with. There is no sound reason to delay the process further by requiring the Health Care Complaints Commission to again assess complaints. Practitioners will have the opportunity during the further Health Care Complaints Commission investigation to argue that the matter should not proceed to disciplinary action, and will ultimately be able to defend their actions before the tribunal should disciplinary action be instituted.
Clause 3 of the schedule requires the Health Care Complaints Commission to refer matters to the relevant board where recommended by the special commission for possible performance or impairment assessment. Clause 4 allows the special commission to provide information that it has already gathered to relevant bodies. This will ensure that the material and information gathered to date by the special commission can be used by the Health Care Complaints Commission and registration boards without the need to regather that information.
Clause 5 will allow that information to be taken into account by the Health Care Complaints Commission, registration authorities, impairment or professional assessment bodies, and disciplinary bodies. This provision will put beyond doubt that the special commission's material can be considered without the risk of legal challenge. However, it will remain the responsibility of each relevant body to form its own view on the material it considers.
Clause 6 will prevent legal challenges to the further Health Care Complaints Commission investigations, disciplinary proceedings or other actions that are recommended by the special commission. The clause will prevent legal challenges on the basis of technical grounds that may be raised by health practitioners. For example, it will prevent challenges on the basis that either the special commission or the Health Care Complaints Commission has already considered the matters. Similarly, the fact that the special commission has made recommendations in relation to these matters will not be a reason to challenge the decisions of the Health Care Complaints Commission or the tribunal.
The provision will also operate to ensure that the flawed process undertaken by the Health Care Complaints Commission during its previous investigation at the hospitals does not prevent the complaints being pursued. It is intended to cover the broad range of challenges that might be made on technical grounds. The bill is intended to ensure that all matters will be properly tested on their merits in the tribunal or another relevant disciplinary body. No-one will be disadvantaged. Practitioners will have a full opportunity to argue the merits of their case before the relevant body. Staff, patients and families will be confident that these complaints have been fully tested and pursued.
I can advise the House that Mr Walker has reviewed a draft of this legislation and has indicated that he considers that the draft provided, which is virtually identical to this bill, is the kind of legislation that is urgently 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7807 needed to permit these overdue investigations and prosecutions to be completed on their merits. In light of the urgent need for legislation, as flagged by Mr Walker, the Government has indicated that it intends to pass the legislation through all stages this week. This is necessary because there is a risk that before Parliament resumes in May some practitioners may have been able to successfully challenge the further actions recommended by Mr Walker. Mr Walker has briefed the Opposition on this proposal and explained the need for this legislation and the associated urgency. I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [8.56 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in the debate on this bill, which has been hurriedly prepared and thrust in front of us. The Opposition supports the bill not because it supports the Government's sloppy handling of the health portfolio but because it is time this matter was resolved. It is time that the families and those who have suffered long enough had this issue resolved once and for all. Such legislation is urgent in order to address the sloppy mess left by the Government with regard to matters referred to the Health Care Complaints Commission. The Opposition wants to ensure that every opportunity is taken to fully investigate every matter so that the families involved and the practitioners and officers of the Department of Health and in the field at Camden and Campbelltown hospitals can have confidence in the fairness of the process.
This is a sad day for New South Wales. The report by Bret Walker, SC, is most serious. Matters referred to in the report are horrific. It is an indictment of the Government's mismanagement of the health portfolio for many years. On the Government's watch the Health Care Complaints Commission failed. It failed the people of New South Wales; it certainly failed the families that we know have suffered a great deal. The Walker inquiry shows clearly that not one of the 70 cases examined was properly dealt with by the Health Care Complaints Commission. That is proof positive that thousands of cases of alleged inappropriate care have not been properly investigated by the Health Care Complaints Commission, whose commissioner allegedly examined the issues to see what could be done to resolve the failures in the system but who refused to investigate the problems to determine their root cause or who was responsible for them.
No doubt there are systemic problems, but those responsible for them must be held accountable for what they have done or not done. If, after investigation, these people are cleared of any wrongdoing, that will remove the cloud that has probably been hanging over their heads for far too long. Without this legislation they would probably not have that opportunity, and the families of Camden and Campbelltown would not have the opportunity to know that every investigation has been covered. I wonder just how many cases have not been investigated by the HCCC. How many cases have been swept under the carpet just to keep things smooth? How many cases have not been properly investigated, and how many victims have suffered needlessly? On 11 May 1994 Mr Carr said:
Do not let it be on our consciences that we walked out of this Parliament tonight not having provided for the fullest investigations of the matters that have been placed before this Parliament.
He was arguing for a royal commission. We think there needs to be a royal commission. I do not want it on my conscience that nothing has been done on behalf of these families. I do not want it on my conscience that we have not done all we can to improve the health care of the people of New South Wales. The Health Care Complaints Commission has completely abrogated its professional and legislative duty, the duty to investigate local area health services. It is an absolute disgrace, and this Government needs to accept responsibility that while on its watch no proper investigation was carried out in 70 cases—and that is 70 that we know of. How many unnecessary deaths have occurred in public hospitals across the State while the previous Health Care Complaints Commissioner was running the ship and while this Government was running health care in New South Wales?
Bret Walker, SC, found it inexplicable that the Health Care Complaints Commission found no substantiated allegations of departures from standards of health care at Camden and Campbelltown hospitals. He further found that it was offensive that the HCCC chose to treat complaints as against the area health service rather than against individual practitioners. How many secrets are hiding within the files of the HCCC? It is time we knew. This legislation is necessary so we can make sure that those investigations continue. The need has arisen because existing complaints legislation does not permit the two inquiries or investigations to take place side by side. In order to have procedural fairness this legislation is required so that all the investigations are conducted properly and at the end of the day it can be said that one inquiry has not negated the other. People will be sure that there is no interference in any of the decision-making processes in these investigations. The legislation is necessary so that legal challenges cannot be mounted and there will be no grounds for challenge after further investigations. 7808 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004
If people have done the wrong thing, disciplinary action needs to be taken against them. They need to account for what they have done. Slipping away because of a technicality is not good enough. If it is proved that they have not done the wrong thing, they can clear their names and move on. This legislation is needed to prevent lengthy delays. Have we not waited long enough? The people of Camden and Campbelltown, and the people of New South Wales, have waited long enough for this investigation to finish. How many months did this investigation through the HCCC continue? How many months were we waiting while nothing happened? We waited 13 months too long—certainly for the families involved. So let us not delay. Let us make sure that something happens, because we do not know what has not been investigated.
The bill will require the HCCC to investigate the matters that the special commission has recommended. It will ensure that the statutory process is followed so that the investigation can proceed without delay. It will give people an opportunity to argue their cases, to defend themselves in a situation that provides procedural fairness. It will allow referral to relevant bodies. It will ensure that all information and all material gathered to date by the special commission of inquiry is also able to be used by the HCCC and the Nurses Registration Board and the Medical Board. It will allow information that has been gathered by the special commissioner to be taken into account.
Clause 6 of new schedule 5 to the Act will prevent further legal challenges on technical grounds. The fact that the special commission has made recommendations in relation to these matters will not be a reason to challenge the decision of the HCCC in the tribunal. This bill is intended to ensure that all matters will be properly tested on their merits. This bill will tidy up the mess that has been left by this Government, the crisis that has occurred in Camden and Campbelltown hospitals, and it will start to ease the unnecessary trauma experienced by families. This is important because for so long the Health Care Complaints Commission failed to investigate thousands of cases that were referred; it failed and stalled time and again because of a health system that failed, a health system that was in crisis, and a health Minister who failed.
Let us not forget that people died because this Government and the watchdog, the HCCC, failed them. We will not be responsible for further failures. We want to make sure we have not turned our backs on those families or the patients. We have a responsibility to make sure that everyone is brought to account—from the Government to the local hospitals, to the area health boards, and to anyone in the health care system who should be responsible. At the end of the day we want to make sure that out of this process there is an improved system—an opportunity for everybody to feel confident that cases will be investigated, to feel confident that out of investigations there will be blame where blame is appropriate; there will be opportunities for people to say sorry; there will be learning out of any investigation; and there will be a way forward that provides a better health care system and better care for our patients.
We want to make sure following these investigations that the system is improved, that hospitals and the Health Care Complaints Commission are adequately resourced and that problems are not swept under the carpet. We want an environment where complaints are heard and lessons are learnt. We do not want an environment where people with a professional responsibility are not answerable. This legislation, together with the two investigations, will make sure that those things occur, that there is procedural fairness and that people have the opportunity to voice their complaints. It is with reluctance that the Opposition supports this bill, but we will not have it on our conscience that we obstructed an opportunity to fully investigate these issues at every level.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [9.11 p.m.]: I want to refer briefly to the antecedents of this issue. Some nurses at Camden and Campbelltown hospitals were concerned about the quality of care that was being delivered. They complained to management but were not satisfied with the response. In November 2002 they took their complaints to the then Minister for Health, Craig Knowles. The Department of Health carried out some preliminary investigations and referred the matter to the Health Care Complaints Commission [HCCC]. The HCCC delivered its report in December 2003 and there was a great deal of media attention that the issues were not being taken seriously enough.
I moved a motion for which I believed I had the numbers. I put it to the Government that it should initiate a judicial inquiry because a parliamentary inquiry was too cumbersome to deal with such a complex and detailed issue. The Government initiated the Walker inquiry and General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 also initiated an inquiry into the complaints system within the Department of Health. The committee inquiry was broader and covered similar ground to the Walker inquiry. Bret Walker has handed down his interim report in which he criticises the Health Care Complaints Commission principally for not carrying out its statutory obligations in terms of notifying doctors against whom complaints were made. That is perhaps because the then Commissioner, Amanda Adrian, regarded the mistakes as a systems failure. I believe she intended to investigate 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7809 the personal failures once the system failures had been identified. Arguably the HCCC report looked at the system failures without looking at the individuals concerned in those failures.
Bret Walker considers that there cannot be a complaint about an incident without it being a complaint against the medical staff involved in the incident. Therefore, he viewed the HCCC as not having performed its statutory duty, which was to notify the medical staff who had been complained about and allow them to respond to the complaint. The doctors involved in the complaints, which were judged by the HCCC to have been substantiated against the system, were not notified. Effectively there were substantiated complaints against them, yet they had not been notified. In Bret Walker's view the position taken by the HCCC is inexcusable— although that is not a word he uses in his report. The position taken by the HCCC reflects on the then commissioner, who was sacked by the Minister for Health when the HCCC report was released.
I note that the then commissioner, Amanda Adrian, took a systemic approach with the minimum amount of blaming and shaming. That is a basic premise in order to get transparency and allow open discussion for the identification and minimisation of mistakes. Amanda Adrian received a great deal of support from Fiona Tito. The safety theory, which I did a masters degree on, is that in order to get optimum safety practices there has to be an open culture in which all processes, procedures and mistakes are carefully analysed. If mistakes are covered up through fear of retribution, they are never identified, let alone discussed and analysed. Therefore, there is no improvement. The idea that fear of retribution is sufficient to stop accidents happening is a nonsense. I know that Amanda Adrian was of that view and perhaps as the commissioner of the HCCC she tried to deal with complaints using that model rather than following the letter of the law and dealing with individuals.
Fiona Tito supported the concept of not blaming and shaming. I believe she is a significant figure in this issue. She had studied accident theory and occupational health and safety and was an outsider to the health system, not having come from a medical background. I am not sure of her position but she was a relatively high level public servant. She looked at the health system as an industry making mistakes. No-one had ever looked at the health system in such a dispassionate way. She believed that about 18,000 preventable deaths occurred annually in the Australian health system. After comparing literature from around the world she suggested that with best practice models and the analysis of mistakes the figure could be reduced to 9,000.
I called her 1996 study a seminal piece of work. She replied somewhat flippantly that it was a terminal piece of work because when she was about to produce the report she was sacked. Now nine years later she is undertaking a PhD in Canberra. She indicated there was a problem and as the messenger she was shot. Nola Fraser, one of the whistleblowers at Campbelltown, indicated there was a problem and in terms of her career she also was shot, as were most of the whistleblowers. People have begun to come to terms with the suggestion that there was a problem and are trying to put quality control mechanisms in place, but they are variable in their applications throughout the system. On the Sunday program it was said that Campbelltown hospital is no worse than any other hospital. That is the point: Fiona Tito's 18,000 deaths have not been adequately addressed. Nola Fraser merely asked, "Don't you see that the emperor still has no clothes?"
John Menadue, an eminent banker who was asked to examine the health system, commented that no- one really is in charge of the health system and that is the problem. I believe that is a very perceptive comment. Tito and Fraser have been vindicated in that the Minister for Health, the Premier today in the news and Bret Walker have endorsed the fact that there is a problem. Those acknowledgements are important and will make a huge difference to the culture and the way mistakes and problems in the Department of Health are looked at and addressed. In a sense the activists—Tito and Fraser—have been vindicated in this process.
Walker was concerned that his report, which deliberately does not mention names and dates and which is relatively vague on case details, may be perceived as influencing HCCC investigators and that when the HCCC eventually prosecutes individuals before the Medical Board and the Nurses Registration Board an administrative defence lawyer might say that the process was unfair and that they had been investigated by people who believed they were guilty. This legislation seeks to close that administrative law loophole.
New South Wales is the only jurisdiction in which the health care complaints body investigates and prosecutes. I understand that is historical. In other Australian jurisdictions health care complaints bodies investigate but prosecutions are undertaken by medical or other professional boards. The Chelmsford inquiry dealt with psychiatrist Harry Bailey's controversial and cavalier treatment of psychiatric patients using deep- sleep therapy, which involved anaesthetising patients for about a week so that they would wake free of their psychiatric problems, particularly depression. Of course, the bottom line was that many of them died of the side effects of the anaesthetic. They vomited and inhaled or developed bedsores or pneumonia because the procedure 7810 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004 was poorly controlled. That situation was covered up and inadequately addressed by the health system for some years, and it is the reason the power to prosecute was removed from the medical boards and given to the HCCC. We have come a long way since then.
Professor Brian McCaughan, the President of the New South Wales Medical Board, believes the board is responsible for the quality of doctors in New South Wales. The Nurses Registration Board is not as clear about who is responsible for nursing standards, but it may come to the same view as the Medical Board. The doctors who have been investigated by the HCCC and Amanda Adrian believed that the HCCC would go on to investigate individuals when it had completed its investigation of systemic issues. The thrust of this legislation is that the HCCC must investigate complaints made against individuals. Of course, they will have to be investigated and then prosecuted by the HCCC if their medical standards are found wanting. Restitution, education or penalties will be worked out by the relevant medical board, registration board or other professional body.
This legislation must ensure that the process goes ahead and that justice is preserved. The fact that the investigations of individuals are not finished and that the board procedure must be completed as a quasi-judicial process will mean that procedural fairness will be preserved for those who have been the subject of complaints or negative findings in the Walker report. This legislation is a good compromise. It was pointed out to me that if the legislation were not passed tonight an administrative lawyer taking pre-emptive action on behalf of some doctors could turn up at 9.00 a.m. tomorrow and ask for an injunction. I do not understand that process entirely, but I believe the advice is correct. Therefore, this legislation must be passed tonight.
I have railed frequently about legislation being dropped on honourable members at the last minute and being passed without having been properly considered. This legislation is certainly in that category. Many honourable members do not understand the situation. I am one of the lucky few who do and I have tried to elucidate. This is not a good precedent, but it is necessary and the legislation, which I believe was suggested by Walker, is required to ensure fairness in the investigation of doctors. I asked Bret Walker about the blame versus no-blame culture and he said that it had to be sorted out. Of course, that will be part of his next report and the issue will be discussed further. It is important that the adversarial framework be kept to a minimum. This legislation at least prevents our prejudicing a fair process in the future. It is necessary, although it is unfortunate that it has been necessary to rush it through this place. I support the legislation.
The Hon. JON JENKINS [9.25 p.m.]: I understand the urgency of this legislation and I support it. I have a couple of concerns that were partially addressed in the Minister's second reading speech. Existing Health Care Complaints Commission [HCCC] investigations should not be hindered or slowed down by the obvious priority of this process. I understand the HCCC is still investigating other medical complaints, and I hope that those investigations will not be unduly delayed as a result of resources being diverted to this new system. I am told that will not be the case, and I accept that. I am concerned about the legislation being designed to prevent the HCCC's investigations and any inquiries or actions following on from them being stymied by the existence of the Walker inquiry or any other pre-existing HCCC investigations. That is a technicality. I understand the reasons for it and I support it.
The wording is somewhat complex. However, if as indicated by the Minister in the second reading speech, that is the intention, I support it. I do not support the removal of natural justice or any existing right of appeal to the court system on points of law. I am assured by the Minister and his advisers that will not happen. If medical practitioners are to be investigated I would also like to see a similar rigorous investigation of the administration of the health system. Why did the administrative system not detect and deal with some of these problems? Where is the complaints body dealing with the administrative and executive sector of the health system?
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [9.28 p.m.]: The Health Care Complaints Amendment (Special Commission of Inquiry) Bill should be renamed the Health Care Complaints Amendment (Chickens Come Home to Roost) Bill. This Government's handling of the health system is a disgrace. This legislation is absolute proof, if we needed it, of the significance of the problems in the system. I will not take a long time to deal with this issue tonight because I will have an opportunity to pursue it when General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 completes its inquiry into some of these issues from a slightly different perspective.
I am disappointed, given the urgency of this legislation, that although crossbench members and Opposition members in the other place were briefed no-one thought it was appropriate to provide Opposition members in this place with a briefing. If it had not been for crossbench members drawing our attention earlier today to what was going on we might not have undertaken our own investigations. 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7811
I have enormous respect for Bret Walker, SC, and his recommendations. The Opposition accepts that with regard to issues of unlawfulness, the last thing we need is loopholes by way of technicalities that would allow anyone who should be the subject of legal review and prosecution to in any way avoid that. However, as I said, this bill is the "chickens come home to roost" legislation for the Government. For too long the Government has been in a state of absolute denial about the health system over which it has presided. It has been in denial about the level of resources it has given to health and, indeed, to the Health Care Complaints Commission. More important, this is an issue about the impact of mates—what you have when you have mates in all sorts of places. I do not want to go into that matter, because I suspect it will be the subject of further investigations by Bret Walker, SC.
However, when we start to look at where things have gone wrong, there have simply been too many mates. I refer, for example, to the mates of the chairman of the South Western Sydney Area Health Service. I recall the former shadow Minister for Health drawing attention to a phone call she received in which, in effect, the reputations of some of the nurses were damned by the then chairman of the area health service. Throughout the inquiry of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 we have heard evidence about mates—people who have been part of the Labor club for a long period, people in senior administrative roles in Macarthur health service and, dare I say, the Health Care Complaints Commission.
For too long we saw a closed shop, a health club of people who fed off each other and reinforced each other, and all of that was underpinned by their solid commitment to the Labor Party. It went right through to the top, to the former Minister and the Carr Government, and the way in which they had in place in all the "right" places for the people who could press the right buttons. However, a few other people who were not part of that club—good nurses and doctors, good professional people—started to press different buttons, and the Government did not know how to cope with that. For a very long period it adopted a shoot-the-messenger approach. It started in the middle of 2002 and it carried forward.
The Government was in a state of denial or a state of shoot the messenger. It never dealt with the message, until finally it was embarrassed into it by the actions of the media and the Opposition—and by the fact that a new Minister recognised that he could not be dragged down by the problems in the Macarthur health service and he had to do something about them, which resulted in the subsequent investigations. As a result of all this, the reputations of good people have been irrevocably damaged— nurses and doctors who, because they stood up and were brave, may never recover their careers and may never get back into the public health system, though many of them have only objective in life: to serve the community of New South Wales through the public health system.
Those nurses and doctors feel enormously let down. On their behalf, and behalf of the patients and their families, who have been the victims of the Government's inaction, we support the bill. At the end of the day, we want to see a process put in place that ensures justice for these people. Through the special commission of inquiry, that may well be done. Ultimately, the buck will have to stop not with the Health Care Complaints Commissioner, and not with some doctors in the system, but with the Carr Labor Government—a Government that presided over a system that has been starved of resources, whether it is the hospital system in Macarthur health service or the Health Care Complaints Commission, into which the Government has now thrown additional resources in recognition that even if it had the will, it did not have the resources. Although, we are not certain whether the Government had the will to properly investigate. The Government will have to bear the cost of having stacked a system with mates and then underresourced it and left the mates to bear the brunt of it.
I know that that is part of what Bret Walker, SC, will be looking at in the next tranche of his investigation. The Opposition supports the legislation because it believes that it is the way forward. In terms of natural justice, it is not the only way forward. Regrettably, it has had to be rushed through the Parliament, but we accept that. The difficulty is that this House has not been given the opportunity to be adequately briefed on the bill, and that is regrettable. However, to some extent crossbench members have been helpful in providing us with information. This legislation is not about the individual doctors and nurses who may well find themselves the subject of professional criticism as a result of which their positions may be damaged beyond repair.
Ultimately, this is about the Carr Labor Government's management of the New South Wales health system. That is where the buck stops. The people of New South Wales should have ample opportunity to reflect on the way the Government sought to shoot the messenger, whether it was through the media or the so-called whistleblower nurses and doctors, when there were real problems that it sought to sweep under the carpet and allow to be investigated by the Health Care Complaints Commission—which was clearly not following its full statutory duties, but for which it lacked resources. The Opposition supports the legislation because it is 7812 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004 important and necessary, and it opens the door for us to look further at some of the problems in the New South Wales health system that need to be exposed.
The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [9.36 p.m.]: I support the Health Care Complaints Amendment (Special Commission of Inquiry) Bill. In doing so, however, I share the concerns expressed by many Opposition members that if the Government had acted much earlier there would have been fewer deaths and severe disabilities, and less suffering encountered by the doctors and nurses. I wish to qualify my statement by saying that the Minister for Health, Morris Iemma, has acted quickly, decisively and fairly.
The Hon. John Ryan: He had no other choice.
The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: That may be the case. The former health Minister is a disgrace; he covered up as much as he could. I will give a typical example. Members may recall that about six months ago, with the support of the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission, which is chaired by Jeff Hunter and vice-chaired by you, Madam Deputy-President, I sought the tabling of the report of Dr Sinha, who was wrongly accused of misconduct by both the Health Care Complaints Commission [HCCC] and the Medical Board. Even with the support of this House, the Minister and the Department of Health refused to provide the documentation. The same thing happened with the HCCC. As members of the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission—and I think committee members would agree with me—we speak almost as one voice that the Health Care Complaints Commission has been incompetent, it has lacked proper expertise, and it has engaged in a culture of cover-up through a lack of will. There was absolutely no-one to investigate most of the cases.
In fact, the commission had virtually no expertise in investigating systemic problems such as we are dealing with tonight. As mentioned by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, the hospital system is still in a mess. The current Minister for Health inherited the mess created by previous health Ministers, particularly Craig Knowles. As a result of funding cuts and a political agenda, this chronic problem cannot be solved overnight. For example, some doctors work in hospitals where there are no mid-layer doctors to supervise the junior doctors and there are no registrars in many hospitals at night. Many specialists have resigned fearing that their reputation would be tarnished or because they are burdened with the guilt of the death of patients such as at Fairfield, Liverpool, Camden, Campbelltown and many other hospitals.
My brother, Dr Cyril Wong, was a surgeon at Fairfield District Hospital. He resigned as a consultant at Fairfield because he felt that there was no support for junior doctors and that deaths, disabilities, accidents and disasters will continue to happen. As mentioned by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, there can be inquiry after inquiry and all the doctors and nurses—any number of them—can be blamed. The problem exists, and will continue to exist, until the Government rectifies the major fundamental problem: providing proper funding to our hospital system. I compliment the Minister for Health, Morris Iemma. I went to see him at the peak of numerous investigations. I asked him about the forthcoming report that was supposedly coming out from the HCCC. I asked him what he would do if, as I was predicting, the report were totally inadequate, incompetent and would do nothing. He gave an undertaking that he would immediately institute another inquiry.
I asked the Minister about the nurses. He promised to address the problem as quickly as possible. I informed him that in my opinion and, I think, that of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission, the commissioner, Amanda Adrian, was totally out of her depth. She did not know how to handle the situation; she was probably too scared to investigate. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans said that the commissioner had an agenda to name the doctors and nurses. My reply to him is that it was totally untrue. The commissioner did not know what to do. As was mentioned by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, she was a political appointee. She was too scared to upset anyone. The Minister for Health promised me that doctors and nurses would be named and would be taken to a disciplinary body to be investigated properly.
The Health Care Complaints Amendment (Special Commission of Inquiry) Bill is belated, but I congratulate the Minister on introducing it. I am not saying that the Government acted correctly, honourably or even quickly. However, I think the Minister deserves a fair chance, unless it is proved that he is as bad as the rest. So far I am being objective. He has acted quickly and taken the risk of upsetting many of his Labor colleagues. We should thank him for that. As was mentioned by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, I think this is the beginning of the matter. We will continue to see disaster after disaster. It will not end until the Government rectifies the whole hospital system. I advise the Treasurer that if he is thinking of cutting health funding we will not see a Labor Government in 2007.
Ms SYLVIA HALE [9.45 p.m.]: The Greens support the Health Care Complaints Amendment (Special Commission of Inquiry) Bill on the basis of trust insofar as the opportunity to examine the provisions in 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7813 detail has been virtually denied to all members of this House. I find it extraordinary that three or four hours ago we were given a briefing on the bill, we were provided with copies of the interim report of the special commission of inquiry and we were provided with a briefing note, but we were not provided with the bill. Indeed, copies of the bill did not appear until after the second reading speech began. While the bill purports to ensure that procedural fairness is allocated to everyone involved in this investigation, it seems to me that the very body that has been denied procedural fairness is this House and the members of it. I find that somewhat ironic.
The Hon. Dr Peter Wong congratulated the Minister on his courage in introducing this bill. However, it seems to me that the bill is not the product of the Minister but, rather, it has appeared at the instigation of Bret Walker, SC. The fact that the Minister needs to produce this bill is indicative that with any Act the devil lies in the detail. He has found that the Health Care Complaints Act is inadequate in its detail. It failed to cover the situation in which the commission finds itself today. I find it very disturbing that we should be given what I believe to be quite dense legislation, the implications of which many of us are not fully aware of or comprehend. I find it very disturbing that we should be called upon to push this bill through at the last minute, without any prior notification that it was to be introduced.
The crossbenchers received a briefing yesterday, as is usual. However, not one word—not one syllable—was mentioned about the bill at that briefing. Two other bills were outlined to the crossbenchers. There was certainly no absence of time or opportunity to indicate that this bill was likely to be introduced. I suppose the Government is capable of doing anything it really must, but I cannot believe that it was not in a position to brief us about it at that time. The Government has denied the Opposition the opportunity to examine the bill. If I were a member of the Opposition, I would take that as a considerable affront.
On behalf of the Greens, I endorse the comments of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. She was spot-on when she referred to a culture of mates, a culture of cover-up and a culture that ends up in producing the results detailed in the interim report. As a relatively new member of the House, I have had the interesting experience over the past few weeks of sitting through supplementary budget estimates hearings conducted by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4. The result of questioning during those hearings highlighted a similar culture of mates being appointed to government positions, such as transport services, where former ministerial staffers have been appointed.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The House is debating the Health Care Complaints Amendment (Special Commission of Inquiry) Bill. I do not know how that relates to estimates hearings into the transport portfolio. I can easily understand how the Hon. Sylvia Hale might link it, but most rational people would not. I ask you to direct her to confine her comments to the leave of the bill.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! I remind Ms Sylvia Hale to confine her remarks to the subject matter of the bill.
Ms SYLVIA HALE: The point is that the Health Care Complaints Commission— like departments, ministries or agencies—is staffed by people particularly well disposed to the Government, for whatever reason, who have been anxious to cover up the Government's shortcomings, whether they result from a lack of finance, resources or oversight. Whether one looks at Sydney Water or Transport, a similar culture exists with similarly disastrous results for the community. Basically, it is the ordinary men, women and children who are suffering. One need only consider the examples quoted in the interim report to gain insight into the appalling developments at Campbelltown and Camden hospitals. However, it is important to establish whether it is a question of blaming individuals or identifying systemic problems. I hope the final report of the special commission of inquiry will deal with that aspect.
My main concern is the way in which the bill has been rushed into this House. Honourable members have not had time to consider the detail and, as I said earlier, the devil of legislation is in the detail. We should legislate in an appropriate and careful manner that meets the needs of the community. Nevertheless, it is important that some elements of natural justice be accorded to complainants, those complained about and the victims of what has been happening at these hospitals. Therefore, the Greens support the bill.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.54 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Health Care Complaints Amendment (Special Commission of Inquiry) Bill. We accept the Government's assurance that the bill is urgent and hence the need for its speedy passage through the House. It has been asserted that the bill 7814 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004 should have been available a couple of days ago. However, the Interim Report of the Special Commission of Inquiry into Campbelltown and Camden Hospitals is dated 31 March, and was presented today. Therefore, the Government has had access to this information for only a little longer than other honourable members and in that time it has had to produce the bill and work out a solution.
The Hon. John Ryan: If you believe that, you believe in Santa Claus.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I am merely pointing out the practicalities. The bill amends the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 to minimise the risk of successful legal challenges to investigations into health practitioners and other action recommended by the Special Commission of Inquiry into Campbelltown and Camden Hospitals and to prevent further delays. The bill seeks to re-establish the Health Care Complaints Commission [HCCC] under a new acting commissioner, Judge Taylor. It could be argued that in view of the failure of the HCCC, commission officers should be replaced or sacked and new people appointed to carry out the obligations and duties of the HCCC. We have a complex health system and the community trusted the Health Care Complaints Commission to look after the hospitals of this State, to act speedily and efficiently on complaints from patients, nurses or doctors so that when people are admitted to hospital they have confidence they will receive the best care available in a modern hospital. Despite that trust, the HCCC failed them.
I was staggered at the 70 cases Mr Walker had investigated as at 9 December 2003 with respect to compliance with the Health Care Complaints Act 1993. The report contains the number of the incident, the date of the incident—which range from 1999 to 2003—the date of the first complaint, the date of the complaint to the HCCC and identifying information provided, and a vague published conclusion by the HCCC. However, the commission had a number of other responsibilities, including whether there was consultation with the relevant registration board, notification of the particular doctors concerned, an assessment carried out as required under the Act, whether investigation was completed into individual health practitioners and carried out in accordance with statutory compliance.
In each instance a simple "Yes" is recorded under "Published Conclusion" and a vague conclusion given. The answer to all the other questions for every incident was in the negative—no consultation with the registration board, no notification to health practitioners, no assessment of the HCCC under the Act, no completion of investigation into individual health practitioners, and no compliance with its statutory obligations. The HCCC failed in its duties, but such a dramatic failure was not identified before Mr Walker was appointed to conduct the inquiry. Why were those omissions not identified after the first incident in 1999 rather than in 2003? Who supervised the HCCC, who did it report to, who monitored its activities and how effective was the parliamentary joint committee that supervised it? When the finger is being pointed perhaps we, as members of Parliament, share some responsibility. Even though we may not be members of the Government and, as crossbench members, do not have executive power, did we ask sufficient questions or take suitable action on complaints and reports by whistleblower nurses and others?
We certainly followed them up when the nurses came to see the crossbench last year, and we gave them our total support. However, it should not have been on their shoulders to step out and bear the emotional pressure—I know that the pressure has severely affected them and their employment—and the accusations that were made against them. It should not have been up to the nurses to expose this breakdown in the New South Wales health system.
Tonight we are dealing with a tragedy, but the worst part is that we are dealing with the lives of citizens of New South Wales who, as I said, trusted the hospital system and the Health Care Complaints Commission—a body that surely would pick up errors and rectify them. If a doctor was inadequately trained or unable to carry out his duties, they trusted the commission to remove the doctor from the hospital. Mr Walker has listed a number of cases in the report but he has not identified the doctors. As he said, that is something to be investigated by the reconstituted HCCC, which has the legal power to carry out a full investigation and exercise its disciplinary powers against the doctor or others involved.
Pages 21, 22 and 23 of the report contain synopses of the cases that Mr Walker investigated and confirmed as being correct. People, especially the elderly, often say that they are afraid of going to hospital because people die or become seriously ill in hospital. That is the situation here. Mr Walker referred to the doctors by numbers. In one case Dr 6 was a visiting medical officer, physician, who had visiting rights at Campbelltown and Camden hospitals. He discharged two patients from hospital, one of whom died before reaching home. The other patient died less than 24 hours after being discharged. One must wonder what the doctor was thinking when he discharged people who were obviously seriously ill and needed hospital care. As I 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7815 said, Mr Walker has summarised these cases. In case after case patients who were told to go home died within a few days of an operation.
One case that concerns me, because I suffer from asthma, is that of Dr 10, who was a career medical officer, anaesthetics, and Dr 11, who was a visiting medical officer, physician. Doctors 10 and 11 treated a patient who had acute asthma. Dr 11 is recorded as providing certain advice to Dr 10, and Dr 10 is recorded as not following that advice. Dr 10 administered certain drugs to the patient, who died four hours after being admitted to hospital. One expects to be saved in hospital, not die as a result of being administered with drugs following wrongful treatment. It is a tragedy that that should occur in a modern hospital system in a modern State such as New South Wales.
I am pleased that the Government appointed the special commission of inquiry, which investigated only two hospitals in the State. The Hon. Dr Peter Wong referred to a number of other hospitals about which concern had been expressed. It makes one wonder whether Camden and Campbelltown hospitals are just two samples. Are similar things, of which we are unaware, happening in other hospitals in this State? It may be necessary— this may happen through Mr Walker's report and follow-up action—for the Health Care Complaints Commission to conduct an investigation into every hospital in the State. If so, the Government would need to allocate resources and staff for that purpose.
The people of this State must have absolute confidence in the health care system. They must have confidence that they will be truly cared for in hospital, no matter what their age, whether they are a small child, a teenager, a young adult, an adult or a senior citizen. All people must get 100 per cent professional care. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill, but I believe that we are only dealing with the tip of the iceberg and that more needs to be done.
The Hon. JOHN RYAN [10.05 p.m.]: The Opposition regards this bill not as a satisfactory conclusion but as simply the beginning of a process that must go further. The report on which this bill is based, which has been prepared by Mr Bret Walker, SC, makes the point, as was highlighted in the Minister's second reading speech, that there appears to be a serious avoidance by the Health Care Complaints Commission [HCCC] of its mandatory statutory function when it received complaints concerning the conduct of medical practitioners. Walker's report is an abject indictment of the practices that had been undertaken by the HCCC to date. I have no doubt that, well and good as it is that many of the complaints about Campbelltown and Camden hospitals have been investigated—indeed, I understand that Campbelltown and Camden hospitals are two of the most complained about hospitals in the State—Mr Walker's investigation into the HCCC's handling of the complaints surrounding those hospitals shows that what we have is simply a representative sample of the work done by the HCCC across New South Wales.
If the complaints examined by the HCCC relating to Camden and Campbelltown hospitals were rotten, one can only imagine what else needs to be investigated more widely. However, as is the character of the Carr Government, it tries to confine the damage to the smallest area possible and ensure that nothing more gets investigated than what the Government deems to be absolutely necessary. The Carr Government does not yet understand that it will not be able to continue containing this problem to a small section of Camden and Campbelltown hospitals; the problem will continue. It is like trying to contain gas in a glass; it is impossible.
The Carr Government does not understand that Mr Walker has made the Opposition's case for a royal commission of inquiry into the hospital system throughout New South Wales. It is time to conduct the necessary inquiry. The HCCC has not been doing its job for years. Important complaints have been ignored by the law of a wink and a nod, and they need to be more rigorously examined across the system. Camden and Campbelltown hospitals are my local hospitals. I have taken my children and other family members to both of those hospitals, and thankfully they received excellent treatment on those occasions Nevertheless, as good as it is that my local hospitals are being investigated, the people of south-western Sydney do not deserve a special privilege that should not be extended across New South Wales. So I urge the Carr Government, the crossbenchers and others to think seriously about the proposition the Opposition has been putting to the Parliament and the community for some time that we do not need a crisis-by-crisis special commission investigation, that we need a royal commission—similar to the inquiry conducted into the police service—so that all the issues are uncovered and every patient who has had a complaint that has been unsuccessfully and improperly investigated by the HCCC gets the justice they deserve.
Another point I make is peculiar to the Campbelltown and Camden areas. For the past number of weeks there has been what I would call a campaign of ridicule and vilification of the nurses who brought these issues 7816 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004 to the fore by people associated with the hospitals and the local media. The people behind that vilification program must stop. The siege mentality must stop, the walls must come down and those who made these complaints must be supported.
This is not some special event that has been generated by politicians for political aggrandisement. It is time to face up to the fact that there is a real problem at Camden and Campbelltown hospitals. The letters to newspapers in the Camden and Campbelltown areas attempting to vilify the whistleblower nurses and doctors who have brought these issues to the attention of the public have to stop. Every time the Minister goes out to Camden hospital or Campbelltown hospital—as he has been inclined to do often recently—he encourages the attitude that "We are all moving on and we should commence with a new beginning." I understand that to a point but the subtext of the campaign has been that those who have drawn these matters to the attention of the public have done something unpatriotic to our local hospitals. They have not done a bad thing; they have done the right thing, and they ought to be supported.
I appeal to the nurses and doctors who have been writing to local newspapers attempting to vilify those who have brought this matter to public attention, to stop. I would have no objection to those same nurses and doctors writing to say that there are fine nurses and doctors at Campbelltown hospital who have been doing the right thing all along and who deserve our support and do not deserve to have their reputations besmirched, stained and damaged by the actions of a few. In my experience, people working at the hospitals try their very best. But in making that point we should acknowledge that the problem at Camden and Campbelltown hospitals was not just a glitch in the road that we have passed by and that we can successfully ignore. That is not the case. There are issues that cannot, should not and must not be ignored. The last thing we should do is vilify those with the bravery and courage to stand up and be counted, even at the cost of their own careers.
The report that was presented today by Mr Bret Walker is an alert not just to the Health Care Complaints Commission [HCCC] but also to all watchdog organisations. Merely because they are independent bodies and investigate matters independent of government departments does not mean they are infallible. Clearly, watchdogs can get it wrong—and not just on individual matters, but it would appear routinely and systematically. This report ought to be examined by other watchdog agencies within the State, whether it be the Ombudsman or the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Such bodies are getting fewer and fewer. There has been a tendency on occasions for some of our watchdogs to let themselves be captured by their target. Clearly, that happened to the HCCC and it ought to be a warning to other watchdog agencies not to become cosy with their targets and forget about the business of resolving complaints. Their job is to investigate complaints on behalf of the public and to get justice. However tempting it might be, they ought not be captured by their target. It is probably reasonable to strive for a good relationship so there is a level of openness to facilitate this and subsequent investigations—and I have no doubt this in part has generated what has gone wrong at the HCCC— but it ought to understand that its job is to be an independent agency and to ruthlessly and courageously carry out its investigative role.
The HCCC has been hopelessly politicised. I have no doubt that the former Minister was not unaware that the HCCC was a soft touch. The former Minister defended the way he dealt with the whistleblower nurses by saying that on the very day they entered his office he wrote a letter to have the matters investigated by the HCCC. I have no doubt that someone as clever and as astute as Craig Knowles undoubtedly knew when he wrote that letter that the matter would be investigated in a manner that would not be of any political trouble to him. I cannot believe that the former Minister did not notice that the HCCC was routinely receiving complaints that were never properly investigated and that no recommendations were coming out of the HCCC recommending disciplinary action against anybody. He could not possibly not have noticed, being as close to the action as he was. I believe his failure was the result of one of two things. It was either because he was satisfied that the HCCC was an agency to which he could pass matters that might have been a problem in order to make sure that they were resolved without political embarrassment to him or to the Government, or he was simply criminally negligent in failing to carry out his duty of making sure that the agency was doing its job properly.
Evidence given before the estimates committee by members of the HCCC and by staff of the Campbelltown hospital lead me to believe that there is at least a prima face case that the individuals involved in the investigation of these complaints knew each other, worked with each other and worked to make sure that difficult matters were resolved in a manner that was not embarrassing for any one of them. That matter has to be pursued. So, this bill, rushed as it is and imperfect as it probably is, is not the end of the matter—it is the beginning. It must be pursued, and the Opposition will not be ignoring it into the future.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [10.15 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe claimed that only the Opposition in the other place 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7817 was briefed. I am informed that that was the call of the Leader of the Opposition in the other place. The invitation list was really up to him. The Opposition also complained about the former Minister for Health, the Hon. Craig Knowles. The interim Walker report confirms that the former Minister wrote to the Director-General of Health the very same day he met with the nurses to ask that informal complaints of the nurses be investigated. I appreciate honourable members' understanding that this bill is important because it will facilitate the implementation of the actions recommended in the interim report of the special commission of inquiry. The need for this legislation also arises to prevent further delay in this already lengthy process. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT (NEW SOUTH WALES AND COMMONWEALTH RAIL AGREEMENT) BILL
Bill received, read a first time and ordered to be printed.
Motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang agreed to:
That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.
Second reading ordered to stand as an order of the day.
ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [10.23 p.m.]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
CROATIAN LANGUAGE
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [10.23 p.m.]: I raise tonight an issue that is causing great irritation and concern among the many tens of thousands of Australians of Croatian origin in the State to whom the Croatian language is, if not the language spoken in the home, the language to which they quite understandably have a cultural attachment. I am talking about a community that has a well-deserved reputation for its positive achievements and its support for the core values upon which our nation is built and which, because of its law- abiding conduct, is rarely the subject of media attention or comment, unless it is favourable.
So far as I can recall there has been only one notable exception to this praiseworthy position. That was back in the early 1970s when, at the instigation of the then Federal Attorney General, the late Lionel Murphy, the Australian Croatian community was the victim of a sustained campaign of defamation, verbal intimidation, veiled threats and vilification. The campaign was subsequently exposed to have been inspired and encouraged by the Communist Yugoslav regime's secret police UDBA and propaganda apparatus that, at the time, roamed around and operated with apparent immunity in this country.
Today a different situation exists, but there is a matter that has been of concern to varying degrees for a number of years and continues to cause great concern to the Croatian community. The State Government could, once and for all, effectively resolve to have this matter put to rest. For many years the Croatian community has complained that State government instrumentalities have very often failed to give recognition to the Croatian language on government signs and in government publications, when recognition is given to the language of every other sizable ethnic community in this country. Instead, the Croatian community has had to suffer and periodically still suffers the humiliation and indignity of being erroneously addressed on signs and in publications with a language referred to as "Yugoslav".
Linguists now acknowledge that there is no such thing as a Yugoslav language. There exists the Serbian, Croatian, Slovene and Macedonian languages, which represent the ethnic groups previously held together in the former Yugoslavia. But Yugoslav is not a language at all. For decades under the Tito communist dictatorship of Yugoslavia, Croatians saw their traditions, including their language, subverted and undermined. Since Croatia claimed its independence in 1991 the communist Yugoslav campaign to undermine the Croatian 7818 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004 language has come to a sudden end. In New South Wales, whilst progress has been made in government recognition of the Croatian language, there are still, from time to time, significant instances where government signs and publications refer to the Yugoslav language and omit any reference to the Croatian language. A typical case involves Nepean Hospital. In a letter to the Minister for Health dated 18 August 2003 Mr Tom Beram, President of the Croatian Intercommittee Council of New South Wales, an umbrella committee representing many Croatian organisations, wrote:
I refer to a sign "Talk Baby Talk" displayed in the nuclear medicine area of the Nepean Hospital, Kingswood. The sign has translations in many languages, one of which is described as "Yugoslav-Latinic". There is no such language and it is an insult to people of Croatian origin.
Mr Beram went on to write:
This issue has been of great concern in the past to the Croatian community and we have held many meetings to discuss this ongoing problem.
He further wrote:
I have noticed that there has been an improvement in this area but I would appreciate if you could assist us in this matter and get this sign replaced in all hospitals and new signs displayed showing the Croatian language.
Mr Beram followed up this letter with a further letter to the Minister for Health on 29 September 2003. He received two replies, the last dated 17 December 2003 in which the Minister stated that the matter was being considered and a reply would be forwarded shortly. As of today Mr Beram is still waiting for a reply. The Government needs to solve this immediate problem and advise the Croatian community of the outcome. It needs to ensure that this type of problem does not arise in the future. The Government needs to emphatically instruct all State instrumentalities that in matters directed to people of Croatian origin the Croatian language should be displayed. Further, the Government should give instructions that the correct reference is the Croatian language and that any reference to the Yugoslav language is contrary to the Government's directives. As a matter of policy the Government needs to ensure that this matter is settled once and for all and that the policy is strictly adhered to. It needs to realise that until it does so this matter will cause needless and, I am sure, unintentional concern, irritation and annoyance to those of Croatian origin in this State.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED CANOLA TRIAL
Mr IAN COHEN [10.28 p.m.]: Last week Victoria followed Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania in announcing it would not allow large-scale commercial trials of genetically engineered [GE] canola. The dairy industry in Victoria breathed a sigh of relief and the Australian Wheat Board announced that 30 per cent of its wheat markets would have concerns if genetically modified [GM] grain of any type was commercially grown in Victoria. New South Wales is about to become the GE capital of Australia if our Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has his way. Our domestic and international markets are watching. If the Minister gives approval for the proposed 3,500 hectares of commercial GE canola, it could cost New South Wales, and indeed Australia, not only our clean green image but untold millions of dollars. The dairy, beef, pork, fish farming, pulse and honey industries will all be affected by this decision. Has the Minister consulted with them? Has he consulted the seed producers, seed cleaners and graders, crushers, millers and stockfeed producers? His advisory council certainly has not.
A study published by GM canola trial proponents Australian Oilseeds Federation entitled "Genetically Modified Canola in Australia" shows how large-scale trials of up to 32 hectares contaminate an average of 10 times the rate of small trials. The study demonstrates how gene pollution can be carried three kilometres from the site. Thousands of hectares of New South Wales farmland will be at risk of pollution from this so-called trial of 3,500 hectares. The total canola crop this year will be approximately 350,000 hectares in New South Wales. The Minister promised to protect farmers from liability arising from cross-contamination. It is a promise he cannot keep in the current framework. The only way he can do that is to introduce strict liability legislation in which liability is held by the GE patent holder or veto the trials altogether. The Minister knows that common law cannot protect the farmers from liability arising from contamination. Farmers who are contaminated will remain at risk of being sued by Monsanto and Bayer CropScience for patent infringements or they may be forced to pay royalties to biotechnology companies on any profits on crops sold that include the patented genome due to contamination. They will have no redress or compensation rights.
How can the Minister justify exposing New South Wales farmers to this risk either economically or ethically? The Insurance Council of Australia has reaffirmed that its members will not insure farmers for 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7819 unquantifiable risks. QBE, Elders CGU, Westfarmers, WFI and Allianz have all said they will not insure. Will the insurance bill have to rest with the taxpayer? There is no independent body to oversee and evaluate these trials. Monsanto and Bayer CropScience will conduct their own assessment of the contamination issues and report to the regulator. In effect, they will mark their own exam papers. The trials are predicated on an arbitrary contamination level of up to 0.9 per cent. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC] has confirmed that it would be a breach of the Trade Practices Act for produce to be declared GE free if it has any level of GE contamination. This exposes farmers, food companies and processors via genetically modified organisms [GMO] contamination they cannot control to fines of up to $1.1 million.
Who will pay to have the non-GE crops tested? It will not be Monsanto or NSW Agriculture. Non-GE farmers will have to foot the bill. Is there even a validated test available to farmers to quantify the level of any gene pollution in their crops? The Minister knows that once he opens this Pandora's box it will be the end of GE-free canola and organic canola farming in New South Wales. Dozens of questions remain unanswered about the liability of GM canola growers and their neighbours, liability of contract harvesters, untested protocols for header clean down, and market reaction from customers who demand 100 per cent GE-free wheat, barley, beef, dairy, pork, pulses, honey and other produce. What tests are available to determine contamination levels and who will pay for them? Questions are raised by a new report from the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Centre. The report shows that pesticide and herbicide use on GE crops in the United States of America has hugely increased after an initial drop.
There are questions about the false standards proposed by the proponents. There are questions about buffer zones and the refusal of proponents to allow reasonable buffer zones knowing that pollution will inevitably occur in neighbouring properties. There are contract and protocol questions. I am told they are all still in draft form and have not been seen by the council. Has the Minister seen them? If the Minister gives the go ahead for this commercial crop of GE canola in violation of the moratorium, he will have to face the whirlwind, and so will Country Labor. The Greens are on the march and already Green councillors have been elected in Orange and Wagga Wagga, the GE capital of New South Wales.
The Minister should set aside his own prejudices and the bias of the majority of the members of his advisory council, who have shown an extraordinarily cavalier attitude towards these important unanswered questions that I have outlined. He should make an effort to understand why all the other States have said no to large-scale trials. If the Minister gives the go ahead, there is no turning back. Monsanto and Bayer CropScience will have our farmers in a stranglehold. They will never be able to grow GE-free crops again and will be forced to rely on these companies for their seeds and herbicides. Why? Just because one obdurate Minister would not listen to farmers. The Minister will look like either a fool or a tool of Monsanto. It is time for the Premier to step in.
OPERA IN THE PADDOCK
The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [10.33 p.m.]: A couple of weeks ago I was privileged to represent the Premier at Opera in the Paddock at the Mimosa property at Delungra, near Inverell. I had two prior experiences of Delungra. One related to an excellent adult and community education program and the other to a 1980s women's health program involving a van, a trailer, a tent, hundreds of kilometres and a flat tyre on the trailer just outside Delungra. My partner in crime sat on the biggest cat head I have ever seen. There was no wheel brace, a valiant young man changed the tyres with a spanner, and a kind Delungra service station attendant tightened the nuts. Now I have experienced a wonderful night of opera in a wonderful place. After Opera in the Paddock, I have a third vivid memory of Delungra.
Opera in the Paddock was started two years ago by Bill and Peta Blyth, who dreamed of bringing fine opera to country audiences, and established the concert as an annual event. They use their property for the concert, with Bill Blyth building the stage himself, and in the short time the event has been held audience numbers have increased from 600 two years ago to about 1,800 this year. In fact, the event has become so popular that not only was all accommodation in Inverell booked out, but so too was all the accommodation in surrounding towns. Opera in the Paddock was recently recognised for its achievements, receiving an Australia Day award, and also receiving the Most Outstanding Achievement award at the annual business awards.
The program featured an exciting mix of opera, operetta, and musicals, and was performed by a range of artists who have busy national and international schedules. The fact that these international artists performed at Opera in the Paddock demonstrates how important this event has become. Inverell's own Elizabeth Campbell featured at this year's concert. She is now one of Australia's leading singers and this is a tremendous 7820 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004 achievement for the Inverell community. Peta Blyth also sang, along with David Hamilton and David Hibbard, and David Miller accompanied on piano and Thomas Edmonds was compere.
Performances like Opera in the Paddock mean that people all over New South Wales, not only those who live in Sydney near the Opera House, can experience high quality music. According to the Ministry for the Arts, opera is one of the most powerful mediums in the performing arts. However, for many people it is also the most challenging to understand. Opera in the Paddock is an excellent way of removing those barriers and allowing adults and children alike to develop an appreciation for this art form.
Besides the entertainment that they provide, events like this play an important role in inspiring future generations of musicians from all over New South Wales, and in developing a broad community appreciation for the arts. Despite its being a very rural crowd and everyone sitting on picnic chairs at picnic tables, one could have dropped a pin. That is an indicator of the crowd's enjoyment. Opera in the Paddock brought business to town, and can take credit for a health expo being held in the area to coincide with the concert. Of course, this event made Inverell an exciting place to be. Anyone who was in Inverell at the time would have noticed the strong community spirit that the event created.
I am pleased that the New South Wales Government supports Opera in the Paddock and a range of other initiatives to ensure that people in regional New South Wales have access to quality music performances, as well as arts and cultural programs. The Government also supports 13 regional music festivals around the State, including the Camden Haven Music Festival, the New England Bach Festival in Armidale and the Bangalow Music Festival. The Government also provides support for music in regional areas by funding Opera Australia, Musica Viva and the Sydney Symphony Orchestra's regional activities and the State's many community orchestras, choirs and concert bands and organisations such as The Orchestras of Australia Network, the New South Wales Band Association and the Indent Program. The Government has also implemented strategic initiatives to support music education through the State's 13 regional conservatoriums. These are only some of many State Government initiatives.
Cultural events in regional New South Wales are important, and not only because they provide access to uplifting performances for all people who live in this State but also because they demonstrate that people from anywhere in New South Wales can make it on the world stage in the arts, as has Elizabeth Campbell of Inverell. They are important because they provide benefits to the local economies of the towns and communities in which these events are held and because they develop enthusiasm and a tremendous spirit amongst the local community. I look forward to seeing even more performances of such high standard occurring in regional New South Wales, and congratulate all those who have supported Opera in the Paddock, but particularly Peta and Bill Blyth, who turned a dream into reality, and who have helped their community at the same time.
WARRINGAH COUNCIL PUBLIC INQUIRY AND MR VINCENT DE LUCA
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [10.37 p.m.]: I raise a serious matter involving a member of the Attorney General's staff, Mr Vincent De Luca, who appears to have perjured himself in the recent public inquiry into Warringah Council. The honourable member for Davidson, Andrew Humpherson, asked certain questions of the Attorney General during the inquiry. I refer specifically to question No. 761, to which the Minister responded. However, I believe the Minister has inadvertently misled the Parliament in the answers he provided. The question was:
Did an officer of your department use government resources in working hours to maintain a campaign against Warringah Council?
The Minister responded:
I am advised that an officer of my department prepared a submission to the Department of Local Government inquiry into Warringah Council in his private capacity and while on approved leave. The officer was contacted by the Inquiry and asked to appear to give evidence before it. The officer did so on his own time and while on approved leave.
A further question was asked:
Did the Inquiry receive a submission asserting that an officer in the Attorney General's office was responsible for organising the campaign against the Council? …Did this occur in working time using government resources and computer?
To which the Minister responded, "No." I have documented evidence in my possession clearly refuting the answers provided by the Minister. I can only assume that the answers were provided by his staff. I refer to a 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7821 number of emails that have obviously been generated on a computer in the Attorney General's Department during working hours by Mr Vincent De Luca in regard to Warringah Council, together with a statutory declaration by a councillor of Warringah Council, who alleges that he witnessed Mr De Luca preparing certain documents. I understand these were presented to the commissioner of the inquiry, Professor Daly. Regrettably no action seems to have been taken by the commissioner. For example, on Monday 25 March 2002 at 4.23 p.m. Mr De Luca wrote:
Cobber, Here is a Motion of Urgency for tomorrow night—thought it would be good for the media.
I have other emails dated Thursday 28 March 2002 at 9.41 a.m., 30 March 2002 at 10.09 p.m., and Tuesday 16 July 2002. I do not believe that the Attorney General would knowingly mislead the Parliament as answers to question No. 761 seem to indicate. I can only assume that he did not review all the evidence presented to the inquiry. I believe he has in fact been misled by a member of his staff who is protecting his own interests and thereby compromising the integrity of the Attorney General. Not only did this person perjure himself before the inquiry, but the times the emails were sent would indicate that Vincent De Luca was actually misrepresenting his employer, the Attorney General, and the people of New South Wales by proffering advice and running a political campaign using departmental time and resources to do so. The Attorney General should investigate these claims and take whatever action he thinks is appropriate. As proof of this belief, I refer to the evidence presented at the inquiry when Mr De Luca was asked:
Do you provide gratuitous advice to the councillors?
Mr De Luca's answer was no. According to the emails I have in my possession it is evident that Mr De Luca has perjured himself by lying to the inquiry. I refer to an email sent to Councillor Peter Forest by Mr De Luca on 30 March 2002, which states:
THIS IS URGENT
I attach my letter to Blackadder.
Also, Peter not only should you sent that Memo I drafted you last Monday with all the Acts and sections, but also another Memo in response to the latest Memo where Blackadder says his opinion of the gallery is not positive.
Peter, you should make the following points:
* I am disappointed you have sought to attack the community in the public gallery. At no time has their behaviour been outrageous or for that matter, nearly as bad as the conduct of some members of the majority on the floor of council.
* While your opinion of the public gallery may not be positive, in view of some of the very inappropriate public comments you have made, particularly in the media regarding Cr Jones their opinion of you is not positive either—this concerns me.
* Your public support of Cr Jones and his faction has also had an adverse impact on Council Staff who feel unable to go to you with their concerns due to your close relationship with the Mayor and governing faction.
* With regard to concerns expressed in the community as to the secret meetings going on. I note you have stated in correspondence that you are happy in the manner in which this is being conducted. The Department of Local Government have advised that the meetings being described as 'Agenda Review meetings' should be notified to all councillors and all councillors should attend. The letter to me actually said that any meeting or gathering at council should be notified to all councillors and every councillor given an opportunity to attend.
Mr David Luff has provided me with a copy of your letter dated 6 March 2002. It is a concern that you have not checked your facts. At no time has any person, particularly the four community members who have been barred from speaking, abused the privilege. I think it is quite improper to accuse effective speakers of abusing the privilege. The only reason they have been refused permission is that they are effective speakers and are actually advocating a community point of view that differs to the majority faction. You should retract your statement as it is incorrect and unfounded.
This is an example of Mr De Luca giving advice or direction to other councillors. It supports my claim that Mr De Luca has perjured himself by stating to the inquiry that he has not given advice to other councillors. In my opinion, based on the evidence in my possession Mr De Luca is not a fit and proper person to work for the Attorney General. I therefore call on the Attorney General to conduct a thorough investigation into the allegations I have made tonight. I am prepared to provide the documents I have in my possession to such an inquiry. I believe the allegations are serious enough to warrant Mr De Luca's immediate suspension from the office of the Attorney General until the allegations have been thoroughly and properly investigated. 7822 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004
BUS LANES MOTORCYCLE USE
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [10.42 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the House to a police operation that was undertaken early on the morning of 2 March this year in the bus lane that feeds off the Harbour Bridge into York Street, Sydney. It has been reported to me by one eyewitness that on that morning at least a dozen motorcycle riders were fined coming off the bus lane into York Street. I would like the Minister to give me an exact figure as to how many people were charged at that spot on that day as a result of the operation, because I believe that the total number is likely to be very much higher.
I point out that motorcycles are permitted to use bus lanes, along with taxis, hire cars and bicycles, according to the current Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] rules. One rider who was charged, and who saw many other motorcyclists pulled over that morning, had ridden this exact route on countless occasions every weekday morning, as had hundreds of other motorcyclists. Over the years the rider had even been waved through several police operations in exactly the same spot whilst officers were fining drivers who thought they would chance their hand and break the law by using a bus lane.
Imagine our law-abiding rider's astonishment when signalled by police to pull over and join several other riders being booked simultaneously. Clearly the other riders were angry and confused, uttering phrases such as, "This is just a revenue-raising exercise" before riding off in disgust. This story gets better. These riders had not been charged with riding in a bus lane, because, as one police officer said, it is perfectly legal for motorcyclists to use a bus lane that is not a bus-only lane. Their infringement notices stated "Disobey No Entry Sign". The law permits motorcyclists to use the bus lane from North Sydney all the way across the Sydney Harbour Bridge to traffic lights at the beginning of York Street, where they are confronted with a sign that reads "No Entry—Buses and Taxis Only—6.30 a.m.-9.30 a.m. Mon-Fri".
For the benefit of honourable members, on the way to this "No Entry—Buses and Taxis Only" sign, in the morning peak period the bus lane narrows from two lanes into one by way of some moveable median strips, which means that motorcyclists are effectively funnelled into one lane by RTA traffic managers—not police— with no possible means of turning around, changing lanes or exercising any option except to go through the "No Entry" sign, unless the rider wants to risk a hire car, taxi or bus slamming into the rear of their motorcycle.
Logic dictates that if this lane is not a bus-only lane—which, clearly, it is not—the "No Entry" sign should be much larger and it should read "No Entry Buses, Taxis, Hire Cars and Motorcycles Only 6.30 a.m.-9.30 a.m. Mon-Fri", because upon entry to the bus lane at Falcon Street, North Sydney, or thereabouts, the large bus lane sign clearly states that only buses, taxis, hire cars and motorcycles are permitted to use the lane. As I said, this leads the motorcyclist and the hire car driver straight into the lane ending at the ridiculous "No Entry" sign at the beginning of York Street. The riders did not report any hire cars being pulled over, but clearly the police interpretation of this sign means that hire cars using this lane should also be fined. Clearly this is a ludicrous situation.
The Motorcycle Council reports that there is also a bus lane in Pitt Street, Parramatta, between the Great Western Highway and Park Parade that changes from a bus lane to a bus-only lane as you approach Park Parade. There is a broken line separating the bus lane from the next lane but this changes to an unbroken line. If you are not aware of the change in status of the lane, you are trapped into crossing the unbroken line to get out of the bus-only lane. Hopefully these inconsistencies will be corrected.
Motorcyclists must be allowed—and, dare I say, encouraged—to use bus lanes. The reason is simple. Buses are driven by professional drivers with a high level of training, and motorcyclists, if given the option, would prefer to share the road with professional drivers. I ask members to recall the last time they saw a bus driver yapping on a mobile phone while changing lanes without indicating and juggling a can of soft drink, all at the same time! Encouraging motorcyclists to use bus lanes will mean fewer deaths and injuries.
The Motorcycle Council of New South Wales represents the more than 100,000 riders of registered motorcycles in this State, and is an impressive and effective advocate for those who increasingly choose this fuel-efficient and space-efficient mode of transport. The council has previously raised with me issues that needed appropriate action when it has determined that rules and regulations have been unjustly applied or even used to harass or victimise motorcycle riders. This is such an occasion. The riders do not blame police for this operation. They blame the bureaucrats who put this ridiculous signage and system in place. They want the transport Minister to address the issue, the police Minister to return the fines and clear their records, and police freed up from silly operations like this so that they can concentrate on catching real criminals and motorists who are a danger to society. 31 March 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7823
I trust that we are not seeing a pattern emerging here. I can outline several cases of overzealous officials overstepping the mark. Honourable members will recall legendary incidents such as the occasion on which the Environment Protection Authority fined several riders for peeling off the "Unleaded Fuel Only" stickers from their fuel tanks despite the fact that petrol containing lead simply cannot be bought from petrol stations since its sale was banned by the Commonwealth Government. Members may also recall the occasion on which motorcycle riders were fined for not having labels on their exhaust pipes, which is another ludicrous example of bureaucracy gone mad.
The vast majority of motorcyclists are law-abiding citizens. Such enforcement operations by police simply breed contempt for the law, which I argue is an adverse and entirely undesirable outcome. The City of Sydney Council, to its credit, has recognised that six motorcycles can park in one car space. Potentially this means that 12 people can travel into the city as opposed to one car, usually with a sole occupant. The City of Sydney Council has actually increased the level of parking available for motorcyclists in the central business district and is to be commended for encouraging this environmentally friendly form of transport. I conclude by urging the Minister for Transport Services to fix this situation, and the Minister for Police to return the fines and clear the riders' records. I request that police be freed up from silly operations such as this, so that they can concentrate on catching real criminals and motorists who are a danger to society, as the Motorcycle Council of New South Wales has sensibly suggested. [Time expired.]
NRMA MEMBER SERVICES
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [10.47 p.m.]: Members will recall that I have previously raised in this House the ongoing industrial dispute affecting the NRMA. Despite a temporary break from the industrial problems that plagued the NRMA at the end of 2003, management has continued with its plans to introduce contractors and significantly reduce the working conditions of its best asset: the roadside patrol officers who are the white knights of the NRMA.
Since I last spoke on this issue, in an astounding act of provocation the NRMA board applied to the Industrial Relations Commission to terminate the current enterprise agreement and return the patrol officers to the basic Metals Award. If there was ever any doubt about the seriousness of this dispute, the NRMA has replaced its local lawyers, Abbott Tout, with a Melbourne legal adviser famed for his anti-union work when he was employed by Peter Reith during the infamous Patrick debacle. Since then the legal adviser has consolidated his reputation with Tony Abbott, who also used his skills in the implementation of his own anti-worker legislation.
The NRMA board's media rhetoric is that it is seeking genuine negotiations with the union. So why has the NRMA applied to terminate the agreement? And why replace your local lawyers—after all, Abbott Tout are hardly inexperienced as employer advocates—with a hired gun, which is infamous for being an anti-union ideologue? In the meantime, the board has opened up an entirely new front, as it continues with its plans to fundamentally change the NRMA roadside patrol service. The proposal is to immediately shed at least 100 patrol officers and introduce contractors throughout the service.
Despite the recent massive increases in membership fees that I spoke of on a previous occasion, clearly these and other planned changes will result in a very significant reduction in the service provided to NRMA members. Although the NRMA board has done everything possible to avoid any publicity about the imminent cuts to services, thousands of NRMA members have now signed a petition calling for a special meeting of the entire NRMA membership. These members are demanding the right to have their say about the board's plans for their service. This is all becoming dangerously close to a screenplay for Absolutely Fabulous! The board is having an absolutely wonderful time spending other people's money—its members' money in fact—on some of the most expensive silk in the country.
In addition to the NRMA's expensive import from Melbourne, and rather than respond to members' concerns—which would seem to have been not only the most reasonable but also the cheaper option—the board has also employed one of Sydney's most expensive legal teams to represent it in the Supreme Court, solely to avoid giving its own membership an opportunity to question the board about its plans. Members may recall that a meeting called by the board last year cost members more than $4 million. The only purpose of that meeting was political manoeuvres by the board to ensure its members' positions and pay.
So today the situation is this: The NRMA board is prepared to increase membership fees and then spend the money on a fleet of barristers and lawyers for the sole purpose of avoiding a meeting of the 7824 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 31 March 2004 membership. That meeting would hold the board accountable for its plans to increase fees and reduce services to the membership. This is a very strange order of priorities for an organisation that claims to care about member services. It is also amazing that the board is prepared to go to such lengths and to spend so much of the members' money solely for the purpose of avoiding its own members.
LOCAL COUNCIL ELECTIONS RESULTS
The Hon. DON HARWIN [10.51 p.m.]: I take the opportunity, which a number of members have taken during the week, to mention aspects of last Saturday's local government election results. In particular, given that this is the tenth year since I began my association with the Liberal Party in the eastern suburbs, when I was elected regional president, I wanted to reflect upon the very fine results in the four councils which we contested in the eastern suburbs. Of course, in the City of Sydney we were successful in re-electing councillor Shayne Mallard, who does a great job representing inner-city Liberals on council, and we are pleased to have representation for the first time as a party on the City of Sydney Council. Shayne is one of only two current councillors who have been elected to the new city council.
We have maintained our representation in Woollahra at seven, and our results in Randwick and Waverley are superb. In Randwick we have increased our representation to four, and I congratulate Bruce Notley-Smith, Scott Nash, Ted Seng and John Kenny. In Waverley we have increased our representation from four to five, and I congratulate Sally Betts, Kerryn Sloan and Richard Davidson on their re-election, and Tony Kaye and Joy Clayton on their election. They all worked very hard to secure their results. They ran effective campaigns and achieved outstanding results. We are all very proud of the work that they have done.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 10.53 p.m. until Thursday 1 April 2004 at 11.00 a.m. ______