104 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Thursday, 18 August, 1988

The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m. The President offered the Prayers.

SESSIONAL ORDERS The Hon. E. P. PICKERING (Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council) [10.33]: I seek the indulgence of the House to move a motion for the adoption of sessional orders by merely identifying the sessional order by its name and not reading the entire motion, which I read to the House yesterday. Honourable members have a complete list of the details on the notice paper. The PRESIDENT: There being no objection the honourable member may proceed. The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: I move: That notice of motion No. I concerning prayers be adopted by the House. The PRESIDENT: Do I take it that the Minister intends to go through them seriatim and not in globo? The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: I would be happy to deal with them in globo. ' The PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? There being no objection the Leader of the Government may proceed. The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: I seek leave to move that the notices I gave yesterday which are marked to be sessional orders of the House be adopted by the House. Leave granted.

Prayers Motion by the Hon. E. P. Pickering agreed to: That, during the present Session, unless otherwise ordered, Standing Order 10a be amended to read: 10~.Upon the President taking the Chair each day, if there be a Quorum present as provided by the 10th Standing Order, he shall offer the following Prayers: "Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee to vouchsafe Thy blessing upon this Parliament. Direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of Thy glory, and the true welfare of the people of our State and Australia. Our Father, which art in Heaven: Hallowed be Thy Name, Thy Kingdom Come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil: For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever, Amen." 18 August, 1988 COUNCIL

Sitting Days Motion by the Hon. E. P. Pickering agreed to: That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered, this House shall meet for the despatch of business at 10.30 a.m. on Monday, Thursday and Friday and at 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday and Wednesday each week.

Disallowance of Statutory Rules Motion by the Hon. E. P. Pickering agreed to: That, during the present Session and notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders, a notice of motion to disallow: (a) a Statutory Rule under section 41 of the Interpretation Act 1987; or (b) any other Statutory Instrument or document made under the authority of any Act and which is subject to disallowance by either or both Houses of the Parliament, shall he placed on the Notice Paper as "Business of the House" and shall take precedence of Government and General Business for the day on which the not,ice is set down for consideration.

Questions Without Notice Motion by the Hon. E. P. Pickering agreed to: (1) That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered, Questions shall commence at 4.00 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday and 12 noon on Thursday and Friday. (2) If, at the time for interruption: (a) a division is in progress, the division shall be completed and the result announced; (b) the House is in Committee of the Whole, the Chairman shall leave the Chair and report progress, and any business then under discussion, if not disposed of, shall be set down on the Notice Paper for a later hour of the sitting.

Petitions Motion by the Hon. E. P. Pickering agreed to: That, during the present Session, a copy of every Petition received by the House shall be referred by the Clerk to the Minister responsible for the administration of the matter which is the subject of the Petition.

Cognate Bills Motion by the Hon. E. P. Pickering agreed to: That, during the present Session: (1) Whenever a Minister shall intimate to the House that Bills specified by the Minister are cognate Bills: (a) such Bills may be introduced upon one Motion for leave and be presented and read a first time together; (b) one Motion may be moved and one Question put in regard to each of the several stages for the passage of such Bills through the Council; but (c) such Bills shall be considered separately in Committee of the Whole. (2) When Bills sent from the Assembly are reported by the President as cognate Bills, the first reading and subsequent stages shall be proceeded with in a similar manner. 106 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988

Ministerial Statements Motion by the Hon. E. P. Pickering agreed to: That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of any other party or group, where such leadership has been previously announced to the House, or a Member nominated by any such Leader, may speak to a ministerial statement. The remarks of any speaker shall not exceed the time taken by the Minister in making the statement.

Motion for Adjournment Motion by the Hon. E. P. Pickering agreed to: That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered: (1) On any Motion for adjournment to terminate a sitting: (a) the Question shall be put not later than 15 minutes after such Motion has been moved or, when a Minister desires to speak or is then speaking, at the conclusion of the Minister's remarks; (b) any Member may speak for 5 minutes on matters not relevant to the Motion, but shall not refer to matters which are otherwise not in order. (2) Proceedings shall he interrupted at 4.15 p.m. on Thursday and 3.45 p.m. on Friday to permit a Motion for adjournment to be moved, if a Minister shall think fit, to terminate the sitting. (3) If, at the time of interruption: (a) a division is in progress, the division shall be completed and the result announced; (b) the House is in Committee of the Whole, the Chairman shall leave the Chair, report progress and seek leave to sit again. (4) When any business under discussion, if not disposed of, is interrupted by operation of this Sessional Order, the debate shall stand adjourned and be made an Order of the Day for the next sitting day at the end of Government or General Business, as the case may be, fixed for that day (but so as not to preclude the operation of Standing Order 67), unless a motion is moved without amendment or debate for the adjournment of the debate to another day (to be stated).

Recording of Pairs in Division Motion by the Hon. E. P. Pickering agreed to: That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered, Members pairing on any division shall be recorded by the tellers and the names of all Members so paired shall be recorded upon the tellers' lists and printed in the Minutes of the Proceedings and Hansard.

Adjournment Debate: Ministerial Replies Motion by the Hon. E. P. Pickering agreed to: That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered, a Minister may, before the House proceeds to the business of the day, make a statement in relation to any matter or matters raised on the Adjournment at a previous sitting.

Leadership of Parties and Groups Motion by the Hon. E. P. Pickering agreed to: That, as soon as practicable after each periodic Council election and whenever change shall occur, announcements may be made in the House as to the leadership in the House of parties or groups represented at such elections and of which parties or groups there are two or more persons who are Members of the House. 18 August, 1988 COUNCIL

Questions on Notice Motion by the Hon. E. P. Pickering agreed to: That, during the present Session and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the procedure in relation to Questions on Notice is varied, as follows: (1) Notices of Questions shall be handed to one of the Clerks at the Table during the sitting of the House, duly signed. (2) The Clerk shall enter in a Questions and Answers Paper printed and circulated to Members, Notices of Questions in the order in which they are received. (3) The reply to a Question on Notice shall be delivered to the Clerk and shall appear in the Questions and Answers Paper. (4) During any adjournment of the House, replies to Questions on Notice may be delivered to the Clerk who shall cause a Questions and Answers paper to be printed and circulated. (5) A Questions and Answers paper shall be printed and circulated on any prorogation of the House.

Bills Returned Motion by the Hon. E. P. Pickering agreed to: That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered, Standing Order 19 1 be amended to read: 19 1. After the third reading the Bill shall be deemed to have passed the House and the Clerk shall so certify, and the Bill shall be sent, with a Message, to the Assembly for concurrence.

Declarations of Urgency Motion by the Hon. E. P. Pickering agreed to: That, during the present Session and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders:

' (1) When any Bill, except a Bill sent from the Assembly, has been read a first time and ordered to be printed the second reading may be moved forthwith or made an Order of the Day for a later hour or for a future day. Immediately following the second reading speech by the mover, debate thereon shall be adjourned until a future day which shall be at least five clear days ahead. (2) Provided that if a Minister declares a Bill to be an urgent Bill and copies have been circulated among Members, the Question "That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill" shall be put forthwith, no debate or amendment being allowed. On such Question being agreed to, the second reading debate may be proceeded with forthwith or at any time during any sitting of the House.

Matters of Public Interest Motion by the Hon. E. P. Pickering agreed to: That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered: (1) A Member may make a Motion, pursuant to notice given at a previous sitting "That the following important matter of public interest should be discussed forthwith (here stating the matter to be discussed)". (2) On the day proposed for bringing on such Motion it shall be called on immediately before the House is to proceed to the consideration of business set down on the Notice Paper for that day, except business taking precedence under Standing Order 55. (3) When the Motion has been made, the Question shall be decided without amendment or debate except a statement by the mover and a statement by a Minister not exceeding 10 minutes each. 108 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988

(4) If the Question is decided in the affirmative, subsequent discussion of the matter shall not exceed one and one half hours, whether on the same or subsequent sitting days, excepting the reply of the proposer. (5) The speech of the Member proposing the matter and the Minister or Member first speaking shall not exceed 15 minutes each. The speech of any other Member or the proposer in reply shall not exceed 10 minutes each. Every Member shall confine himself or herself to the one subject in respect of which the motion has been made. (6) When discussion of such a matter is adjourned until a subsequent sitting day the Order of the Day for its resumption shall take precedence of all other business on the Notice Paper for that sitting day except business taking precedence under Standing Order 55. (7) Only one such matter shall be proceeded with on any sitting day, but this provision shall not operate so as to preclude the resumption of an adjourned discussion and one such matter being dealt with.

Business of the House Motion by the Hon. E. P. Pickering agreed to: That, during the present Session and unless otherwise ordered, the House shall proceed each day with its ordinary business in the following routine: (I) Formal Business under Standing Order 57. (2) Presentation of Petitions. (3) Any proposal under Standing Order 13. (4) Ministerial Statements. (5) Ministerial replies to matters raised on the Adjournment. (6) Motions and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper.

GOVERNOR'S SPEECH: ADDRESS IN REPLY Second Day's Debate Debate resumed from 17th August. The Hon. J. R. HALLAM (Leader of the Opposition) [10.37]: On behalf of members of the Opposition in the Legislative Council I extend their sincere appreciation to His Excellency, Sir James Anthony Rowland, Governor of New South Wales, for his most distinguished service to our State as the Queen's representative. He has rendered admirable service to the wider community during his distinguished career, which began in Armidale. The Governor graduated in 1941 as a Bachelor of Aeronautical Engineering. During World War I1 he was shot down over Germany. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. In his post-war career he became a test pilot and oversighted the specifications of contracts for the purchase of the Mirage fighters in France, where he became bilingual. As a former Vice-president of the Executive Council I found the Governor to be a thoroughly decent and cordial man. The Opposition wish him and Lady Rowland well in their retirement. The Hon. M. F. Willis led for the Government in replying to the Governor's Speech. I propose to reply to the honourable member's speech in some detail. A former Leader of the Opposition and now a Government member, the Hon. M. F. Willis spent some time luxuriating on the extent of the Government's election victory. No one wishes to detract from the fact that the Government had a magnificent win on 19th March, 1988. The Labor Party received its lowest vote, I think, since 1932. No one will cavil with the magnitude of that victory, but the Opposition will question some aspects of the 1 8 August, 1988 COUNCIL 109 claim for a broad brush mandate. Notwithstanding that result, the New South Wales Labor Party still remains the single largest parliamentary party in the New South Wales Parliament, with 45 members of the Legislative Assembly. Notwithstanding the election victory for the conservative coalition parties, a swing of some 2 per cent or 3 per cent could see a change of government in the future. Part of the rhetoric of the Hon. M. F. Willis and of the Hon. J. H. Jobling was to refer to the protesters who were outside this place yesterday as being rabble. They made the mistake of deluding themselves that the chanting of those protesters was disrespectful of the Governor. I know enough about the Governor, and I believe the Governor knows enough about democracies in this world, to understand that none of that chanting was directed towards him. It was directed clearly and particularly at the educational policies of the Greiner Government. More than 50 000 people met in the Domain with the total co- operation of the New South Wales Police Force. Those who observed the Domain after those people left at noon would have found it spotless. Those protesters showed rectitude and respect-respect for the rights of citizens in our society, the essential element of which is the freedom of assembly. They did nothing more than avail themselves of one of the essential rights the community provides. Although they were absolutely within their rights, in a gathering of 50 000 it is difficult to control the actions of every person. - The Hon. M. F. Willis said that the Speech by the Governor, drafted for him by the Government and containing some major embarrassments deserving of apology to him, was a blueprint for the future of the coalition Government. The Hon. M. F. Willis went so far as to say that when the realities of this document and the Curran report sink into the minds of the community, the impact will be such that the Labor Party never will be returned to office in New South Wales. I used to have a lot of time for the Hon. M. F. Willis, for I have known him as a craftsman in this House, but his speech was one of his rather poor performances. He was carried away by his wishes. Those wishes may be understandable; one wish was that this Government would be in office forever. I remind the honourable member that Disraeli once said that all governments, irrespective of their complexion, are doomed, and their doom is only a matter of time. In this Address-in-Reply debate 1 would have expected my speech to relate to that made by the Leader of the Liberal Party at Rockdale when he presented his election promises. On that occasion he promised to review the monorail, to reroute it; to review the decision made to construct the Sydney Harbour tunnel, and to prevent it; and to prevent or change many aspects of the administration of the Darling Harbour development. Few of those promises have been fulfilled. I have a document compiled by the Opposition during the past five months and it contains 88 broken promises of the Greiner Government. I do not propose to go through them, but I emphasize that that document has been researched thoroughly and refers to promises made by Mr Greiner. One of those related to Mr Phillip Arantz, who Mr Greiner said should be reappointed to the New South Wales Police Force and to whom Mr Greiner said "I believe it is the only way your integrity and respectability can be properly restored". There we are! In his speech the Governor said: The New South Wales economy is currently performing better than the other States of Australia. In terms of output, employment, consumer spending, home building approvals, non-residential building approvals or trading bank lending to business, growth in this State exceeds increases in other States for most of the past year. 110 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988 The Hon. M. F. Willis placed weight on the Curran report. In a period of economic restraint it was surprising that the presentation of the Curran report was made at the Regent hotel. The report was a black and gold embossed document for which Jim Dominguez and Mr Curran were quite happy to take $1 million in charges from the Government, even though their recommendations were little more than plagiarization of the work performed, and the recommendations made, by the Auditor-General. The day after the release of that report and the concomitant announcement by the Premier that the State was heading towards bankruptcy, there was great panic in the merchant banks of New South Wales and overseas. The major international trading banks in Sydney were communicated with immediately by the rating companies in New York, who sought to find out what was really going on in Australia, particularly in New South Wales, and to see whether their foreign investments in this State were at risk. The most highly regarded rating company in the world, Moodys, then gave New South Wales a triple A international rating. Mr Greiner said he was surprised that New South Wales should have received that, but if Mr Greiner had consulted Budget Paper No. 2 of 21st April, 1988, at pages 226 to 249, he would have been able to acquaint himself with certain facts. He would have learned that, proportionately, New South Wales has the smallest public sector of any State; that between 198 1 and 1987 growth in total public sector outlays in New South Wales was significantly below that of any other State; that New South Wales has fewer government employees as a percentage of population than has any other State in Australia; that New South Wales government employment has grown at a much slower rate than that of any other government, whether State or Commonwealth; that during the past five years net borrowings in New South Wales have fallen compared with an increase in all other States of the Commonwealth; and that New South Wales has the lowest debt of any State in Australia when expressed as a proportion of gross State product. Next we consider gearing. Gearing is the ratio of asset to debt, excluding land. In New South Wales, the gearing is one in three; for every $1 of debt there are $3 of assets. If one has a 75 per cent equity and 25 per cent debt ratio in one's home, one has little to worry about for the future. The gearing principle of the guru of the Liberal Party, Mr John Elliott, is much higher than the gearing principle that operates in New South Wales. Obviously, this is the reason why the international ratings commentator, Moodys, recommended that Mr Curran and Mr Greiner be ignored and that people continue to invest in Australia. New South Wales is in great shape. The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Is that why all the good people of New South Wales decided to throw out the Unsworth Government? The Hon. J. R. HALLAM: It was for a variety of reasons. The Hon. J. H. Jobling: I am pleased that the honourable member concedes that. The Hon. J. R. HALLAM: Why should I not concede it? The Hon. J. H. Jobling: The Unsworth Government was thrown out because the electorate did not like its policies and what it was doing. The Hon. J. R. HALLAM: Yes, that is so. [Interruption] 18 August, 1988 COUNCIL The PRESIDENT: Order! Honourable members should listen in silence to the Leader of the Opposition. The Hon. J. R. HALLAM: Clearly the Curran report was a political document, written in a political manner. It ignored the fact that over the past few years the previous Government, which is now the Opposition, accepted the concept of restraint in the manning of State authorities. We accept the need to reduce manning where that is possible. But, as Mr Carr said so effectively, it must be restraint with equity. The report ignored also that in recent years there has been a 34 per cent reduction in staffing of the Sydney Water Board and a significant reduction in manning of other statutory authorities. It ignored the $2 17 million cuts in payroll tax last year. The previous Government was moving towards these areas of restraint. The department for which I was responsible when a Minister in the previous Government was reduced in size by 25 per cent. That reduction took place over a period of eight years. I did not sack professionals, nor did I go berserk. I shall refer now to some of the report's recommendations. No financial crisis exists. I concede the need for general constraint and proper economic management. On page 2 of his Speech the Governor said: The Forestry Commission of New South Wales is to be established as a commercial Corporation. The Investment Corporation and State Brickworks are being privatized. I found those comments rather curious. I consulted my files and found that that same initiative was announced on 16th March by former Premier Unsworth. I have press releases and newspaper clippings that confirm that announcement. Unfortunately, once again, the Governor was set up. The Governor said also: Nowhere has the improvement in the State economy been more evident than in the labour market. The unemployment rate has fallen from 8.6 per cent in June 1987 to 7.3 per cent in June 1988. During the last financial year, 123 000 persons found jobs in New South Wales compared with a total of 240 300 in Australia as a whole. I think that is wonderful. I congratulate the Government on being able to achieve such a remarkable record in only five months. The Governor said also: A program of improved police facilities, better service to the public, and increased police strength is underway. The Government will fund 1 600 additional police officers' positions over its first term in office. That amounts to 400 additional officers each year. I recall former Premier Unsworth announcing that the police force would have an additional 2 000 officers. I congratulate the Government once more; it is doing very well. Reference was made to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, but one wonders at the excessive delay in its commencement. The Hon. M. F. Willis referred to this Curran report as a key document, a blueprint. He said that when the impact of the Curran report sinks in the community will react. I assure the honourable member that he is 100 per cent correct. With regard to the Grain Handling Authority the Curran report made three recommendations: the Grain Handling Authority be sold in total, it will be sold to a co-operative, or its operations will be leased to the highest bidder. When the New South Wales farming community realizes that the Government will flog off the Grain Handling Authority to the highest bidder-the authority that handles wheat, which is grower controlled, operated, and funded-and that highest bidder is likely to be Elders or a similar company, a protest by farmers will occur against the National Party similar to the protest that occurred yesterday outside this Parliament by middle-class Australians against Dr Metherell. The wheatgrowers of New South Wales will in no way accept that proposition. 1 12 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988 The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: The authority has more than a $200 million debt. The Hon. J. R. HALLAM: The $200 million debt is attributable largely to the construction of the most modern terminal facilities in the world at Port Kembla. That terminal at Port Kembla, however, was sabotaged by Mr Greiner when in the mini-budget he broke one of his essential promises. During the recent election campaign he said that when elected his coalition Government would be committed to the completion of the Maldon to Dombarton rail link. Last year in this Chamber the Leader of the Opposition in this House-and now Leader of the Government-said that the Labor Government was moving too slow in the construction of a tunnel on that line. He said that a tunnel was the key for the transportation of wheat from the southern areas, from Dubbo to the Victorian border. The mini-budget announced the closure of the Maldon to Dombarton rail link and the construction of a tunnel, after tunnel works had been commenced by Sinclair Knight and Partners. Mr Curran in his report, as a result of instructions received from the Premier, ignored the fact that that decision was a stupid decision, the consequences of which will be felt heavily by members of the National Party when I visit country areas and articulate to country people how irresponsible members of the National Party are and how they take country people for granted. The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith: The honourable member should be careful where he goes in the country. The Hon. J. R. HALLAM: I get fantastic coverage in the bush; better coverage than any Minister receives at the moment. The Opposition welcomes the decision to proceed with a $70 million hospital at Albury. But I pose a question for the Premier, the Minister for Health, and the Leader of the Government in this House-or whoever will reply to my contribution today- in this form: what has become of Mr Greiner's promise, which he made in the recent election campaign, that the people of Wagga Wagga shall have a new base hospital when the coalition Government was returned to office on 19th March? I still have some contacts in the public service and they inform me that there are no plans by the Department of Health, and no recommendations from that department, to construct a hospital at Wagga Wagga. That promise is one of the 88 promises that this Government has broken in just over five months. In his Speech the Governor said: A new Crown Land Act will provide a modem, simple framework for the effective administration and management of Crown Land in New South Wales. The Government supports the State's integrated Land Information System. I drafted that Cabinet minute; that was my recommendation to the former Government. The land information system was announced about 18 months ago and has been in place for some time. The poor old Governor has been treated very shabbily indeed. The Hon. M. F. Willis: He is not poor and he is not old. The Hon. J. R. HALLAM: I have the greatest respect for the Governor. The Hon. M. F. Willis considers himself to be the epitome of establishment rectitude. I shall give the honourable member a classic example of why this Government should apologize to a man of the integrity, standing and stature of Sir James Rowland. In the Governor's Speech he said: In celebration of our Bicentenary, a Demonstration Forest has been established at Macquarie Woods between Bathurst and Orange. 18 August, 1988 COUNCIL 113 Yesterday I listened to the Governor's announcement and I almost fell off my chair. I thought to myself, "That sounds familiar." At the conclusion of the ceremonies I telephoned the offices of the Bathurst Advocate and the Central Western Daily and asked whether they had any recollection of my chartering an aircraft from Griffith to Bathurst on 19th March, the date of the recent election. On that day the Forestry Commission of New South Wales chartered an aircraft for me and I flew to Bathurst as I believed that the demonstration forest was a magnificent and important project. The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Listen to this. The Hon. J. R. HALLAM: The honourable member-this little country fellow-does not believe me. I do not ask him to believe me but I have here an article from the Central Western Daily. It shows a photograph of the former Minister for Forests and reads: The project was opened by the Minister for Agriculture, Mr Jack Hallam, in one of his last official engagements as a Minister. The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: And you are now trying to take the credit for it. The Hon. J. R. HALLAM: If Government members read today's issue of the Central Western Daily, they will discover that they are a laughing-stock; if they read the Bathurst Advocate, they will find they are an even bigger laughing-stock. Those newspapers do not like that sort of thing, nor does the Governor. An apology to the Governor should be the order of the day. HIS Excellency's speech to this House contained nine lines devoted to the country; yet the coalition, in its most powerful electoral position in the history of the State, has an unprecedented majority, holding all but two country electorates. But what do we get? A program to control footrot in sheep. That is highly commendable. The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith: Then do not laugh about it. The Hon. J. R. HALLAM: I am not laughing about it. I want to know how much the Government will spend. The Governor said: The Government will introduce a strategic plan to eradicate the footrot disease in sheep which is costing the industry about $60 million per year. Farmers will be given assistance through advisory systems . . . Let me inform the House about advisory systems. Over the past three months the Department of Agriculture has closed the district veterinary laboratory at Armidale, with the loss of eminent scientists who have the key to develop these programs. The Government has sacked advisory officers from one end of the State to the other. It has sacked one of the most distinguished scientists, a university medallist from Lismore. It has sacked Terry Gorman, the scientist who discovered gemfish off the east coast of New South Wales-an industry now worth $30 million a year. That brilliant 52-year-old scientist, who works on the research vessel Kapala, has been told that he is no longer required. The Government has sacked civil engineers within the Department of Agriculture who devised methods that have saved farmers millions of dollars in correcting transmission failures. Because farmers were driving their tractors too slowly and loading their machinery too heavily, they were losing millions of dollars every year until these brilliant men determined methods to solve their problems. This Government and its hobbledehoy Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs has rushed in and sacked men of international repute-men of the highest standing, doctors of philosophy who have devoted their lives for 1 14 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988 salaries as low as $30,000 or $40,000 a year. That is the sort of treatment that the people of New South Wales are receiving from the National Party, which simply does not care. I shall give the House another example. In 1966 the former coalition Government established decentralization as a major initiative, as the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing would be well aware. Decentralization was the centrepiece of the National Party's initiative, and it was a good policy. The former Labor Government adopted that policy and expanded it. This fellow Peacocke, the honourable member for Dubbo, proposes selling the New South Wales Investment Corporation. The public thinks that the Investment Corporation is a branch of the State Bank, but that is not so. It incorporates the country industries assistance fund which provides $25 million a year to assist country industries. Over the past 15 to 18 years the corporation has provided $80 million in loans. Some of the companies that have relocated from the city to the country as a result of incentives offered by the Investment Corporation are Clyde Engineering Company Pty Limited and Devro in Bathurst. The family company of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing has been a major beneficiary; McLeod Industries and James Hardie and Company Pty Limited have decentralized to Wagga; Stebercraft Pty Limited and the White River Timber Company Pty Limited-an interesting one-have moved to Taree and have been beneficiaries of the country industries assistance fund. I have a list of hundreds of companies that have benefited from incentives offered, and have been enticed to move from the city. The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith: Are you suggesting this will not continue in the future? The Won. J. R. HALLAM: This Government has given no assurance that the fund will be maintained, that payroll tax incentives will be maintained, or that those ofices will be kept open. The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith: What is the Government expected to spell out in only 14 pages? It would take 114 pages. The Won. J. R. HALLAM: I have issued statements throughout New South Wales but the Minister has made no retraction or denial of my claim. Until that is done, the position remains. In my contribution to this debate I am working my way through the Liberal Party's blueprint for the future. One expects a blueprint to have forward projections and plans, and to be conceptual and visionary. Yesterday I listened carefully to the Governor's Speech. he said: The Government is committed to the upgrading of all the State's lakes and estuaries. That is fine. The Speech mentions an estuarine management program. At the conclusion of yesterday's ceremonies I referred to my library and I discovered that on 16th March Barrie Unsworth announced an estuarine management program. This document, the Governor's Speech, is plagiarism. It coqtains the Labor Party's blueprint announced by Barrie Unsworth on 16th March. [Interruption] The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sir Adrian Solomons): Order! The Leader of the Opposition will address the Chair. The Hon. J. R. HALLAJM: I shall give the House another example. This is becoming rather boring, but I refer to the coastline management policy, a so- called major initiative of this Government. This program was announced by Barrie Unsworth. 18 August, 1988 COUNCIL 115 [Interruption] The Hon. J. R. HALLAM: The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith may laugh but there are members in this House who are not embarrassed by these uncontroverted facts. The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith: What was the date of that announcement? The Hon. J. R. HALLAM: 16th March. The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith: Did everything happen in March this year? The Hon. J. R. HALLAM: No. In one commendable statement, the Governor said: The tourism industry remains a significant contributor to the State's economy. It is an integral part of our future growth strategy, generating over $9 billion annually and employing some 140 000 people. That is wonderful. A few weeks ago I was at Armidale, and poor old Garry West was there. He was addressing the regional tourism association. Most of the members of the board of that association are members of the National Party. Mr Watson, the chairman of the Dumaresq Shire, was there and representatives of the Armidale Shire. I suggest that 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the people present were card-carrying members of the National Party. Poor old Garry, in addressing the association, said: Research has shown that regional tourism simply does not work. Therefore I am taking your $280,000 funding away from you. It was very embarrassing, because poor old Garry was monstered. The Governor's Speech is a mish mash. It clearly lacks vision; it was plagiarized from the Labor Party's platform and policy announcements; it lacks planning; it is dishonest. Indeed, an apology must be forwarded to the Governor. Above all it is clear that the North Shore Ministers, the yuppies from the North Shore, certainly do better than the hobbledehoys in the National Party. The Hon. J. J. DOOHAN [I 1.121: I support the motion so ably moved and seconded by my colleagues the Hon. M. F. Willis and the Hon. J. H. Jobling. First, I should like to heartily welcome to the Chamber all of the new members on both sides of the House and the crossbenches who were elected on 19th March. Also, I should like to congratulate those members who have made their maiden speeches, which were excellent. I look forward to hearing the maiden speeches of the other new members. I am sure that the high quality of debate in this House will be maintained by the contributions that the new members will make. I have been a member of Parliament for almost 10 years, and have been a member of the Government for five months. That is five months of what I am sure will be many years that the Greiner-Murray Government will be in office. During the time I have been a member of this Parliament I believe that T have spoken in each Address-in-Reply debate. However, it is encouraging, at last, to be able to respond to a Government program that is progressive and clear, and which obviously has been put forward by a Government that has clear intentions for the future. The Hon. G. Brenner: Most of those matters were adopted from the previous Government's policies. 116 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988 The Hon. J. J. DOOHAN: That is news to me. Each time I spoke I said how impressed I was with the performance of the Governors-first Sir Roden Cutler and then Sir James Rowland. New South Wales is fortunate to have had men of such calibre to hold high office. Those two gentlemen were well approved by Her Majesty the Queen, who saw fit to confer a knighthood on them. Sir Roden and Sir James were well received by all Australians. I should like to add to what other members have said in wishing Sir James and Lady Rowland a very happy retirement, which they truly deserve. Though New South Wales has many serious problems, it is good to know that at last they will be properly addressed. The Greiner-Murray Government took office in March. On attaining the Treasury benches it discovered that the State had a huge deficit of, what was then thought to be, $26 billion. However, the Commission of Audit has since discovered that the deficit is actually $46 billion. The Hon. J. D. Garland: The former Government paid off the Harbour Bridge debt. The Hon. J. J. DOOHAN: Was the whole of the Harbour Bridge debt paid during the reign of the previous Government? The Hon. J. D. Garland: No. The Hon. F, C. Hankinson: No one pays off a 4 per cent loan, not even western lands farmers. The Hon. J. J. DOOHAN: On assuming office, the new Government found that the Darling Harbour project had substantially overrun all estimates and was far from completed. The Government had to complete the monorail, which only recently has become operative. It took over the commitment of the previous Government for the Sydney Harbour tunnel. Honourable members may or may not agree with that project, but everyone should understand that it is a major responsibility that the new Government inherited, despite having had nothing to do with the planning and tendering. The new Government took over the Entertainment Centre, which the citizens of New South Wales deserve and are proud of. However, that centre will never be self-supporting. The Government took over the Sydney Football Stadium, which cost approximately $60 million-an expense that will never be recovered. The Government took over the road system which, right throughout New South Wales, is nothing better than a shambles. I hasten to say that country roads are not the only facility in rural areas that has been neglected for almost 12 years under the Labor Government. The rural areas have been neglected generally and there is an urgent need for the Government to direct more of its resources to them. All of the huge expenditures to which I have referred have related to city projects. Labor did practically nothing for people in the rural areas. I have named only a few of the headaches passed on by the previous Government. I strongly support the determination of the Greiner-Murray Government to whittle away at the huge State debt of $46 billion. This year that debt will cost in excess of $1.545 billion to service. How could any government reduce costs if each year it had to meet a commitment to service such a huge debt? Some government assets will be sold and other liabilities will be eliminated. Funds from the sale of assets will be used to reduce the debt; they will not be used for current expenditure. Unfortunately the new Government has been forced to raise some charges in order to service that huge debt and to meet current expenditure requirements. That is very much regretted. However, it is 18 August, 1988 COUNCIL 117 interesting for the most part that the people of New South Wales have understood and accepted that situation. Having all these problems in mind, Premier Greiner attended the Premier's conference with some hope that assistance would be forthcoming from the federal Government. After all, what is federalism supposed to be? When federalism was introduced, it was nothing more than a simple contract between the States as to how the Federation should operate. That system has changed with successive federal governments reducing the powers of the States. The federal Government is no longer an umbrella. It forces its authority on the States and tries to tell them how they should be run. This is not federalism. It was never intended that way. On 3rd September the people of Australia will be asked to answer what seem to be four simple questions. Those four simple questions, if carried, will mean 33 changes to the Constitution, which will give more authority to the federal Government. I shall not dwell on the referendum issue. That matter was adequately covered by my colleague the Hon. M. F. Willis. Every year the Premiers must go cap in hand to Canberra and try to get a handout sufficient for them to carry on business for the following 12 months. There has probably never been a greater example of how ruthless the federal Government can be than what happened this year. Mr Keating spoke about the need for spending restraint because of the huge national debt. He has limited grants to the States and he has limited the authority to borrow, so that the States are forced to play their part in bringing about constraints. The federal Government does not place the same restraints on itself and this is anything but fair. This year the federal Government imposed on the State a reduction in real terms of 4.2 per cent in payments and a reduction in overall borrowing limits of 14.9 per cent. Honourable members must understand that the difficulties facing the new Government are not small. On 3rd June an editorial appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald the first two paragraphs of which are relevant to what I have been saying. The editorial, in part, reads: Mr Greiner's mini-budget is a courageous start. He has taken on some of the most wilful and most intense interest groups in the State but it is only a start. The Government's recurrent spending will still be growing in real terms next financial year. Getting productivity gains from the bureacracy and breaking down the restrictive work practices of teachers, the railway unions and the Government's cleaning services will be a long and very bitter battle. The pity is that Mr Greiner did not take the opportunity to lop off more Government services. It is by cutting functions and services that savings are most surely made. He will cut off some train services and will phase out of the rail system the most unprofitable of its small freight operations. Some of the less valuable TAFE courses, at present $100 a course, probably will drop by the wayside. As he begins the long struggle to squeeze savings from the teachers and the rest of the bureaucracy, he may come bitterly to regret not cutting more now. I certainly could not determine a good system of education for our youth, but I am aware of a few facts that need to be borne in mind by everyone. First, for the past two or three years numerous employers and professional people have stated clearly that the present education system does not prepare young people adequately to take their place in the work force. This is a very serious matter. I feel deeply for those students who, having worked so hard to pass their examinations, read or hear that the subjects they have studied will not fit them for a place in employment. No government could stand aside and let that state of affairs continue. 1 18 COUNCIL 18 August, I988 Second, in 1978, 81 1 940 students were enrolled in State schools. At that time there were 43 158 teachers. In 1987 the number of students enrolled in State schools decreased to 755 094 and the number of teachers increased to 47 657. During that time the percentage drop in the number of students was 7 per cent, with an increase of teachers of 10.4 per cent. In that period the maintenance of many schools was neglected. The Minister for Education, Dr Metherell, said: The problems include blocked sewerage pipes, leaking roofs, faulty taps and gas- fittings, playground bubblers that do not work-in many schools floor coverings, dangerous windows, ceilings, doors and fences, along with termite damage need to be repaired. I have stated that there is a need to curb expenditure and to ensure that any expenditure the Government makes in future is productive. The Government is trying to save money in some areas of education so that necessary maintenance can be effected. It has increased the allocation of funds to education but that allocation must, of necessity, be limited. Surely before the Government is criticized, it is fair to examine school staffing and class sizes. The Minister has tried to assess education needs percentage-wise fairly across the whole spectrum instead of seriously hampering only some schools. If honourable members can think of a fairer approach, they should come forward with it. Honourable members should bear in mind that the Governrnent and the Minister have said clearly that in areas where a serious problem can be demonstrated any specific case will be examined. The Greiner Government has made an all-out effort to forge good relations with the principal local government organizations. Through regular consultation, the Government now enjoys good relations with groups representing local government in this State. A good example of that is the working committee that was formed to make proposals concerning the constitutional recognition of local government in this State's Constitution Act, and the protection of councils from arbitrary dismissal. That working committee was composed of delegates from local government and shires associations, the Department of Local Government, and the Minister's staff; and it is working well. Evidence of the committee's success will be plain when legislation on this issue is introduced in this session of Parliament. Despite the findings of the Goran report, the Government has restored democracy to the Sydney city council by introducing a system under which members of that council will be elected. The coalition initiative for the city council confirms the Government's commitment to democracy. The Government has given greater autonomy to local government in planning matters. An example of this is the return of control to the Blacktown council for the proposed Rooty Hill steel mill development. During this session the Government intends to give constitutional recognition to local government. This will happen whether or not the federal referendum is carried; for it will be more effective for this Government to provide that, and that that part of the federal referendum should be lost. The coalition Governrnent will enhance the institution of local government in the New South Wales Constitution Act. Local government will not, thereafter, be able to be abolished except by referendum of the people. The Local Government Act will be amended to ensure that a full inquiry is conducted before any council is dismissed. This will ensure that councils no longer will be subject to political prejudice. Before outlining the achievements and plans of the State Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Mr Ian Armstrong, I raise a serious and most contentious issue in the agricultural industry; one that will have an effect on the policies of any State government that might administer that portfolio. That 18 August, 1988 COUNCIL issue concerns the move by the federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy to reduce powers, and drastically change the operations, of the Australian Wheat Board. This is to be done despite the fact that the large majority of wheatgrowers fully support the board and have done so for a long time. A meeting held recently by the New South Wales Farmers Association requested the Grains Council to oppose the changes for the board being put forward by Mr Kerin, the federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. The Grains Council is doing just that. I have spoken in this House before about the long-term record of the Australian Wheat Board and how serious were the problems for wheatgrowers prior to the board's establishment. Such people as Sir Jack Cass, an early chairman of that board, and Sir Leslie Price, have done magnificent jobs. Their work is now being perpetuated by Mr Condon. It is amazing that Mr Kerin should move to change or reduce the powers of the Australian Wheat Board, more particularly at the present time when the Australian wheat industry has been in such serious straits because of the policies of subsidization for wheatgrowers followed by the government of the United States of America and by the European Economic Community. More than ever before, wheatgrowers and those associated with that industry must recognize the advantages of the board's operations. A number of measures can be used to gauge the performance of the Australian Wheat Board in the past decade. The 1980s have been a particularly torrid time for exporters not subsidized in world markets. The export subsidy war between the United States of America and the European Economic Community has impacted directly on Australian wheatgrowers. Against this background the Australian Wheat Board has been able to compete against the Treasuries of the United States of America and of the European Economic Community and has been able to extract price premiums for Australian wheatgrowers as buyers recognize the unquestionable reputation of the Australian Wheat Board as a long-term and reliable supplier of high quality wheat. Wheat production in Australia has fallen from 22 million tonnes in 1983-84 to 12.3 million tonnes in 1987-88. Preliminary estimates show that the production figure for 1988-89 will be 14.3 million tonnes. The board believes that actual receivals must be about 13 million tonnes a year to adequately service traditional customers. Wheat receivals of 10.7 million tonnes in 1987-88 were well below this target. Consequently, the Australian Wheat Board was forced to walk away from supplying poorer-returning traditional markets in 1987-88 in search of higher returns for Australian wheatgrowers. Australian wheat exports reached 16 million tonnes in 1985-86, and 15.6 million tonnes in 1986-87, because of the large production carryover of stocks. However, wheat exports this year will fall to about 10.2 million tonnes. The ruthless measures taken by the United States of America when introducing the export enhancement program in May 1985 have had a domino effect on exporting countries, such as Australia, which do not subsidize. World wheat prices have decreased as buyers expect other suppliers to match subsidized wheat prices from the United States of America. Returns to Australian wheatgrowers have decreased because of the diminishing export returns. Australian wheat producers have reacted to falling returns by reducing acreage devoted to wheat production in search of more lucrative returns on their investment; crops such as grains, legumes, sheep, and wool. This may well put a strain on those industries. 120 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988 The Australian Wheat Board market program, since the introduction of the American export enhancement scheme, should be measured in the light of subsidy payments per tonne for wheat in the United States of America, the European Economic Community, and in Canada. These comparable figures are important to those disillusioned people who believe the Australian Wheat Board and Australian wheatgrowers are subsidizing this country. The 1986 government support for wheat per tonne in United States dollars was as follows: in the European Economic Community, $82.82; the United States of America, $69.53; Canada, $22.46; and Australia, $7.40. These figures are based on Australian Wheat Board and Canadian Wheat Board estimates. The introduction of the American export enhancement program caused an almost immediate spiralling downturn in wheat prices. The Australian Wheat Board has refused constantly to price wheat at these low prices, instead demanding and receiving premiums for Australian wheat in even the most price sensitive markets. The ability of the Australian Wheat Board to gain price premiums is easily illustrated by the latest export enhancement program markets. In Egypt, during 1986-87, the Australian Wheat Board achieved premiums of up to $US23 a tonne more than the United States of America wheat prices to Egypt. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the world's largest wheat importer and the largest recipient of American export enhancement program benefits, imported 12.8 million tonnes in May 1987. The Australian Wheat Board's most recent sale to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in early 1988 was $US12 per tonne above the United States of America wheat sales. It must be remembered that sales made by the United States were assisted by an export subsidy of $US37 per tonne. Despite that subsidy the Australian Wheat Board achieved a higher price in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In early 1980 in Yeman, which is a market in which the presence of the export enhancement program has caused the most outrage in Australia, Australia held virtually 100 per cent of that market. The introduction of the exporf enhancement plan eroded both market share and price returns. However, the Australian Wheat Board has refused to match the export enhancement plan prices into the market and has achieved approximately $US20 per tonne more than United States wheat has achieved. It has retained approximately 75 per cent of that market. The Australian Wheat Board has been innovative and aggressive in opening up and developing new markets. Two examples- The Hon. H. B. French: The Government wants to sell the board does it not? The Hon. J. J. DOOHAN: It does not want to sell the board. Despite objection from the growers, who own the board, Mr Kerin wants to reduce the board's powers and open it to free enterprise. The Hon. H. B. French: Who is the honourable member knocking? The Hon. J. J. DOOHAN: I am knocking the federal Government and those of my federal colleagues who support this idea. I am informing the House of the great job the Australian Wheat Board has done. Why should its powers be changed at this stage? I shall now give two examples of the board's developing new markets. The export of wheat to China and feed lot markets demonstrate the board's ability in this regard. A conversation that took place 28 years ago in Hong Kong commenced the Australian Wheat Board's relationship with the Peoples Republic of China. The general manager of the board commented on a report to his Chinese companions that China had experienced a drought and if it needed wheat, Australia could supply it. The next day a draft contract for the sale of 300 000 tonnes of wheat was drawn 18 August, 1988 COUNCIL 12 1 up. Since that time just under 50 million tonnes of Australian wheat has been shipped to China, which has been worth about $5 billion to Australia. Seldom has the annual wheat trade to China dipped below one million tonnes. In 1986-87 Australia shipped a record 3.7 million tonnes of wheat to China. This wheat connection was established long before Australia entered into formal diplomatic relations with China. At the time of its first sale of Australian wheat to China the board was criticized for appearing to take an inappropriate role on foreign policy; but it assisted in paving the way for a trading relationship that has confirmed China as one of Australia's four largest exporting markets. The Hon. H. B. French: These negotiations took place before diplomatic recognition of China. The Hon. J. J. DOOHAN: Yes, they did. The Hon. H. B. French: What government gave diplomatic recognition to China? The Hon. J. J. DOOHAN: For the benefit of the Hon. H. B. French I am endeavouring to inform the House of the great job done by the Australian Wheat Board for wheatgrowers and for this nation. Its powers and authority should not be drastically reduced. The export of wheat to China commenced 28 years ago when the honourable member was just a boy. The Hon. J. R. Hallam: But now neither the Liberal Party nor Mr Lloyd and Mr Sinclair agrees with the honourable member. The Hon. J. J. DOOHAN: The Leader of the Opposition is wrong about Mr Lloyd and Mr Sinclair. The Hon. J. R. Hallam: The federal shadow cabinet has announced that it supports the reforms. The Hon. J. J. DOOHAN: The shadow cabinet comprises many people. The Hon. J. R. Hallam: Of whom Mr Lloyd and Mr Sinclair are two. The Hon. J. J. DOOHAN: I am informing the House of my views, which are worth listening to. I am stating the facts. In 1983-84 the Australian Wheat Board received in excess of 2.5 million tonnes of general purpose and feed wheats due to poor harvest conditions throughout the wheat belt. A special task force was established by the Australian Wheat Board to identify special markets for feed wheat. The efforts of the task force led to sales of feed wheat to markets that previously had not usually purchased wheat or coarse grain from Australia, notably Mexico, South Korea, and South Africa. The board has always accepted the obligation to ensure that all requirements on the domestic market are met. What would Australian consumers do without bread? The drought in 1982-83 ensured that an unprecedented amount of wheat was used for stock feeding purposes, particularly in the eastern States of Australia. In 1982-83 wheat stock feed sales totalled almost 1.5 million tonnes compared with the average of 0.8 million tonnes generally made to the stock feed manufacturing industry and users from intensive livestock industries-the highest level of stock feed sales recorded in one year. Of that amount 563 000 tonnes were sold direct to farmers for stock feeding purposes. New South Wales farmers purchased 27 000 tonnes, Victoria purchased 26 000 tonnes, and Tasmania purchased 10 000 tonnes. Through its control of wheat sales and movement within Australia the Australian Wheat Board was able where possible to maintain sufficient wheat in suitable locations to meet likely demands. Among the strategies adopted was the large interstate and intrastate movement 122 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988 of wheat, including the shipment of 26 000 tonnes from Western Australia to Victoria. The board was conscious that wheatgrowers should not be called upon to subsidize those industries through artificially reduced wheat prices for stock. Stock feed wheat prices therefore retained parity with export costs. The Middle East has long been recognized by the world's major exporters as a lucrative market. Egypt, Jordan, Iran, and Turkey are major markets in which Australia competed against the United States' export plan and the European Economic Community; and Australia felt the full effect of the mid-1 980s trade war between exporters in the form of decreased wheat returns. However, the Australian Wheat Board recognized the potential of the Middle East long before other exporters to this region. Prior to the oil boom in the 1970s the board nurtured and cultivated smaller countries in the area near the Arabian Gulf, such as Oman, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar. As a result, the Australian Wheat Board now holds virtually a 100 per cent market share in these oil rich countries. The long-term planning of the Australian Wheat Board is continuing and growing. The board is adhering strategically to plans made through to the 1993-94 season. I am staggered that the federal Government should be planning to interfere with this board, which is owned and operated by wheatgrowers of Australia. The Government's achievements in rural affairs are many, but enormous challenges face this State in the areas of agriculture and fisheries. The realization of the potential of those two industries-already the biggest export earner in the State-and the utilization of manpower and resources is perhaps the single greatest challenge facing this Government, and one that it is determined to meet. The Government has a strong commitment to country people. The Hon. J. R. Hallam: Then why is it sacking all those scientists? The Hon. J. J. DOOHAN: I shall come to that matter if the Leader of the Opposition is patient. I regret that it had to be done but he will understand if he listens to what I say. The Government has listened and responded to the concerns of country people. It came to office with a mandate for smaller government, less regulation, and fewer government imposts. The Government believes in less interference in the people's day-to-day lives, which they are much more capable of handling than is government. The Government is committed to maintaining a viable rural sector. Its initiatives so far have shown, and will continue to show, that that is so. The Board of Tick Control has been reconstituted to permit greater representation from stockowners. The Hon. J. R. Hallam: The Government is maintaining my policies. The Hon. J. J. DOOHAN: But why did you not do this instead of closing down all the tick dips? The Hon. J. R. Hallam: Because they did not save money. The Hon. J. J. DOOHAN: Six out of eight elected members on the Board of Tick Control are now stockowners, giving producers a greater say in the board's operations. In its first days in office, the Government moved to protect rock oysters from the rogue Pacific oyster. Since 1984 the government abattoirs in this State have cost taxpayers well in excess of $100 million. The Blayney council abattoir has been sold to private enterprise following expenditure of almost $8 million in the four years prior to the Government taking office. The council now has a debt of only $1 million following the Government's injection of $2.5 million. 18 August, 1988 COUNCIL 123 Sadly, Homebush abattoir had to be closed as it was a financial disaster with total debts of $58 million. Last year's losses alone were $4.6 million. Structurally the abattoir was a safety hazard with out-dated and old technology. It was supplying less than 20 per cent of Sydney's meat market requirements. The abattoir's licence was due for renewal shortly, but there is no way it would have been renewed unless millions of dollars had been spent on upgrading. Unfortunately, there was no option other than to close it. Red meat trading hours have been extended and are now in line with other major foodstuffs. Biological control of the prolific weed Paterson's curse has been perfected by the release of the moth dialectics scariella in targeted areas. The department is undertaking a mass breeding program to ensure a ready supply of the moth. Moths will continue to be released throughout the winter and the spring. I turn now to education. Over the next four years $23 million will be spent to improve rural education, Living-away-from-home allowances will be increased, and a special per capita grant will be made to isolated schools. Country roads will benefit from the Government's fulfilment of its election commitment to allocate petrol taxes to road maintenance. A strategic plan for the eradication of footrot is being introduced. It is estimated that this year that debilitating disease will cost the State's sheep industry $60 million. The Government's aim is to eradicate the disease. The Hon. J. R. Hallarn: That is good. How are you going to do it? The Opposition would like to know what the program is. The Hon. J. J. DOOHAN: The Government will try. The Hon. J. R. Hallarn: Will you elaborate on the program? The Hon. J. J. DOOHAN: The Government will try. A joint Government and private enterprise will promote export opportunities for New South Wales agricultural products in the international market-place with particular emphasis on South-East Asia. Many other initiatives will be undertaken in agriculture and other areas. Those institutions will be covered by other Government speakers in this debate. In reply to an interjection by the Hon. J. R. Hallam, the State Government's budget strategy has been developed to deal with the implications of the Commonwealth Government's mini-budget in May and the $46 billion debt inherited from the former Labor Government. The Department of Agriculture was required to effect savings of $2.835 million, necessitating the abolition of 77 full-time positions over a complete one-year period. The department has reviewed its programs and has determined the areas of lowest priority, and those which could appropriately and with greater cost effectiveness be handed over to the private sector. Accordingly, restructuring has commenced as a longer-term budget strategy. The Hon. J. R. Hallam: The Minister has permitted two people in the department to settle old scores. Without his knowledge they have sacked employees for personal reasons. I do not think that the Minister was aware of what happened. He has simply accepted it. The Hon. J. J. DOOHAN: I deny the Leader of the Opposition's accusations and ask that he listens to what I have to say. No forced retrenchments will take place and every effort will be made to redeploy staff. I turn now to natural resources. The Department of Natural Resources brings together three components-land, water and forests-the effective management of which is vital for the continued well-being of our community. On the one hand, these components underpin the major primary industries and an increasing number of tertiary industries such as recreation and tourism; on the 124 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988 other hand, their care and conservation is essential for the long-term maintenance of the State's ecosytems and the physical welfare of humans, native animals and plants. This Government will strike a sensible balance between those components. Soon the Government will present to the House far-reaching proposals that will modernize, streamline, and simplify Crown land legislation. That legislation will reduce, from several dozen to four, the types of Crown land leases that are available. At the same time, Crown land rents will be adjusted to prevent a further erosion of the State's equity in leased land. Lest honourable members opposite become excited about that rental increase, I should explain that in the depression years some rents were pegged. The PRESIDENT: Order! Pursuant to the sessional order, questions will now be called.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

PESTICIDES IN FRUIT AND VEGETABLES The Hon. J. R. HALLAM: I ask the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing, representing the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs, a question without notice. In the interests of community health, will the Minister table the results of a survey undertaken by scientists in the Department of Agriculture, of the levels of pesticides in fresh fruit and vegetables? I am referring to a specific survey, commissioned by me more than three years ago, through the current director-general, who was then the assistant director-general. That report took an inordinate time to be completed. Will the Minister make the report available to the public so that its implications may be properly assessed in the areas of human health, implications for export of fresh produce, and in the possible misuse of these chemicals by growers, particularly those who may have a difficulty with the English language? Will the Government list the names of the chemical residues found, and the known side-effects with which these chemicals have been associated? The Won. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: Yes, I shall raise this matter with the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs. I was interested to hear that the Leader of the Opposition commissioned that survey three years ago and it has taken that long to be prepared. The Hon. J. R. Hallarn: The department iron-lunged it. The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: During your administration? The Hon. J. R. Hallarn: Yes. The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: The coalition is an open government, not like the former government, and does not do those sorts of things. I entirely agree that this is an important matter. The misuse of pesticides has created a great deal of problems, not only for community health, which is important, but also for the consumption and export of fruit and vegetables. I shall raise this matter with the Minister and ask him whether he will make the report available, and answer the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition. 18 August, 1988 COUNCIL 125

CHILDREN (CARE AND PROTECTION) AMENDMENT BILL The Hon. DEIRDRE GRUSOVIN: Will the Minister for Family and Community Services inform the House of the reason for the proclamation of only section 1 (8) and those parts of schedule 1 (3) that relate to section 1 (8) of the Children (Care and Protection) Amendment Bill? Is it because the Minister's legislative proposals have been found to be unworkable in their present form? The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: The answer is clearly no. That decision was taken following a request from my colleague the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and discussions with the Premier. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition would be aware that there has been quite a deal of community discussion about the need for assistance for young runaways and the need to address the problems of street prostitution and other pornographic activities in which young people are involved, particularly in the inner city area. In the normal course, there would have been full and proper liaison between my department and other departments, and specially the Police Department, and the bill would have been proclaimed in October. However, because of the immediate concern, particularly about street prostitution, the Government, after consultation between the Ministers concerned and the Premier, decided to move speedily to proclaim those sections to which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred. So far as I am aware there is no difficulty about the other sections. The decision was purely one of priority. The particular sections were proclaimed ahead of schedule to address what was perceived to be an immediate problem.

OLYMPIC GAMES FOR SYDNEY The Hon. J. C. J. MATTHEWS: Will the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing inform the House how the Government intends that Sydney's staging of the 1996 Olympic Games would benefit the State's economy? The Hon. Ann Symonds: Will this be the short or the long answer? The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: As the games will be an important event, I should have thought that the honourable member would be interested. I thank the Hon. J. C. J. Matthews for his question about a subject that formed part of His Excellency the Governor's Speech yesterday, in which the Governor spoke about Sydney bidding for the 1996 Olympic Games. In the event of Sydney being chosen to host the 1996 Olympic Games, the Government has a clear idea of the type of management procedure that will be adopted to allow the State's economy to profit from the games. The games will be self-financing. That will be achieved through efficient and innovative management, the utilization of existing facilities and the prudent planning of new facilities that will be used after the games. Major revenue sources will be the sale of broadcasting rights, international marketing of product categories for the use of Olympic symbols, sponsorship, suppliership, and licensing agreements, gate receipts, lotteries, coins and stamp sales, and entrepreneurial innovation of real estate developments that will result in funding requirements being less than the actual cost of the developments. The citizens' committee formed by the Premier some time ago comprises the leaders of some of the largest corporations in Australia. I refer to Sir Peter Abeles, Kerry Packer, Stan Chisholm, Dean Wills of Amatil, and other people who have thrown their support behind Sydney's bid to host the 1996 Olympics. 126 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988

In the Homebush Bay zone, newly constructed facilities will include a main Olympic stadium-to continue as the new Sydney showground stadium after the games-an aquatic centre, three new pavilions adjacent to the main stadium to be used for volley ball, handball and badminton, an exhibition pavilion for gymnastics, and a new velodrome at Lidcombe Oval. In the Eastern Creek zone, shooting ranges and an archery range are to be developed. Equestrian facilities will be completed at Wanvick Farm racecourse. An international standard rowing course is to be developed as part of the Penrith lakes scheme. Careful note has been made of the future viability of each new facility and contingency plans are in place for the reconversion of large spectator spaces necessary for the games into more localized venues. Corporate support will be sought to significantly contribute to the financing. This will be sought particularly for the construction of the three Olympic villages at Homebush. The proposed housing developments will provide well-located accommodation for more than 6 000 families, and make a significant contribution to the consolidation and regeneration of Sydney's urban area. Such a project will be very attractive to developers. I am confident that Sydney will be chosen as the Olympic city, as our bid has been modelled on that of Los Angeles, the city that staged the most successful games in modem Olympic history. The games in Los Angeles were an outstanding financial success, generating a record surplus of $233 million. This success was due largely to the adoption of a new management approach that did not rely on direct government support, but instead attracted revenue from corporate sponsorship and licence agreements, the sale of television rights and ticket sales. Most important, existing facilities were well utilized and new developments were built to complement those already in place. The Los Angeles public and private sectors worked in tandem to produce such success with the minimum use of taxpayers' funds. The net result was that $83 million was distributed from the surplus to various United States sporting associations. The Los Angeles model is being emulated by Sydney as it anticipates hosting the 1996 games, thus bringing to Sydney its most exciting event this century. I remind honourable members that the last time we had an event of any significance in this city was in 1938, when we hosted the Empire Games.

COMPLAINTS AGAINST POLICE The Hon. R. D. DYER: I ask the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council a question without notice. Has the Minister referred to the Attorney General for investigation claims reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 1lth August that lawyers are encouraging criminals to make complaints against police officers to the Ombudsman so as to discredit them in court? If so, why has the Attorney General's office advised the Law Society of New South Wales that no investigation of the complaints referred to by the Minister is under way at present? Why has the Minister failed to lodge any complaint with the Law Society against any solicitor said to have been engaged in the alleged unethical practice to which he has referred? The Hon. E. P. PICICERING: I made it clear in a statement to this House that I was concerned about the development that had been drawn to my attention by numerous police officers in the course of a series of meetings held round the State of New South Wales with the commissioner, the police and me. I draw to the attention of the House the disconcerting development of 18 August, 1988 COUNCIL 127 particularly hardened criminals using the complaints system against police so that police witnesses in court can be discredited. It is not as if this is a new story. The honourable member would be well aware of the concerns within the police force on that very matter. The Hon. R. D. Dyer: Why does not the Minister do something about it? The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: I have done something about it. I have written to my colleague the Attorney General asking whether his department can examine what might be done about the problem. I am the first person to recognize that it will not be the easiest problem in the world to resolve. I am the last person who would want in any way to curtail an individual's rights to complain when the circumstances are valid. I am not involved in that matter, nor am I, as I read in the news media from apparently a press release issued by the Hon. R. D. Dyer, in some way attacking the Ombudsman's office. The Ombudsman is clearly required to investigate serious complaints of this nature that are referred to his office. He is simply doing his job and very properly so. So far as I am concerned I have no complaint against the Ombudsman. What I do complain about is that we have provided hardened criminals with an obvious weapon whereby they are able to attack the integrity of the system. I do not have ready answers for solving the problem. As an engineer I do not profess to have those sorts of answers. The Hon. R. D. Dyer: But the Minister has said that lawyers participate. The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: I have made the point in the House that I am advised by police that some of the smart lawyers realize they can enhance their client's case by generating those sorts of complaints. I say to the Hon. R. D. Dyer, whom I know is a man of some integrity, that only last week I had cause to study a detailed analysis of all the individual examinations being conducted by the internal affairs department in all four regions. It is a sad resume because the vast majority of cases are complaints made by people who have been arrested. One has to be suspicious that the problems I have raised are far more widespread than I had imagined. Until last week I had not seen that sort of detailed information and it is a matter of grave concern to me. That is why I have written to the Attorney General asking his department to find some mechanism whereby the integrity of the law and justice system in this area can be protected.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN EMPLOYMENT The Hon. ANN SMMONDS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Family and Community Services in her capacity as Minister responsible for women's policy. Has the Minister been acquainted with correspondence reported in a recent edition of the Sun-Herald from Mr Adrian Cruickshank, the member for Munumbidgee, to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mr Ian Causley? If not, is the Minister aware that in the correspondence there is objection to the continued pursuit of a policy of equal opportunity in employment? Is it a fact that Mr Cruickshank stated he does not believe that equal opportunity should be allowed in any government department? Does the Minister share Mr Cruickshank's desire to overturn established employment policies for women? If not, what action will the Minister take to combat Mr Cruickshank's call to "put a stop to this practice that will deliberately inhibit the sort of progress that we all seek"? Finally, will the Minister ascertain a definition of the word progress from Mr Cruickshank? 128 COUNCIL 18August,1988

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I thank the honourable member for her somewhat lengthy question. No, Mr Cruickshank did not write to me. My only knowledge of the purported letter is what I, like the honourable member, have read in the news media. I have no idea whether such a letter exists or whether it is a figment of the journalist's imagination. I am unaware that equal opportunity is not being actively pursued in all government departments.

COPYRIGHT LAWS The Won. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Attorney General. Is the Minister aware of an article which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of Wednesday, 17th August, entitled "It's the box that watches you while you watch the box" and which said in part: The smart probe is the main difference between the two systems. With it, McNair should be able to "fingerprint" each video tape at the start of recording, enabling it to tell not only what was recorded (by channel, date and time), but also when-and if-it is ever played back. Is it possible that any such information or evidence collected by McNair Anderson about the videotaping of copyright television programs may be used in court against infringements of copyright laws? If so, will the Government act to prevent the possibility of any such prosecution arising? The Won. E. P. PICKERING: I am not aware of the article to which the honourable member has referred, and therefore I am not in a position to advance her cause in any shape or form today. I shall refer her detailed question to my colleague the Attorney General.

STUDENT BUS TRANSPORT LEVY Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I ask the Minister for Family and Community Services, representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, a question without notice. Does the Government agree that the new 1989 policy concerning the $50 bus transport levy for children attending non- government Christian schools is discriminatory because government and Catholic systemic schools are exempt from the $50 bus levy? If this new policy discriminates against the newer Christian schools, which enrol children from a wide area, will the Government cancel this unfair discriminatory bus levy which will seriously damage these excellent schools in 1989? The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I know that there has been considerable discussion at both Cabinet level and among officers who work with and advise the Minister for Transport. The Minister is concerned about the possible effect of discrimination against students who are of religions which do not fall within the Catholic systemic system. He is examining that matter. I undertake to obtain an update on the present system and advise the honourable member. ASIAN IMMIGRATION The Hon. H. B. FRENCH: I ask the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing a question without notice. Does the Minister and his Government colleagues share the remarks made by the federal National Party leader, Mr Sinclair, advocating reduced Asian immigration, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald dated 12 August? 18 August, 1988 COUNCIL 129 The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: Mr President, I draw your attention to the fact that a question of that nature ought not be directed to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing. The subject matter of the question could hardly be called sport, if that is what the honourable member wishes to debate. I submit that the question is completely out of order.

LAW AND ORDER The Hon. JUDITH JAKINS: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council. Has the Minister yet received much feedback from the community about the effectiveness of the new Summary Offences Act? If so, what is the nature of this feedback? The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: Although it is probably too early yet to obtain an accurate overall picture of how the new Summary Offences Act is working, all signs so far show that the results are most encouraging. In addition to the new and extremely strong impetus that it has given to police to enable them to clear our streets of the more obvious problems, it has also been apparently effective in other ways. I should like to read to the House two letters received recently by the New South Wales Police Board which illustrate this most effectively. The first of those letters came from a resident of Claridge apartments, a block of flats in Hinders Lane, Darlinghurst. That letter stated: I have been requested by a large number of the tenants of the above apartment block to write to you and your Board members to express our appreciation of the efforts of your Number 5 Division Commander, Inspector Norman Graham. This Inspector has interviewed members of management of the units and a number of the tenants in relation to street problems in this area. He has restored the police foot patrols. We had a particularly bad problem in this area of Taylor Square, as we have two big night refuges for homeless men. These men in the past have used the streets as their home during the day. Prior to Mr Graham's arrival we found it very difficult to have them removed from our doorways, where they sat and slept and used the outside of our buildings as their toilets. The police at the old Darlinghurst police station have told us in recent years that their hands were 'tied' in relationship with moving these people. This state of affairs has now been rectified and all of us wish to commend the Commander of Surry Hills division to your Board. Without wishing to take any credit from Inspector Graham, there is no doubt that this effective police action is due in large measure to the introduction of community policing and the new Summary Offences Act. The observation of the author that "the police at the old Darlinghurst police station have told us in recent years that their hands were 'tied' in relationship with moving these people" is a reflection of the demoralized attitude that was widespread in the New South Wales Police Force after the previous Government repealed the old Summary Offences Act. The second letter I should like to read to the House is from the manager of a bank in the same area, Taylor Square. That letter stated: I would like to place on record my appreciation of the N.S.W. Police Force for the assistance they have provided to us and the community generally in the Taylor Square- Darlinghurst area. For far too long business people, residents and others have had to put up with offensive and threatening behaviour from drunks, derelicts and hooligans. Whilst we still have a way to go yet, the improvement locally is most welcome and this can be put down to Area Commander, Inspector Norm Graham. He has introduced

9 130 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988

foot patrols and got his men and women doing what we citizens like to see, i.e., policing the community and keeping law and order. With re-thinking of the Summary Offences Act I trust we will see this area totally free of the aforementioned undesirables. That letter says it all, and requires no comment from me or from anyone. The people who live and work in these troubled areas of Sydney are now beginning to get the service and protection from the police that they are entitled to expect and which had for years been denied them because of the many failures of the previous Government in this most important area of law and order. If the Labor Government had been returned, none of this would have happened. Prostitution would have been still rife along Canterbury Road, in Premier Lane, and along the Darlinghurst wall. Law-abiding citizens would have been still plagued by hooligans, louts and drunks, without any hope of ever having relief from these problems. Under the present Government, and with the assistance of community policing and the powers of the Summary Offences Act, I believe that we will be able to make some inroads into these problems which for years have been the daily blight of many who live and work in this city and in this State. I feel that the attitude of many police is now undergoing a change. That change will result in their being prepared to really have a go at solving these problems, for now they know they have the necessary legislation to back them up, and now they also know they have a Government that is behind them, which wants to see them operate effectively, and which is prepared to use its money to back them in this battle against crime.

HOMELESS YOUTH The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Family and Community Services. Noting the Minister's public statements of concern for homeless youth, particularly those involved in drug use and prostitution, what programs address the needs of homeless youth in the inner city area, particularly those involved in drug use or prostitution? What resources are allocated to these programs? What are the guidelines for funding these programs and the non-government organizations involved? What new initiatives or programs does the Government plan to introduce in addressing the needs of homeless youth in the inner city? The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sir Adrian Solomons): Order! I ask the honourable member, when he is addressing questions to a Minister, not to speak so quickly. The Minister has to try to take a note of questions in order to answer them adequately. The faster a member speaks, the more difficult it is for a Minister to do that, unless the Minister happens to be expert in shorthand. The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: This question is perhaps one of the most important ever to have come from the Opposition benches during the time the Greiner Government has been in office. My regret is that it would more properly have been put as a question on notice. [Interruption] The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister has the call. The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: The question posed, I presume in good faith, cannot be answered without notice. If the Hon. Delcia Kite or the Hon. M. R. Egan or any other honourable member should believe a detailed 18 August, 1988 COUNCIL 131 question of this type can be answered without notice, they are clearly unaware of the vast range of programs available throughout the inner city and the whole State. The supported accommodation programs relate to homeless youth and alienated young people. These do not involve one or two refuges only, but a wide range of programs which, in the present financial year, received something in the order of $29.43 million funding. If the Hon. Delcia Kite or the Hon. M. R. Egan or any other honourable member should think any Minister capable of reeling off, without notice, details of programs that average funding in the order of $60,000 or $70,000 or $29.5 million worth of supported accommodation programs, or $10.66 million worth of youth supported accommodation programs, or the $10.26 million worth of women's emergency services programs, clearly they are better people than I am. The Hon. M. R. Egan: Why does the Minister not answer questions on notice? What is the answer to that? The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Members of the Opposition have answers to all questions of me on notice. The Hon. M. R. Egan: Do we? The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Yes. If the honourable member were to check, he would find there are answers to all questions on notice. The Hon. M. R. Egan does himself little credit with such erroneous, irrelevant and inappropriate comments. He dishonours the question posed by his colleague which touches what is probably one of the most important challenges facing any Government today, no matter what its political complexion. In the inner city, which I suspect from the nature of the question is of particular importance to the honourable member, a number of programs cater for homeless young people, people who are affected by alcohol, and those who suffer from drug addiction. A number of organizations immediately spring to mind. One such organization is Rileys at Kings Cross, which I believe is overfunded for the work that it does. It receives about $700,000 each year. There are also proclaimed places and other specialized proclaimed places, such as the Women's Place which looks after drug affected and alcohol affected women. A vast range of programs is under way. I am sure that a list of organizations relevant to the honourable member's question would be available on computer printout, which I would be happy to make available. The enormous detail the honourable member has sought is inappropriate for a question asked without notice. I welcome the honourable member's, I hope, genuine concern about a problem that grew in the life of the previous Government. Overcoming this problem is probably one of the greatest challenges facing the Government.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE POLICE REGULATION (ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT) AMENDMENT BILL, 1988 The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I direct a question without notice to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council. Will the Minister be seeking to appear before the Select Committee on the Police Regulation (Allegations of Misconduct) Amendment Bill, 1988, to answer on oath the very serious accusations that have been made against him, also on oath, by the well-known anticorruption fighter Mr Eddie Azzopardi? If not, why not? 132 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: It is clear that the Hon. M. R. Egan does not know when to give over. Obviously the Opposition is not happy that about 14 000 employees of the police services of New South Wales are benefiting from the genuine support provided by the Government. That support is having a material and beneficial impact upon their morale. The inability of the previous Government to effectively support the New South Wales Police Force was the cause of many of the problems that now confront the community in this State. It was for that reason, as honourable members would be well aware, that I brought into this House legislation that would have gone a long way towards restoring the morale of officers in the force.

Before the recent elections I said that I would introduce such legislation, and I did so. This House saw fit to place that legislation before a select committee of the Parliament. That having occurred I am more than content to have that committee receive evidence. It has heard evidence from many witnesses both for and against the bill. Last week I read with much pleasure and pride that the Chairman of the Police Board of New South Wales, Sir Maurice Byers, a man of utmost integrity and a very eminent person, as I am sure all members would agree, was reported to have said to the select committee that it was now time for the community of New South Wales to start to trust its police service. I made an almost identical comment soon after being appointed Minister for Police and Emergency Services, at which time various journalists took great delight in suggesting that I was naive. I hope those same journalists do not suggest that Sir Maurice is naive.

It is about time that the community of New South Wales started to develop a greater respect for the police force. The sideshow that the Hon. M. R. Egan has attempted to parade unsuccessfully through this House over many weeks is just that-a sideshow. So that the people of New South Wales could vote upon this matter I said prior to the March elections that a coalition government would introduce such legislation, although there were those who suggested that I did not propose to do so. I said unequivocally that the Government would introduce this legislation, and I did introduce it. My actions have spoken louder than anyone's words.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE POLICE REGULATION (ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT) AMENDMENT BILL, 1988

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I ask a supplementary question of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council. Will the Minister be seeking to appear before the select committee to answer on oath accusations made against him also on oath by Mr Eddie Azzopardi? Will the Minister please answer the question?

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: The honourable member should understand that the committee, as a select committee of this Parliament, will in due course report to this Parliament, at which time, I presume, there will be long and considerable debate. I shall then deal with this matter in Parliament. 18 August, 1988 COUNCIL 133

COMMISSION OF AUDIT The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I direct a question without notice to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council. Does the Minister recall a statement in the adjournment motion made in this House by the Hon. M. R. Egan on the day that this Parliament last sat which suggested that there were serious errors in the audit of Government activities prepared by the Premier and the Treasurer? Have the honourable member's allegations been fully scrutinized? If so, how well have those allegations stood up to scrutiny? The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: I commend the honourable member for asking such an excellent question. It will come as no great surprise to honourable members, particularly members of the Opposition who are continually embarrassed by the Hon. M. R. Egan, to learn that the claims that the Hon. M. R. Egan made about the Government's Commission of Audit were without substance. In fact, I am advised that his allegations could be quite properly described as twaddle. Honourable members may have noticed that the Hon. M. R. Egan is never one to permit facts to stand in the way of his attempting to score a cheap political point. That is probably because of his training elsewhere. In fact, it would be fair to say that on occasions this practice of the honourable member has been the source of embarrassment particularly to his own colleagues. One has only to look at the faces of his colleagues on occasions to see the embarrassment registered. In this Chamber the honourable member attempted to make derogatory references to the Premier's "little black book" by referring to the Premier by a nickname. He attempted also to create the impression generally that the audit had serious faults, which of course it does not. I well understand the concern of the Opposition at the audit because of the way in which the audit highlighted the accumulated financial deficiencies of the previous Government over many years of maladministration. I believe we can now look forward confidently to an era of much more responsible financial management and generally better value for the taxpayers' dollar. I now address the ill-informed remarks of the Hon. M. R. Egan. His problem appears to have been that although he is a former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee of this Parliament, he still cannot distinguish between government-guaranteed debt and non-government-guaranteed debt. It is a fairly simple distinction for those who assume to know about such things. For that reason it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the Hon. M. R. Egan may have been aware that he was misleading the House on this matter. The honourable member referred to Budget Paper No. 2 and claimed that it showed the New South Wales gross State debt to be $21,984 million and not $24,743 million as claimed by the Commission of Audit. The fact is that had the Hon. M. R. Egan read Budget Paper No. 2 correctly, he would have seen that the $21,984 million shown there is the government-guaranteed debt, not the gross State debt. To arrive at the gross State debt requires the addition of the non- guaranteed debt of $2,730 million, also shown at page 252 of Budget Paper No. 2. The Hon. M. R. Egan: I thought we were discussing the debts of the Government. Are we talking about your personal debts as well? The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: Is this embarrassing to the honourable member? It is the combination of the guaranteed and non-guaranteed debt that makes up the gross State debt of $24.7 billion referred to by the Commission of Audit. As for the Hon. M. R. Egan's calculations on unprovided-for liabilities, 134 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988

I refer him to page 52 of the commission's report, which shows clearly the composition of the $46 billion. This statement of the State's financial position-

The Hon. M. R. Egan: It does not add up. It is a bogus report.

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: Does the honourable member not like to hear this?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: The information referred to is simply false.

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: In view of what I am about to read, I hope that the honourable member's interjection is on the record. He said that it is a bogus, false report.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: A bogus, false report.

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: I shall repeat that so that it appears in Hansard. The Hon. M. R. Egan referred to the report as being bogus and false. To assist the honourable member, this statement of the State's financial position was checked by the New South Wales Auditor-General. I refer the Hon. M. R. Egan to the statement of the Attorney General in appendix G, which reads: . . . I am of the opinion that the Statement of Financial Position and Balance Sheet for the State. . . read in conjunction with the notes thereto, appear to present a reasonable view of the State's financial position as at 30 June 1987.

Honourable members have a simple choice. Whom do they believe-the Auditbr-General of New South Wales or the Hon. M. R. Egan?

TWEED HEADS TOURIST INFORMATION CENTRE

The Hon. K. J. ENDERBURY: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing, representing the Chief Secretary and Minister for Tourism. Is the Minister closing the Tweed Heads office of the Tourism Commission of New South Wales? In view of the tremendous importance of tourism in the area, and the fierce competition from the Queensland Gold Coast, what steps is the Minister taking to maintain a New South Wales presence in the Tweed Heads area if the office is closed?

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: The Tweed Heads tourist information centre will be closed as the Tourism Commission of New South Wales considers it is no longer relevant. Each local government area in the State has effective tourist associations performing similar roles. Commission officers have had discussions with representatives of the Tweed Shire Council and have offered them the existing facilities. The offer is being considered by the council. Few full-time public servants are involved and they have been offered alternative employment with the commission or redeployment in other government departments. All honourable members will realize the duplication of services is completely unwarranted at any time, let alone at a time of financial constraint. 18 August, 1988 COUNCIL 135 JUVENILE OFFENDERS The Hon. DEIRDRE GRUSOVIN: Is the Minister for Family and Community Services aware of a report in the Sun-Herald about two youths who were held for nine days in cages at Long Bay prison, as a result of a Children's Court magistrate incorrectly interpreting his powers to transfer juvenile offenders from detention centres to adult prisons? The newspaper reported that the two youths were kept for their own protection in open-air cages constructed of a barred roof and two walls of bars, containing only a toilet bowl and a cement bench. Following recent changes to the Children (Detention Centres) Act which further reduced checks and balances against sending juvenile offenders to prison, what assurance can the Minister give the House that young offenders being transferred to adult prisons will not be housed in this type of open-air cage for their own protection? Is the Minister at odds with the view of a spokesman for the Minister for Corrective Services who said that the placement of young people in adult prisons was "a matter of concern to everybody in the Government because the atmosphere of a prison is wrong for young people"? The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I shall deal first with the last part of the question so that these matters can be placed in perspective. No member of this House could have the slightest joy in sending a juvenile offender to an adult prison, no matter how humane that prison may be. I include myself and the Minister for Corrective Services in that comment. It is of deep regret to me-and I know some Opposition members share this view-that in many cases we have no choice but to follow this course of action, as there is no appropriate secure facility for juvenile offenders in this State; that is despite promises by the Australian Labor Party before coming to office in 1976, and throughout its period in office, that proper, humane, modem and secure facilities would be constructed to house dangerous young offenders. It is sad and somewhat ironic that when this once great Labor Party is in Opposition, it has developed a social conscience and awareness that it lacked for 12 years. I am surprised that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should ask a question about a magistrate's error in believing he had the power to transfer juvenile offenders from a detention centre to an adult prison. It also surprises me that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would not welcome a clarification of the position, which is what I attempted to do in the amendments to the Children (Detention Centres) Act passed by this House during the last parliamentary session. I consider it fairer and more equitable that decisions about whether a young offender should be in a juvenile detention centre or an adult gaol should be referred to a court. I say that having regard to the clumsiness of the present procedures and taking into account that members of Parliament, of whatever political complexion, may perhaps be subject to influence. I hope that neither I nor the Minister for Corrective Services has been influenced in any decision we have made in this regard. I am not for one moment suggesting that my predecessors may have been influenced. The aim of the amendments to the Act, which were passed by the House last session, were to clarify the position so that similar errors will not occur in the future. Given the interest of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this case, she may like to know the nature of the offences committed by the two youths who were transferred to Long Bay gaol in May, so that she can understand what is involved in the serious, and the least welcome, duties that I face from time to time. 136 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988 I am not talking about little Oliver Twists or misguided young lads who stole a bottle of milk. On 3rd May these two young offenders appeared before the Cobham Children's Court on charges of escape, assault, and administer heroin. That is the matter to which the honourable member refers. I shall not, of course, name the two young people involved. On 18th March the offenders escaped from Talbot House at Minda detention centre, and a charge of escape was added to the list of offences confronting these young people. Honourable members will be aware that Minda is one of the more secure detention centres. During the escape the assistant superintendent of Minda-who, it is worth noting in these days of equal opportunity, was a woman-was assaulted. That led to the two young people, when finally they were captured, being charged with the further offence of assault. One of the offenders was in custody on remand to the District Court on charges of armed robbery, assault, robbery, and possession of cannabis. His behaviour at Talbot House was extraordinarily poor. On being returned to Talbot House after his recapture he was involved in standing over and assaulting another detainee. After being dealt with by the staff for this incident he then destroyed the unit's television set. The Hon. J. R. Hallam: Does the Minister support young people being placed in cages? The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: That young offender was charged by the police and transferred to Patterson House, where he is now detained. The second young person to whom we are referring was also remanded at Talbot House in relation to offences of trespass, possess implements, break, enter and steal, and possess. On 18th March he escaped with the other young lad. In May he appeared at Cobham Children's Court, charged with break, enter and steal, trespass, escape, assault, and cultivation of drugs. He had a previous history dating back to 1982, including offences of break and enter, stealing, being uncontrollable, and offences relating to the railway. In early May both young people appeared in Cobham Children's Court. At that time the magistrate made a determination about them that he fully believed was within his power. He determined to send them to an adult prison. The Hon. Ann Symonds: The Minister gave him that power. The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: If the Hon. Ann Symonds had listened to the answer, she would have understood that when it was realized that the magistrate had made an error- The Hon. Ann Symonds: I was commenting on the Minister's power to transfer. The Hon. VIRGINLA CHADWICK: I utilized that power-which is why they are now in my care. While they were in the adult prison they were placed, because of the perception that there would be danger to them, in the cages to which the honourable member referred. The Hon. Ann Symonds: Has the Minister seen the cages? The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Yes, indeed I have. I take no joy in that, and neither does my colleague the Minister for Corrective Services. The reality is that in this particular case an error was made by the magistrate, and that error has been corrected. The reason I have given a brief outline of these young people and their offences is to enable honourable members to suggest to me what should be done with young people such as those who, having been charged with serious offences, escape-particularly when there is no secure juvenile facility. 18 August, 1988 COUNCIL 137 JUVENILE OFFENDERS The Hon. DEIRDRE GRUSOVIN: I ask a supplementary question. Do I take it from the Minister's reply that because of the changes made to the children detention centres legislation, and the Minister's clear statement in the House that on occasions children will be transferred to adult gaols, those children will be placed in those cages in the adult prison for their own protection? The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition does herself and the seriousness of this matter no credit whatever. The young people were placed there for their own protection while the error was sorted out-which it was. I certainly hope that one of the first tasks that follow the transfer of young persons to an adult gaol would be their classification. Hence, the prospect of their being placed in a cage for any length of time is ludicrous, and unworthy of mention.

CANBERRA RAIDERS RUGBY LEAGUE CLUB The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: Will the Deputy Leader of the Government and Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing confirm that the Government will honour the commitment made by the previous Government to provide a grant of $1.7 million for the construction of a second grandstand at Seiffert Oval in Queanbeyan, and whether the offer has been accepted by the Canberra Raiders club? The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: Yes, the Government has honoured, and will continue to honour, a commitment to provide $1.7 million to construct a second grandstand at Seiffert Oval in Queanbeyan in order to ensure that the Canberra Raiders retain that oval as their home ground. However, another raider, the federal Government, has been at work. It has sought to attract the Canberra Raiders across the border and house them at Bruce Stadium in the Australian Capital Territory. An estimated $7 million would be necessary to redesign Bruce Stadium for top level Rugby league. Bruce Stadium is now used mainly as an athletics venue, and has a $3 million synthetic athletic track, which would have to be taken up. That would be a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money. I believe that to be an incredible proposition. Recently I told the Canberra Raiders that the time limit by which they had to make a final decision was 31st July. The federal Government, particularly Ms Kelly and others, have been seeking, as diligently as they can, to attract the Canberra Raiders across the border. At present the Raiders, in conjunction with the Queanbeyan council, have asked for an extension of time in which to make a decision. I have allowed one month, and they must now advise me by 29th August whether they intend to stay at Seiffert Oval or move to Bruce Stadium. Because of the dubious offer made by the federal Government, the Raiders have been placed in a financial dilemma. They are now playing politics as well as Rugby league. Seiffert Oval has been the home ground of the Canberra Raiders since their entry into the Sydney premiership in 1982. In the past two years the Raiders have enjoyed their most successful seasons, drawing big crowds to most of their games. They have qualified for the semi-finals this year, and could well win the grand final. The federal Government has been quick to cash in on their success and has decided to jump on the bandwagon. Naturally my Government is keen to keep the Raiders at Queanbeyan. However, it is not willing to play 138 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988 political football with either the Raiders or the federal Government. My patience is running out. The Raiders have until the end of this month to decide whether they want to stay at Seiffert Oval. Unless I have a reply by that date I shall have no option but to kick the proposal into touch.

ABORTION The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-president of the Executive Council. In view of sections 82, 83 and 84 of the Crimes Act not having been repealed, what practical differences are there between the powers of the present Government and those of the former Labor Government to deal with abortion in New South Wales? Is it a fact that thousands of New South Wales voters helped to elect the coalition to office in anticipation that action would be taken to save the lives of more than 50 000 babies who are aborted each year in New South Wales? The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: The honourable member well knows that she is attempting to use question time to raise a matter which, if my memory serves me correctly, took the undivided attention of this House for a period of some days. Clearly this is a matter of considerable public division and complexity. This Government has not legislated to change the law as it relates to abortion. Therefore there is no major difference between what occurred under the previous Government and what occurs under this Government. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has given notice of his intention to introduce private members' legislation on the matter. I suspect that technically, under those circumstances, the question is out of order because there is a notice before the House, the effect of which is that this matter will be decided by the House. That is the short answer to the honourable member's question. I suggest if honourable members have any other questions, they should place them on the notice paper. [The President lefl the chair at 1.2 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Motion by the Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith agreed to: That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday next.

GOVERNOR'S SPEECH: ADDRESS IN REPLY .Second Day's Debate Debate resumed from an earlier hour. The Hon. J. J. DOOHAN: Prior to question time I spoke about legislation that the Government proposes to introduce to re-write the Crown Lands Act, and the fact that there was considerable concern about the ridiculously low levels of rentals in some instances. This was brought about mainly by the fact that during the Great Depression rental on these leases were frozen. They have been frozen ever since, so one can imagine how these rentals have got out of kilter. In speaking to the portfolio of natural resources, I point out that the Forestry Commission is being encouraged to raise community awareness and understanding of its professional approach to forest planning. Recent initiatives 1 8 August, 1 988 COUNCIL 139 in this program include the publication of a booklet entitled "Planning for Future", which explains forest planning issues. Next year significant reforms in all aspects of water resources administration in this State should be introduced. The Government has had the benefit of an excellent report prepared by a committee chaired by Professor Burton from the Resources Engineering Department of the University of New England. The committee, on which State and local government as well as water users were represented, has made recommendations for achieving efficiencies and better co-ordination in nver basin management, urban water supply, rural water supply, salination, flood plain management and a number of other areas. A major recommendation is the establishment of a water resources council to represent and co-ordinate many government and non-government bodies concerned with water. To conclude my remarks, though I am sure this Government is bringing forward a very progressive program, the debate in this House has been most encouraging from the Opposition. Opposition members have said that the Governrnent has stolen their ideas. Those comments make it clear that what this Government is doing is very good indeed. One wonders if the Opposition would have needed another 12 years in office to do the things that this Government is doing. The Hon. F. C. Hankinson: The Liberal Party-National Party did not achieve much in the 11 years prior to that. The Hon. J. J. DOOHAN: This Governrnent will do better than its predecessors. I remind Opposition members that these matters are of concern. If they have any influence with their federal Minister, the Hon. J. C. Kerin, they might try to impress on him how deeply the wheatgrowers feel. He should be told that he is likely to lose many votes because his policy is clearly against the wheatgrowers' grain. The Hon. M. R. EGAN [2.36]: The opening words of the Governor's Speech to the Parliament yesterday were, "The Government is committed to clean and open Government". I hasten to point out, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out earlier today, they are not the Governor's words. Those words were written for the Governor by the Government. Three matters that I wish to raise today concern the capacity and the willingness of the Government to provide open and honest administration. The first of those matters is the avoidance and the possible evasion of substantial amounts of payroll tax by the White River Timber Company. The second matter is the relationship of the present Attorney General, Mr Dowd, with a leading member of the triads- perhaps even the leader of the K14 triad-Mr Frank Hing. The third matter is the accusations made by the former Ombudsman, Mr George Masterman, and a well-known anticorruption fighter, Mr Eddie Azzopardi, about statements made to them by the Minister for Police, the Hon. E. P. Pickering. I have in my possession two documents, one of which is a legal advising by Mr B. M. J. Toomey, Q.C., and the other by Mr Malcolm MacGregor, Q.C.-advisings which were sought by the Corporate Affairs Commission. The main conclusion of Mr Toomey's advising, which was on the investigation by the Corporate Affairs Commission into the White River group of companies, states: I am of the view that there is evldence that Messrs N. M. and N. F. H. Gremer failed at all times to act honestly and use due d~ligencein the discharge of the dutles of thelr offices as directors of the White Rlver companies. 140 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988

Under the heading "Possible improper avoidance of pay roll tax" Mr Toomey stated: The material set out in pages 50-60 of the Investigation Report- I emphasize that that was the investigation report of the Corporate Affairs Commission. Mr Toomey continued: -discloses a prima facie case of improper avoidance of Pay Roll Tax by White River Timber Company (1970) Pty Ltd. There is strong evidence that sham entries were made in the books of the W.R.T. Companies Nos. One to Six and of White River Timber Company (1970) Pty Ltd. so as to give the appearance that wages paid only by the latter company had in fact been borne by all seven companies. The significance of the misleading entries is that they allowed the statutory deduction of $1,733.00 per month (prescribed by s. 9 (3) of the Act) to be made seven times instead of once. It is worth noting in passing that the entries made by Mr Kemeny to effect this proposal would appear to constitute further breaches of s. 374(A)(l)(c)(iv) of the Companies Act and are evidence of a possible further conspiracy. At a later stage in his advising Mr Toomey stated: I believe the appropriate steps to be taken are those authorised by s. 22 of the Pay Roll Tax Act 1972 (imposition of penal tax) and s. 36 of the Act. (imposition of additional tax). The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith: What are you trying to do? Are you trying to cast imputations upon our Premier? He has had nothing to do with this. The Hon. M. R. EGAN: These are not my words. These are the words of Mr Toomey, Queen's Counsel, a gentleman about whom there has been some speculation as to whether he is to be appointed by the Government to be the head of the proposed Independent Commission Against Corruption. In Mr MacGregor7s advising, under the heading "Alleged avoidance of pay-roll tax", Mr MacGregor stated: The records of the White River Timber Co (1970) Pty Limited record that during the year ended 30 June 1974 wages were paid out of the bank account of that company. At the end of the year Mr Kemeny wrote an entry into the journal of White River Timber Company (1970) Pty Limited whrch reduced the wages paid by an amount to be claimed as having been paid by the group subsidiary companies. Insofar as the W.R.T. companies Numbered One to Six Pty Limited were concerned, White River Timber Company (1970) Pty Limited's wages were reduced by an amount of $178,179 and for G.V. Homes Pty Limited $22,944 (total $201,093). The payroll tax payable by White River- The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith: On a point of order. The honourable member is clearly making an imputation against the Premier of this State in referring to the Premier's involvement in the White River Timber Company. That company was investigated by the Corporate Affairs Commission, which found there was no negligence on the part of the company. I submit that the honourable member is quoting an opinion raised by a Queen's Counsel that has no bearing whatever upon this Address in Reply, that the White River Timber Company was cleared of any wrongdoing, and that the imputation he is making against the Premier is completely improper and out of order. The PRESIDENT: Order! Is the Deputy Leader of the Government relying on Standing Order 8 l? The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith: Yes. The Hon. M. R. Egan: On the point of order. I am seeking to make no imputation against anyone, I am merely bringing to the attention of the Parliament matters of an extremely serious nature, matters of public concern, 18 August, 1988 COUNCIL 141 matters that ought to be investigated properly and matters that are relevant to the opening words of the Governor's Address yesterday which were, "The Government is committed to clean and open Government". The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith: Further to the point of order. The honourable member is imputing that because of the Premier's past relationship to the White River Timber Company he has been in some way involved in creating a situation of government that is not open. I refute that allegation. There is no question about it. It is not a matter of raising this issue now for public debate. The question concerning the White River Timber Company was discussed and brought before the Corporate Affairs Commission. That company was cleared of any wrongdoing. I submit that the honourable member is completely out of order under Standing Order 8 1. The Hon. Sir Adrian Solomons: In support of the point of order, I draw attention to two rulings to be found on the third page of the consolidated rulings of this House. Those rulings show that if a subject is to be dealt with at length it must have been specifically dealt with in the Governor's Address. Those rulings, I believe made by President Flowers, were precise and clear. This particular matter was not dealt with in the Governor's Address, and the honourable member is dealing with it at length. The Hon. M. R. Egan: Further to the point of order. The Hon. Sir Adrian Solomons spoke of rulings of Presidents of the Legislative Council since 22nd May, 1856. A ruling on the third page of that book states that it is usual to allow great latitude in debating the Address in Reply. I would once again point out- The Hon. Sir Adrian Solomons: You must continue with the rest of that ruling. The Hon. M. R. Egan: Certainly. I am reading the commencement of the ruling. I take the honourable member's point. I did not deliberately stop there. The ruling goes on to make the point raised by the Hon. Sir Adrian Solomons about matters having been referred to specifically in the Governor's Speech. The opening words of the Governor's Speech were that "The Government is committed to clean and open Government". The matters I am raising are pertinent to those opening words, to the boast that the Government, in writing the Governor's Speech, has made about itself. If the Government has something to fear from open government, obviously an attempt will be made to gag me. But if the Government is committed to clean government, there will be no objection to my raising these matters of serious public concern. The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith: When I claimed that the honourable member was out of order you asked me whether I was raising a point of order under Standing Order 8 1. I said I did so on the basis that the imputations made about the Premier by the honourable member had improper motives and were a personal reflection on the Premier and his involvement with White River Timber. The honourable member was completely out of order. The Hon. J. H. Jobling: On the point of order. I support the point of order taken by the Deputy Leader of the Government. The matter referred to by the Hon. M. R. Egan is ancient history; it has been dealt with fully. As the Deputy Leader of the Government clearly stated, under Standing Order 8 1 all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on members, shall be deemed disorderly. Quite clearly, this is what the Hon. M. R. Egan is attempting to do. 142 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988 The Hon. M. R. Egan: Further to the point of order. The matters I am seeking to raise are not matters that have been fully dealt with, as will become obvious during the remainder of my contribution. The PRESIDENT: Order! I see nothing on page 3 of my predecessors' rulings that would restrict the Hon. M. R. Egan. Page 194 of the rulings states that it is out of order, except on a notice of motion, to charge either the House, or any member of the House, with improper conduct. Standing Order 81 provides: No member shall digress from the subject-matter of any question under discussion and all imputations of improper motives, and all personal reflections on members, shall be deemed disorderly. I am willing to allow the Hon. M. R. Egan to proceed. At this stage he is quoting legal opinion. The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Mr MacGregor continued: The payroll tax payable by White River Timber Company (1970) Pty Limited was thereby reduced by the amount of payroll tax payable on those wages. Having reduced the wages Mr Kemeny charged that amount as a management fee payable by White River Timber Company (1970) Pty Limited to the group of subsidiary companies. Mr MacGregor also stated: Mr Kemeny also entered entries in the journals of the W.R.T. companies Numbered One to Six Pty Limited charging those companies with wages, but extinguishing those charges by management fees payable. The records of the W.R.T. companies Numbered One to Six Pty Limited disclosed no money was paid or received by those companies, the entries being merely in the form of journal entries debiting wages account and crediting management fees. No entries were made to identify the entity from whom management fees were receivable. By those means the White River Group was able to obtain the benefit of the statutory exemption from payroll tax for each company. Mr MacGregor then referred to a letter received from the Minister for Finance. He said: The Minister for Finance says in his letter: Irrespective of the dubious morality of the scheme, the key to whether illegality was involved hinges on whether the Group members claimed the statutory deductions for each company for a full year rather than for the six months to which they would have been entitled under the then existing provisions of the Payroll Tax Act. The available evidence on this point appears to be equivocal. Officers of the Corporate Affairs Commission have asserted that the White River Timber Group evaded payroll tax. However, officers of the Department of Finance have been consistent in their advice to me that there is no mechanism available to prove such evasion. The advice given to me is that all files and returns from the companies have been destroyed, in accordance with good management practice, because they were over six years old. At a later stage Mr MacGregor stated: I am not able to comment upon the advice tendered to the Minister for Finance because the detail of it is not set out in his letter. He is, however, unequivocal in his statement that the destruction of Company records would, on the advice he has received, make it impossible to prove the evasion. While there seems little doubt that the White River Timber Company was involved in the avoidance of payroll tax, as these legal advisings point out, without the availability of documents it was thought impossible by various 18 August, 1988 COUNCIL 143 authorities to mount a prosecution for payroll tax evasion as distinct from the moral question of payroll tax avoidance. I now turn to the next matter of concern. I have a copy of a police report headed "Fire in Safe at White River Timber, corner of Hume Highway and Brunker Road, Greenacre". The report states: About 12.50 am on 12.1.88 Police attended the above premises in relation to a fire in a safe. Upon arrival we observed that a hole had been cut in the front (outer) shell of the safe. A smaller hole had been cut in the inner shell of the safe door. Both holes had been cut with an angle grinder. A fire had then been lit, inside the safe, which had damaged the contents which consisted of paperwork and folders and shelving. The fire was detected about 12.25 am by a Security Officer, Brian Yeoman, who works for Sydney Night Patrol. He then contacted his base who in turn called the Fire Brigade. Brigades from Bankstown and Lidcombe, under the direction of district officer Buxton (Kogarah) and Station Officer Skarski (Bankstown) attended and extinguished the blaze. Information from the Security Guards was that the premises had previously been broken and entered and it was on this prior occasion that a window had been smashed and the safe damaged by the offenders. The window had not been repaired since that time nor had the safe door. It would seem that on this occasion the offenders had no intention of gaining entry to the safe but possibly only wanted to destroy the records contained therein. Entry to the premises would have been through the broken window by the offenders placing their hand through and simply undoing the window latch. The hole in the safe door would not have been large enough for an adult to gain entry. The Managing Directors son who had possesion- The Hon. Sir Adrian Solomons: On a point of order! I draw your attention to the ruling of President Flowers that I referred to earlier, which appears on page 3 of President's rulings. The matter being dealt with at great length by the honourable member bears no relevance to any matter contained in the Governor's Speech. It cannot be said that the honourable member is now not dealing with the matter at great length. Page 3 of President's rulings states that great latitude is to be allowed but a member is not entitled to deal at length with matters that are not dealt with in the Governor's Speech. I listened carefully to the Governor's Speech and as certain as I stand here there was no mention made of a fire in premises at Brunker Road, Greenacre. The Hon. M. R. Egan: On the point of order. Obviously the Hon. Sir Adrian Solomons was not listening to the opening words of His Excellency's Speech yesterday, which were, "The Government is committed to clean and open Government". There are a few more sentences of that report to read and I shall then proceed to make the point that this matter has not been investigated properly by the police. Of course, it is always the prerogative of members of Parliament to raise matters of concern in the Address-in-Reply debate, particularly when the Government's supposed commitment to open and clean government is the highlight of the Governor's Speech. The Hon. Sir Adrian Solomons: Further to the point of order. Assuming that the honourable member's arguments were tenable, he has admitted that he is dealing with matters that occurred well over six years ago. What those matters have to do with the Government's actions now is of little concern. The Hon. M. R. Egan: Further to the point of order. The matter I am referring to did not occur six years ago but on 12th January, 1988. Mr President, I draw your attention not only to the opening words of the Governor's Speech but also to the words on page 3, "The Government has a primary commitment to the restoration of law and order and the security of the citizens of New South Wales. Apparently those are subjects that the Government does not want discussed in this Parliament. 144 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988 The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order on the grounds that the matter is being discussed at length and the standing orders provide for it to be raised by way of substantive motion. The Hon. M. R. EGAN: In deference to your ruling, I shall not quote further from the report of Constable First Class Scott Haywood. However, I hope that a government, which in the Governor's Speech has included the words "The Government has a primary commitment to the restoration of law and order and the security of the citizens of New South Wales", will take every step to ensure that police investigations are dealt with properly. In the normal course of events, the matter that I brought to the attention of the House would have been referred to the arson squad. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: On a point of order. The Hon. M. R. Egan is flouting your ruling, Mr President. I remind the honourable member that the Labor Party was in office at that time. The PRESIDENT: Order! I assume that the Hon. M. R. Egan has concluded his remarks on that point. The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not seeking to speak to the point of order. The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest that the honourable member contains his remarks to the provisions of the standing orders. The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Next I wish to deal with a matter I have raised on a number of occasions in the Parliament concerning Mr Frank Hing. On many occasions the Government has said that it intends to treat this Parliament with respect, and that matters raised by honourable members, particularly relating to corruption and law and order, will be answered properly. We know a number of things about Mr Frank Hing. We know that he is the leader of the 14K triad; we know that he is an unsavoury character, because the Minister for Police and Emergency Services has told us so; we know that Mr Dowd was contacted by Mr Hing at approximately 1 a.m. on 17th August, 1984, after Mr Hing complained that he had been assaulted. [Interruption] The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. M. R. EGAN: We know that the Attorney General, Mr Dowd, then went to the Empress coffee lounge at 66 Darlinghurst Road-premises operated by James McCartney Anderson-where, in the upstairs part of the premises, operations are conducted by Mr Frank Hing. The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: Have you been there? The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, of course I have not. The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: How do you know this? The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister for Family and Community Services will contain herself. The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I know, because Mr Dowd said that in Parliament. I am taking this information from Mr Dowd's own answers. We know that Mr Dowd accompanied Mr Hing to St Vincent's Hospital; that Mr Dowd was present when Mr Hing was interviewed later by the police; and that Mr Dowd had known Mr Hing for some two or three years previously. We know that because Mr Dowd told the Parliament. We know that Mr Dowd nominated Mr Hing as a justice of the peace, and that he defended Mr Hing when the 18 August, 1988 COUNCIL 145 latter was criticized publicly in this Parliament by the former Minister for Police, Mr Peter Anderson. That defence occurred not just in Parliament but also on radio, I think on 22nd August, 1984. We know also that a couple of nights after the alleged assault, Mr Dowd returned to the premises at 66 Darlinghurst Road with Mr Hing because again Mr Dowd told the Parliament. That is recorded at page 394 of Hansard of 22nd August, 1984. But earlier this year, after the change of government and following questions 1 asked on 1st June, Mr Dowd, in answer to a question from the honourable member for Ashfield, Mr Whelan, contradicted his statement of 22nd August, 1984. On 2nd June Mr Dowd told the Parliament that he had had no further contact with Mr Hing, except by accident, after the assaults that occurred in 1984. That is recw-ded at page 1389 of Hansard. As honourable members will be aware, I have addressed two questions on this topic to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Attorney General. These are serious matters that one would expect a government, which says in the Speech written for the Governor that it has a primary commitment to the restoration of law and order and the security of the citizens of New South Wales, would seek to answer in Parliament. On 1st June the Minister for Police and Emergency Services informed the House that he understood that in 1986 the relationship between Mr Hing and Mr Dowd was that of client and solicitor. [Interruption] The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I was about to say that the Minister for Police and Emergency Services corrected that statement at a later stage. However, that raises another question, to which I shall soon come. On 2nd June I asked the Minister the following question: Did the Attorney General nominate Mr Frank Hing for appointment as a justice of the peace? What was the date of Mr Hing's application, and of the Attorney General's nomination? Is it the normal practice for all applicants to become justices of the peace to be investigated by the police? Did the police investigate Mr Hing's application? If, as the Minister informed the House yesterday, Mr Hing is known to the police as an unsavoury character, why did not the police object to his application? Is the Minister satisfied that all police investigations of Mr Hing's application were adequate and accurate? Does the Minister have confidence in the police who undertook the investigation? Will the Minister table the application and all papers associated with it? The Minister concluded his reply by saying, "I shall have the question considered and provide an answer in due course". That was on 2nd June. It is now 18th August, and no attempt has been made by either the Minister for Police and Emergency Services or the Attorney General to provide answers to those questions. It seems to me that if a man of unsavoury reputation, such as Mr Frank Hing, can be recommended by the police with regard to an application for an appointment, something is radically wrong. I should have thought that a question seeking to get to the bottom of the appointment of Mr Hing as a justice of the peace would be a matter of the utmost seriousness, which would have been considered by the Minister and reported on to the House as a matter of urgency. I am not for one moment suggesting that the relationship between Mr Hing and Mr Dowd, while Mr Dowd was a member of this Parliament and the shadow attorney general, was in any way sinister. It may just have been that it was incredibly naive and stupid for a member of this Parliament to have an association with such a notorious character. However, it is a matter for public concern that the Attorney General, the first law officer of this State, had a relationship with such a notorious underworld figure.

10 146 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988 The Hon. E. P. Pickering: On a point of order. Clearly the Hon. M. R. Egan is attempting during the Address-in-Reply debate to besmirch the character of the Attorney General of New South Wales. I have allowed the honourable member considerable latitude because, to this point, he has no more than identified matters already raised during this debate. The honourable member now seeks, without notice of motion, to go much further. He is acting improperly having regard to the standing orders of the House. I ask, Mr President, that you give a similar ruling to your previous ruling when the Hon. M. R. Egan sought to raise a matter relating to the Premier and that you direct the Hon. M. R. Egan how he should proceed now. The Hon. M. R. Egan: On the point of order. I assure the House that I am in no way attempting to besmirch the name of the Attorney General. I am merely seeking answers to questions that I have raised in this House, which have not been answered, notwithstanding the references in the Governor's Speech about the Governrnent being committed to clean and open government, and the Governrnent having a primary commitment to the restoration of law and order and the security of the citizens of New South Wales. If that is the Government's commitment, I am entitled to press the Governrnent for answers to serious questions that I have raised. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: Further to the point of order. The honourable member is playing with this House. He is seeking answers to questions about the administration of the previous Government, of which he was a prominent member. If in some way he believes that members of the New South Wales Police Force acted improperly, or other than diligently, in a particular investigation that was conducted during the time of the previous Government, it seems to me that it would be most improper to try to use circumstances that occurred years ago to attack the good name of the Attorney General of this State. The Hon. M. R. Egan: Further to the point of order. Only on 2nd June did it come to light, by way of an answer given by the Attorney General to a question asked of him in the other place, that he had nominated Mr Hing for appointment as a justice of the peace, and that Mr Hing had been so appointed. Prior to 2nd June I was unaware of that and was not in a position to ask why the police report apparently allowed Mr Hing's application to proceed. Surely it is a matter of concern to everyone that a character described by the Minister as unsavoury was appointed a justice of the peace. That is a matter about which I became aware only on 1st or 2nd June. The PRESIDENT: Order! At this stage I do not uphold the point of order. The Hon. M. R. Egan may proceed. The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am happy to leave the matter there, having made the point that there are serious matters of concern that I have raised about the relationship between Mr Hing and Mr Dowd that the Government has not answered. If the Government is fair dinkum about its boast- The Hon. E. P. Pickering: The honourable member has raised allegations about the police not doing their job. The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. E. P. Pickering is the Minister for Police, and is responsible for giving answers in this House about the actions of the police. I have asked the Minister to investigate the apparent approval of members of the police force to the appointment of Mr Hing as justice of the peace. 18 August, 1988 COUNCIL 147 The Hon. E. P. Pickering: In 1982 I was not responsible for the police force. The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That may well be so, but in 1982 I did not know that Mr Hing had been appointed as a justice of the peace, or that he had been recommended by Mr Dowd. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: Has the Hon. M. R. Egan conducted a character check of every person that he has recommended to be appointed as a justice of the peace? The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No I have not. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: Of course he has not, because he knows that that is the responsibility of the police. The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is quite right. My point is that obviously something is badly wrong if the police force of this State can approve the appointment of Mr Hing. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: In 1982. The Hon. M. R. EGAN: If the Government is fair dinkum about eliminating corruption in the police force, surely we ought to be told what procedures went wrong or were ignored in the course of the recommendation of that man for appointment as a justice of the peace. On 2nd June the Minister for Police and Emergency Services told the House, in answer to my question, "I shall have the question considered and provide an answer in due course." The Hon. E. P. Pickering: And I will. The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It is now 18th August- The Hon. E. P. Pickering: The honourable member should not talk to me about how long it takes to receive answers to questions asked in this place. I have quite a thick file of questions that I asked that were never answered. The Hon. M. R. EGAN: -and matters of that seriousness have not been answered. The onus is on the Minister to answer those questions. [Interruption] The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister for Family and Community Services should cease interrupting. The Hon. M. R. Egan should address the Chair. The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The third matter I wish to address in relation to the Government's so-called commitment to clean and open government concerns the accusations made about the Minister for Police, the Hon. E. P. Pickering, by the former Ombudsman, Mr George Masterman, and the well- known anticorruption fighter, Mr Eddie Azzopardi. Prior to the election we were informed by the Sydney Morning Herald that Mr Masterman had claimed the Minister for Police had visited him in his office to discuss certain aspects of the Liberal Party's policies. Mr Masterman told the Sydney Morning Herald that he had been informed by Mr Pickering that certain aspects of those policies were just for the election. In the press the Minister was reported before the election as denying that claim by Mr Masterman. It is interesting that since the election the Minister has had a number of opportunities when he could have given that same denial in the Parliament. The very first question asked of him as a new Minister by the Opposition was 148 COUNCIL I8 August, 1988 asked by my colleague the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. J. R. Hallam. The Minister avoided giving an answer to that question, and he has avoided giving an answer to that question on numerous occasions. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: On a point of order. As I have indicated to this House on more than one occasion, the matters that the Hon. M. R. Egan seeks to raise before the House were the subject of a press release issued by the Hon. M. R. Egan for which I have issued a writ of defamation against the honourable member. Therefore I believe it highly improper of the honourable member to attempt to debate the matter, which is clearly sub judice in terms of a defamation action between us. The Hon. M. R. Egan: On the point of order. On the question of sub judice, I point out that the matter that is before the courts is a defamation action, which the Leader of the Government has taken against me in relation to comments I made about him. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: In regard to this very matter. The Hon. M. R. Egan: That is right, in relation to this matter. The comments and the accusations of Mr Masterman and Mr Azzopardi, however, are to my knowledge not before the court at all. They are matters not only of great public concern but also of significant public debate. On many occasions we have had newspaper reports of those accusations by Mr Masterman and Mr Azzopardi and various stories following up those initial accusations. It is obviously absurd if in this Parliament we are not able to freely discuss matters that can be freely discussed in the media of this State. The Hon. E. P. Pickering: It is not the rest I worry about; it is you. The PRESIDENT: Order! Order! I have heard enough. The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: Have not we all? The PRESIDENT: Order! What we might hear may not be to our liking. Clearly the sub judice rule applies only if the matter would in any way prejudice the trial of a particular person. I cannot see that the matter that has been discussed so far is likely to have that conclusion. The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: I think it is prejudicial. The PRESIDENT: Then the Minister happens to be wrong. The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I point out that despite having numerous opportunities to deny in the Parliament the claims of Mr Masterman, the Leader of the Government, the Hon. E. P. Pickering, has not taken the opportunity of those occasions. We then, of course, after the election had the accusations of Mr Azzopardi, which are of the same nature as those made by Mr Masterman. At first the Leader of the Government was reported in the media as saying that he could not recall the meeting with Mr Azzopardi. He could not recall making the statements which Mr Azzopardi attributed to him. Later he was asked a question on that matter by me in the House and finally denied the truth of the Azzopardi claims. Subsequent to that, Mr Azzopardi appeared before the select committee of this House, which is currently meeting, and Mr Azzopardi repeated those accusations on oath. Today the Leader of the Government was asked by me in question time whether he would take the opportunity to go before that select committee and answer on oath the serious accusations that have been made against him also on oath. Notwithstanding that he had two opportunities to inform the House that he would take that opportunity, he refrained from doing so. 1 8 August, 1988 COUNCIL The position is that we have the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council, a man who is the Minister for Police, against whom the most serious accusations have been made by eminent and highly respectable citizens, not only the former Ombudsman, Mr George Masterman, against whom I have never heard anyone raise any question concerning his integrity- nor have I heard any member of the Government raise any question concerning the integrity of Mr Azzopardi. Indeed, Mr Azzopardi is quite a remarkable man because Mr Azzopardi has been fighting corruption in the police force of this State for many years. Initially, he was making claims which sounded absolutely incredible, completely and utterly unbelievable. The claims that he was making were denied by official police denials time and time and time again. Mr Azzopardi found himself the subject of a very lengthy period of police harassment. He persisted with his claims and after many years virtually all of the claims, which have reached finality and been considered by the courts and authorities such as the Ombudsman, have been upheld. Mr Azzopardi is not just some nobody who makes some accusation against the Minister for some party political benefit. The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: That is funny; that is what the previous Government said about him. The Hon. M. R. EGAN: A long time ago on the basis of information and denials given by the police and by police commissioners. On the basis of that information the Government disagreed with the claims that Mr Azzopardi was making. I give Mr Azzopardi his due for the fact that he persisted with those claims, and he has been proven to be right. Mr Azzopardi is not some character with some ulterior political motive. He is a person whose integrity has been upheld time and again. That same Mr Azzopardi goes before a select committee of this House, on oath, and makes the accusations that the Minister- [Interruption] The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister for Family and Community Services should contain herself. The Hon. M. R. EGAN: -told him that his policy before the election was just to win the police vote. It is absolutely astounding that the Minister should not take the opportunity to go before the select committee and, on oath, deny the accusations. The Minister is obviously in a position where it has been claimed by Mr Azzopardi that the Minister has lied to the Parliament. In those circumstances, if the Minister wants to uphold the reputation which he boasts for himself, he should go before the select committee and enable the select committee to judge whether he or Mr Azzopardi and Mr Masterman are telling the truth. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [3.32]:Mr President and members, before 1 begin I would like to thank you all for your many kindnesses in making me feel welcome in this august chamber. Mr President, I should like to thank you personally for your guidance and open friendliness. I pay particular tribute to the Clerk, Mr Jeckeln, and his staff in this Council. The staff has been most professional, friendly and enthusiastic, and has made my job of being a new member a pleasure. I should also like to raise my voice in thanks to the Governor and Lady Rowland for a duty well done. After hearing the speech of the Hon. M. R. Egan I particularly thank Nick Greiner, our Premier, for his leadership and vision and for his commitment to clean and open government and good management. 150 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988 Honourable members will know that I am a member of the Liberal Party and a native of the North Coast of New South Wales. I place clearly on the record my position on serious matters and the way I come to this House philosophically. I find it an attractive liberalism that emphasizes mutual efforts, the rights of all people to equality of opportunity, equality of access to programs-sometimes extensive-to make that right a reality; a form of liberalism that emphasizes our obligations to respond to needs while we pursue the creation of wealth and the enhancement of human potential. It is a philosophy that values liberty, which dedicates itself to the task of empowering human beings, a philosophy that emphasizes truth, tolerance and generosity. It has ideals that seek to promote the empowering of individuals. An informed population is more powerful and more autonomous. The foreshadowed changes to the Defamation Act and the Freedom of Information Bill will allow people to be better informed. This House and this Parliament should not ignore the demands placed upon it by its constituents. What I have said in no way lines up with the socialist ideals of achieving equity and efficiency through concentration on equal outcomes. I believe in the primacy of individual choice and, most importantly, the notion of informed consent. I believe there is no free society that does not have a flourishing and successful business class. In fact, historically, I believe there have never been free societies that have been stable and which have allowed for the achievement of freedom without such a successful business class. In his maiden speech in November 1970, the Hon. H. J. A. Sullivan in this House used a quotation from the President of the inaugural responsible Legislative Council, then Chief Justice Sir Alfred Stephen. After his resignation as President in 1857, Sir Alfred prayed: I trust to be spared for many years to take part in the deliberations of the House; to contribute my humble aid in the passing of laws that shall bear the test of examination and of time; and to assist in establishing irrevocably the opinion, amongst all classes, not only that this Chamber is an invaluable auxiliary in Legislation, but, from the learning and intelligence, the unselfishness and single-mindedness of its members, their courtesy in debate, their love of justice, and their earnest search after truth, that it is an honour to the Constitution, and the Country, to which it belongs. I hope we can all live up to his expectations in that regard. I come to this Legislative Council as a new boy, very much aware of the long and turbulent but distinguished history of this great House. I am also aware that the first Legislative Council of four appointed members included as one of those members the Surgeon-General of the colony. It has been always a source of constant amazement to me that more medical practitioners did not use their skills and knowledge to follow in his footsteps in this House. I am mindful of the shadow cast on this Parliament by that great Premier, Sir Henry Parkes, a great Liberal. Sir Henry was mainly instrumental for my family coming to this country. In 1859 a large group of Italians, Germans and Frenchmen set out on an expedition promoted by one of the great charlatans, the Marquis de Rays, who promoted the Bismarck Archipelago as a single island which he termed Nouvelle France. These faithful Europeans set sail on ships that were not equipped entirely for the problems ahead. However, two of those ships successfully landed their cargo on what is now called the island of New Britain. After they had struggled there for some months, racked by various fevers and some even eaten by cannibals, Sir Henry Parkes was filled with compassion and sent a ship from Sydney to take those poor people to New Caledonia. Once they had reached New Caledonia the Frenchmen disembarked but the Italians 18 August, 1988 COUNCIL 15 1 would not, so Sir Henry brought them to Sydney where he housed them in fairly basic accommodation down the road from here in Hyde Park. The Sydney Morning Herald of the day commented that they were emaciated and wretched on arrival in this country. Sir Henry Parkes allowed the families to be farmed out to various settlers to give them work and dignity. He then sent my great grandfather to the north to seek out a piece of territory on the North Coast where the families could be settled and reunited. In 1881 that land was settled at Swan Bay near Woodburn, and some 130 families moved there to what was to be called New Italy. The choice of the land, in fact, was poor indeed. As individuals they would have failed, but the families struggled and worked hard together, achieving much. The children of those early settlers moved out to farms in local areas and further afield. However, the community stayed close, even though they left the initial settlement. Those forebears of mine have become very widely respected settlers on the North Coast and have worked very hard to maintain their dignity and to advance by each generation the opportunities for their children. I am very proud of the efforts of my great grandparents in setting up New Italy and the work that they did in the community and among themselves. That spirit was common at that time in a developing Australia, and I hope to see that spirit return. It is worth remembering that even in those days things were not easy. My grandfather, Bazzo, for example, had seven sons who fought in World War 11. His eldest son died in Changi prisoner of war camp. In spite of that, during the war the secret police came and shot his racing pigeons in case he should attempt to send a message to Mussolini. That type of xenophobia and action had no place then and has no place now in this country. My education commenced at Bonalbo Central School and the convent school at Mallangaree, followed by a bursaried stay at St John's College, Woodlawn. I give particular thanks to the Reverend James Murphy of the Society of Mary who took this country lad and opened his eyes to the possibilities of the world. He encouraged and even bullied me to achieve my potential. He must take a great deal of the credit for my success. I graduated in medicine from St John's College at Sydney University. My first posting was to Parramatta district hospital, where I began to understand the problems of western Sydney. The problems that confront the North Coast today are much the same; growth without reasonable planning and reasonable infrastructure development. I qualified as a specialist in anaesthetics and intensive care and set sail for home to Lismore as quickly as I could, where I was comfortably established until the arrival of the Hon. Laurie Brereton. The North Coast is one of the most beautiful and friendly regions in New South Wales. It has been described as the playground of this great State. However, for all of its advantages the North Coast region and its population suffer many injustices. Until 1954 the population growth of the North Coast was much the same as the population growth of all New South Wales. In 1954 the development and population growth on the North Coast came to a shuddering halt with the entry of Britain into the European Economic Community and the loss to us of our lucrative dairy markets. Only recently those markets have been returned by the brave actions of a Minister of the previous Government. Quite suddenly, in 1966, for reasons unknown to many, the population explosion on the North Coast began and has been increasing constantly ever since. The area's population has more than tripled since 1966, yet all funding for the area, especially capital funding, has been basically at 1966 152 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988 levels plus a little bit added occasionally for inflation. In other words, growth has been unsupported by adequate infrastructure development. The prime example of that lack of support is the Pacific Highway north of Hexham, which is by far the State's busiest rural highway. The Pacific Highway carries more traffic than the Hume Highway, yet last year the Labor Government spent a bare $13 million on its upgrading. I am pleased to note from the Governor's Speech that this Government intends to spend much more to develop the Pacific Highway at a much faster rate than was proposed, by using different and innovative methods. Tourism, which is the mainstay of the recovery of New South Wales and is most important for the future of the North Coast, has been disadvantaged. Sydney is the most popular dropping off place in Australia; and the second most popular dropping off place in New South Wales for international tourists, Victorian tourists, and their money, is the North Coast. As 85 per cent of those tourists get to the North Coast by way of surface transport, the deregulation of long distance bus services is most welcome. I welcome also the increase in road funding, which was announced by the Hon. B. G. Baird. A look at the Pacific Highway and the region's grossly inadequate railway system will demonstrate how, to date, the tourism potential of the North Coast has not been realized. The beef, fishing, cane, and the expanding horticultural industries on the North Coast, have bright futures, expecially since this Government has moved to clean up the markets and to rationalize abattoirs. The problems on the North Coast must surely be caused by capital works programs that have not proceeded. Each year the North Coast experiences a 2 per cent increase in primary school enrolments. No other area in the State has experienced such increases. In most areas enrolments are falling in number. The enrolments for secondary schools in the region are numerically the same as those in the western suburbs of Sydney, but capital works funding is a fraction of what is required to support such growth. The Government and the Hon. Dr T. A. Metherell have my complete support for .at least attempting to correct injustices and at least offering the freedom of choice in education and of schools to which one may send one's children. In health we have witnessed the formula of 1966 funding, plus inflation, reach its most ridiculous level. The North Coast on an age-weighted, catchment basis is the lowest funded region in New South Wales so far as funding for health is concerned. However, because of its aged population the region has a greater demand for health services than many other areas. The advantage of becoming sick on the North Coast is-and figures will confirm this-that the average length of stay in any hospital on the North Coast for any condition one might care to mention is about 80 per cent of the length of stay in any hospital anywhere else in New South Wales. In spite of inadequate funding on the North Coast, hospital, medical, paramedical, nursing, and administrative staffs have worked diligently to provide a service second to none. Though the Australian Labor Party did its very best to destroy the public hospital system in New South Wales-and it very nearly succeeded-on the North Coast, perhaps because of its climate and the nature of its people, health services have continued by sheer hard work and dedication by the providers of that service to maintain a high standard. I acknowledge also the efforts of hospital ancillary workers and administrators. These inequities cannot and must not persist. How long will it take governments of the nature of the Whitlam and Wran administrations to realize that artificial developments such as Albury-Wodonga and Bathurst-Orange are nonsense? It would be far better for governments to be responsive to the wishes of people and support infrastructure developments in areas where people want to live. 18 August, 1988 COUNCIL 153 This failure of the use of capital funding for infrastructure developments has been the prime cause of the socio-economic decline of the North Coast. . When surveyed by the Australian Bureau of Census and Statistics in June 1986 the three federal electorates on the North Coast-namely Cowper around Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour, Page based at Grafton and Ballina, and Richmond based at Byron Bay, Lismore and Tweed Heads-had the lowest socio-economic profile of any electorate in Australia. The region has the highest level of unemployment, which is double that of any other region in New South Wales. It has the highest percentage of single parent families; that is families under stress. It has the highest percentage of population on social security benefits. It has the lowest per capita income for families of any area in Australia. The forgotten north has become a poverty trap; a poverty trap generated by government neglect. Yet this same poverty trap attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors to its coastal and hinterland areas every year. More and more people have decided that the North Coast has the climate and communities in which they would wish to raise their families. Much more will be heard about this matter in the coming years. Honourable mmebers can be sure that North Coast people do not wish to receive more than their fair share of capital and recurrent funding, but they cannot tolerate, and will no longer tolerate, the neglect that was raised to an art form by the former Government. This Government's health ministry is working for the first time on a fairer formula for the distribution of health funding. Thus we have a glimmer of hope. Let me tell the House briefly how it comes about that there is a Liberal Party member from the North Coast in this House. In 1982 the Minister for Health of the day, Mr Kevin Stewart, went to Lismore after discovering that the local people, sick to death of waiting for governments to do anything, raised $350,000 by public subscription to rebuild the children's ward at Lismore Base Hospital. The Minister was staggered by the success of the campaign and by the large amount of money raised. The fact that the money came from Tweed Heads, the Northern Tablelands, and the Grafton area meant that the Minister was impressed enough to decide that Lismore Base Hospital should not have just a new children's ward but should go through the process of redevelopment. Plans were set on foot and much work was done very enthusiastically by many people. The next Minister for Health, Laurie Brereton, came to Lismore to open stage 1 of the redevelopment. He was introduced to the people by the long-term member for the State seat of Lismore, Mr Bruce Duncan, as the man who walked on water, the next leader of the Labor Party, the man most likely to succeed Neville Wran. Laurie Brereton stood up and said-and I paraphrase: "You can forget your $12 million development. I am opening this laundry. I will put the children's ward on the eighth level of your existing building, take the cafeteria from that level, and you can build a cafeteria for your staff with the change left over from the money you have raised for the children's ward". Needless to say, that caused an uproar. The local member, Mr Duncan, thanked the Minister, saying it was better to have half a loaf than no bread at all. In fact, what the Minister at that time was offering was one-half of one slice of that loaf of bread. At the same time Mr Brereton announced that he was reducing capital exenditure, trying to save the State money. He reduced that capital expenditure to some $60 million a year from the previous year's figure of $120 million. At that time on the North Coast we thought: "Even so 6 per cent of capital funding, which is about our percentage of population, over a five-year period gives us about $21 million. That is plenty of money for our A and B requirements" 154 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988

However, the slashing of the Lismore Base Hospital's redevelopment meant that the money went to the redevelopment of the Rankin Park Hospital in Newcastle-a decision forced on Neville Wran by the Newcastle coalmining unions-and to the redevelopment of a new hospital at Bossley Park. That hospital is now completed; it is a hospital in search of a role and it will need a redevelopment in its own right just to become a useful part of the hospital system in this State. The community in Lismore area decided that political action was now imperative. The local member was an Independent. It was thought that people should join political parties of their choice in order to agitate. I chose to form a branch of the Liberal Party, mainly at the instigation of many of the friends of the base hospital and the community, in particular Mrs Pam Nardi, who is here today. Shortly after the formation of the Liberal Party, the previous Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Doug Anthony, resigned. I was prevailed upon by my friends to stand as the Liberal Party candidate for the federal seat of Richmond at the subsequent by-election. Though we lost the by-election, which was won by Mr Charles Blunt of the National Party, the result was the formation of branches of the Liberal Party up and down the North Coast and on the Northern Tablelands. Thus in this Government there is a Liberal Party voice from the North Coast to add to the effective voices of National Party members from that area. This Government now has a widespread influence across the entire length and breadth of the cities, the towns, and the countryside in New South Wales, and has been given a vote to do something to improve this State. I am pleased to be part of that Government and the initial steps we have taken to do something about this State in this bicentennial year, to try to develop a hope and a vision for the future that was so lacking in 1986 and 1987. Recently the Premier released the results of the suppressed report by the Unsworth departmental razor gang which identified clearly the problems of State services rapidly outstripping revenue and resources. The razor gang identified clearly the future problems likely to occur in this State. They are increased demands on health, on housing, on community services and welfare, and on law and order. The recently released report of the Commission of Audit shows how poorly the State was placed to meet those demands. The North Coast has the lowest private home ownership of the State. It also has the lowest provision of public housing in this State; necessarily, therefore, it has the highest percentage of private rental housing in New South Wales. This Government has shown clearly that it has in place the initiatives to try to correct the Walker years of ideological folly. In terms of community services, a report from the Department of Youth and Community Services in 1987 identified clearly that the North Coast had 6 per cent of the population, requiring 8 per cent of the community services but receiving only 2 per cent of funding from the department. I welcome the obvious greater emphasis shown by the Minister for Family and Community Services on support for family life, foreshadowed in the Governor's Speech, and the initiatives she will take to support the family, particularly the elderly. In these circumstances I think honourable members will agree that it is quite a credit that the North Coast community has been able to absorb such massive increases in population. People are willing to help one another and to resist the problems of a lawless society by their ability to constantly care for their fellow man-llot to isolate him but to treat him as part of our community and part of our family. As the population has gone forward by some 2 per cent or 3 per cent per annum over the entire North Coast-some areas by much 18 August, 1988 COUNCIL 155 more than that-it means that in funding we are slipping back in real terms by that same amount per annum. That means that over five years, and each five years for the past 15 years, we have slipped back some 20 per cent in real terms. This growth of population and lack of funding means that maintaining current services has become a never-ending and harrowing problem. Even in the old days when Sydney was seemingly awash with money, the provision of new services for a population so over-represented with old people was just about impossible. To give honourable members some small idea of how the North Coast has achieved survival-and it may be a good example for the State to follow-we can look at the comparisons between two hospitals in this State: one, a large teaching hospital in this city; the other, a hospital in Lismore. In the same number of bed days, namely 700, the hospital in Sydney could treat only 64 patients who required removal of their gall bladders, though the hospital in Lismore was able to treat 85 such patients. In case honourable members think that Sydney hospitals would treat the more difficult or the more impossible types of patients, let me inform the House that from my own medical knowledge-and I have been in the business for a while-it is never the case that a general surgeon would refer a patient requiring cholecystectomy to another general surgeon in another hospital. He would do the operation right where he was. So the comparison is extraordinarily valid. Again it could be said that these patients are leaving hospital too early, that we are being careless and kicking them out. In fact, the Department of Health complaints unit-and I recently checked with it-has received no complaints from hospitals on the North Coast, extraordinary though it might seem. The only complaints received have been about overcrowding and waiting times, complaints shared with the rest of New South Wales. There will be those opposite who would say that health costs are getting out of hand. Could I give you an example of what happened when the dead hand of the previous Labor Government tried its form of correction. In 1978 the Labor Government decided it did not want to pay doctors on a fee-for- service basis for the care of public patients in public hospitals. So it instituted a new system of salary service, or sessions. This was meant to reduce the cost of paying senior specialist doctors to the rate of between $20 and $30 per hour. Most doctors objected to the new system. They did not like the idea of clocking on and clocking off. The Government found to its horror that when the doctors actually charged for what they did, compared with the previous low level, the figures showed that they were being paid twice as much as they had been under previous arrangements. That is because many doctors simply did not charge for every single thing they did; they charged on what they thought was a reasonable basis. The previous Government did not like that. Further down the track, the Government decided that using its new sessional arrangements it would try to get control, so that this extra money would be well spent to further its social aims. Honourable members will remember the major disturbance of the section 17 dispute, which required doctors to work at the behest of the Government, wherever the Government wanted them to work, and the very cynical insertion of the "coercion" clause so recently and graciously dropped by the Minister for Health and this House. The Government lost the control that it tried to win with section 17, and it lost because the profession was able to point out that it was not the doctors who were the targets; it was the patients who were losing out over many years of neglect. 156 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988

The Government then bequeathed a health system where the cost of providing all services is much greater than ever before, and the access that public patients have to high quality services, particularly in the areas like orthopaedics and opthalmology, is very limited indeed. The morale drop that followed the interventions of that high profile Minister, Mr Brereton, and the very low profile Minister, Mr Mulock, has not yet been regained. At the same time the nursing profession lost its faith in the quality of care that they were allowed to deliver to patients under their care. Professional nurses would cry at the end of their shifts when they would have seven or eight patients delivered to their ward following surgery, and would not have the proper time or nursing numbers to give the standard of professional care they expected of themselves. Because they were not able to provide that level of care, and because they always felt they were doing a lousy job, they decided they might as well get out-and get out they did. The Government reacted to this by reducing funding even further, and used the furphy of nurse shortages to close more and more beds, and to limit more and more the access for patients to public hospitals. At the same time it ensured that there were no new private hospital licences issued in the State. During the whole eleven years of the previous Wran and Unsworth administrations, not one new private hospital licence was issued. That meant that the better organized, the more wealthy, and the more influential could find ways to jump public hospital queues. So we find the situation today where Dr Blewett now says that our public hospitals have too many private patients in them. What he should be saying is that there are not enough beds in New South Wales, either public or private. That is why the so-called doctors' dispute was not a doctors' dispute. It was basically a realization by the medical and nursing professions and other health care professions, and later by the general community, that the previous Government had ruined what was the best health service in the Commonwealth of Australia bar none, and arguably the fairest and the cheapest public hospital system in the world. At this stage I would pay tribute to those specialists who gave their time to teach me, for no payment, and to treat public hospital patients with all their skills, for no payment. I acknowledge the debt of gratitutde owed to them by the people of New South Wales. I refer to men like George Davidson, and John Von Willer, at the Prince of Wales Hospital in Sydney, Professor Toby Bowring, the renowned paediatric surgeon at that hospital, and Professor Doug Joseph from the University of Sydney. These people and their staff specialists, and professorial teachers continued in the tradition of their forebears, in providing that standard of care, that dedication to excellence which was almost destroyed by the attacks of an envious and cynical Government. I know that that level of care, concern and pursuit of excellence is still able to be recovered. In these times of adversity the nursing profession has advanced in leaps and bounds, because of the confrontationist nature of government, and its own need to protect its standards of care, and the recognition that if it did not stand up to protect its standards of care, no one would. I know that our current Minister for Health, the Hon. Peter Collins, is aware of these problems, and has shown that he is prepared to attack them at their root cause. The professions, and the community, not only wish him well, but have seen the way in which he has been prepared to act, in the interests of the patients in New South Wales. 1 8 August, 1988 COUNCIL

I would like to thank those people who have helped me on my way politically-my friends in Lismore and elsewhere on the North Coast. I thank the Leader of the Government in this House, who has made a sterling attempt to improve the quality and effectiveness of this House. The Hon. Virginia Chadwick also has been more than encouraging and helpful, as have her visits to the North Coast. The Hon. Beryl Evans and her husband, Dick, were my first contact with Liberal politicians, and have remained firm helpers ever since, both politically and personally. My good friend Michael Barnes, previously Vice- President of the National Party and my running mate on the Legislative Council ticket, was a constant and helpful companion during the final struggle to .wrest government from the Labor Party. I hope in the fullness of time to see Michael Barnes in this Chamber, helping to continue to make New South Wales the better place that we know it is capable of being. John Valder, Stephen Litchfield, Peter Kidman, John Booth, M.P., and Robyn Kerr have all been of enormous assistance. The Hon. Tim Moore and his wife Jane, and the Hon. John Hannaford and his wife Denise have been more than friendly to someone from out of town. I would like to thank Senator the Hon. Peter Baume and Senator Chris Puplick for showing me what liberalism meant, and for making that free philosophy live. I thank also the Hon. Max Willis and the Hon. John Jobling for their constant help and timely advice, and all my running mates here present. I should here acknowledge that my wife has been a constant and outstanding help to me. She has been a fantastic mother to our four children, a most capable Liberal administrator, and a source of wisdom and, I must say, caution. A tradition lost in antiquity but steadfastly honoured in the parliaments of the Commonwealth is that a speaker on his maiden journey is listened to in silence. The House has been most gracious and I thank honourable members for their generosity. The Hon. JUDITH WALKER [4.10j: I congratulate the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti on his maiden speech. Though I do not agree totally with everything the honourable member said, it was an excellent speech. I am sure he will make life in the House more interesting for all of us. I extend also my appreciation to His Excellency Sir James Rowland and Lady Rowland for their warmth and graciousness during their stay as vice-regal representatives of the Queen. Their retirement will be a loss to the people of New South Wales. In my reply to the Address-in-Reply debate I begin my remarks by referring to that noble document which has been out since 1st August-the report of the Commission of Audit. That document was designed to be the showpiece of the Greiner Government, to instil in the minds of the public the need to cut public services and raise charges in a number of areas; to tighten the public belt, and to shed jobs. In other words, it is a weapon to be used for a range of distasteful Liberal remedies to enforce Greinerism, or is it really Thatcherism? Mr Greiner is, as are some of his Liberal ministerial colleagues, a graduate of Harvard. More importantly, they are right-wing ultra-conservative graduates who are hellbent on restoring Liberal conservatism to New South Wales and indeed to Australia. The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: The honourable member did not write that speech. The Hon. JUDITH WALI(ER: I did. The Government is hellbent on restoring the somewhat tarnished Liberal crown carrying the motto "Born to Rule". Make no mistake, this Government intends to grind under its boot the workers of this State, who have helped to make it the leading State in this 158 COUNCIL 18 August, 1988 country. The Government will say that the Commission of Audit report was a necessary document so that the Government would know where it stood. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any government on coming to office deciding it needs to know all about the finances of this State. Mr Greiner and his team obviously had a fair idea of the finances of the State. Nevertheless, the Commission of Audit report was definitely required to be held up, if you like, as the bible of Liberal conservatism, so it can beat the hell out of the trade union movement. The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: What an unworthy thought. The Hon. JUDITH WALKER: It is a terrible thought, but it is true. If that is not what was on its mind, why did the Government see the necessity for ramming through the Essential Services Bill and the Public Sector Management Bill or could this become known as the public sector mismanagement bill? The Government needed that legislation to enforce its hidden agenda. The hidden agenda of this Government is an attack on the trade union movement. When the essential services legislation was before the House I went to some lengths to describe what I thought was occurring in Australia. I mentioned that the essential services legislation was necessary in this State in my view, because there had never been a successful 45~oriented case. If one examines the successful cases, which started with SEQEB in Queensland, Mudginberri in the Northern Territory, Dollar Sweets in Victoria, Robe River could well have been a success had it not been for the West Australian Industrial Court and the commonsense of the unions in determining not to embark on a demarcation dispute at the submarine facility in South Australia. That could well have been a successful dispute, but in New South Wales there never was one. So it became necessary. It is a well-known fact that in New South Wales the Labor Council of New South Wales controls the largest section of the trade union movement. It is the most successful Labor Council body in Australia and it most certainly is not about to be sucked in. The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: Wait until Jennie George is in the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Hon. JUDITH WALKER: Jennie George is already on the ACTU. The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: Wait until she is even more powerful. The Hon. JUDITH WALKER: I do not know that that will affect the Labor Council of New South Wales in its deliberations. I assure the Greiner Government that neither the Labor Council of New South Wales nor its unions has any intention of embarking on some ratbag campaign that ~uldengender the distaste of the Government and then have the essential services legislation thrashed round their ears. In effect, the Labor Council has no intention of taking any steps that will bring the Labor movement undone in this State. It is a mistake that the Liberals-given the number of years that they waited for government-chose to act out pieces of legislation so union bashing as the Essential Services Bill and the Public Sector Management Bill. I cannot understand what was in Mr Greiner's or the Government's mind when the essential services legislation was dreamt up. To take on the union movement in New South Wales is no mean task. The PRESIDENT: Order! Pursuant to the sessional order, business is interrupted to permit the Minister to move the adjournment if he so desires. 18 August, 1988 COUNCIL 159

Motion by the Hon. E. P. Pickering agreed to: That this House do now adjourn.

House adjourned at 4.16 p.m.