5193
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Thursday 4 May 2000 _____
JOINT SITTING TO ELECT A SENATOR
The two Houses met in the Legislative Council Chamber at 3.40 p.m. to elect a senator in the place of Senator David Brownhill, resigned.
Mr CARR: Mr Clerk, I move:
That the Hon. Meredith Anne Burgmann, President of the Legislative Council, act as President of the Joint Sitting of the two Houses of the Legislature for the election of a senator in the place of Senator David Brownhill, resigned, and that in the event of her absence the Hon. John Henry Murray, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, act in that capacity.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: I second the motion.
Motion agreed to.
The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann took the chair.
Mr CARR: I present proposed rules for the regulation of the proceedings at the joint sitting, which have been printed and circulated. I move:
That the proposed rules, as printed and circulated, be now adopted.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: I second the motion.
Motion agreed to.
The PRESIDENT: I am now prepared to receive nominations with regard to a person to fill the vacant place in the Senate caused by the resignation of Senator David Brownhill.
Mr SOURIS: I propose Mr Sandy Macdonald to hold the place in the Senate rendered vacant by the resignation of Senator David Brownhill, and I announce that the candidate is willing to hold the vacant place if chosen. Senator David Brownhill was, at the time he was chosen by the people of the State, publicly recognised to be an endorsed candidate of the National Party of Australia and publicly represented himself to be an endorsed candidate of that party. Mr Sandy Macdonald is a member of the same political party.
The Hon. D. J. GAY: I second the proposal. The PRESIDENT: Does any member desire to propose any other person to fill the vacancy? There being no other nomination, the question is, That Mr Sandy Macdonald be chosen to hold the place in the Senate rendered vacant by the resignation of Senator David Brownhill. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT: I declare that Mr Sandy Macdonald has been chosen to hold the place in the Senate rendered vacant by the resignation of Senator David Brownhill. Mr CARR: I move:
That the President be requested to inform His Excellency the Governor as soon as practicable that Mr Sandy Macdonald has been chosen to hold the place in the Senate rendered vacant by the resignation of Senator David Brownhill. The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I second the motion. Motion agreed to. The PRESIDENT: I now declare the joint sitting closed.
The joint sitting closed at 3.45 p.m. _____ 5194 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Thursday 4 May 2000 ______
The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.
The President offered the Prayers.
ASSENT TO BILLS
Assent to the following bills reported:
Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill Electronic Transactions Bill Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Sentencing Guidelines) Bill
SUMMARY OFFENCES AMENDMENT BILL
Bill received and read a first time.
Motion by the Hon. J. W. Shaw agreed to:
That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.
TABLING OF PAPERS
The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt tabled the following papers:
Report and Determinations of Local Government Remuneration Tribunal under sections 239 and 241 of the Act, dated 27 April 2000.
Report on the Review of the Mines Rescue Act 1994 conducted in accordance with the Act, dated April 2000.
Ordered to be printed.
PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT OPERATIONS AMENDMENT (LITTERING) BILL
Second Reading
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [11.06 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The second reading speech is essentially the same as the Minister's in the other place, although it incorporates information about the amendments that were carried in the other place and of a proposed Government amendment. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
As the Minister for the Environment pointed out in the other place, successive New South Wales State governments from both sides of politics have achieved a great deal with respect to litter prevention and management over the past two decades. Starting with the introduction of the Do The Right Thing campaign in the late 1980s, litter management strategies have included the introduction of the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act in 1989, which introduced on-the-spot fines for littering; the Carr Government's three-year, $60 million stormwater program, which provides a framework for managing littering as a component of stormwater pollution, which provides dollars for infrastructure; the negotiation of the waste reduction plan for the beer and soft drink industry which contains a series of anti-littering measures. 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5195
The Carr Government's anti-littering package, of which this bill is one part, builds on these achievements. However, despite these early successes, and the considerable efforts of Clean Up Australia and the Keep Australia Beautiful Council, as well as the hard work of local councils and service organisations, littering remains a problem—both in aesthetic and environmental terms. The broader community recognises past achievements but expects governments to renew efforts to prevent littering in the first place. Moreover, when it does occur, to ensure that it is cleaned up. Our package will provide this renewal through identifying weaknesses in our current regulatory approach and correcting them; taking account of research relating to littering behaviour and factoring this into large-scale public education efforts; providing support to key community organisations to deal with local littering issues; and bringing together key government agencies to look at the issue of littering on public lands.
The Protection of the Environment Operations Amendment (Littering) Bill represents a major step forward in a continuing process to have effective regulation available to deal with littering. In 1989—when the then Minister for the Environment, Tim Moore, introduced the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act—on-the-spot fines first became a feature of the environmental regulation landscape. This was an extremely important development and one that has greatly assisted in policing a range of environmental laws. Under this scheme, on-the-spot fines for littering became available. But close examination of the extent to which this tool has been used for littering offences reveals that it has not played its proper part as a deterrent for this behaviour.
Levels of on-the-spot fines issued annually in New South Wales for the past 10 years average around 600 to 700 per annum. Approximately five times this number is issued annually in Victoria. The reality in New South Wales is that with so few fines issued each year, most people would view littering as an offence that is extremely unlikely to attract a fine. There needs to be a view in the community that there are suitably strong sanctions and a very real threat of being caught and fined. There is a range of explanations for why there are so few infringement notices issued for littering in New South Wales.
In summary, the existing littering provisions have the following problems: they define littering in too narrow a manner; they provide no flexibility for enforcement officers in distinguishing between minor and more serious offences; they contain no specific provisions to deal with some major new littering problems, such as those associated with the distribution of some types of advertising; they do not allow for littering in certain private places to be dealt with. The bill considerably expands the definition of litter, while at the same time addressing local government concerns about the existing definition and its premise that refuse only becomes litter if it has little or no value.
The expanded definition is far more practicable and workable. Of the other problems identified with the existing framework, the lack of flexibility in the type of fine is seen by many enforcement officers as a particular problem. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there is some unwillingness to issue a blanket $200 fine for minor offences. Equally, there is a view that $200 is insufficient sanction for littering behaviour that is likely to cause physical harm to people, animals or property. The Government seeks to address this problem by creating three levels of fine: one for littering with small items; one for general littering and littering from vehicles; one for aggravated littering.
The bill seeks to amend the relevant schedule of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Penalty Notices) Regulation 1999 to create a number of penalty notice offences concerning the proposed littering offences. In keeping with the principles of the use of infringement notices for other environmental offences, penalties for corporations would be double those for individuals. One area of constant annoyance to many people is the habit of numerous smokers to throw away carelessly their cigarette butts— particularly unextinguished butts. The penalties recognise this problem and set appropriate on-the-spot fines: $60 for depositing of an extinguished cigarette; $200 for depositing a lit cigarette and $375 for a lit cigarette that is deposited in circumstances of aggravation. Depositing of a syringe will be aggravated littering, which will have an on-the-spot fine of $375.
Dealing with litter that stems from the way in which certain forms of advertising are distributed is an important element of the bill. Distributing printed material is an important aspect of the promotional programs of many businesses. Many forms of distribution are handled through professional direct mail companies who are members of the Australian Catalogue Association and its self-regulatory body, the Distribution Standards Board. These industry members are subject to a voluntary code of conduct and have done considerable work to reduce littering. However, increasingly, many small businesses distribute materials direct to their local communities. Often these are distributed by untrained casual employees who are not familiar with industry standards regarding distribution.
Members of this place would not be unfamiliar with the results of this practice: brochures, flyers and restaurant menus frequently stuck in fences or deposited in such a way that they can easily blow away or wash away. This type of littering contributes significantly to stormwater pollution in urban waterways. This bill does not limit the capacity of businesses to undertake direct distribution of promotional materials. Instead, it introduces some sensible measures to prevent irresponsible distribution. It will be an offence to deposit any advertising material in any public or open private place other than in a letter box, newspaper receptacle or under the door of any premises.
This provision does not relate to the issue of advertising posters placed on light poles etc, which is properly dealt with under the planning legislation and which is an issue currently being examined by my colleague the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. The bill also prohibits placing advertising material on vehicles. Again, this is a major source of littering as: frequently the material blows off and ends up on the street or in street or car park stormwater drains; or, alternatively, people return to their vehicles and, annoyed at receiving this unsolicited advertising, immediately discard it themselves. This change will encourage distributors of this type of material to distribute it differently. For instance, leaflets may be offered to people, as they often are, who are then free to accept or reject them. Consultation with key industry bodies has indicated a general support for the direction of these reforms.
While key organisations in the direct marketing industry generally prefer a self-regulated model, they accept that this will not deal with the issue of the small local business using casual workers to distribute materials. In addition to introducing these new provisions, the EPA will continue to work with the Australian Catalogue Association and the Distribution Standards Board, another industry body, to assist in educating the direct marketing industry on responsible distribution of advertising materials. Similarly, work needs to be done to educate small and medium-sized businesses that manage their own advertising distribution. First and foremost, we want to see these businesses develop an understanding of how their promotional strategies can end up reflecting badly on their business. We want small and medium-sized businesses to provide those distributing material on their behalf with good information on responsible approaches. 5196 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000
To this end, we are doing a number of things introducing provisions in the bill which make it an offence to cause, require or induce a person to contravene provisions dealing with the placement of advertising material; we are working with local government to develop materials to educate small and medium sized-business proprietors about their obligations and those of their distributors; we are developing a specific strand of the litter public education program that will target distributors, many of whom are teenagers or older persons. Given the scale of the educative task and the Government’s desire to give people a reasonable opportunity to do the right thing, these provisions will not commence for approximately six to nine months after the commencement of the rest of the Act.
I would emphasise to you that the offences and penalties introduced by the bill include provisions which focus on those most responsible for the delivery of pamphlets and other such printed matter: advertisers and distribution companies. We are not unnecessarily going after the deliverer. Section 146C of the bill makes it an offence to cause or ask another person to commit an offence of depositing advertising material in an inappropriate place. By this means, Environment Protection Authority, councils or similar agencies can penalise the distribution companies rather than the actual deliverer, if that is appropriate.
Authorised officers have the discretion to provide warnings rather than issue a fine. Should it be necessary to fine the deliverer for inappropriately depositing advertising material, there is a higher penalty of an on-the-spot fine of $400 for corporations and the lower penalty—of $200—for individuals. The education component of the overall litter package will target small business, disability industries and young and older people about the need to meet existing codes of practice for delivery of direct advertising.
The other major feature of the bill is that, for the first time, it provides provisions that allow for littering offences on private land. This will provide a valuable tool for redressing situations where litter is deposited on private property without the permission of the custodian of that property. To achieve this, the bill defines an open private place, and provides a number of exceptions to ensure that the lawful custodians of those places are not in breach of the law in respect of the placement of material on land that they own or manage. The bill also proposes to make local councils the appropriate regulatory authorities concerning premises occupied by the State or a public authority, but not activities carried on by the State or a public authority.
The bill makes it clear that a local council is empowered to issue environment protection notices and any associated compliance cost notices concerning littering and waste offences, and it can institute proceedings for waste and other offences. This will ensure that councils are properly able to deal with littering and other environmental offences on public lands within their local government areas. This matter has been discussed with peak local government bodies, who are in support of it. The bill also contains minor consequential amendments. The Government is moving one such amendment in the Legislative Council. This amendment ensures that local government maintains its current power to prosecute and to issue penalty notices for littering offences regardless of whether the premises or activities are the responsibility of the Environment Protection Authority.
As I indicated earlier, and as the Premier said when he announced this initiative, this is merely one component of an integrated package to deal with littering. This package includes a large-scale, three-year, $3.6 million education initiative—public education, training for council officers, and education for small and medium-sized businesses and the people who distribute their advertising—that will see a renewed community focus on this issue; support for community-based organisations to develop local litter strategies; support for local government in improving enforcement of littering provisions; and a task force to improve litter management by State Government authorities.
A steering committee of stakeholders—local government, environment groups, industry and State government agencies—has been working for some months to oversee the development of the education initiative, which will commence in the near future. We need to have effective anti-littering measures in place. Each year Clean Up Australia shows us the consequences of littering behaviour. Many citizens of the State give up their precious time on that day to help clean up litter-degraded local environments. Through the work of Keep Australia Beautiful and its Tidy Towns committees, many other members of the community work year in year out to prevent and manage litter. The package of measures before you represents the sensible next step in our tackling of the litter problem. As I said earlier, it builds on the achievements of the past 20 years, but reflects lessons learned about what is working and what is not in managing this problem. A certain bipartisanship has generally accompanied the approach to dealing with litter over the years. I hope to see that continue. I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. J. F. RYAN [11.07 a.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the bill. By and large it is a reasonably uncontroversial measure designed to attack the littering problem in the State. Litter is by no means the most difficult environmental problem in this State, but it is perhaps the more irritating because essentially it is an environmental problem that comes about because people do not care. No real reason is given why the volume of litter should be increasing because it comes from no useful industrial process. It simply collects through people failing to care and, in the words of the slogan, failing to do the right thing. Of course, litter can be trivial in that it could result from dropping papers, but nowadays we are a familiar with how litter can also be dangerous. Items such as syringes and lighted cigarettes can result in dire consequences for other people. This bill attempts to make the distinction that some aspects of littering represent a more aggravated offence than others and it establishes a higher penalty regime for those offences. The bill then introduces a lower range penalty regime, including provisions for on-the-spot penalty notices for the more minor but irritating offences. In that regard the Opposition supports the measures before the House. However, it must be said that by and large a regime of penalty notices will not solve the littering problem. In order to issue penalty notices and collect fines, it is necessary to have a reasonably large team of inspectors to observe the offences taking place and be available to issue the notices.
No government will ever have the resources to defeat litter in that way. The most effective way to counter litter is to change public attitudes and behaviour. In the past couple of decades there have been 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5197 impressive achievements in changing the attitudes and behaviour of the public and various industry bodies. For example, the much-maligned food chain McDonald's does attempt to deal with its litter problems. We would not have seen such innovative behaviour years ago. In my locality it is not unusual to see McDonald's staff a couple of blocks from the restaurant picking up litter deposited by some of the more irresponsible customers. Previously companies which produced litter did not regard it as their responsibility to deal with the consequences.
Similarly, a common condition of approval for public events is a regime to clean up litter. People who have visited the Royal Easter Show and the events in the Olympic precinct would have noticed that there is not a great deal of litter. There is a management plan to remove litter quickly after it has been dropped. The Clean Up Australia campaign and other campaigns have also helped to change public attitudes and to clean up the environment. Freeways are a difficult area for litter but I have noticed, particularly with private tollways, that there has been an effort to remove litter. The Roads and Traffic Authority does not always do this as a matter of course but it is a welcome development with private tollways.
The only aspect of controversy likely to arise in respect of the bill concerns proposed amendments, which fall into three categories. A Government amendment seeks to restore powers which the bill would inadvertently take from local government with regard to litter. The Opposition will support that amendment. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones will move an amendment to require the Government to produce a litter reduction report. The Opposition is all for supporting things such as state of the environment reports and additional information but through agencies such as the Litter Reduction and Recycling Association there is already a lot of reporting about litter. Clean Up Australia also provides an enormous amount of information about litter after the cleanups occur. Because of the level of voluntary participation by industry the Opposition does not feel the need to impose a further regime on government to report more extensively on the litter problems. Government resources should be directed to other environmental issues. The Opposition therefore will not support the amendment.
The other amendments come from the Greens. They relate to countering litter from the distribution of unaddressed mail. The amendments are largely directed at creating an offence of placing commercially produced brochures and so on in mailboxes which have a sign on them indicating that the owner of the dwelling is not interested in receiving unaddressed mail, so-called junk mail. The Opposition acknowledges that that sometimes can be a source of irritation and litter if the material is not dealt with. The volume of letterbox distributions has reached the stage that the practice is not as effective as it used to be. We politicians know all about letterbox distributions. They are important part of any election campaigns.
The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: No!
The Hon. J. F. RYAN: We have been told that Mr Della Bosca has been doing letterbox distributions in the Central Coast area. During my first experience of election campaigns in the early 1980s we largely had the field to ourselves. The only unaddressed mail we would find in letterboxes were election brochures, sometimes from our competitors. At the last election in the electorate of Ryde I saw that it was not possible to cram any more material into letterboxes because they were filled with material from other candidates and from other sources. One wonders how effective letterbox distribution has become as a means of communication.
The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: I have even put material into your letterbox.
The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I am pleased to know that you have had the opportunity to put junk mail into my letterbox. I assure the honourable member that I read, with a great deal of interest, any brochures from the Australian Labor Party that are dropped into my letterbox.
The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: It was a letter from Peter Primrose.
The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Unfortunately, I am not sure that it convinced me to vote for Mr Primrose. I believe that it might be just a bit enthusiastic to create an offence of placing unaddressed mail into letterboxes with a sign saying no junk mail because, strictly speaking, that is not littering. It is an attempt to communicate with a family, which may not be interested in the message. Nevertheless, littering is largely defined as depositing rubbish in a place where it is not supposed to be or where it is not wanted. Putting unwanted mail into somebody's letterbox does not fall into the same category as deliberately dropping a piece of paper on the ground. It might be irritating but it is not the sort of offence for which we should issue a penalty notice. 5198 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000
There would be difficulties in the practicality of enforcing such an amendment. Someone would need to be on the spot to see the offence taking place. That is unlikely to be the case. There is likely to be dispute about how clear the message was and so on. Normally we impose penalty notices only for contravention of government notices. It would be an innovation to make it an offence to contravene a privately posted notice. That is another area of concern. From time to time the Greens claim that society is a bit overpoliced. Ms Lee Rhiannon complained in the Chamber the other day about the police actions at a demonstration in which she participated. It is not consistent to argue that we are overpoliced with regard to demonstrations and to argue that people should be punished for reasonably routine matters such as distributing unaddressed mail. The Opposition believes that it is a matter of perspective. When I am distributing unaddressed mail on behalf of the Liberal Party I respect the view of people who do not want to receive the brochures.
Election material is not so much junk mail but a method of informing the community of issues which are important. Sometimes I wonder whether the material I am distributing falls into the category of junk mail, because it is important for the community to understand the views of candidates standing for election. So I would put that material in a slightly different category from a brochure from Grace Bros. The solution to the placement of unaddressed mail in letterboxes is reasonably easy: the resident simply puts it in the bin. It does not seem to be a matter requiring heavy policing action such as the issuing of a penalty notice.
The Opposition will not support the Greens amendments. By and large the bill should be treated in a straightforward manner and should receive the support of the House with the acceptance of the Government amendment. The Opposition commends the Government for accepting an Opposition amendment in the other place. We believe that throwing away lighted cigarettes is an aggravated littering offence because it could lead to bushfires and so on. So the bill is slightly different from the form in which it was presented in another place. We thank the Government for listening to the Opposition on this occasion. I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. I. COHEN [11.19 a.m.]: The Greens give reluctant support to the Protection of the Environment Operations Amendment (Littering) Bill because we have significant concerns about it.
The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: You do not embrace it. The Hon. I. COHEN: No, we do not embrace it with great enthusiasm. Once again, this is clever window-dressing by the Government, with the littering issue being attacked from the wrong end. When a compatriot in the House exposes the Government realistically, it is difficult not to agree. A few years ago the Government produced a glossy pamphlet entitled "Meeting the waste challenge in New South Wales", which on the cover depicts bulldozers at a tip trying to deal with the massive waste in New South Wales. The Government has now introduced this bill as a solution to dealing with the litter problem. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What did Pam Allan promise, a 60 per cent reduction? The Hon. I. COHEN: As the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti says, the target was a 60 per cent reduction by the year 2000. We well remember that promise. The Greens have been consistent in pulling up the Government when promises are not met. The Opposition has not been particularly proactive in promoting these areas—I direct this comment specifically to the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti—particularly where big business is involved, by protecting their ability to add significantly to waste in our environment. I have had a number of discussions with the Opposition. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: We have not lied to you. The Hon. I. COHEN: That is because you are not in government. I have not had the benefit of that experience but when the Coalition was in government in many instances the Coalition fell far short on waste management issues. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: We did not lie about it. The Hon. I. COHEN: You have not had the opportunity, the expertise and the momentum in the community to get into government. When you do, I will be interested in the position you take. That will be the more appropriate time. I will not comment on whether I look forward to that, but I hope that the Coalition would do a better job on waste minimisation. However, evidence put to the Legislative Council in the recent past does not give me great confidence that a Coalition government would oppose the packaging industry any more than the Labor Government has. It is a great disappointment. The packaging industry is the real problem with waste in our community. 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5199
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: They have frankly lied to you and you keep voting for them.
The Hon. I. COHEN: I will get to that in a moment. The comments of the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti are the height of hypocrisy because his party constantly refused to confront the packaging industry. He should let me continue with my speech.
The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Talk about CDL.
The Hon. I. COHEN: I will. The Greens' objections to this bill do not relate primarily to the bill on its face value. Littering, particularly the dumping of waste in our bushland, waterways and environment, is a major problem. I hope the bill results in less dumping and less accumulation of littering in our community. It is something that must be attacked on a deep cultural level and people should be given responsibility for this. I wonder whether this legislation is another piece of window-dressing that is not going in the right direction. Our reluctant support relates to what is not in the bill, in that it targets the wrong issue by failing to address the causes of litter, the most effective way to achieving a cleaner environment. In his second reading speech in the other place the Minister, Mr Debus, said:
This bill does not limit the capacity of businesses to undertake direct distribution of promotional materials. Instead, it introduces some sensible measures to prevent irresponsible distribution.
In his speech in reply the Minister claimed that it would be inappropriate for the bill to restrict the distribution of advertising material. The Minister's remarks ignore the impact that ordinary business activities have on the environment. No-one is suggesting that there should be a restriction on the distribution of advertising material. The Greens will move amendments in Committee to restrict distribution where it is clearly indicated on a person's individual letterbox that the person does not wish to receive junk mail. Their privacy should be respected.
Every day households are deluged with huge amounts of unwanted advertising material, commonly referred to as junk mail. It is a source of considerable complaint to my office. My staff have said that junk mail in letterboxes is a major problem, particularly for people living in units in the western suburbs. There is nothing in the bill that is designed to achieve a reduction in this type of waste. The bill merely aims to have the material placed in the appropriate receptacle. It is not even proposed to make it an offence to distribute such material to households that clearly display a "no junk mail" sticker on their letterbox. Unfortunately, such signs are all too often ignored.
The Greens will move an amendment to the bill to deal with this issue. If people choose not to receive junk mail, the law should provide for their wishes to be respected. It is essential that the bill be amended to make it an offence to deposit advertising material in any letterbox that displays a sign prohibiting the deposit of such material. That is a basic individual right. However, the Greens recognise that the distribution of genuine community information for non-commercial purposes needs to be distinguished from commercial mail.
Important community notices distributed by non-profit groups serve a useful function in the community. We therefore propose that the definition of advertising material be restricted to material distributed for a commercial purpose, which is the mail causing the volume, not community-based mail. Political organisations seek to give information to the community which some people may consider junk mail. However, it is commercial material that is building up this incredible stockpile of waste in our suburban areas. In the context of this bill I should like to raise the lack of container deposit legislation. A target of 60 per cent reduction by the year 2000 was set and that target has not been met.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: But you never expected it to be, did you? Did you expect it to be?
The Hon. I. COHEN: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti says I did not expect it to be. I suppose I was new, green you might say, bright-eyed and bushy tailed. When I came into this Parliament I lobbied strongly both in the public arena and with Pam Allan who was the Minister at the time. I made a considerable effort and I spoke to the Hon. Patricia Forsythe about this issue also. It is my continued belief that container deposit legislation is one of the most effective ways to deal with the major problem of waste in our society.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You were fooled and taken in by the Government, weren't you?
The Hon. I. COHEN: The Hon. Patricia Forsythe informed me clearly and honestly that it was not considered possible, so I think the Opposition and the Government were at one on this issue. I can accept a 5200 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000 difference between the Greens and both major parties. I remember the conversations I had with both the Hon. Patricia Forsythe and the Minister because I am sure the House would acknowledge that it was and is an ongoing matter in which I have a strong interest. We need to manage this problem. I take it to the extreme. When I am working in Sydney I live in a little flat that has no veranda, it is just a bolthole that is my work residence when I am in Sydney. I now have a worm farm there and it is wonderful.
The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Perhaps the Hon. I. Cohen needs to get a life.
The Hon. I. COHEN: Perhaps, but that will probably happen when I quit this place. While I remain here, I must deal with matters such as this. The Southern Sydney Waste Board has released a great deal of information and is delivering a good service to the community. Bodies such as that are making legitimate attempts to give ordinary people the opportunity to minimise their waste. It is a terrible shame that the Government does not match the ideals and aspirations of many in the community. Worm farms are just one example: I will bring one to Parliament to show honourable members.
The Hon. J. S. Tingle: Are they housetrained?
The Hon. I. COHEN: Yes, and they are wonderfully self-contained. The Southern Sydney Waste Board makes worm farms out of recycled black industrial plastic. My worm farm is such a wonderful recycled piece that I intend to use it as a coffee table in my lounge room.
[Interruption]
The ridicule directed at me in this House is an indication of how far members of Parliament are divorced from the basic realities of life. They are divorced from the ideals of people in the community. Honourable members may laugh, but worm farms are taking off. Members of Parliament have been disempowered by the lack of legislative initiatives taken by this Government and by its failure to introduce reforms. People are crying out for waste management reforms and action in that area. Worm farms are a best- seller and Waverley Council has undertaken to distribute them free to people who undergo an education process. It is an excellent initiative.
The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt: It is an initiative of this Government.
The Hon. I. COHEN: Yes, but the littering legislation does not continue in that spirit. The bottom line is that we still do not have container deposit legislation. Any government that is serious about dealing with waste and littering should address that issue. On Wednesday 12 April I asked a question of the Minister for Juvenile Justice, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment and referred to the Government's dismal failure to meet its target of 60 per cent waste reduction by 2000. I mentioned also the Government's broken promise to introduce container deposit legislation if industry failed to meet Environment Protection Authority specified waste reduction targets within three years.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Now he admits that promises were broken.
The Hon. I. COHEN: Of course that is a broken promise. A waste management scheme is operating in South Australia; people in this State also want to address this problem and see it remedied in the near future.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Don't hold your breath.
The Hon. I. COHEN: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is good at sniping from the sidelines. However, the Opposition has not offered any suggestions that inspire confidence that it would introduce container deposit legislation or other radical programs to deal with this problem. It has given no indication that it would do better than the Government in overcoming opposition from the packaging industry.
The Hon. J. F. Ryan: We reduced waste better than Labor. It has increased while Labor has been in office—although the recession may have helped us.
The Hon. I. COHEN: That is a good point. In her answer the Minister for Juvenile Justice, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment said that the Waste Minimisation and Management Act 1995 was symbolic of how seriously the Government takes waste reduction. That comment illustrates perfectly the problem that the Greens have identified with this bill. Legislation that does not address the generation of 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5201 waste is at best symbolic and is largely incapable of bringing about the necessary changes in industry and the community generally. The Minister for the Environment mentioned this issue during his second reading speech when he referred—in a most unsatisfactory manner—to concerns about the absence of container deposit legislation expressed by local government during the consultation process.
The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: It works in South Australia.
The Hon. I. COHEN: The honourable member is right. I am sure many honourable members have picked up empty bottles on beaches and received the deposit.
The Hon. J. H. Jobling: It is a great source of income.
The Hon. I. COHEN: It is a fantastic source of income. Waste management issues are related. Why can we not deal with intractable waste such as cigarette butts? Why do smokers not dispose of their cigarette butts at source?
The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Butts and worms.
The Hon. I. COHEN: I do not expect the honourable member to understand basic, grass-roots initiatives because the Opposition has lost touch. The Minister for the Environment justified the Government's inertia by saying:
Under the provisions of the Waste Disposal Act, a Beer and Soft Drink Industry Waste Reduction Plan is in force. The plan sets out a number of anti-littering measures that must be implemented by industry. The Waste Disposal Act sets out the circumstances in which the State Waste Advisory Council may advise me of the need to introduce container deposit legislation.
I suggest to the Minister that time is up. The Minister's comments demonstrate once again that this Government does not understand that a waste reduction plan that relies on anti-littering measures will inevitably be unsuccessful. The Minister should not wait to hear from the Waste Advisory Council that container deposit legislation needs to be introduced.
The problem of waste produced by industry—particularly packaging—must be addressed at source. Anything less is simply a cosmetic, band-aid solution. Yet the Government has failed even to consider the need to reduce production and consumption of packaging and other unnecessary material that ends up as litter. I refer honourable members to events in the former West Germany. When the Greens first came to office in that country they introduced some strong waste management laws that made producers responsible for packaging. Despite an incredible outcry from the packaging industry, packaging was quickly simplified. The industry introduced waste bins to stores where articles were purchased. Waste was disposed of in the bins and then returned to the producers. In a short time, all sorts of simple articles available in supermarkets were packaged in cardboard rather than in fancy plastic wrapping. The initiative worked, and I believe that we should move in a similar direction. Those opportunities would be taken if the industry were forced to be responsible for packaging.
The packaging industry benefits from a focus on litter prevention because it diverts attention from the industry's contribution to waste. Many people do not realise that seemingly worthwhile campaigns such as Do the Right Thing are financed by the packaging industry. The Clean up Australia campaign is admirable, but many in the community are becoming increasingly concerned about the fact that we are addressing the litter problem at only a superficial level. In his letter to the Minister for the Environment regarding the Clean up Australia campaign, L. L. Doig wrote:
After many, many years I do not intend to participate in Clean up Australia Day any longer because we are dealing with the symptoms, not the cause.
When is NSW going to introduce Container Legislation? This has been very successful in South Australia. The people there, because they've become accustomed not to throwing their bottles and cans out the car window, no longer seem to throw their papers and plastic bags out either.
That is the sort of flow-on effect created by the change in mentality that results from the introduction of container deposit legislation. Depositable material is not the only litter that will be collected; people will understand the reasons for the legislation and so will be encouraged to collect other waste. The introduction of such legislation would be a step in the right direction. 5202 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000
There is no more serious environmental issue facing us than reducing the amount of waste produced by society. Australia is one of the worst producers of waste: it is second only to the United States of America in per capita terms. Australians send 18 million tonnes of waste to landfill and use six billion plastic bags every year. One-third of domestic waste is made up of packaging. Yet this bill is designed to sweep it all under the carpet! I urge the House to support the amendments proposed by the Greens and by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. The amendments would at least mean that the bill might achieve a reduction in the amount of waste generated by society.
In the lower House, amendments proposed by the Opposition included syringes and cigarette butts under the definition of aggravated littering. Honourable members should understand that the disposal of syringes is quite a problem. Obviously more sharps bins and safety disposal bins are needed in public places. Medically supervised injecting rooms should be established, because they will get drug users off the streets and therefore contain the problem. We do not need another bill that attacks people who are breaking a draconian law. Are we to have masses of Environment Protection Authority [EPA] inspectors running around back alleys, busting drug users in the middle of the night? Are they to bring them to justice under an aggravated littering law? This is serious window dressing by the Government.
The Government has ways and means of dealing with littering, and is examining ways and means of containing the drug problem and disposing of syringes. The original concept of aggravated littering referred to major dumpers. A money-making industry has developed out of dumping tonnes of waste on our natural environment, and that was targeted by the Waste Minimisation and Management Act. This bill is a perversion of the intention of the original Act and the concept of aggravated littering. Targeting of major dumpers might get the attention of the media, and the Government would get some kudos from that, but this is poor legislation. I can see from the Hon. J. F. Ryan's expression that he agrees with me.
The Greens amendments target the industries which distribute unsolicited commercial mail into letterboxes that display "no junk mail" signs; they do not target all letterboxes. People have the right to avoid inundation of unsolicited mail. The Greens amendment targets the distributing company, not the person who tries to earn an honest wage by slogging around suburbia putting leaflets into letterboxes. Honourable members have asked how the Greens amendment can be enforced, but that is not the issue: the issue is the enforcement of the bill.
I and other honourable members have held discussions with the EPA about the ability of its officers to police major issues. That is a mockery, because it is not the police who are to enforce this bill, it is the EPA officers. The EPA should not chase people who drop cigarette butts or syringes, it should prosecute major pollutants. There are many examples of the EPA not being willing or able, because of a lack of resources or staff, to respond to the community's concerns about serious pollution. The Port Kembla copper smelter, which is supported by the Government, has broken the law nine times since it opened in February, but as yet the EPA has not prosecuted it. Why not?
The EPA seems to be run off its feet trying to keep up with enforcing pollution laws. Court cases have been heard, public attention has been focused on it, but nothing has been achieved. That type of pollution equates to a lot of cigarette butts. At Trangie, school buses were sprayed with pesticide and people were suffering. The EPA investigation into pesticide pollution was inadequate. The Greens want EPA resources to be devoted to serious pollution, not to the expensive prosecution of relatively trivial offences. That does not mean that we trivialise the problems that the community experiences, but we ask that they be dealt with more effectively. In 1998, referring to the Waste Minimisation and Management Bill, I said:
It would allow EPA regional inspectors to make more meaningful inspections of unlicensed waste dumps given their limited resources. It would also allow the EPA to keep track of the disposal of unlicensed landfills on a statewide basis.
That is the sort of problem that the EPA is dealing with and it is unable to manage it, let alone bust people in back alleys for dumping syringes. I ask the Government to consider introducing an appropriate education campaign. I frequently mention my penchant for worm farms. Someone said, "Get a life". I have a life, I live in the country. I have worm farms and compost bins, and we seal waste on site. I enjoy it.
The Hon. J. F. Ryan: You live in your own waste.
The Hon. I. COHEN: Yes, and I have previously mentioned that I have a composting toilet. 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5203
The Hon. J. F. Ryan: This is getting a bit anal.
The Hon. I. COHEN: Yes, as the Hon. J. F. Ryan said, it is getting anal. Society needs to face up to that fact, but no-one wants to deal with their waste. On the property where I live the composting toilet is ceremoniously named the Taj Anal, as I have said before in this House. We are doing something about our waste and I wish the greater society would do the same. I know the will is there but it is up to the Government to do something about it.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [11.47 a.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the Protection of the Environment Operations Amendment (Littering) Bill. In the main the bill specifies areas of littering, and in many cases increases penalties, for which I commend the Government. As honourable members may know, the Hon. Elaine Nile was selected to attend a parliamentary study tour into the drug epidemic. We took the opportunity to visit a number of countries, and Singapore made the greatest impact on us. Jokes are made about Singapore being heavy handed with penalties for littering and spitting, but it has succeeded in becoming the cleanest and safest city in the world. We visited 12 nations in 50 days, and Singapore stood out like a shining beacon. I suggest that the Minister for the Environment and other members of the Government compare our legislation with that of the Singaporean Government. This bill is a great improvement, and is a step in the right direction. We should all be proud of our city and our State, and we should not rubbish our streets. I am embarrassed to see rubbish piled up in the streets. Sometimes, particularly in the Sydney and South Sydney council areas, there are problems with the collection of garbage because of industrial disputes. That is not good enough. Emergency machinery should be available for the collection of rubbish. The State Government could use back-up facilities and charge councils for the cost of removing the rubbish As Sydney becomes a showplace during the Olympic Games, we want to be proud of our city. Thousands of visitors will come to Sydney during September and October. I hope that they will be able to say, as I said about Singapore, that they have never been to a safer and cleaner city. Such a statement would be a wonderful endorsement of the Government's initiatives. I hope that they enjoy their visit immensely and plan to return. One of the reasons Sydney bid for the Olympic Games was to boost the tourist industry in this State. Tourism is linked to the quality of life in the city and the State. Tourists will not visit dangerous cities or cities that are dirty, smelly and untidy. Although the Government's initiatives for the Olympic Games have met with some cynicism, a positive attitude has developed to get things done in time for the Games. Central railway station is currently undergoing renovations. There is rubbish and building waste all over the place, and commuters virtually have to walk through a building site to catch trains. The station is an eyesore and is dangerous. According to some reports, the Government hopes that the station will be ready in time for the Games. I believe that the renovations should be completed a month before 15 September. By providing a buffer zone, we will not see workers rushing around with tins of paint on 14 September. Our city must be a place of which we can be proud, not only for the Games but forever. I commend the Government for a number of the initiatives in the bill. Penalties for littering have been increased and spelled out. They are similar to the littering laws in Singapore. Section 145 (1) states:
A person who deposits litter in or on a public place or an open private place is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: 10 penalty units. A penalty unit is $110. The Government has stated that an extensive education program will be implemented following the passing of this legislation. Such a program is essential. It is no good passing a bill in the House and introducing new laws if the public is not aware of the content of the legislation. I am pleased, as the Premier announced, that the Government will initiate a large-scale three-year $3.6 million education program which will include public education, training for council officers and education for small- to medium-size businesses and those who distribute their advertising. That program will ensure a renewed community focus on this issue. Further, there will be support for community-based organisations to develop local litter strategies and for local government in the enforcement of fledgling provisions. A task force will be set up to improve litter management on lands and management of public authorities. The members of the task force include the Environment Protection Authority, the Roads and Traffic Authority, the State Rail Authority, the Waterways Authority, local government and others. Importantly, that education program will run parallel to this legislation. An anti-littering campaign designed by an advertising agency and displayed on television, radio, newspaper advertisements and billboards, will challenge the people of Sydney to observe the requirements of this new legislation and to keep their city clean and safe. It will encourage a change in the culture of littering. People will hesitate before they drop rubbish on the footpath. 5204 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000
If we all play our part, litter will be disposed of in the correct receptacles. On some occasions, such as public holidays and special events, litter bins become full and overflowing. The Government, in co-operation with local government, must ensure that sufficient litter bins are available, particularly for large-scale events, such as New Year's Eve activities on the Sydney Harbour foreshore and Opera in the Park. There must be better planning and adequate provision for the disposal and collection of litter. The Government announced that a steering committee of stakeholders, local government, environmental groups, industry and State Government agencies has been working for some months to oversee the development of the education initiative. That initiative was to commence in the near future—hopefully sooner than later. With planning for large-scale events and during holiday periods, we will not see overflowing bins on the Sydney Harbour foreshore and on beaches in Sydney and in the holiday areas of the North Coast and South Coast.
McDonald's has received praise for the removal of excess packaging from its food products. However, recently I have noticed overflowing bins in McDonald's restaurants. I do not know if the restaurants have reduced the number of staff who clean their facilities. If the bins are full, the customers will either leave the rubbish on the table or take it outside and dump it. McDonald's must ensure that their franchise managers and owners supply sufficient facilities for the disposal of rubbish on the premises and that the rubbish is removed and the bins are cleaned. Even with an adequate number of bins, if the rubbish is not removed the premises will become an eyesore. As I said, I have noticed this for the first time in the past few weeks. I commend the Government for accepting the Opposition amendment dealing with syringes. Section 145A (4) states:
For the purposes of this section, circumstances of aggravation also means circumstances in which the litter deposited by the alleged offender comprised or included a syringe.
That is a positive move. I know that the Hon. I. Cohen was critical of it, but he has overlooked the very important fact that it was supposed to be a needle exchange program. If that were the case we would not have needles all over the place, as we now have. The needle exchange program has become a needle distribution program. When I ask people how many needles they think were distributed last year in Australia they usually reply, "100,000 or 200,000." When I tell them that it was 20 million they gasp. They are totally shocked. I know that it was not 20 million initially, but it has increased each year to that number.
That figure is increasing by approximately one million a year. The last figure I have for New South Wales is 9.8 million. We should not be surprised that needles are deposited in laneways, church grounds and parks and on roads. If we had a needle exchange program the dirty needles would be collected and replaced by clean needles. But someone has decided that it is too hard and has given it away. The Hon. I. Cohen has suggested that the way around the problem is to provide sharps disposal units everywhere. I find sharp disposal units offensive. I find it offensive that there are sharps disposal units in our washrooms in this Parliament House.
The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Diabetics use them as well.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: It has nothing to do with diabetics.
The Hon. A. B. Kelly: It has.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: It has to do with people using heroin.
The Hon. A. B. Kelly: That is not right.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: This is part of the campaign—
The Hon. A. B. Kelly: I asked about it after a diabetic attended my office. Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: The push to establish needle exchange programs has come from heroin users. It has nothing to do with diabetics. The Hon. A. B. Kelly: No, that is not right. I have asked about it. Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: That is the push. The Hon. J. F. Ryan: It has a lot to do with AIDS and blood-borne diseases.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: But that is where the push has come from. 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5205
The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: That is not true.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I followed the campaign, and there has been a push from the drug lobby, not the diabetic lobby. Diabetics have used needles for years and years. Some 20 million free needles are given away in Australia, 9.8 million in New South Wales. The priority was for heroin addicts, not diabetics. Today, for the first time, the Government has announced that it will supply free needles to diabetics.
The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: As it should have been doing.
The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Fair enough.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: It is fair enough, all right. It is long overdue. Shame on the Government. Some 20 million needles are supplied to heroin users who are killing themselves, but diabetics have to buy their own needles. I have raised the hypocrisy of that situation every time we have debated this subject. I still think it is hypocritical to try to justify sharps disposal containers by saying that diabetics have to dispose of needles. I oppose sharps disposal units but people want them located in aircraft and all around the place to cater for those addicted to heroin, not for those who suffer from diabetes. I have great sympathy for people with diabetes. My wife suffers from it. I have no problems with people who have no control over their illness and who are genuinely ill. That is totally different from people who are injecting themselves with heroin.
We strongly support the amendment introduced in the other place by the Opposition. We support its retention and we oppose any move to delete it or amend it. We support the increased penalties. We support the penalties for aggravated littering: 50 penalty units for a corporation, or 30 penalty units for an individual. Schedule 1 to the bill lists the penalties. I note the proposal to reduce the penalties to a token amount, which would undermine the object of the legislation, which is to promote a clean and safe society. We would not support any reduction in the penalties. The legislation must be backed up with an education program for the community so that the community wholeheartedly supports the legislation, does not feel aggrieved or oppressed by it, and understands that it is for the benefit of the whole community. It will not work without such support. An education program is the key to success. It must be well presented and implemented urgently. We commend the Government for introducing the bill.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [12.05 p.m.]: Although the Greens do not oppose the bill in principle, we are very concerned that its logic merely reflects the priorities of the package and beverage industry. We are concerned that the bill fails to deal effectively with litter. To achieve a reduction in litter we must ensure that industry takes responsibility for the waste it produces. The goals of the bill are laudable, but the Government has failed to address producer responsibility, which is the key to any litter reduction strategy. I endorse the comments of my colleague the Hon. I. Cohen, who spelled out very clearly the importance of this issue. He identified how the Government has little commitment to this important part of the litter reduction strategy.
In the Minister's second reading speech he mentioned briefly the flawed and discredited National Packaging Covenant. He discussed the covenant to pretend that the Government is taking action on the addiction of industry to single-use, inappropriate, throwaway packaging. This is the essence of our problem and it is at the heart of what has to be dealt with. The Federal Government covenant does not commit industry to paying a fair price for recyclables; and it is totally reliant on kerbside collection as a means of recycling. The covenant fails to explore proven initiatives, such as industry-run collections or container deposit legislation. The covenant relies on a huge subsidisation from ratepayers—close to $100 million—for recycling and involves the most meagre industry funding.
The real solution to litter is to develop strategies that work towards minimising single-use, throwaway packaging and excessive advertising material in the first instance. Recently my colleague the Hon. I. Cohen asked a question about promises the Government made in 1995 about its waste minimisation and recycling strategy. The Government promised that it would introduce container deposit legislation if the industry failed to meet Environment Protection Authority specified waste reduction targets within three years. More than five years have passed but, despite waste reduction plans in the dairy and beverage industry, we have seen no significant reduction in levels of waste reduction. The Minister dodged the question and spoke about everything but the question asked by my colleague.
The Greens are particularly interested in the role of the beverage industry, as our waterways and beaches continue to be littered with hundreds of thousands of plastic bottles. Recent figures indicate that the amount of PET litter continues to increase, something of which we can all be ashamed and can change only if 5206 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000 we introduce container deposit legislation. That is why I emphasise that it goes to the heart of any discussion, and certainly any legislation, in relation to litter. Many of us will remember that until quite recently milk, and some soft drinks, were sold in returnable, refillable bottles. The producers took back the empty bottles. One milk bottle, which has now been withdrawn, achieved a 96 per cent return rate with little, if any, promotion. That figure demonstrates how such legislation can work and how effective it can be.
As supermarket chains began to dominate the market, and to squeeze out local corner stores, our products started to come from large-scale distribution systems that developed single-use, throwaway packaging. It comes as no surprise that the industry would take such an approach: throwaway packaging reduces costs and it is the consumer, via the council, who pays for disposal. This is a classic example of shifting costs from industry to the wider community. The Government could make a real impact on the level of litter if it were to ensure that producers had to take responsibility for their products. We do that by putting the costs of dealing with litter back onto the industry.
I shall take a moment to discuss container deposit legislation [CDL], as it is one of the key elements missing from the Government's so-called package. Other speakers have dealt with this issue but it certainly needs to be emphasised, and, hopefully, its advantages will push the Government into giving it some attention. This State has an urgent need for CDL because it creates jobs, minimises waste and drastically reduces littering. It will reinvigorate a market for returnable containers like the milk bottles of old, as every glass, aluminium, steel or plastic container will have a 5 per cent deposit. A point-of-sale surcharge and refund for the return of a container adds value to the product. Again, that offers a solution to removing the litter that collects in our streets, parkland and public spaces.
The surcharge will give every container a finite and indisputable monetary value that will be maintained throughout the sale, use, collection and return process. The refund can be claimed by anyone who returns the container. It is a simple system, and one that has been used in New South Wales and shown to work. It provides an incentive, not a big stick or fine, that encourages people not to litter. Because of the product's elevation in status from worthless waste to valuable commodity, containers are less likely to be discarded as litter. In line with experience in the United States of America, the introduction of CDL could reduce beverage container litter by between 70 per cent and 90 per cent, and reduce total litter volume by up to 50 per cent.
Container deposit legislation has operated well in South Australia for many years, but the industry has been able to convince governments in other States that individuals are the cause of littering and that local governments should pick up the bill for disposing or recycling the single-use products the industry produces. Again, by putting such pressure on governments, industry sidesteps its responsibility and therefore saves itself money.
The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: No it does not.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: It most definitely does. I would have thought the Labor Party would support the introduction of CDL as it creates jobs, in contrast to job losses caused by shifting from refillable to one-use containers. Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics reveal that from 1974 to 1989, soft drink production in New South Wales increased by 50 per cent but the number of soft drink companies dropped by 80 per cent from 135 to 27. Correspondingly, employment in the industry fell from 3,500 to 1,600.
The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Consumption is way up.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: In contrast to this is a positive relationship between deposits and the introduction of CDL. A Victorian parliamentary committee found that in Australian States where CDL had been introduced, and overseas, there has been a significant increase in jobs. I am interested to hear the interjections from the Opposition because again one must wonder how much commitment its members have to jobs when it has been so clearly demonstrated—
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What interjections? There were no interjections. You were just reading a speech.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: No. I am most definitely not reading a speech. I had just responded to an interjection.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: There were no interjections. 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5207
Ms LEE RHIANNON: You ask your colleagues in front of you. They interjected when I spoke about jobs. Again, the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti needs to listen when he is in this House. He has a real problem with listening to other people. He engages in abuse. In Australia it was estimated that more than 700 jobs had been created by CDL. In the American State of Michigan 4,648 jobs were created in Vermont through CDL and 350 jobs in Michigan. The Victorian parliamentary committee estimated that close to 3,000 jobs could be created in New South Wales. We should listen to the committee, find out more about CDL, and introduce appropriate legislation. Jobs are created typically in the handling and sorting of containers at retail outlets and collection depots, and in transporting refillable bottles and recyclable materials, and washing and refilling bottles.
The Greens support job creation and have supported groups such as the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union to promote sustainable labour-intensive and economically viable industries. The introduction of CDL is a good example of how a return to a more labour-intensive process will help reduce unemployment while delivering products to the community just as productively and inexpensively as the mechanised process they replace. CDL has been found also to encourage new businesses to enter the market and foster greater levels of competition.
The Victorian parliamentary report described also the reduced costs to government of CDL. The main transport department in the United States of America estimated that its highway clean-up costs had halved since the introduction of CDL. We hear so much concern about litter along highways. When the crossbenchers met with Mr Scully and his advisers when we were attempting to establish a rail inquiry, one thing that was raised in discussions was the amount of litter along railway lines. Container deposit legislation is how we could reduce the amount of litter along our railway lines. However, due to present staff cutbacks in our rail system, staff do not have time to undertake litter collection like they used to do. That proposal would provide a real solution to reduce litter along our railway tracks. The Greens strongly support local government and its campaign to promote container deposit legislation.
The container deposit system sends a clear signal to users of a product that they and the beverage manufacturers are responsible for the life cycle management of containers. The Minister claims in his second reading speech that the Olympics are a time to encourage the people of New South Wales to put an end to littering. We have so many problems with what the Minister says that what is shaping up for the Olympics is a gross level of litter because of the lacklustre approach by the Government on this important issue. This bill will fail to achieve its laudable goals. We encourage the Government to examine measures that extend producer responsibility and promote waste minimisation. Moreover, we urge the Government to look closely at CDL in order to reduce litter, promote jobs and effectively minimise waste. We most certainly look forward to the debate in Committee on the many important amendments to the bill.
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [12.16 p.m.]: I shall speak briefly in this debate to maintain, if you like, a long tradition since I have been a member of this House of speaking on litter and recycling bills. I say again, lest somebody interject and accuse me of having some interest in this issue, that my only interest in the subject is that in the mid 1980s I worked in the beverage industry. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods used to regularly interject during my speeches to say that somehow my work in that industry meant I had a conflict of interest, but she is not present on this occasion. I owe the industry nothing. I maintain basically no contacts with it and as a member of Parliament I have not received any gifts from it. However, as a result of my work in the mid 1980s I learned a few facts about this issue. In a public policy sense, to work in that industry one had to understand container deposit legislation because it is misunderstood and misrepresented—as we have heard examples of this morning.
I am pleased to acknowledge that the Hon. I. Cohen recalls our conversations before 1995 when I would have been no more than a backbencher with an interest in this issue. The reason for our conversations was that I followed this issue as a matter of public policy. If something works and will benefit the community, of course we need to consider it, and it is important to weigh up the issues in a public policy sense. The reality is that container deposit legislation is overrated in the benefits it would bring. Indeed, strictly speaking in a narrow sense, it may benefit litter reduction, which is the purpose of this bill, but it has wider implications. Whilst the focus today has merely been on that aspect, it must be put in total context, and that is missing in this debate.
Ms Lee Rhiannon has stated that container deposit legislation [CDL], was introduced in Michigan in 1974 and in South Australia in 1975. In South Australia, industry had to completely gear itself differently from industry in other States. If CDL was such a good idea it would have been adopted elsewhere. It has been well studied. It was studied by a Victorian parliamentary committee and university researchers. The research showed that CDL does not live up to all the claims made about it. One of the problems in South Australia, and one of the 5208 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000 reasons that CDL has been consistently opposed in the industry, is its very narrow focus. In South Australia, CDL is supposed to be applied to beverage containers but it does not apply to paperboard, such as milk cartons or soft drink cartons. It is not even imposed on large beer bottles and wine bottles. It was presumed that the contents would be consumed at home or in a restaurant. They were not part of the takeaway society. The focus was on small bottles, glass, aluminium cans and PET. So there is a narrow focus on only part of the beverage industry and litter recycling.
When the scheme was introduced in Michigan in 1974 and in South Australia in 1975 there was no kerbside recycling, which has a large influence. The Hon. I. Cohen responded to Opposition interjections by saying that we were out of touch with ordinary people. We are not out of touch with ordinary people. Ordinary people like kerbside recycling and are using it. They like the fact that they can walk out their front door and separate their glass, aluminium and PET from their paper and their other waste. Kerbside recycling is working.
The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: They pay their rates for it and corporations do nothing.
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: The problem is that we do not yet have enough end uses for the products that we are collecting, particularly paper. But we are doing far better with kerbside recycling than South Australia. The Keep Australia Beautiful Council reminds us that the key issues in litter are cigarette butts, which this bill attempts to address, takeaway food containers, plastic bags—we would see those in any setting— confectionery wrappers, straws, bottle tops and can tops. In New South Wales, beverage containers represent something less than 10 per cent of the litter stream; in South Australia they represent 4 per cent of the litter stream. So we should consider the issue in a broader context.
A study commissioned by the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] in South Australia in 1994 dealt with the benefits or otherwise of the kerbside recycling program. The EPA sponsored an economic thesis at the University of Adelaide involving a comparison of the performance of 82 kerbside recycling schemes operated by councils in Adelaide, Perth, Melbourne and Sydney. The study found that, holding all other measurable factors constant, the kerbside recycling schemes in South Australia recovered approximately 43 per cent less material than similar schemes in other States. That is why we have to think twice about CDL.
In 1998 Recycle 2000, a State government funded authority responsible for the promotion and co- ordination of recycling systems in South Australia, commissioned a report comparing the total recycling rate for all Australian States, including the recovery of CDL items. The study found that even when CDL and kerbside schemes were combined, South Australia was still the second worst performing State for the recycling of non- organic domestic waste in Australia. The study further identified that only 4 per cent to 10 per cent of CDL items were being collected through kerbside schemes. In other words, if people have a choice between the two schemes, kerbside loses out. That means that many other things will find their way into the litter stream and into the waste stream and will not be appropriately collected for recycling or reuse.
Ms Lee Rhiannon referred to the reuse of products. We need to do the maths on that. I am sorry that I did not keep my old industry notes in relation to reuse. From memory, in the mid-1980s—technology has improved since then—a single-use Coca-Cola bottle in South Australia had to be washed and cleaned about eight times to be economically viable. Such a bottle was many times heavier than a single-use Coca-Cola bottle in other States. This meant that more resources were needed to make the bottle, fuel costs were greater and the cost of the product generally was higher.
The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: What about water as well?
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: The debate today is about litter but it has to be put in a total resource context. One of the reasons that aluminium cans have been so successful in recycling is that they can be broken down and completely reused. Back in the early 1980s there was an end use for only about 3 per cent of PET. Now the figure is more than 50 per cent. Unless there is an end use for the material collected, the resources put in will not be economic. Ms Lee Rhiannon said that industry was sidestepping its responsibilities and that CDL would add to job creation. It would add to costs that consumers ultimately have to bear. However, in South Australia, industry has done much to absorb many of the costs. There will be extra costs in fuel and in producing containers because they have to be made stronger to stand multiple use. Waste water is another part of the resources required. It is not a simple solution.
CDL is also severely constrained by the limited range of items it can be applied to. That is why the bill, as a broader package, gives options for the community to address littering. It is the responsibility of the 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5209
Government and us as a Parliament to address the complex issue of littering. If we focus on CDL we miss the opportunity to range more broadly. In relation to the claim that Opposition members are out of touch with ordinary people, it is not only ordinary people who like to separate at source via kerbside recycling. Modern supermarkets employ on-time delivery systems. They do not have large storerooms. Trucks deliver products to them as they are needed, 24 hours a day. Consumers have not generally been required to take containers to shops or to depots. CDL can be applied to only a limited range of products and it reduces the impact of kerbside recycling. While we may have a long way to go with kerbside recycling—we certainly will not do well until we find better end uses for some of the recycled products, particularly paper—CDL is not a fix-all solution. It is not a particularly good solution and it is focused on a very narrow range of products.
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [12.29 p.m.]: To take up where the Hon. Patricia Forsythe left off, CDL can apply to other than beverage containers. It can apply to margarine containers and a whole range of other containers. The Hon. I. Cohen has reminded me that there is no compulsion to reuse these containers. They can be melted down in the same way as aluminium containers and PET bottles are. It is a matter of returning them to the original producers. The fact that one pays a deposit on them does not mean they have to be reused. One would not necessarily need to produce a much thicker item to be reused eight or nine times. That is a false argument.
Europe, Denmark, Austria and Germany, and probably many other countries, all use container deposit legislation and have minimum litter. When people go to parties, for example, and take bottles of beer they make sure they hold on to their empty beer bottles. They jealously guard them and take them home. The bill refines the littering provisions by expanding the definition of litter, providing flexibility in the severity of the littering offence with a $60 on-the-spot fine for dropping a small item and a $200 on-the-spot fine for throwing material from a vehicle, including cigarette butts. Whenever a person throws a cigarette butt out of a stationary vehicle at traffic lights, I pick it up, hand it back to the vehicle driver and say, "Here, you just dropped this. It could cost you $200". The drivers are sometimes quite startled but I do it in the hope that it may have a salutary effect on them.
There is a $375 fine for littering in a way that harms people, animals or property. Once again, this includes cigarette butts. Increasingly, people are smoking outside buildings in Macquarie Street and throughout Sydney because they cannot smoke indoors and those cigarette butts end up in the harbour and poison fish. The bill also provides measures for dealing with littering as a result of the distribution of advertising material. I have an interest in this because I was in the direct mail industry and used to send mail to hundreds of thousands of people throughout Australia.
My letterbox in Manly used to have a sign that said "No junk mail" before someone tore it off. People delivering advertising material abided by that request. How does one define junk mail? It could well be a notice about a meeting of the local precinct committee, which is unaddressed mail but not junk mail.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: One man's meat.
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: One man's meat is another man's poison!. It could be material for an election or other important material that is unaddressed. Sometimes mail from the local council is addressed "To the householder", and because it is difficult to distinguish between what is and what is not junk mail, it would be difficult to place a ban on so-called junk mail. I believe that those who put up signs requesting no junk mail have a right not to receive advertising material about the latest sale at Woolworths or Coles. Generally, their wishes are respected. However, before my sign was removed I continued to receive unaddressed mail that was not junk mail. The people distributing the mail made their own decision as to what was junk mail.
The direct mail industry is a legitimate part of Australian business and by and large is very responsible. Many now use recycled paper. Last Wednesday with the Minister for Tourism I participated in a clean-up at Scotts Head in Dominica. Sixty staff from the QEII, which docked there, were enlisted to clean up the beach.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Did you meet Christopher Skase while you were in Dominica?
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I think he is in Grenada.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: No, he is in Dominica.
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Are you sure he is in Dominica? 5210 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Yes.
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I did not come across him. I am going back to Dominica so I will keep an eye out for him and give him an invitation to return home. Dominica is a very healthy place and its inhabitants have a very healthy diet. Apparently the oldest woman in the world, who is 125 years of age, is living in Dominica. The inhabitants of that island live to a very great age because the food is incredibly good. They grow all their own fruit and eat fish. That small island is a mere 39 miles by 16 miles in size and the rubbish, including plastic, flotsam and jetsam¾maybe from the QEII¾was taken away in four or five large skips. I wondered where the litter from the beach would be dumped somewhere on the island. I discussed that with the Minister for Tourism, the Minister for the Environment and other tourist leaders. I said that the recycled litter from Lord Howe Island is returned to the mainland because the island has no space for it. Dominica is a macrocosm of Lord Howe Island and I suggested it should do something similar because that small island has real problems with litter.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It probably gets into their water supply.
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: You are right, there is a problem with contamination of the 365 rivers on the island. I will send some New South Wales legislation to the Minister for the Environment and the Attorney General, as I promised, to help them deal with this matter. They use CDL for their beer bottles, which are returned for reuse, but it should be used for other containers because they are proving to be a serious problem for this very tiny island.
When I was in Clearwater in Florida a week earlier, I was involved in yet another clean-up organised by the Church of Scientology and other community groups. Again, we had the same problem. As soon as the litter was picked up, someone put other litter down. Deposit legislation should be considered for different types of containers. When John Olsen was elected as Premier of South Australia I asked if he would get rid of the container deposit legislation and he said, "No. It is working really well in South Australia and we are very happy with it." So the South Australian Liberal Government kept the legislation of the former Labor Government because it was working really well. New South Wales has never really bitten the bullet because of pressure from the industry.
I tend to agree with the Hon. Patricia Forsythe that CDL should not be limited to beverage containers; it should be much broader than that. A schedule could be added to the legislation to include materials that could be returned using CDL. It works quite well in Europe, it works in South Australia so it could work in this State. One should go to the West Bank of Palestine, on Gaza to witness a real litter problem. I went with the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann, the Hon. I. M. Macdonald, the Hon. J. M. Samios and others. It has the worst litter problem in the world. I had never seen such a mess in my life. Every spare piece of land is littered. I actually wondered if it was deliberately doing that so that the Israelis would not want it back again. I do not believe that is the case but I mentioned that to people I met there. I said, "Tourists will be really put off coming to New Palestine, which will be declared on 2 September next, by the filth around the place." It was on the beaches and every spare lot. No tourist would want to visit New Palestine if it is in such a mess.
Perhaps a month before the Olympics we can all take part in a citizens clean-up, perhaps organised by Ian Kiernan, to get the place spick and span. During the years I have raised the problem of balloons. I hope balloons will not be released during the Olympics because they are a real problem. The last time a bunch of balloons was released at Manly they went straight out to sea and choked turtles, dolphins and other marine life. Balloons should be included in the ban so that anyone who releases them risks being fined. Although in the past it has been quite pleasurable to see balloons going up in the air, it is a real problem when they come down. In Miami, bottles have been banned from the beaches altogether and there are signs that say, "Keep your butts off our beach". I saw quite a number of butts on the beach in Miami—both human and cigarette.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Bare butts or covered butts?
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Filter butts.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Covered butts.
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: There were both covered and uncovered butts. There were plenty of butts on the beach, but some of them should not have been there. While I agree wholeheartedly with the Government's argument that, for the law to work as an effective deterrent to littering, there must be a real 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5211 perception in the community that such behaviour will not be tolerated and may result in a fine, this bill does not go far enough. It effectively places the onus for littering solely and unfairly on individual consumers and does not recognise the role played by producers and event managers.
Littering is not only the fault of individual consumers. Waste facilities provided by shopping centres or event organisers and the managers of public spaces also influence how much littering occurs. The actions of product makers are also an important factor in determining waste, and therefore litter, as they decide the extent of packaging. If producers were to apply eco-design principles to their products, they could reduce the potential for waste packaging. They could introduce biodegradable packaging, for instance. The Hon. J. R. Johnson reminded me that the ice cream cone has the best packaging ever produced because one eats it.
In order to rectify the unfair onus that this bill places on the individual consumer, I will move amendments in Committee that seek to expand the concept of aggravated littering by allowing the Minister to target products, places or events that result in unacceptable littering. My amendments will require the Environment Protection Authority to report annually on the occurrence of littering along major regional and metropolitan roads, at or near public events and public spaces and at or near shopping centres and food outlets. They will give the Minister the power to obtain improved event or public space management via recommendations for better facilities for collecting and recycling waste, associated public education, the redesign of products or a levy to provide funds for improved waste management. I urge honourable members to support those amendments—which I understand the Minister will consider shortly. I also urge the House to support the Greens amendments that will be moved in Committee.
The littering problem will not disappear soon. It can be dealt with sensibly, and it is silly that every year we must clean up after other people. People, corporations and organisations must be more responsible for their actions. There are some in our community who think it is okay to litter and to expect someone else to pick it up. That is not okay. Sydney is relatively clean compared with other cities so we are getting the message across. However, I hope that in this century people will get the message even more clearly and reuse and recycle more items that now constitute the litter stream. Babies' disposable nappies are a particular problem and constitute about 1 per cent of the litter stream. I wrote to the manufacturers a long time ago saying, "How about making disposable nappies biodegradable, friends?". If nappies were biodegradable, at least they would go back into the ground. At present, those nasty little packages just sit in landfill—heaven knows what will happen when those landfills are mined and the little packages are found; perhaps they will become valuable.
I hope that this legislation will go some way towards improving people's behaviour. I hope that it will stop people throwing rubbish, especially cigarette butts, out of their car windows and into the streets—cigarette butts constitute the most numerous articles of litter anywhere. I hope also that the legislation will dissuade McDonald's eaters who seem to have a penchant for throwing their used containers everywhere.
The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON [12.44 p.m.]: It is amazing the effect that we can all have on our environment when we use a little commonsense. At the school that my boys attended, a retired Marist Brother, the late Brother Ivor Maddigan, was concerned about the environment and built a concrete receptacle for the disposal of cans. There were about 800 pupils at the school and Brother Maddigan asked them to bring one can to school every day—I am sure that we could all find one can on the road each day—to put into the receptacle. Those cans were then sold and the money was used to provide pumping equipment for wells in the Solomon Islands. There was only one difficulty: the cans attracted bees, which can have a disastrous effect around schools. I am sure honourable members remember the case of the lady from the inner western suburbs who died as a result of bee stings and whose child was also badly stung.
I believe managers have not made sufficient efforts to perfect the best possible product receptacles. Remarkably, the best receptacle made for any product is the ice cream cone, which is completely disposable after sale. The Hon. I. Cohen commented to me this morning that there is also a potato chip container made from potato products that can be eaten. I looked from my balcony this morning and observed the Treasurer and the Minister for Information Technology, Minister for Energy, Minister for Forestry, and Minister for Western Sydney looking at a display by Vermitech. The Minister announced today that 40 million worms will be used as part of a new Australian technology that recycles treated sewage and produces a high-quality fertiliser for agriculture and gardening under a $2.5 million contract. I sent my young assistant to get some information about the project. 5212 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: You wanted to recruit 40,000 earthworms to the Australian Labor Party.
The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: That would be a great branch stack. I received a container—which all honourable members may see—filled with nature's soil conditioner, BioVerm, which is made from worm castings. Sydney Water has found a significant and innovative environmental solution for the efficient and odourless disposal of treated sewage—and it is not only sewage that may be treated by Vermitech. Vermitech is an Australian-owned and operated company that was contracted after conducting trials of this technology over the past three years.
Sydney Water's sewage treatment plant at St Marys will be its first major financial venture. The process known as vermiculture will use around 40 million worms in suspended trays to eat treated waste delivered to the plant. This is a responsible approach to environmental management, because it perfects a cost-effective method with minimal greenhouse gas emissions and it uses low energy.
Tiger, red and blue worm species will produce around 5,000 tonnes of worm castings per year from 10,000 tonnes of treated waste, thus reducing the residual by half. The by-product will have to meet grade A standards set by the Environment Protection Authority which can then be marketed as BioVerm. Vermitech's research has shown that the yield of crops such as carrots, tomatoes, sugar cane and grapes has significantly increased when using BioVerm. The increase in the carrot yield is 50 per cent. Planning approvals are under way for the facility at St Marys to operate within six months, and the design allows for possible expansion.
Sydney Water currently recycles more than 99 per cent of biosolids to agriculture, mine rehabilitation and horticulture. This project will add new technology to Sydney Water's biosolids management program. The Acting Managing Director of Sydney Water said that that corporation is pleased to trial the vermiculture process as part of the biosolids program to recycle solids captured at sewage treatment plants. Mr Mike Lotzof, the Managing Director of Vermitech, said that his system can process all organics including biosolids, animal manures, green waste, food waste, newspapers and milk and juice containers. He said, "The plant at St Marys will process biosolids and green waste. It is a very exciting opportunity." And so say all of us!
Mr Ian Bergman, the Manager of Environment Industry Development Network, said that the Australian designed and owned Vermitech technology sets new benchmarks for environmental standards. He said, "There is no odour or leachate. Energy use is less than two litres of diesel per tonne of waste processed and it is one of the most exciting technologies I have seen." The attributes of this product are many. Each year Australia produces over three million tonnes of biosolids at its sewerage sites. At an ENVIRO 2000 conference, it was revealed that a leading water authority pays on average $55 per tonne to handle the responsible disposal of its biosolids, making the management of biosolids in Australia a business opportunity exceeding $165 million. Europe and America produce over 1.8 million tonnes of biosolids per day at an average cost of $US50, which is $A80.
The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Per day?
The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Per tonne, per day, making this a $52 billion a year marketing opportunity. Vermitech was the winner of the 1998 Business Innovation Award and received the 2000 Eureka Prize for Industry. It is one of the lowest cost, high quality, low environmental impact processes in the world and listed by the United Nations Environment Program as environmentally sound technology. The more I read about this product the more I am fascinated by what it can do. The treatment plant at St Marys, in western Sydney, has a capacity of 10,000 tonnes per annum expandable to 50,000 tonnes. The contract period is for five years, and the contract price is $2.5 million. As I indicated, 40 million worms will be used. The plant will be operational in a few months, and no doubt will create employment. I seek leave to have additional material incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
______There's money in muck
Australia produces over 3 million tonnes per year of biosolids (sewage sludge).
At the ENVIRO 2000 conference, it was revealed that a leading Water Authority pays on average $55.00 per tonne to handle the responsible disposal of its biosolids making the management of biosolids in Australia a business opportunity exceeding $165 million. 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5213
Europe and America produce over 1.8 million tonnes of biosolids per day with average costs exceeding US$50 (>AUD 80) per tonne making this a $52 billion dollar a year market opportunity.
It is into this market that Australian company Vermitech is heading. Winner of the 1998 Business Innovation Award, the 2000 Eureka Prize for Industry and finalists in the Banksia (3rd June) and BHP awards (31st July), Vermitech is taking its innovative vermiculture technology to the world to help solve part of the global problem of organic waste management and soil degradation.
"One of the lowest cost high quality, low environmental impact processes in the world—listed by the UNEP as Environmentally Sound Technology"
Discussions are well advanced in several countries for licensing the technology developed with extensive assistance from the Queensland Government (comment from Minister Terry Macenroth contact Sam Modini 07 3235 4285) and Redland Shire Council (Mayor Eddie Santiguliana 07 3286 9696) who supported the development of the first world class demonstration site.
Domestically Vermitech currently process 35,000 tonnes per year of biosolids and piggery manure and have just signed a contract with Sydney Water—Australia's pre-eminent water authority. The SWC contract will add 10,000 tonnes per year to the waste processed.
"Sydney Water is a significant part of our market development strategy being a globally recognised authority. Our plans are to be processing directly and through our licensees over 3 million tonne per year of waste within 3 years" Mike Lotzof—MD Vermitech
"Our income comes from both the waste fees paid by waste producers and from the organic BioVerm fertiliser produced. We will also receive licence fees and royalties from our overseas partners."
"There are two E economies. The environmental business exceeded $7 billion last year in Australia and estimated at US$800 billion internationally—Fiona Wain CEO EMIAA 02 6230 1011
BioVerm will have a significant role in restoring degraded soils. The environmental and economic costs of soil degradation is one of the greatest facing Australia and many parts of the globe. Interview: Mike Lotzof 02 9261 4045
Location: St Mary's Sewage Treatment Plant—Western Sydney
Capacity: 10,000 tonne per annum – expandable to 50,000 tonne per annum
Contract Period: 5 years
Project Cost: $2.5 million (stage 1) provided by Vermitech
Worms: 40 tonnes (over 40 million adult worms)
Species: eisenia fetida (tigers) lumbricus rubellus (reds) perionyx excavatus blues)
Employment: 2 full time (stage 1) – several dozen in construction
Bioverm created: 5,000 tonnes per annum (stage 1)
To be Operational: December 2000
· World First Technology – Sydney Water has ensured Sydney will be the first major city in the World to use the new generation Vermiculture System.
· Worlds Best Practice – the plant that will be serving the people of Sydney is the culmination of more than 3 years of intensive Research & Development supported by the Queensland Government.
· United Nations Listing – the Vermitech System has been listed by the United Nations Environment Program in its Maestro Data base as an Ecologically Sound Technology as defined in the Kyoto Protocol
· Award Winning Company – Vermitech's vision and single-minded determination has been recognised with several substantial development grants and awards over the past 3 years:
· the 1998 Small Business of the Year Award from Channel 9's Small Business Show & the Yellow Pages "for commitment to Spirit, Innovation, and Business Growth" $50,000 · Advanced Water and Waste Water Treatment Grant: Queensland Govt. 1998 $250,000 · Advanced Water and Waste Water Treatment Grant: Queensland Govt. 1999 $224,000 · Publishers National Environment Bureau – Paper recycling research 1999 $46,000 · South Sydney Waste Board – food recycling research 1999 $50,000 · CRC for Waste Management & Pollution Control Liqui board research $5,000 · Australian Museum's Eureka Prize for Industry "for outstanding commitment to research and development . . . and elevating corporate responsibility for scientific endeavour . . ." 5214 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000
· Unique fusion of Disciplines – Vermitech has fused the sciences of entomology, agronomy and microbiology – with the applied fields of chemical, mechanical, structural and civil engineering, and transferred Vermiculture from the small scale realm of environmentally conscious enthusiasts – to a disciplined scientific venture on a very large scale.
· Easy Expansion – the modular nature of the Vermitech System means that the capacity of the Plant could be expanded to process more than a 50,000 tonnes a year. · 99% Beneficial Re-use of Biosolids – vermiculture is an effective and natural process. The process maximises the recovery of carbon and nitrogen. Vermitech's unique knowledge base and patented engineering designs means the Community will benefit in several significant ways- ¨ odour free process ¨ cost effective ¨ no capital cost to Sydney Water ¨ best environmental performance ¨ no leachate ¨ minimal green house gas emissions ¨ low energy use – less than 2 litres of diesel per tonne of waste processed ¨ 40% reduction in truck movements because the system is on site. ¨ Highest value end product – vermicast – nature's fertilizer
¨ Centre of Excellence à as a community environmental training resource and education centre à as the global demonstration site attracting technical visits from Australia and the world à as the training centre for export systems
¨ Highly beneficial end product – the Vermitech process produces a superior end product
ü 100% naturally produced pure worm castings ü NSW EPA approved procedures to certify the product as Grade A ü Extensive R&D conducted by Universities, CSIRO, DPI (Qld) and growers
The Vermitech Plant will hold more than 40 million worms – called upon to eat their way through Sydney's biosolids. The worms will eat up to their own weight in biosolids every day. Worms have been shown to live for up to ten years in Laboratories. Worms will destroy human animal and plant pathogens. Worms produce the world's finest fertilisers
Vermitech is a knowledge company that brings a systems approach to harness a natural solution to the global problem of organic waste management.
"BIOVERM"—Nature's amazing soil conditioner
. Up to 100% yield increase in crops such as Carrots . Reduced need for Chemical Fertilisers – increased efficiency of nutrient uptake plus unlocking of nutrients in soil
. Up to 80% yield increase in Tomatoes . Reduction in nutrient leaching
. Up to 52% yield increase in Sugar Cane . Excellent for native grasses, shrubs and trees
. Up to 55% yield in Grapes (viticulture) . Organic, environmentally friendly solution
. No odour – the dynamic lift without the dynamic . Stimulation of mycorrhizal fungal activity pong
. More rapid establishment on planting grasses, natives . Broad range of available trace elements and and exotics minerals: Zinc, Copper, Iron, Magnesium, Calcium, Boron, Silicon, Carbon and others
. Accelerated and increased root growth – more . Micro presence of plant growth regulators resistance
. Earlier emergence of flowering stock . Extended growth period
. Increase in beneficial soil microbial and fungal . Restores soil biodiversity population
. Reduction in plant pathogen diseases
______4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5215
SYDNEY WATER CORPORATION
. . .Trials Vermiculture as part of its total biosolids beneficial reuse strategy ...
Sydney Water currently follows world's best practice in the management of biosolids and has contracted Sydney based company Vermitech Pty Ltd to (subject to planning approval) build and operate a pilot $2.5 million new generation worm powered vermiculture facility to reprocess 10,000 tonnes of Sydney's biosolids per year.
Sydney will be the first major city in the world to trial this technology.
Sydney Water already recycles over 99% of biosolids to agriculture, mine rehabilitation and horticulture. This project will add a new technology to the Sydney Water biosolids management program.
Worldwide concern about the environment is now a fact. Environmental degradation, the depletion of non-renewable resources, and the loss of biodiversity are no longer "fringe environmental issues". They are threatening economic sustainability, human prosperity and our quality of life.
40 million Worms to eat Sydney biosolids
"Sydney Water is very pleased to be trialing the Vermiculture process as part of the biosolids programme to recycle solids captured at the Sewage Treatment Plants" Warren Hart; Acting Managing Director – Sydney Water Corporation
"Our systems can process all organics including biosolids, animal manures, green waste, food wastes, newspapers and even milk and juice containers. The plant at St Mary's will process biosolids and green waste. It is a very exciting opportunity." Mike Lotzof; Managing Director of Vermitech
"The Australian designed and owned Vermitech technology sets new benchmarks for Environmental Standards. There is no odour or leachate. Energy use is less than 2 litres of diesel per tonne of waste processed. It is one of the most exciting technologies I have seen." Ian Bergman Manager – Environment Industry Development Network
"This is an excellent example of environment industry technology turning a problem into a commercial opportunity; there is great potential for this process in domestic and overseas markets. Recycling biosolids also has long term public health benefits." Fiona Wain, CEO, Environment Management Industry Association of Australia
"The testing procedures have been approved by the NSW EPA. We will produce a Grade A Product that will be used in agriculture. The Vermitech system destroys human pathogens such as salmonella, E.coli and enteric viruses present in biosolids and other wastes" said Mike Lotzof.
Vermitech's extensive research and development programme has produced a 'next generation' technology, which has been trialed rigorously at the company's operational plant in Redland, Queensland. The company is now poised to export the technology and infrastructure to a number of overseas utilities. Export orders are expected to exceed $20 million over the next three years.
One of the key reasons for Sydney Water's decision to contract Vermitech's waste management system is its ability to reprocess biosolids in a cost effective, environmentally and socially acceptable manner. The resultant end product, vermicast, is an organic fertiliser safe for crops, and restoring degraded soils.
100% Australian Technology
The Vermitech system has been designed and built in Australia with research carried out over three years with investment of several million dollars. Vermitech operates three plants processing 35,000 tonne per year of biosolids, green waste and piggery manure. The three plants are in Redland Shire, near Brisbane, Qld – Warwick Piggery, SEQ and Scone, in the Hunter Valley of NSW.
The Vermitech technology has been listed in the United Nations Environment Program, Maestro system as an "Ecologically Sound Technology" under the Kyoto Protocol.
Improving Yield and Restoring Degraded Soils
The biosolids is converted by the worms into a sweet smelling vermicast—nature's fertiliser. Vermitech research carried out by the CSIRO, Department of Primary Industry and others has proven substantial increases in yield, quality and a reduction in plant disease.
"By using vermiculture we don't just eliminate the waste cost effectively at the highest environmental standard, we are creating an end product that will help improve farm profits while reducing the environmental damage from over use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides." Mike Lotzof
STOP PRESS – STOP PRESS – STOP PRESS – STOP PRESS – STOP PRESS
Vermitech Pty Ltd was last night (Tuesday 2nd May 2000) announced as winner of the Australia Museum's Eureka Prize for Industry.
The trophy (presented to Vermitech by Ms Catherine Livingstone, Managing Director of Cochlear Australia) is Australia's premier environmental prize and is awarded by the Museum ". . . to a company or corporation which, through innovation or outstanding 5216 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000
commitment to research, development or training, has sought to elevate corporate responsibility for scientific endeavour to a level consistent with our national capacity and needs . . ." (Australian Museum)
See Vermitech Fact Sheet for other awards it has won including the Channel 9 / Yellow Pages Small Business of the Year.
Interviews
· Mike Lotzof (M.D.) Vermitech Pty Ltd 02 9261 4045 [email protected] · Data Packs – Glenn Astey 02 9261 4045 [email protected]
"It may be doubted whether there are many other animals which have played so important a part in the history of the world as have these lowly organised creatures" Charles Darwin (in his work – "Vegetable Mould and Earth Worms) ______
The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: I commend the Minister for introducing the bill and commend other Ministers for their efforts in advancing the protection of the environment. I am also concerned about the recycling of aluminium cans. If they could be compacted, that would assist in recycling, because it takes only a short time for a green garbage bag to become full. It is often inconvenient to make frequent trips to a recycling depot. If cans were compacted that would necessitate fewer trips to a recycling depot.
This morning the Hon. R. S. L. Jones spoke about people throwing cigarette butts out of their cars. I smoke, and I keep a glass container on the console of my car into which I put my cigarette butts. I do not put them in the car's ashtray, which has to be emptied into a garbage bin. My cigarette butts are extinguished when I put them into the glass jar and I dispose of the jar and its contents. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. P. T. Primrose.
[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho) left the chair at 1.00 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]
BILLS RETURNED
The following bills were returned from the Legislative Assembly without amendment:
Protected Estates Amendment (Investment) Bill Funeral Services Industry (Days of Operation) Repeal Bill
GAMBLING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (GAMING MACHINE RESTRICTIONS) BILL
Message received from the Legislative Assembly agreeing to the Legislative Council's amendments.
ALBURY-WODONGA DEVELOPMENT REPEAL BILL
Bill received and read a first time.
Motion by the Hon. J. J. Della Bosca agreed to:
That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.
COAL AND OIL SHALE MINE WORKERS (SUPERANNUATION) AMENDMENT (1999 SUPERANNUATION AGREEMENT) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 12 April. The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [2.33 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Coal and Oil Shale Mine Workers (Superannuation) Amendment (1999 Superannuation Agreement) Bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Coal and Oil Shale Mine Workers (Superannuation) Act 1941 to permit the implementation of a renegotiated agreement, that is, the 1999 Superannuation Agreement, which relates to a superannuation scheme covering coal and oil shale mine workers, former workers and their dependents. The bill is supported by the parties to the 1999 Superannuation Agreement: the New South Wales Minerals Council, the Mining and Energy Division of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5217
New South Wales branch of the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, the New South Wales branch of the Electrical Trades Union, the Australian Collieries Staff Association, the Colliery Officials Association of New South Wales and the New South Wales Coal Mines Managers Association.
The bill contains two major objectives: first, to increase pensions that are paid to mineworkers and their widows and to index those pensions for cost-of-living increases; and, second, to identify and channel funding to ensure that the remaining deficit and the benefit improvements are paid for. The policy of successive governments to the administration of the coal industry superannuation schemes has been to support agreements reached by the industrial parties. Hence the need to now legislate in order to accommodate the 1999 Superannuation Agreement. The Coalition congratulates the parties to the agreement on their responsible negotiation and commitment to this important process. It is once again evidence of what can be achieved when people of goodwill unite in partnership and a shared sense of purpose. It is also evidence that management and employees have many more common interests than conflicts. We hope that the agreement will care for retired mineworkers and their widows, as well as exercise financial prudence in the management of benefits and deficits.
However, the Coalition is disappointed that the Government refuses to lift the retirement age of mineworkers from 60 years of age to a standard 65. The compulsory retirement age of 60 years was established following a royal commission into mine safety in 1940-41. Mining, and particularly technology, has improved significantly since then. Yet the Government refuses to lift the retirement age for those workers who wish to continue for another five years. It is a matter of choice. In the past mineworkers have approached the Opposition. Although the Coalition has tried to change this provision, the Government continues to turn a deaf ear to our pleas. The Coalition pledges to once again visit this issue in the near future. The Coalition does not oppose the bill.
The Hon. M. I. JONES [2.36 p.m.]: I support the Coal and Oil Shale Mine Workers (Superannuation) Amendment (1999 Superannuation Agreement) Bill. As I have worked in the superannuation industry for 30 years, I wish to put on the record some of my views about the irregularities and benefits of the bill. The bill enables mineworkers to select either accumulation benefit or promised benefit arrangements. Promised benefit arrangements are generally more attractive to middle-aged and older workers, and accumulation benefit arrangements are most beneficial for younger workers. Promised benefit superannuation arrangements were extremely popular in the late 1960s and early 1970s. However, they ran into a series of problems during the early 1970s when inflation ran as high as 25 per cent.
Promised benefit schemes had the potential to bankrupt many employers in the private sector. It was not until inflation rates levelled off that promised benefit schemes became affordable. Huge liabilities were written up on employer balance sheets because of the astronomical promised benefit pensionable entitlements of employees. Over the years there has been a general shift to encourage employees to go into accumulated funds. Older workers who have secured benefits under promised benefit schemes, as we do in this place, prefer such schemes because they are inflation proof and provide a real level of security to people in their pensionable years.
I congratulate the trustees of the scheme on getting the fund in such good shape. There has been a concerted effort over the past five years to get the liabilities of the employers under control. That has been done and it gives the appearance of continuing to be done, so that the liabilities to employers are affordable. I take the Government's side on providing a 60-year retirement benefit for miners as a special case. When a superannuation fund of any kind has a target retirement age, workers tend to project towards that age with personal arrangements for post-retirement. The retirement age for miners should be accelerated to 60 years because they do an awful, dirty job. A retirement age of 60 would give them some relief from the toil and is preferable to a retirement age of 65.
One of the problems with older workers in a dangerous environment is that it is probably not in line with occupational health and safety provisions. While ever benefit-promised schemes are available to workers, the massive wage escalations of the early 1970s and, therefore, the massive liabilities for superannuation funding can be revisited on us if the economy gets out of control as it did at that time. However, it does not appear that that will happen. The prevailing economic conditions are boom times. It is highly appropriate that we make these arrangements during such boom times when we can, when it is prudent to do so and for the benefit of all concerned. I support the bill. 5218 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000
Ms LEE RHIANNON [2.41 p.m.]: The Greens support the legislation. It is always interesting to note where we have common ground. I know how dangerous the mining industry is. I understand that one in 28 underground coalminers will be killed during the course of their work. The figures for coalmining accidents are horrendous; it is still regarded as the most dangerous industry in the world. For those reasons we need this legislation. The legislation is indicative of what can be achieved by negotiation between all the different parties—industry, union and government—that are concerned with the coalmining industry. Mine safety has declined alarmingly and is a growing problem. The deregulation of the industry has placed incredible pressure on employees to produce more. The emphasis on production means that safety is jeopardised.
The industry has lost a great many employees. A retrenchment of something like 20 per cent of the coal industry work force has resulted in employers putting enormous pressure on the remaining employees to increase production. Coalmining has always been a dangerous industry, but it has become even more dangerous in recent times. The legislation is necessary to deliver good conditions for workers at work and for retirement. The Greens are pleased to support the legislation. We have often been asked why we would support such legislation when the Greens always raise concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and the increase in global warming. Yes, we raise those concerns, but we recognise an employee' s right to have employment.
The history of humanity is one of the changing nature of employment, the changing nature of work. The Greens advocate that when work practices change jobs must be available in other industries. We hope and work for a scaling back of the use of coal in a whole range of industries. But that should not be at the expense of workers, because workers always have the right to have a job. This is most important legislation to improve and safeguard the conditions of workers when they come to the end of their working lives.
The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.45 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats support the legislation, which is the product of successful negotiation. Coalmining remains an extremely hazardous occupation because of the risk of death. Naturally, we would like miners to have whatever protection can be afforded them. This legislation is an excellent result.
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Assistant Treasurer, Minister Assisting the Premier on Public Sector Management, and Minister Assisting the Premier for the Central Coast) [2.45 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members who contributed to the debate. The Government appreciates the apparent unanimity with which the bill has been received in this Chamber. Honourable members will recall that I took the opportunity in my second reading speech to congratulate the industry parties on their success in acting responsibly and operating to reduce the large actuarial deficit that existed in the superannuation fund for New South Wales coalminers. I also take this opportunity to draw to the attention of honourable members an article that appeared in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald, which listed this superannuation fund with the best investment performers over the past five years. I am pleased to advise the House that the Coal and Oil Shale Accumulation Fund was the third-best performing industry superannuation fund, earning an average of 11.76 per cent. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT OPERATIONS AMENDMENT (LITTERING) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.48 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats are concerned about the way in which waste products are being managed in New South Wales. We are concerned that the legislation represents another lost opportunity. The second reading speech delivered by the Hon. Bob Debus in the other House referred to litter as if it were totally unconnected to waste management, as if the punishment for and the throwing away of recyclable packages are totally unrelated to the production of goods and services, and their distribution. It is the kind of fairyland world in which producers, distributors and retailers of consumer goods simply transfer to consumers the responsibility for cleaning up product packaging. I have also looked at advertising in its many forms for many years and I am amazed at the lack of social responsibility of that industry. It is happy to give out messages but does not want to receive them. 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5219
The industry measures its success by how much we are persuaded to buy its products rather than by any change in social behaviour for detriment or good. This industry, by dint of its power, tends to get the high and expensive advertising sites to give its messages in controlled form on billboards or in leaflets and anyone who wants to get across another point of view but has less money must do so through a more labour-intensive or alternative method. In Sydney our bus shelters have been defaced by advertising. Instead of our taxes providing shelter from the rain, they provide lurid billboards. Telephones are installed in places where they cannot possibly be used, as an excuse to put a billboard on a street corner.
People who want to advertise at a lower budget, for example, a struggling band playing in the local pub, are now allowed to advertise on telegraph poles as a form of dispensation to advertise in less conspicuous places. So those with power deliver their message easily while those without power have great difficulty in delivering their messages. The media is controlling Australia, and those who want to use flyers and other forms of advertising have to use amateurs to distribute their information. We have problems with the distribution of advertising information and the recycling of product packaging being dealt with as litter when our overall problems are whether access to resources and the demand for responsibility fall to those who have the power to act responsibly, should they choose to do so, and whether it be allowed within the framework of their profits from the prices of their goods.
This bill creates a new general offence for littering, which is applied to both private and public places. It expands the definition of "litter" and provides flexibility in respect of the severity of littering offences. It introduces new measures to deal with littering resulting from the distribution of advertising material through letterboxing and prohibits the depositing of advertising in or on motor vehicles. The distribution of advertising material through letterboxing and on motor vehicles tends to be an inexpensive way of distributing information by those who do not have access to expensive outdoor advertising. One of my researchers, Paul Corben, moved from Coffs Harbour to Sydney eight years ago and has lived in Darlinghurst for the past six years. He told me that on weekends the streets of Darlinghurst in the proximity of Oxford Street and East Sydney TAFE are littered with advertising flyers placed under car windscreen wipers by nightclub promoters in the surrounding area and other advertisers.
The flyers are discarded by the majority of car owners, who do not want them flapping on their windscreens. Consequently they end up as litter on the streets, floating in the oceans or blowing in the air, polluting our natural environment. Democrats do not want this artificial pollution in our streets, rivers and ecosphere. However, the solution is far more fundamental to the way society works than the on-the-spot fine approach of this bill. We are quite happy with the definition of glass, metal, cigarette butts, paper, fabric, wood and food as litter. Glass bottles and panes lying on the street as refuse pose a health threat to the community because if they are broken they can cause harm to pedestrians.
Close to my house there is a small beach—in fact, it is only there at low tide—where I take my little son. Now that he is more mobile he likes to collect shells. But broken glass is quite a problem. So I run around trying to find the broken glass faster than he can find shells, which is a challenge because there is a lot of broken glass! If bottles were recycled, the glass would not be there, but there is no economic benefit in picking up bottles. As the Hon. Patricia Forsythe said, people are keen and enthusiastic to do their little bit by putting things in different sorts of bins, but not much money is involved in that. The packaging industry has even told us that recycling does not work because there is no money in it and it is too expensive to collect packaging for recycling.
The South Australian legislation has been greatly criticised during this debate, but the Government has not produced any critique as to why it does not work. Victoria was the first place in the world to introduce health promotion foundation legislation, followed by Western Australia and South Australia. That legislation resulted in a massive drop in tobacco smoking in Victoria. At one stage those States which had health promotion foundation legislation had lower smoking rates than States without the legislation because tobacco taxes were used to fund anti-smoking campaigns. The legislation had a big effect on smoking rates and public health, but those effects did not spread to the other States purely because of the campaign by the tobacco industry and its economic muscle in New South Wales, Queensland, the Northern Territory and Tasmania.
I went to Tasmania as part of a non-smoking group to lobby for legislation. A fellow whom I was lobbying pulled out the tobacco industry's material, which was the only information he had on the issue. The industry's interests beat the health interests hands down, and very good model legislation for health promotion did not spread throughout Australia as it should have done. I am sceptical when people tell me that the South 5220 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000
Australian legislation on returnable packaging has been a failure and that container deposit legislation does not work. No facts or figures have been produced in this debate, nor have they been provided as part of the discussion on this legislation. I suspect that industry groups—both retailers who do not want to organise recycling and producers of disposable packaging—do not want to have to recycle because it is a minor inconvenience to them. They have set up their industry and do not want to change. So basically we all get fined and sit in a sea of litter for the sake of their convenience.
This legislation merely punishes us for not picking up the problem that should be fixed by looking at the way industries handle the products they sell. Cigarette butts are probably the most common materials discarded in the streets. In surveys on the sources of litter conducted by boy scouts or any other community group, cigarette butts always win hands down. This Government now classifies discarding butts in an irresponsible manner in public places as a littering offence. Cigarette butts go into drains and are a major cause of the death of small mammals which eat them. The butts swell inside the mammals and cause intestinal obstruction. I believe this happens also to fish. But no-one talks about the tobacco industry and its total irresponsibility in pushing the sale of cigarettes.
It appears to be accepted that dropping cigarette butts on the ground and treading on them is quite normal behaviour, whereas for some reason dropping other items of litter is not regarded as normal behaviour. So cigarette butts are defined as non-litter in this absurd situation and no-one criticises the tobacco industry for doing absolutely nothing about that. A few years ago the Water Board funded a study of the volume of cigarette butts in drains. That study received more money than the campaign to get people to quit smoking, because the budget for the Quit campaign was cut back by a Government that could not care less about preventive health.
These points illustrate the absurdity of concentrating on the end point rather than the source of the problem. The provisions in items [1], [2], [10], [13], [16] and [18] of schedule 1 empower local government to issue environmental protection notices and any other associated compliance cost notices in connection with littering and waste offences on premises occupied by State and public authorities. This will give local government greater influence in the management of waste in the community and a source of potential revenue. But the bill still fails to address crucial aspects of the management of unsolicited, loose-leaf advertising and packaging waste which is discarded as litter.
While the bill is a welcome step in controlling environmental damage associated with littering, there remains a dire need for container deposit legislation that will provide for an efficient collection system for the reuse and recycling of certain containers. As reuse and recycling become more expensive there will be changes in package design so that less is produced. In 1995 my colleague the Hon. R. S. L. Jones—who to a large extent was helped by his researcher, Simon Disney, who later became my researcher; and whose legislation I inherited—proposed a container deposit bill which had a hierarchy of approaches to waste management. The first option under the Waste Minimisation Bill 1995 was alternative packaging so that there was no production of waste. The second was reuse, the third was recycling, and the last was disposal. There is no evidence of that approach in the bill.
I remember thinking that under this bill everybody who dropped a carton on the footpath outside a McDonald's restaurant, which is often covered with litter, would be fined, but McDonald's, which produced the carton, would not. That sums up the situation. I remember buying food from a McDonald's—God help me— with a friend. He walked outside and immediately dropped his carton. I asked, "What did you do that for?", because I do not think it is good to do those sorts of antisocial things. He replied, "I just want to make the point that this is a McDonald's carton and it has been dropped outside McDonald's. Eventually McDonald's will be criticised for this and will have to do something."
At that McDonald's outlet a worker from inside the restaurant would pick up cartons in the immediate vicinity so that the link would not be easily made. So in a sense McDonald's was cleaning up its own mess. If the litter had been dropped a few hundred yards away, McDonald's would not have been directly blamed. Eventually, largely because of the arguments over the polystyrene packaging used, McDonald's changed to cardboard and paper packaging. I remember asking at McDonald's, "Could you please not give me my hamburger in a foam container?" The woman serving said, "No, no, I cannot possibly do that. I have to account for the same number of foam containers as hamburgers and I get in trouble if I do not give you the container." She was programmed to do it in a certain way. This is the way that industry works. At that time those containers were littering the whole world, and they were not easily biodegradable. 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5221
Yet years later this bill does nothing to address these sorts of problems. Under section 39 of the Waste Minimisation and Management Act 1995 the Minister for the Environment was enabled to introduce container legislation if the container packaging industry failed to achieve waste reduction targets. Five years later there has been no progress. This bill was introduced as if the other legislation did not exist—totally unconnected. This is absurd. At page 87 of the April-May special edition of Time magazine a report on the world's top garbage producing nations put Australia in an embarrassing second place behind the United States, producing 1.8 kilograms per person per day. This startling fact merely highlights the need for the New South Wales State Government to be even braver and to introduce container deposit legislation to help ameliorate our embarrassing environmental record on waste management.
Why should it be so hard for a New South Wales Labor Government to do this, leaving aside its somewhat bloated majority, which exists only because of the relative incompetence of the Opposition? It has the opportunity to do progressive things virtually at will. The crossbench will support such progressive legislation, so Labor would be more than capable of bringing through legislation such as this. If it does not want to follow the South Australian legislation, let it make a case against that example. South Australia is not an isolated case. The Canadian provincial governments of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Quebec, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia have container deposit legislation. The American States of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Columbia have container deposit legislation to manage their waste. This is not a new idea.
I understand that in Germany—getting German information is a little more difficult—supermarkets have to take back the waste from the products they sell. When this is suggested to Australian supermarkets they say, "Oh, no. We are not set up for that. We would have to redesign all our car parks. It would all be frightfully difficult." They do not want to do it. They also say that it is very expensive to pick up kerbside recycling. Garbage trucks are empty when they go out to pick up garbage, so half the time they are empty. The trucks distributing food products go out full and come back empty. It would be much smarter if trucks could deliver food and bring back the garbage. That would minimise the cost of re-collection.
The Hon. A. B. Kelly: And we could send the garbage trucks out to deliver food!
The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: The cost of transport would be minimised and the garbage could then be reprocessed and reused. I acknowledge the interjections about the nature of the garbage. I am talking about container deposits. Recyclable containers, which would be defined as garbage, would be reusable, and thus a relatively clean form of garbage. It would not have the bacteriological problems associated with other garbage that some of the humourists in the Chamber are thinking of. This is a reasonable scheme that works in other countries.
In 1993 there was an attempt to boycott Coca-Cola Amatil because of its opposition to container deposit legislation. It is worth noting that the Australian Labor Party received $75,000 from Coca-Cola Amatil, and the Liberal Party $100,000. When I spoke at the Rockdale branch of the Liberal Party in the early 1980s the branch newsletter, of which there were only 40 copies, contained recycling advertising. In other words, the degree of penetration into the Liberal Party was such that a little local branch newsletter was sponsored by a recycler—just to make sure that the bond was strong and that there would be no strong legislation to threaten the division between distribution of packaging and the collection of it, which is then called litter and left to the consumer.
It is disappointing that powerful industry groups have not agreed to an overall strategy, and that the Government is not considering one. Yesterday the House debated gambling legislation because 92 per cent of the population wanted something done about gambling and finally the Government took the first tentative steps towards lessening gambling. Everyone wants something done about litter, yet the Government has made 92 per cent of the population pick up litter while the small number of packaging groups, which could have a huge influence, are not being asked to do very much. It should be the function of government to protect the many against the big and powerful influential groups in society, but that function is not being fulfilled by this Government. It acts for powerful groups and inappropriately uses finances from the majority.
New South Wales has publicly funded garbage collections in huge quantities rather than requiring it to be returned to the supermarket for reuse or disposal by the seller. In this case the Government has come up with a suboptimal solution to this well-recognised problem. The Australian Democrats support the amendments foreshadowed by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and the Greens to improve the bill. I hope they will receive support from the Government and the Opposition, although I am not confident about that. 5222 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000
The Hon. A. B. KELLY [3.11 p.m.]: I support the Protection of the Environment Operations Amendment (Littering) Bill. The Hon. J. F. Ryan said that penalty notices alone will not solve the problem and that education and peer group pressure are needed. When the Premier announced the new package of littering measures in January this year it included this bill, a large-scale public education initiative with mass media and council and industry education to run over three years, as well as support for community-based organisations to run anti-litter programs.
At the risk of it being suggested that I have jumped onto the same bandwagon as the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans on antismoking, I am pleased with the measures in the bill relating to cigarette butt littering. It is suggested that 60 per cent of people do not allow smoking in their own homes, which is a major change over the past 10 years. When I was the manager of a council, smoking was banned in council cars—not for health reasons but for economic reasons because the council received an extra $300 trade-in on cars in which no-one had smoked.
Littering in country areas causes a significant bushfire risk. When one drives along country roads, particularly at night, one can see sparks on the roadway from cigarette butts that are still burning, and in summer time bushfires are started by the sun burning through glass bottles thrown from car windows. I have a particular problem with cigarette smoking in the place I stay at in Sydney. At the beginning of the week the laneway is clean but by the end of the week there are many, many cigarette butts, which are then washed into the gutter and then into Botany Bay and elsewhere. It is time that the public changed its habits with regard to cigarette butt littering, which hopefully will be achieved through peer pressure and advertising as much as by penalties.
This bill should also alleviate problems with litter in waterways and rivers in New South Wales. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald would be aware that every time rural areas are subjected to floods an enormous volume of rubbish, mostly bottles, cans, plastic, used nappies and old chemical drums, is washed into creeks and rivers. Years ago the practice was to fill a gully with garbage. With heavy rain the garbage would disappear and by the time someone got around to filling in the hole, it was all gone. I am pleased with the forthright changes initiated by the Government.
The Hon. I. M. Macdonald, the Hon. J. R. Johnson and the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, as members of the Standing Committee on State Development, are aware from recent committee hearings that the drum master program in rural New South Wales is finally starting to have some effect. It was slow to take off but now a number of chemical drums are being returned to chemical companies for disposal rather than disposed of as litter. I support the bill.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. M. I. Jones.
SENATE VACANCY
Joint Sitting
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. H. S. Tsang): The business of the House will now be suspended for the joint sitting. The House will resume at the conclusion of the joint sitting upon the ringing of the bells.
[The Deputy-President (The Hon. H. S. Tsang) left the chair at 3.17 p.m. The House resumed at 4.00 p.m.]
The PRESIDENT: I report that at a joint sitting this day Mr Sandy Macdonald was chosen as senator in the place of David Brownhill, resigned. I table the minutes of proceedings of the joint sitting.
Ordered to be printed.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______EMPLOYEE ENTITLEMENTS COMPENSATION PREMIUMS The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: My question is to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Does the Minister agree with the Insurance Council of Australia that, based on actuarial advice, the 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5223 premiums for protecting employee entitlements in the event of insolvency of small- to medium-size companies would be $800 per employee?
The Hon. J. W. SHAW: No.
MIDDLE EAST EXPORT MARKETS
The Hon. A. B. KELLY: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Will the Treasurer outline the Government's support for regional companies looking to export their goods into markets throughout the Middle East?
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yesterday I advised the House that 12 companies, including four from New South Wales, travelled to the United Arab Emirates on a New South Wales business mission. One of those regional companies was the Wagga Wagga-based Eastern Australia Damara Company, which specialises in the breeding and marketing of Damara fat tail sheep. I am pleased to advise that a solid market exists for Damara fat tail sheep in the Middle East. While there, the company made vital contacts with a network of clients ready to import its live and frozen Damara fat tail sheep.
The company will return to the United Arab Emirates within the next couple of months and expects to increase its export sales over the coming year. Based on its success in the United Arab Emirates, one company is planning to expand its exports into Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran. The Middle East represents a major market for Australian goods and services and a growing market for New South Wales producers. Australian exports to the Gulf markets, such as Iran, Iraq, Bahrain and Qatar, were worth more than $3 billion in 1998-99. There has been a steady growth in New South Wales exports to the Middle East over the past few years. Exports to Kuwait have doubled since 1997-98 and exports to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have increased, on average, by more than 10 per cent.
The significance of the United Arab Emirates market has not been lost on the Government. The fact that more than 30 per cent of the United Arab Emirates total imports are exported to Africa and then to the Indian subcontinent indicates its importance as a gateway to other major markets. The Government's commitment to helping New South Wales companies find new export markets is clearly evidenced by our ongoing program of export missions. During 1999-2000 business missions have travelled, or soon will travel, to Singapore, New Zealand, the United Arab Emirates, Hong Kong, Malaysia, the United Kingdom and North America. I congratulate the Eastern Australia Damara Company on its success in the Middle East and I wish it well for the future. I am sure my best wishes to that company are shared by all members of this House.
EMPLOYEE ENTITLEMENTS COMPENSATION SCHEME
The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: My question without notice is to the Special Minister of State. In light of the earlier answer by the Minister for Industrial Relations to a question regarding the actuarial advice of the Insurance Council of Australia regarding workers entitlements being wrong, how can New South Wales employers have confidence in the Government's claims that private underwriting based on Insurance Council actuarial projections will bring about a reduction in workers compensation premiums?
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: In a story by Samuel Johnson there is a pun about two people in two different houses arguing from different premises. The first problem with the question asked by the Leader the Opposition is that it confuses two quite separate issues.
The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: Have you obtained actuarial advice?
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: There is a lot of actuarial advice about insurance schemes.
The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they get it wrong.
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I suppose, like physicists, auditors, barristers, engineers and other professional advisers, they do sometimes get it wrong.
The Hon. M. R. Egan: And politicians. 5224 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: And occasionally politicians get it wrong, but we are smart. The Government admits when it gets it wrong, but the Opposition does not admit when it gets it wrong, and that is one of the problems with the Liberal Party. Sometimes actuarial opinions are based on the technical skills and principles of actuarial activity and accounting. There is no doubt that the Leader of the Opposition has confused two separate issues. I will leave the question about schemes in relation to retrenched employees for further questions to the Minister for Industrial Relations. I am sure he will handle them easily and with great aplomb.
The deferral of private underwriting in the workers compensation scheme, which Parliament agreed to last year, was primarily in response to concerns raised by employees, as the Leader of the Opposition would know. The deferral has given the Government the opportunity for further cuts relative to the financial progress of the 1998 reforms. As I have said on previous occasions, a financially viable workers compensation system with reasonable premiums will certainly attract more jobs to New South Wales.
When considering the workers compensation system and reform, the focus must first and foremost be on the injured worker and his or her recovery, wellbeing and quality of life. Any workers compensation system needs to have an ongoing emphasis on the treatment of the injury. As emphasised in the last round of reforms to WorkCover, both injury management and injury prevention, as well as premiums, must be at a reasonable and appropriate level.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION
The Hon. I. COHEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads. After two serious truck accidents in the past week involving spills of hazardous chemical and fuel, will the Minister advise what action is being taken to reduce both the likelihood and impact of such accidents? Will the Minister advocate that all hazardous loads being transported by road be contained in materials such as stainless steel and, where practicable, double skinned, and built to withstand the impact of an accident? If not, why are such safety measures not required by regulation? When will the Minister act to reduce the likelihood of such accidents by encouraging the transfer of hazardous loads from road-based to rail-based transport?
The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I thank the Hon. I. Cohen for his important question. I will endeavour to obtain an answer from my colleague in the other House as soon as practicable.
RECREATIONAL FRESHWATER FISHING LICENCE MONITORING
The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. I understand that New South Wales Fisheries conducted a major assessment of freshwater recreational anglers over the recent Easter weekend. It is nearly two years since the freshwater licence was reintroduced. How well has this licence been accepted?
The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I thank the Hon. Janelle Saffin for her important question. No doubt we all enjoyed— The PRESIDENT: Order! Whatever that is, please turn it off. The Hon. E. M. OBEID: That is the Opposition's contribution to the fisheries portfolio. The Hon. J. R. Johnson: It should be confiscated. The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Yes, and returned to fisheries. The PRESIDENT: Order! Would the Minister please proceed? The Hon. E. M. OBEID: The Opposition is short on policies in the fisheries portfolio. However, I appreciate that the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn walked the marketplaces of Sydney to obtain a rubber fish. I assure the House that the rubber fish not only sounds better than members of the Opposition, it looks better and behaves better. The Easter holidays are a favourite time for keen freshwater recreational anglers to enjoy the sport of fishing. Our inland rivers and dams are amongst the State's finest tourist attractions. Each year at Easter tourists, holiday-makers and local anglers benefit from the funds raised by the freshwater recreational fishing licence. In 1998, at the request of freshwater anglers, the Carr Government reintroduced a freshwater recreational fishing licence. All money raised from the licence is placed in a trust and is used to improve freshwater recreational fishing in New South Wales. 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5225
Over the Easter weekend officers of New South Wales Fisheries carried out Operation Alpha, a major education campaign in freshwater fishing areas. Today I would like to personally congratulate the inland recreational fishers. Operation Alpha found that over 94 per cent of freshwater anglers held a current freshwater fishing licence. That is an outstanding success. Freshwater anglers are keen to work with the New South Wales Government to conserve our valuable resource. They bought their licences knowing that the money goes towards better freshwater fishing. Operation Alpha was one of the largest operations ever conducted by New South Wales Fisheries. Fisheries officers talked to more than 3,500 recreational fishers, and gave anglers the opportunity to ask about fisheries management and freshwater fishing rules.
Aerial surveillance was used to direct 13 teams of Fisheries officers to areas of high fishing activity in the Riverina, Snowy River, Central Tablelands, Far West, Macquarie, Barrington, Peel and New England regions. My department had advised me that 60 infringement notices were issued for set line offences, prohibited size fish, illegal possession and closure breaches. The success of Operation Alpha highlights the Carr Government's determination to protect the sustainability of our freshwater fish resource. It is anticipated that more high-profile operations such as Operation Alpha will be conducted by New South Wales Fisheries in other peak freshwater fishing times.
PASSIVE SMOKING IN VEHICLES
The Hon. A. G. CORBETT: I address my question to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health. On Tuesday 2 May the Minister for Health, in answer to a question without notice in the other place, stated:
When smokers light up in enclosed places it means that non-smokers become smokers too.
The Minister also referred to ample evidence that shows that passive smoking is harmful to health, and specifically referred to the direct link between passive smoking and respiratory illness, foetal growth and low birth weight in children. In light of the Minister's evidence-based approach, will the Government now introduce a bill similar to the Public Health Amendment (Smoking in Vehicles) Bill introduced by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones in 1999, which the Government previously rejected, in order to protect the non-smoking occupants of a car from being exposed to passive smoking in that very small, enclosed place?
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Health.
SNOWY RIVER WATER FLOW
The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I wish to direct my question without notice to the Special Minister of State. Does the Minister support the Victorian Labor Government's position in which it seeks to restore the flow of the Snowy River to 28 per cent of its original flow before environmental allocations and the Snowy scheme? What is the Minister's reaction to the decision taken by the Independent member for Gippsland East, Mr Craig Ingram, to test the constitutionality of the Snowy Mountains scheme in the High Court?
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I will answer the second part of the Hon. D. F. Moppett's question first. I consider the decision to test the original Snowy agreement in the High Court as being imprudent. For the House's information, the original Snowy scheme was set up under the defence powers of the Commonwealth Government in the reconstruction period. The scheme was one of the early projects that used extensions of the defence powers. Therefore, there is a school of thought—which obviously Mr Ingram's group has embraced— that it is possible to challenge the constitutional basis of the Snowy scheme and the water and other agreements relating to it. Such a challenge would cost a great deal of money in legal fees and, if successful, a great deal of money in resources to dismantle parts of the scheme. The hydro-electric scheme would become valueless, and there would be residual effects. The case would involve many legal arguments which I cannot even speculate about. The New South Wales Government will take steps to obtain formal advice in relation to the decision of Mr Ingram's group. As to the New South Wales Government's attitude to the Victorian and Commonwealth Governments' position, I have previously said in the House and publicly that sensitive negotiations on Snowy water agreements are taking place in the lead-up to possible corporatisation of the Snowy scheme. Those negotiations involve the Commonwealth, Victorian and New South Wales Governments. As the House has previously heard, there have been numerous meetings. I have met with Senator Hill about environmental issues that the New South Wales Government wants to pursue, which mainly concern the Murray and Murrumbidgee river systems. However, our meetings have also related to aspects of the Snowy scheme which the Commonwealth 5226 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000
Government has expressed interest in, and which relate to environmental issues, corporatisation proposals and the scheme's current operations. We have a slightly different agenda and place a slightly different emphasis on issues to those being pushed strongly from south of the Murray. The New South Wales Government's position has been made clear.
The Government hopes that out of the corporatisation process we will manage to preserve the value of the hydro-electric scheme, its benefits to the economies of the east coast and the efficiency of the electricity grid, and also make environmental contributions to the river systems that are directly and indirectly affected by the original Snowy scheme. The Government takes the view—which I believe is now a matter of public record—that the Snowy scheme is a great engineering feat and heritage item. Honourable members should remove their environmental glasses for one second and look at the scale of human achievement. If they hiked around that part of the mountains they would have an awesome respect for the scale and challenge of the exercise—which people today would not necessarily pursue because we live in a more environmentally conscious age—to turn an entire catchment around in the other direction.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: But how much water are you prepared to deliver?
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: As I have said consistently, the amount of water we are prepared to deliver is the amount of water we can deliver responsibly in regard to the environmental health of the Snowy River, the Murrumbidgee and Murray rivers, and the value of the Snowy Hydro-Electric Scheme.
The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: We are going to start giving you multiple-choice answers to make it easier for you.
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I am glad the Leader of the Opposition is going to give me some points, because I deserve some points. It is important that I do not prejudice discussions that we hope to complete with the Commonwealth and the Victorian jurisdictions within the next two to three months. I should be able to give a full statement to the House fairly shortly about the outcomes of the Snowy Water Agreement discussions. The answer to the question I thought the honourable member would ask about the position of New South Wales in regard to the water sharing agreement, which is the critical question—sheer volume is not the only question, but how much water New South Wales will contribute to any environmental flow vis-a-vis Victoria—is that the Victorian Government has a view about flows to the Snowy River.
No firm agreement has been reached, and more work needs to be done. The question of what contribution the States will make to pay for an improved Snowy River environment, as well as what water can be found, is still under discussion. There has been a full exchange of information between the jurisdictions about engineering, economic models, water preservation and conservation models, as well as a number of potential schemes.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: But do you have a bottom line of your own that you are negotiating?
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: The bottom line is this: on 25 November 1999 I outlined to the Parliament the negotiating position of the New South Wales Government. That position remains unchanged, unless the Government perceives during the course of negotiations that there is benefit to the community in changing our position. The position remains that any contribution of water by New South Wales to enhance the Snowy River flow will be equally matched by Victoria. It is therefore not possible to speculate about exact percentages until we know what contribution the Commonwealth is prepared to make in relation to corporatisation, although, to be fair, the position of the Commonwealth has been quite clear: it will not buy water.
New South Wales has not required the Commonwealth to buy water, but the Commonwealth may be persuaded to do things for the Snowy River scheme and other rivers that may help grease the wheels to finalise the position of both the New South Wales and Victorian governments. We are prepared to talk and be very reasonable with Victoria, but we are not prepared to make a contribution to water over and above what is in interests of the New South Wales Government or what is in the interests of New South Wales irrigators and water users. 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5227
BRAIN INJURY REHABILITATION PROGRAM
The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: My question without notice is to the Special Minister of State, Assistant Treasurer, Minister Assisting the Premier on Public Sector Management, and Minister Assisting the Premier for the Central Coast. How has the Government assisted motor vehicle accident victims with acquired brain injury in rural New South Wales?
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: The New South Wales Brain Injury Rehabilitation program was set up with a $26 million grant from the Motor Accidents Authority. The program is a joint venture between the Motor Accidents Authority and the Department of Health. It was conceived as a core of adult and paediatric metropolitan-based specialist units with a rural service component. The program aims to provide rehabilitation as soon as possible after injury to people who sustain severe dramatic brain injury. The five metropolitan-based units are located at the Royal Rehabilitation Centre at Ryde, Westmead Hospital, Liverpool Hospital, the New Children's Hospital and Sydney's Children's Hospital.
Ten rural and regional units are located at Tamworth Hospital; Bathurst Hospital; Albury Hospital; the Hunter Area Health Service; the North Coast, including Lismore, Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour; Lourdes Hospital at Dubbo; Port Kembla Hospital; and Goulburn Hospital. In March the Motor Accidents Authority granted funding of $217,700 to expand the Brain Injury Rehabilitation program services provided to people with brain injury who live in rural and remote areas of south-western New South Wales. The south-western region Brain Injury Rehabilitation program covers the Greater Murray area of New South Wales, which has a population of 350,000. The area includes the major centres of Albury, Wagga Wagga, Griffith and Deniliquin, as well as isolated rural settlements. Located in Albury, the unit provides acute rehabilitation services to people who have acquired brain injury, particularly those in the working-age population.
The service includes a transitional living unit, a non-residential centre-based program and a limited outreach service. The organisation found that at the point of discharge from a residential program, the program was not well equipped to support distant clients and their families or to maintain the momentum of rehabilitation strategies that had been established. During the project two outreach workers were employed to provide that continuum of care. The project has been of vital importance in enabling clients to have a smooth transition from centre-based rehabilitation at Albury to a community-based setting in the distant parts of the region. The project has been instrumental in developing strong regional links with a wide range of service providers, and in raising the profile of the organisation with clients, carers and referring agencies.
RECREATIONAL FISHING BAG LIMITS
The Hon. M. I. JONES: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. An article appeared in one of today's newspapers to the effect that bag limits are to be introduced to further limit the size of the catch for recreational fishers. The depletion of fisheries must surely be the result of commercial fishing. Therefore, what measures will be implemented to limit commercial fishing, and why have recreational fishers been specifically targeted?
The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I thank the Hon. M. I. Jones for his very honest question and his concern for the great resource we have, that is, fisheries. I can assure him that management plans already exist for commercial fishers. Traditionally this State has reviewed bag and size limits every five years. This review, which was the most comprehensive and extensive review that has ever been carried out in this State. More than 63,000 reviews were sent out.
The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: How many did you get back?
The Hon. E. M. OBEID: About 5,100, which is very high in the circumstances. In every instance 60 per cent to 80 per cent stated that conservation was the most important issue and that they would recommend bag limits. By introducing further bag limits for recreational fishers the Government is acting on the wishes of the anglers who are very concerned about the welfare of the stock. Prior to this review this State had bag limits on 50 species. The review sought to include another 19 species, so that all the species now have a bag limit in accordance with the desire of those who participated in the review. I do not believe that commercial fishers are to blame for exhausting the stock. I believe they act very responsibly. They have continued to do what they have done for many years and throughout many generations.
The Hon. J. F. Ryan: It is the acid sulphate soil. 5228 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000
The Hon. E. M. OBEID: There is no doubt that what happens on the land and runs into our waterways is a significant contributing factor to our fish resource problems. That aspect requires a whole-of-government approach. I can assure the honourable member that in every instance commercial fishers are responsible for their actions. One will find cowboys in every industry, but the majority of commercial fishers act responsibly. The review will send a clear message to the community, recreational fishers and commercial fishers that a community-owned resource must be managed appropriately. As we manage commercial fishers, we must manage recreational fishers. Freshwater anglers have shown how responsible they are by a take-up of 95 per cent of the freshwater licences.
In the current operation New South Wales Fisheries saw more than 3,000 freshwater fishers, 94 per cent of whom have licences. They are all interested in the welfare and long-term sustainability of the resource, as we all are. It is a matter of making the hard decisions, saying to the recreational sector that it has to be responsible for what it does. Let us get rid of the mentality that we just go out to fish to fill up the freezer. We must ensure that fishers are responsible, that they are accountable for their actions and take out only what they need. This is where the bag limits come in. They are an important part of the process of trying to manage the resource.
As I said, it is the will of the angling community, which is what the review indicated. The Government is responsible for the outcomes and must work with the rest of the community. I congratulate both recreational fishers on the responsibility they have shown, and commercial fishers, who show a lot of responsibility in the industry from which they derive their livelihood.
STAR CITY CASINO PATRON TAN GIA QUACH
The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: My question is to the Attorney General. Is Tan Gia Quach, an unemployed storeman from James Street, Leichhardt, who placed bets worth over $28.6 million at the Sydney casino in just six months in 1996, the same Tan Gia Quach who was yesterday charged in connection with a multimillion dollar interstate heroin trafficking ring? Can the Minister explain why Tan Gia Quach has been granted $10,000 bail, given the apparent seriousness of the alleged offence? Will the Minister appeal this grant of bail?
The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The answer to the first question is, I do not know. The answer to the second question is, if bail has been granted, no doubt that was decided by the court in accordance with the law. Any consideration of appeal would be a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions.
READER'S DIGEST HOMEWORK ZONE
The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE: My question is directed to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment. Will the Minister inform the House of the development of community partnerships to facilitate access to the Internet for young people in rural and regional New South Wales?
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Government is committed to building community, business and government partnerships that can work together to improve services and tackle issues that confront young people in New South Wales. A feature of our commitment to young people is a focus on preparing them for life in a technological world. As we know, technology is changing the nature of work and study. Ensuring that all young people, regardless of where they live, can access information technology through resources such as the Internet, is an ongoing priority. I recently launched an innovative partnership called the Reader's Digest Homework Zone in Kempsey.
The homework zone program is a partnership between the State Library, local libraries, local councils and Reader's Digest. The State Library, with support from Reader's Digest, will work with Kempsey, Griffith and Lithgow local libraries to provide a new computer and increased Internet access, a range of references and funding for other services such as after-school tutors for young people in those communities. The program is an example of the Government, council, community and business coming together to meet the needs of communities. The program shows that we can work together to provide the tools and resources that will help young people in the community meet the challenges of study and work in a changing world.
What is important about the Reader's Digest Homework Zone is that it is based at one of our most important community facilities—public libraries. They are an important part of our society and social capital; they are a resource and meeting place for communities, students and families across the State. Honourable 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5229 members may be interested to know that more than 370 public libraries operate across New South Wales and almost half of the State's residents are members of their local library. In 1997-98 more than 30 million visits were made to New South Wales libraries.
Kempsey Shire Council, where I launched a Homework Zone program, is also a partner in the NSW.Net project, which again is about equity and participation. Libraries are important technological centres for communities. For many young people public libraries have long been a place where they go to finish assignments, do homework and further their studies. This new program will link to an already impressive range of services and initiatives from free public Internet access, word processing, map databases, magazines, reader advisory services, adult education and literacy, music, services for people with disabilities, and home book deliveries to a resource van for rural areas of the shire.
For the New South Wales Government a Homework Zone project is an initiative that complements services already operating in communities such as the coaching centres in high schools and homework centres at public schools. The Homework Zone program is designed to better meet the needs of students, especially those undertaking Higher School Certificate and year 10 studies, as well as local teachers, educators and parents. The Reader's Digest Homework Zone provides better resources for young people and communities, improved access to the Internet, and support and encouragement for study and research. This program was well received in Kempsey. I commend the State Library for its promotion of this program, Reader's Digest for its support, the local communities, and Kempsey, Lithgow and Griffith libraries and local councils for their involvement.
OLYMPIC GAMES KANGAROO MEAT SALES
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Treasurer, representing the Minister for the Olympics, whether the decision to allow kangaroo steaks to be sold at the Sydney Olympics will be highly controversial and offensive to many of our visitors, particularly visitors from the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Germany. Will the Minister review this decision and ensure that our national symbol is not served as steaks at the Olympics?
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not aware of any proposal to serve kangaroo meat at any Olympic venue, but honourable members will be aware that many years ago both Houses of this Parliament had a spirited debate on legislation that permitted—
The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: You voted against it.
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Who did?
The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: You did.
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I did not.
The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Yes you did. Your side voted against it. Fred passed it.
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Did I?
The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Yes.
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Well, if I did, I sincerely apologise to the House for being wrong on that occasion.
RURAL BLOOD BANKS CLOSURE
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware of the increasing concern in a number of communities about the closure of their blood banks? Is the Minister aware that in the past a blood bank in a large town might have provided a mobile service to smaller communities, but that the closure of some of the larger town's blood banks has been accompanied by a decrease in mobile services? Will the Minister undertake to have analysed the reasons for, and any health and health service implications of, the withdrawal of these services? 5230 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I thank the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner for an important question. I will refer it to my colleague the Minister for Health for a full response. I am not aware of the issue she has raised. However, it is important and I will refer it to my colleague.
SAFER COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT FUND GRANTS
The Hon. R. D. DYER: I address my question to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Attorney tell the House about the recent funding awarded to innovative crime prevention projects in New South Wales communities?
The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The Crime Prevention Division of the Attorney General's Department administers the $1.15 million Safer Communities Development Fund. That fund provides non-recurrent financial support for a range of activities aimed at reducing and preventing crime. While there are four categories of grants available under the fund, innovative grants have funded a range of highly successful crime prevention initiatives. Innovative project grants are available to community-based agencies for the development of programs, resources or interventions that have not been trialled previously in New South Wales. Successful applicants must demonstrate that the project has not been implemented in any similar manner in New South Wales. Innovative projects must also have a statewide focus or the capacity for implementation on a statewide basis without additional funding. Modifications or reapplications of existing initiatives are not funded as innovative projects.
On 12 April 2000 I announced funding for the following five innovative project grants, which I shall summarise for the information of the House. The Wyong Shire Council's Building Social Capital in New Communities project aims to build a social infrastructure that will provide support to residents and reduce stress amongst families living in a new housing estate. The expected outcomes of the project are that the fear of crime within the estate will be reduced, as will the incidence of child abuse and neglect, which are key antecedent factors in juvenile criminal behaviour. The project will run for two years and has been awarded $60,000. It will be documented to develop a practical guide providing operational details as to the logistics and protocols involved in the trial.
The Hunter Star Foundation's Creating Partnerships for Change: Community Problem-Community Solution aims to develop a best practice model on developing employment skills and business partnerships for young people at risk or who have already had contact with the juvenile justice system. It aims to achieve a decrease in juvenile detention rates and a reduction of recidivism among young people who have been incarcerated. It will involve partnerships with local chambers of commerce and business to form pathways to training and eventual employment. The project will run for two years and has been awarded $120,000. It will be also documented to produce a resource that can be used by the communities
The next is the Young Driver Awareness Project at the School of Cultural Histories and Futures at the University of Western Sydney. That project aims to change the cultural acceptance of unsafe driving practices amongst young people aged 17 to 25. It will explore the influence of peer pressure by using workshops to look at the justifications young people have for unsafe driving practices. Experience gathered from the workshops may then be integrated with RTA licence procedures. Project goals include a reduction of the incidence of unsafe driving practices amongst 17- to 25-year-olds and the development of a Train the Trainer package for driving instructors. The project will run for 10 months and has been awarded $63,038.
Fairfield City Council's FAST project—Families And Schools Together—will work with children under 11 and their families to improve family functioning and relationships with peers, education staff and the wider community. The project will include the establishment of parent self-help groups and will aim to strengthen family and community bonds. A training kit based on the project will be made available statewide. The project will run for 12 months and has been awarded $18,250. The University of New England Rural Development Centre's program in relation to property crime victimisation and crime prevention on farms will research property crime in rural New South Wales in order to develop new policing and crime prevention strategies aimed particularly at farm crime. The strategy will then be included in training programs for police and farmers.
An education program will be developed to be introduced into agricultural colleges, universities and TAFE. A similar program may also be developed for use at the Goulburn Police Academy. That program will run for two years and has been awarded $76,019. These are practical and useful programs whereby relatively modest amounts of money can be expended in a practical way to have a real impact on the deterrence of crime. 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5231
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: How many are on the North Coast?
The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I do not have any particular example on the North Coast but I undertake to—
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It is not an exclusive list?
The Hon. J. W. SHAW: No. I undertake to inform the honourable member of what North Coast projects may be funded.
Mr JOHN THOMPSON MEDICAL CARE
The Hon. Elaine NILE: I ask the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health: Is it a fact that Mr John Thompson would, in the opinion of Justice Barry O'Keefe, now be dead had the New South Wales Supreme Court not intervened in his medical care? Will he give an undertaking that a full inquiry is being held or will be held into the all too hasty and appalling decision made by medical staff to discontinue standard care and to switch off the life-support system for John Thompson?
Will the Minister assure the House that the lives of patients are not in danger in the New South Wales hospital system and that families need not go to the Supreme Court every time they need to force a hospital to provide proper and necessary care for family members? What steps are being taken to ensure that this will not happen again and to find out who was responsible for the obviously negligent decision? Will the Minister, if he has not done so already, apologise formally to the family and visit Mr John Thompson, who is now making a recovery—communicating and writing?
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: My only knowledge of this matter is from what I have read in the press but I must say that what I have read in the press has concerned me greatly. Of course I will refer the honourable member's question to my colleague the Minister for Health for his response.
TEACHERS DISPUTE
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations whether his advice has been sought by the Government in relation to the industrial chaos which is impacting upon public education in New South Wales. If so, will he outline the nature of the advice that he has given?
The Hon. J. W. SHAW: In response to the first question I would say yes; in response to the second question I would say no.
SYERSTON NICKEL-COBALT MINE
The Hon. A. B. MANSON: Will the Minister for Mineral Resources provide details of the progress of the proposed Syerston nickel-cobalt project?
The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I thank my colleague the Hon. A. B. Manson for his continued interest in mineral resources. This is one of the rare occasions when I feel very privileged to share with the House an exciting new project. A new mine is currently being developed at Syerston in western New South Wales, roughly 80 kilometres north-west of Parkes. It is here that the Black Range Minerals company proposes to establish a world-class nickel and cobalt mine and processing plant. The actual nickel-cobalt resource covers an area of two kilometres by three kilometres and appears suitable for low-cost open pit mining. The proposed mine is close to vital support services. The project will be able to access gas from the Moomba to Sydney natural gas pipeline.
Syerston is just 20 kilometres from a railway line, giving access to Sydney and Newcastle ports. On 1 May the company announced the result of a $10 million feasibility study. I am advised that the study confirms the natural advantages of Syerston's ore bodies and location. These factors make Syerston an outstanding development proposal at a time when nickel and cobalt demand is strong. Syerston is expected to produce about two million tonnes of ore each year, yielding about 20,000 tonnes of nickel and 5,000 tonnes of cobalt a year over the first 20 years of operation. It is expected that the mine will produce about two million tonnes of ore a year, and it is anticipated that the mine will have a potential life of more than 30 years. Nickel and cobalt production requires a very sophisticated ore treatment plant. 5232 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000
I am advised that the Syerston project will require a capital investment of about $640 million. It is expected that the project will create up to 1,000 jobs during the construction phase and more than 300 jobs when the mine becomes fully operational. I am advised that Black Range Minerals is currently negotiating financing the debt and equity requirements for the project. Further studies are scheduled over the next few months, along with completion of the environmental impact statement. Subject to the development approvals being completed early in 2001 it is anticipated that construction will begin in 2001, and the first sales are anticipated in 2003.
The Hon. M. R. Egan: What time in 2001?
The Hon. E. M. OBEID: We anticipate that construction will begin at the beginning of 2001. I and National Party members—
The Hon. D. J. Gay: The local member, Ian Armstrong, has been very helpful.
The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Yes. I am pleased that the project is close to Parkes. I would like to share with the House my gratitude to the community of Parkes. We all remember and were affected by the mine tragedy at the Northparkes copper and gold mine. I visited the mine and the community after four miners were killed and 57 miners were trapped underground. I congratulate the community of Parkes. This great venture will create many hundreds of jobs, and deservedly so. I have never been more impressed than I was when I saw the way the community stuck together at a time of adversity, when people sometimes apportion blame. They stood behind the local employer, North Mining Limited, the operator of Northparkes mine. The council, local members and the community stood firm.
I take this opportunity to emphasise the role of the Department of Mineral Resources. The investigation unit, which had only been implemented four months earlier, and the Mines Rescue Service, were in full operation. It was a proud sight to witness the community responding to calls for help. The police also took a strong role. Families who had lost their beloved ones accepted that it was something that may occur in mining. I am honoured today to be able to announce this project for the community of Parkes. The Carr Government is about encouraging the mapping of our State for mining resources, to continue with geoscience and to keep the department up to date with advances so that they can help companies and investors locate further deposits in the best interests of the State. I am privileged to share these sorts of good news stories with the House.
KINGS CROSS MEDICALLY SUPERVISED INJECTING ROOM
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I ask the Special Minister of State, as the Minister responsible for the drug action plan, a question without notice. Is it a fact that the New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Nicholas Cowdery, was reported as stating last night in the New South Wales Parliament House Post Drug Summit Conference concerning the Kings Cross injecting room:
The difficulties being encountered in this area highlight the irrationality of having supervised injecting places, but unsupervised and decidedly unsafe and unlicensed supply of drugs.
He went on to say, "There is a pressing need for a trial of medically prescribed heroin." Does the Government acknowledge that the supply of heroin to addicts has always been the hidden agenda of this injecting room lobby, which has now accused the Government of being irrational? Will the Government immediately suspend all plans for the Kings Cross injecting room before it finds itself facing a concerted campaign by Mr Cowdery and Dr Wodak to force the Government to supply heroin to New South Wales addicts?
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I am aware of some of the comments made by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery, yesterday. In fact, I addressed the same Institute of Criminology conference. Despite the honourable position held by Nicholas Cowdery, he was not appointed by this Government but by the former Coalition Government.
The Hon. M. R. Egan: Don't hold us responsible for anything he ever says.
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I do not think it is possible to hold us responsible, either directly or indirectly, for things that the Director of Public Prosecutions says.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: But he is accountable. 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5233
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: No, he has the status of a judge. He is appointed in a permanent capacity.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Who is he accountable to?
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: He is accountable to the law, in a similar capacity to a judge. Presumably on that occasion he was commenting as a private citizen. I was not present for his address.
The Hon. M. R. Egan: He should be more careful.
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: He definitely should be more careful in the things he says. I spoke shortly after Mr Cowdery, and fortunately I knew the nature of some of his assertions and was able to correct them. Indeed, I had to actively contradict him on a couple of points.
The Hon. M. R. Egan: Did he make it clear that he was speaking as a private citizen?
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: As I said, unfortunately I was not there for his address so I can only speculate that he was speaking as a private citizen. I hope he made that clear in relation to some of his comments.
[Interruption]
The Hon. M. R. Egan: What did the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti say?
The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I did not hear what the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti said. In regard to concern about the medically supervised injecting room and policing guidelines, I am advised that police guidelines regarding the injecting room have been finalised to the satisfaction of Commissioner Ryan. Mr Cowdery also apparently said there have been many deaths from drug overdoses since the Drug Summit. Drug overdose deaths tragically touch most families, parents, friends and almost all communities throughout New South Wales. The Government held the Drug Summit in order to break the mould and to get a co-ordinated government and community consensus on what can and should be done.
That is precisely why the Government announced an additional $176 million plan of action last year, taking its drug program budget to almost half a billion dollars over the next four years. All honourable members would remember that two recommendations of the Drug Summit were specifically rejected by the Government: the decriminalisation of cannabis and the removal of the offence of self-administration. Most honourable members were present for the debate on heroin trials and a number of other matters that were rejected by the Drug Summit. Indeed, Mr Cowdery was wrong about some of the things he referred to as recommendations of the Drug Summit. The Drug Summit defeated some of those points before they even became recommendations. A press release by the Institute of Criminology yesterday quoted Mr Cowdery—and it is possible it got him wrong—as saying:
Mr Cowdery said the Government had paid selective attention to the 20 principles and 170 recommendations of the Summit. He cited the failure to trial medically prescribed heroin as a shortfall.
The record on this is unambiguous. There was no recommendation supported by the Drug Summit to allow a medically prescribed heroin trial. The Government is committed to trialling new initiatives to tackle drug abuse. This is not an approach based on so-called zero tolerance or harm minimisation. It is about finding out what works. The Drug Summit did not support Mr Cowdery's proposal for prescription heroin or the decriminalisation of so-called soft drugs. Nor does the wider community.
For the comfort of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, towards the end of my contribution Reverend Ray Richmond asked me whether the Government had delayed or was sponsoring some delay—criticism opposite to that of Mr Cowdery—in regard to the medically supervised injecting room trial because of the Olympics. I took the opportunity to correct Reverend Ray Richmond, and told him that on that occasion he was as wrong as Mr Cowdery. There has been no conscious or unconscious plot by the Government to delay the implementation of the medically supervised injecting centre because of the Olympics. The Government eagerly awaits the licence application by the Uniting Church Board of Social Responsibility. 5234 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000
GRETLEY MINE DISASTER AND THE DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL RESOURCES
The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Who was the Senior Counsel who advised the Attorney General and his department that prosecution against the Department of Mineral Resources would not be successful in relation to the Gretley mine disaster? Is it a fact that his department has in its possession detailed advice from Peter Hall, QC, advising that a prosecution against the Department of Mineral Resources could be successfully launched? Why did the Attorney ignore that advice?
The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The answer to the first question is Mr James Black, QC. The answer to the second question is that there is an advice, not obtained by my department but otherwise obtained, from Mr Peter Hall, QC. I have read that advice. I would not want to distil it or summarise it without proper consideration, but there is certainly another view. The earlier advice obtained on which the decision was made was from Mr Black, QC. OLYMPIC GAMES BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
The Hon. H. S. TSANG: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Now that the Olympic building program has been completed, has the Government been able to identify any further opportunities for local businesses prior to the commencement of the Games in September?
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I thank the Hon. H. S. Tsang for his question and his continuing interest in the Sydney Olympic and Paralympic Games. The Government continues to provide valuable opportunities for New South Wales businesses to benefit from the Sydney Olympic and Paralympic Games. For the past year a consultant from the Industrial Supplies Office has been working with the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games [SOCOG] to help ensure that as much Australian product as possible is purchased for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. There is still, of course, plenty to buy. SOCOG expects to spend some $100 million between now and the end of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. So far local manufacturers have won contracts to supply SOCOG with $10 million worth of goods, such as archery equipment, equestrian accessories and massage tables.
Successful companies include Centurion Tables from Leichhardt, ASF Horner from Wauchope and Concept Displays from Wyong. Accommodating overseas teams for pre-Games training is also providing valuable business and networking opportunities, particularly for regional New South Wales. The decision by several Belgian Olympic teams to base themselves on the Central Coast—at Mingara—provides a good case study. The Central Coast is a magnificent area. I had the privilege of spending a weekend on the Central Coast about a month ago.
The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: You didn't visit me.
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I did not visit you because you have changed address.
The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: It was only down the road.
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It could have been a million miles away. Belgium's judo, swimming and road cycling teams will base themselves in Terrigal from 25 August until 30 September. Because of this, 150 Belgian Olympic sponsors and business leaders have also chosen Terrigal as their base. As well as the immediate boost for local businesses, it is hoped that long-term business relationships will develop between Central Coast business leaders and the Belgian delegation. The Department of State and Regional Development has organised a number of networking opportunities and business briefings for the Belgian delegation to ensure that these opportunities are maximised.
The Hon. D. J. Gay: Were you visiting Terrigal? The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No. I am not a Terrigal, I am a Trog. The Hon. D. J. Gay: A Trog with no dog. The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is an interesting point. I visited my mother a couple of weeks ago and while looking through some old photographs I found a lovely one of my dog and me. I thought to myself that I should bring that photograph here to show Opposition members. I must admit that it is a very intelligent-looking dog. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is wearing a tie that depicts not dogs but cows with boaters. I suspect that he is confusing them with voters. 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5235
The Hon. D. J. Gay: What about fat tail sheep?
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I know more about fat tail sheep than any other honourable member in this place. I am surprised that National Party members know absolutely nothing about fat tail sheep; they have never mentioned fat tail sheep in all the time that I have been in this Parliament. I am the first member of the Legislative Council to speak in the Chamber about fat tail sheep.
The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt: It is a great achievement.
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Indeed it is. That is not the only subject upon which I am an expert. Earlier today I told the Hon. J. Hatzistergos that in 1987 I made an authoritative contribution to the House on the subject of prickly pears. If honourable members wish to know anything about prickly pears, I suggest they go to the Parliamentary Library and read my 1987 speech.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: I bet you made a few points in that speech.
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I made a number of points in that speech; I surprised myself with how much I knew on the subject. When following parliamentary debates as a child, I thought that prickly pear bills were debated every second day in Parliament: every time I listened to what was happening in Parliament a prickly pear bill was being debated.
The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: Or an apple and pear amendment bill.
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is right. I always thought that one was not a fully-fledged parliamentarian until one had spoken to a prickly pear bill. Then one day in 1987 I was sitting in this Chamber—I was quite ill at the time—while a prickly pear bill was being debated. I mentioned what I have just told the House to the then Leader of the Government, Jack Hallam, who said, "If it's that important to you, you had better speak on this bill; it will be your last opportunity to do so as we are abolishing the Prickly Pear Destruction Board." I had only an hour or so to conduct my research, but I assure honourable members that it was the most well-informed speech about prickly pear that this House had ever heard.
The Hon. H. S. Tsang: Point of order: I asked a question about opportunities presented by the Olympic Games, and interjections from Opposition members have distracted the Treasurer onto subjects such as dogs, sheep and so on. Will the Treasurer return to my question?
The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order.
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Department of State and Regional Development has organised a number of networking and business briefings for the Belgian delegation to ensure that these opportunities are maximised. I congratulate the Belgian team on choosing the Central Coast as its base, and I encourage local businesses to take full advantage of the opportunities that this will present. The Central Coast is not the only region that will benefit from accommodating visiting Olympic teams. Other such teams will be based in many locations throughout the State, which presents a great opportunity for our guests to get to know something about New South Wales—the real Australia—and its people.
TEACHERS SALARIES AND CONDITIONS
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Given that the State and Federal governments pay more than 95 percent of the cost of educating a child in the Catholic education system and that teachers in that system have been awarded a 16 per cent pay rise and a raft of improvements in their conditions without any trade-off in teaching or employment conditions, what financial constraints have been placed on the Department of Education and Training that prevent it from making a similar offer to other teachers?
The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: That was a silly question.
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It certainly was. I once called Ms Lee Rhiannon an old Com. I know that she was a member of Defend Our Government Schools—DOGS—many years ago. 5236 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000
Ms Lee Rhiannon: Point of order: The Treasurer is not answering my question, which was clearly about education. The Treasurer should answer my question.
The PRESIDENT: Order! It is the tradition in this House for Ministers to answer questions in the way that they see fit.
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I appreciate that the time for questions has expired, so I will not treat the House to the dissertation I was about to make. However, I warn honourable members that I will return to that subject at an appropriate opportunity and tell the House something about Ms Lee Rhiannon's association with an organisation called DOGS and with the Socialist Party of Australia [SPA], which was a Moscow-line breakaway from the Communist Party. SPA members thought the Communist Party was too soft, that its members were too nice. The SPA comprised old-fashioned unreconstructed, unapologetic Stalinists. I will tell honourable members a lot about the SPA when the opportunity arises.
Turning to the question, the Catholic education system already has what Ms Lee Rhiannon referred to as "trade-offs". The so-called "trade-offs" that the Department of Education and Training has been attempting to achieve in the ongoing negotiations already exist in the Catholic education system.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I ask a supplementary question. Does the 25 per cent rule, the private funding mechanism, in section 21 of the Education Act create a financial barrier to increasing the remuneration of public sector teachers? I look forward to hearing the Treasurer's answer to that question and I look forward to his producing my ASIO file in the context of the other matters that he raised.
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not sure whether I follow the honourable member's supplementary question. I do not understand the logic behind it—and, judging from the looks on the faces of other honourable members, neither does anyone else. I am not interested in Ms Lee Rhiannon's ASIO file. Frankly, I know as much about her as I need to know.
YOUTH REGISTER
The Hon. D. T. HARWIN: My question is directed to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment. How many young people from the Youth Register established by this Administration have been appointed to government boards or to advisory roles? Does the Government intend to appoint any more youth representatives to the boards of State- owned corporations and government departments? If so, when will those appointments be made?
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Hon. D. T. Harwin for his interest in the youth register that the Government has established. The aim of the register is to provide an opportunity for interested young people to nominate themselves to serve on government boards and committees and to indicate the area of expertise, interest or experience that would make them a suitable representative. If Ministers are considering appointments to boards or committees they are able to look in the register for an appropriate person. I am not able to advise the number of registered youths who have been so appointed, but I will follow that up and provide the member with that information.
The register as been established for only a short time, less than a year, and it has attracted a lot of interest, particularly from young people in regional and rural areas. They regard the register as an opportunity for input into government decision making. Individual board appointments remain the responsibility of Ministers and I am not able to give commitments on their behalf. Obviously the aim of the register is to make it easier for Ministers to find appropriate interested young people for appointment to boards and committees. In the past a similar procedure was adopted to improve the representation of women on boards and committees; and the Government has been successful in achieving that aim. We have tried to translate that idea to young people.
The Hon. M. R. EGAN: If honourable members have further questions, I suggest they put them on notice.
Questions without notice concluded. 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5237
COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMISSION AND PRINCIPLES OF MULTICULTURALISM BILL
Bill received and read a first time.
Motion by the Hon. J. J. Della Bosca agreed to:
That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.
PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT OPERATIONS AMENDMENT (LITTERING) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
The Hon. M. I. JONES [5.13 p.m.]: In my inaugural speech I said that I detest litter. At last year's estimates committee hearing I asked Minister Debus whether the Environment Protection Authority was considering placing a deposit on soft drink containers that would be refundable on return by the retailer, similar to the deposit scheme in South Australia? In fairness to the Minister I will read his answer in full, because it clearly states his position at that time. Minister Debus said:
It is a frequent question and I frequently give this answer. Container deposits do not address the overall waste minimisation issue. They cannot be applied, obviously, to paper and plastic, which makes up just as big a proportion of the waste stream as containers. Container deposits are really good at controlling litter and encouraging high recovery rates from a limited range of what is known in the business as rigid beverage containers, but those results do not come without a quite considerable cost for the community. Those systems divert higher value materials like PET and glass from kerbside systems. The sort we use to all Local Government areas in Sydney for instance, to drop off centres. At the same time, ratepayers would still expect councils to collect low value household paper and non deposit containers at the kerbside, so any costs savings to Local Government from the introduction of container deposit systems are going to be quite marginal at the best.
The New South Wales Beer and Soft Drink Industry Waste Reduction Program or plan and the National Packaging Covenant which was signed by all environment ministers in Melbourne a couple of weeks ago, offer, we believe, a more integrated and cost effective approach to minimising packaging waste. We are, in New South Wales, a party to the National Packaging Covenant and that establishes a scheme which ensures that participants in the supply chain, the raw materials suppliers, the packaging manufacturers, the people that fill the containers and the retailers as well as all the levels of Government, must share responsibility for the management of used packaging materials and we have given Local Government an undertaking nevertheless, that despite all these reservations that I have been describing about container deposit legislation, that we will continue to keep that sort of legislation under review, and if it can be shown in the end, I doubt if it can be, but if it could be shown that these alternatives, the National Packaging Covenant and the Industry Waste Reduction Plan that we have begun to put in place for the beer and soft drink industry are not working, then we will look at the other again, but basically, it is a litter reduction program, it is not a measure that will actually deal effectively with the recycling of material.
The Government is preoccupied with the actual costs related to recycling of material but not necessarily with coping with the problem of litter. Insufficient is being done about this really big problem. To go on and on about the costs is perhaps prudent from a fiscal point of view, but adding 5¢ or 10¢ to the price of a can of soft drink would motivate people to keep the can and be reimbursed, albeit insufficiently, for their efforts. I do not have the Australian figures, but in Japan it costs 5¢ for the actual Coca-Cola that goes into a can which retails for $2. Surely with a material cost of 2.5 per cent there would be sufficient profit to fund a litter reduction program. I assume the cost margins would be the same in Australia as they are in Japan.
That arrangement would fund itself at no cost to the Government and is highly desired by the community. Children would be major participants in the collection of rubbish and they could be trained to collect used bottles or containers and take them to retailers. Similarly, people in desperate need of a few cents could participate in that type of scheme. The public can change their littering habits. I draw to the attention of the House the somewhat unpleasant and odious problem of taking a dog for a walk. One has to carry a little plastic bag to pick up the dog droppings and deposit them in a litter bin. I find that an unpleasant topic and an unpleasant chore, but people do it. I conduct my almost-daily exercise regime around Iron Cove. Lots of people exercise and train their dogs there, and they all accept and practise that chore.
The Hon. I. Cohen: They are doing the right thing.
The Hon. M. I. JONES: Absolutely. I find it difficult to accept the Government's argument based upon economics about the need for plastic containers in the recycling process. The Government is palming us 5238 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000 off because it does not particularly want to do it. As we have heard in this debate, aluminium cans are collected by charitable works, and their collection is profitable for those charities. Such an initiative does work. I used to live in Mona Vale years ago and there was never a can on Mona Vale Beach because a couple of people went out of the way, for their personal benefit, to collect aluminium cans there. These initiatives can work and should be given a chance to work. They have worked in South Australia. Why should not they work here?
A great deal has been said about throwing cigarette butts on the ground. I applaud the part of the bill that deals with that and the other measures to reduce litter on the streets. Some political parties and environmental groups, particularly the Greens and the Wilderness Society, plaster and glue promotional material to bridges and other public infrastructures. Some of that material cannot be removed because of the way it has been attached. I ask that the Government look at measures to stop that type of littering. I support the bill, although for the reasons I have outlined I believe it does not go far enough.
The Hon. H. S. TSANG [5.21 p.m.]: I support the Protection of the Environment Operations Amendment (Littering) Bill, whose introduction I believe is timely. This morning I met with an overseas visitor and I asked her what she thought about our beautiful clean harbour. She agreed that we have a clean harbour, but she said that our streets are perhaps not as clean as the streets of Brisbane. I can take competition between Sydney and Melbourne, but I cannot take competition between Sydney and Brisbane. Although Sydney is cleaner than it was, perhaps we should do a bit more. How do we stop people throwing rubbish on the streets? Several years ago I had the opportunity to take my wife and two children to Singapore. At that time I had the perception that Singapore was not like any other state in the world and that if you did the wrong thing, you would be put in gaol.
The Hon. D. J. Gay: Is that when you got your first short haircut?
The Hon. H. S. TSANG: Before we went I told my children, who were high school students, they had better cut their hair because they might be mistaken for Singaporeans and put in gaol. I took them to have a short haircut, like mine. At the airport in Singapore my children were chewing lollies. I had the perception that if they threw anything on the street they would be put in gaol or face expensive fines that would have to be paid in Singapore dollars, which I could not afford. That perception reminded me to ensure that they did not do the wrong thing and that they disposed of their lolly papers. The perception that Singapore is a controlled society works because, as Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said, Singapore is a very clean city. Perhaps we do not need to go as far as Singapore has.
I am pleased to note that we have some flexibility. If people drop small litter, such as cigarette butts, they will be fined $60. That fine is probably too low; it should be slightly higher. Also, a fine of $200 for throwing rubbish out of a vehicle is too low. I was driving along a highway when someone threw a can of Coca- Cola out of a vehicle. The can hit my bonnet, and it cost me more than $200 to fix my vehicle. That fine of $200 should also be reviewed. The fine of $375 for harming a person or property is too low and should also be reviewed. However, on the whole the legislation contains flexibility.
I congratulate the Government on the whole package, which includes education programs and advertising. One day I took my children to a beach. We bought some ice creams and I was left with the ice cream wrappers. I did not know where to put them, so I placed them near me. My children rightly reminded me, "Dad, don't dirty Australia. Do the right thing." To be reminded by my children to do the right thing proves that the education campaign works. I congratulate the Government and thank all honourable members who agree that this bill is worth supporting.
The Hon. Dr P. WONG [5.26 p.m.]: I support the Protection of the Environment Operations Amendment (Littering) Bill, which will provide stronger mechanisms for littering. The aim of the bill is to protect the environment and the people of New South Wales. However, I join other honourable members of this House in raising some concerns. I also take the opportunity to seek an assurance from the Minister that these concerns will be addressed during the administration of this legislation. Without limiting the capacity of business to distribute promotional materials, the bill has made the improper delivery of promotional material an offence. In this case, both the company and the people engaged in the mail distribution business will be held liable for littering offences..
I feel strongly about this provision. As all honourable members are aware, many people in the mail distribution business are from disadvantaged groups, such as the intellectually disabled, the unemployed and teenagers. Some of them receive commission on the number of leaflets they distribute, but on the whole their 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5239 payment is very poor, and some are unpaid volunteers. I place on record my support for the principles of this provision, but only if these people will not be disadvantaged. Another issue of concern is the aggravated littering offence. This offence would include circumstances in which litter caused or contributed to appreciable danger or harm to any persons, animals, premises or property, or was likely to do so. Specifically, this offence involves broken glass, syringes and the like that are inadequately deposited in public places and constitute a serious threat to public health.
Honourable members may know this already, but I want to emphasise that there have been reported incidents of adults and children being injured by discarded syringes on beaches. The general public is in danger of being exposed to possible infection of HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C and other infections. As a medical practitioner I completely understand the danger and I am deeply sympathetic to the tremendous level of physical and psychological cost that is borne by injured persons and their families. This public health issue should be dealt with as a community priority so that we can let our children run free on our beautiful beaches. This legislation is an important step towards litter management and prevention in New South Wales. To achieve these goals it is crucial that the public is fully aware of these environmental issues and the consequences that they will have on our daily lives.
To this end, public education programs must be developed to raise public awareness about those issues and relevant public policies must be developed to assist the smooth implementation of the legislation. Education programs would be a better way to develop a stronger sense of civil responsibility among the community to preserve the environment. These programs will focus not only on the proper way of handling littering in public places or open private places, and pollution resulting from waste, but they will also centre on waste minimisation or waste reduction, which is an ultimate goal of the legislation.
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [5.30 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Hon. J. F. Ryan, the Hon. I. Cohen, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, Ms Lee Rhiannon, the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, the Hon. J. R. Johnson, the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans, the Hon. M. I. Jones, the Hon. H. S. Tsang and the Hon. Dr P. Wong for their informed and thoughtful contributions to the debate. I recognise and acknowledge that the Opposition has indicated that it will support the legislation, as it did in the other place. The bill represents a major step forward in the continuing process to achieve effective regulation to deal with littering.
The bill considerably expands the definition of "litter" and addresses local government concerns about the existing definition and its premise that refuse becomes litter only if it has little or no value. The expanded definition is far more practical and workable. In relation to the other problems identified in the existing framework, the lack of flexibility and the type of fine is seen by many enforcement officers as a particular problem. The Government seeks to address this problem. The bill amends the relevant schedule of the Protection of the Environment Operations Penalty Notices Regulation 1999 to create a number of penalty notice offences dealing with proposed littering offences.
Although I do not intend to go into detail about comments made during debate because a number of amendments will allow for discussion at the Committee stage, I should take up a few matters with which honourable members seemed to be particularly concerned. The Hon. I. Cohen referred to a number of things, but raised the specific reference in the bill to syringes and cigarette butts. I know he will move amendments in this regard in Committee. First, even without the amendment carried in the other place these actions would have been covered under the aggravated littering clause. The amendment carried in the other place does not in any way change the intent or the coverage of the bill. Second, he made the point that we need broader ways to deal with discarded syringes, something that is of great concern to the community.
Without going into a great deal of detail, one would have to accept that this Government has adopted a range of measures and totally recognises that anti-litter provisions are one of only a number of initiatives needed to deal with discarded syringes and the threat they pose to the community. As we heard from the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer in question time, this Government is moving down the path of medically supervised injecting rooms. It is unfair to suggest that the Government regard it as the only way to deal with discarded syringes. A number of speakers referred to container deposit legislation. I refer honourable members to the comments made by the Minister in the other place in his second reading speech, in which he referred precisely to that matter. 5240 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000
As some honourable members have commented, the Government has negotiated the beer and soft drink waste reduction plan, which includes a comprehensive set of programs to deal with litter; including implementing a benchmark litter methodology and a subsequent litter reduction target, an abatement strategy, and an updated Do the Right Thing campaign across New South Wales, which has been widened to include other sections of the packaging industry; undertaking programs designed to improve recovery of post-consumer packaging from public places, workplaces and special events and the hospitality sector; and supporting the Keep Australia Beautiful Council which, I understand, is chaired in New South Wales by Pam Allan, a former Minister for the environment. She is doing a very good job. The Keep Australia Beautiful Tidy Town program promotes litter reduction by fostering community pride.
I remind honourable members that the Waste Minimisation and Management Act clearly states that if a container packaging industry has failed to achieve a waste reduction target that has been set by the industry waste reduction plan, the State Waste Advisory Council may advise the Minister of the need to introduce container deposit legislation. As the Minister in the other place said, although the Government is not entirely opposed to container deposit legislation it has many problems. The Hon. Dr P. Wong expressed some concern about the potential impact of the legislation on the people who distribute material. The Government wants small- and medium-size businesses to distribute that material on its behalf with good information on responsible approaches.
In that regard the Government is doing a number of things, including introducing provisions in the bill that will make it an offence to require, cause or induce a person to contravene provisions dealing with the placement of advertising material; working with local government to develop materials to educate small- and medium-size business proprietors about their obligations and those of distributors; and developing a specific strand of the litter public education program that will target distributors, many of whom are teenagers or older persons. Given the scale of the educative task and the Government's desire to give people a reasonable opportunity to do the right thing, these provisions will not commence for approximately six to nine months after the commencement of the rest of the Act. The offences and penalties introduced by the bill include provisions that focus on those most responsible for the delivery of pamphlets and other such printed material: the advertisers and the distribution companies. We are not unnecessarily going after the deliverer. There will be an opportunity to further discuss these matters at the Committee stage. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2
The Hon. I. COHEN [5.37 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 1:
No. 1 Page 4, schedule 1 [6], proposed section 144A, line 7. After “promotional matter”, insert “and that is produced for a commercial purpose”.
The amendment is aimed at clarifying the definition of "advertising and promotional material". The bill does not distinguish between important community notices and other material. Under this definition all material delivered to householders is tarred with the same brush and regarded as junk mail. The Greens recognise that some printed material delivered to households performs a useful function. It is not all junk mail. We seek to restrict the definition to advertising and promotional material produced for a commercial purpose.
We understand that one person's meat is another's poison. There is certainly a great deal of subjectivity as to what is junk mail, but the vast bulk of unsolicited mail that is delivered to letterboxes throughout suburbia is driven by a commercial imperative. The Greens believe it is important to separate that. Political and other information—although it might be disagreeable—are all part of the democratic process. However, it is the commercial material that really causes a great deal of concern. Many people in the community find that their letterboxes are overtaken by this type of mail. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [5.39 p.m.]: The Government does not support 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5241 the amendment moved by the Hon. I. Cohen. Although the Government understands what he is trying to achieve, it is part of a series of amendments that are aimed at prohibiting junk mail from being placed in letterboxes. Certainly the community is concerned about the placement of unsolicited advertising in letterboxes where people have displayed signs indicating that they do not wish to receive such material. However, the Government believes the honourable member's amendment has real problems.
The proposed amendment seeks to expand the definition of "advertising material" to include material produced for a commercial purpose. The difficulty is that an extremely broad range of material could be captured by this definition. For example, would it include addressed advertising material mailed through Australia Post? Would promotional or commercial-oriented material combined with ordinary commercial mail be acceptable? Will telephone, gas and electricity bills, which often carry advertising, be unacceptable? A further difficulty is what constitutes an item that is produced for a commercial purpose.
As has been pointed out, the person delivering the items may be a young person or someone with an intellectual disability and he or she might be put in the position of having to make the decision about what is promotional material produced for a commercial purpose. Consideration must be given also to the practice employed by a number of different groups that deliver leaflets about community campaigns. Often as a part of that leaflet they seek donations for a community or political organisation to enhance the effectiveness of the campaign. Could this be viewed as being for a commercial purpose? For a range of reasons the Government believes this amendment is unworkable and does not support it.
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.41 p.m.]: As I mentioned earlier, when we put signs on our letterboxes "no junk mail please" those who deliver that mail seem to understand what junk mail is and do not deliver advertising material. They deliver addressed mail or mail they consider not to be junk mail. Therefore, the procedure is working on an informal basis. I believe the Minister will give an assurance that discussions will be initiated by June 2000 with a view to further amendments at the end of the year. I ask the Minister to confirm that.
The Hon. I. COHEN [5.41 p.m.]: I appreciate some of the points made by the Minister, but as the Hon. R. S. L. Jones said, clearly there are informal understandings about this issue. We are trying to give some degree of support to those understandings so that people have a right to privacy on these issues. The idea of advertising inside stamped envelopes containing gas and other bills surely is getting away from the essential point. The essential point is that we are talking about unsolicited mail that is obviously promotional for commercial purposes. Clearly, that is different to the number of examples the Minister gave.
I believe this issue will involve continuing debate. If the Government is serious about this matter, perhaps it should seek to return with amendments at a later time. There has been discussion to amend or attempt to clarify the amendments proposed by the Greens, but that has not been forthcoming. I do not believe it is appropriate to say the amendments are not good enough. We could say many aspects of the bill are not good enough, particularly those relating to policing of and follow-up on the offences. The Government would do well to look at ways of building up a combined position rather than simply rejecting the amendment.
The Hon. J. F. RYAN [5.43 p.m.]: I outlined the Opposition's approach on whether it should be an offence to deposit litter into private mailboxes bearing a label prohibiting the deposit of advertising material. This amendment is necessary because later the mover of this amendment intends to move other amendments linked to this one. This amendment becomes necessary only if we outlaw the placement of advertising material in letterboxes that carry a notation indicating that the owner of the letterbox does not wish to receive junk mail. The Opposition has not suggested that there is no merit in people asking that junk mail not be deposited in their letterboxes.
People have good and practical reasons for doing so, for example, to protect their property. If they are not going to be home for a period of time, they may not wish to have such material deposited in their letterbox because the house may appear to have been abandoned. An elderly person might have difficulty removing this material. We accept that people have good and sensible reasons, nevertheless, it is unique that the Government would prosecute individuals in response to a notice placed by a private citizen. Normally the Government prosecutes only those who disobey notices placed by the Government.
A range of interpretations exists about what is a private individual's notice, what it means and how it was placed. This amendment makes difficult a bill that was intended to be easy. I believe that honourable members have argued against themselves to some extent when they said an informal arrangement already 5242 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000 operates within the community. The Opposition operates usually on the basis that if informal arrangements operating in the community generally work, there is no need for the Government to create a new offence. For those and other reasons, we take the same position as the Government. This amendment makes the matter inordinately complex.
As I said at the start, creating offences does not necessarily change people's behaviour. This is the least that could be done. Obviously it is wise to have an offence supported by penalty notices, but ultimately it is a matter of changing people's behaviour. The required number of inspectors will not be available and there will be all sorts of complications for people with intellectual disabilities and so on. We take the view that this makes life far too complicated. For those reasons the Opposition does not accept this amendment nor the other amendments that might be connected to it.
The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.46 p.m.]: I confess that I am not surprised the Government and the Opposition do not support this amendment, nevertheless I am disappointed. The "no junk mail" sticker is actually promoted by the Direct Mail Association because it wants this problem solved at the lowest possible level. It does not want the Government to talk to the industry to protect people. The association wants people to protect themselves as best they can against the poor school kid, the pensioners, or whoever else delivers handbills or advertising material, earning a few bob per thousand. So every mailbox they walk past with a "no junk mail" sticker on it means they have to walk past an extra house to make their money, unless they are dishonest and chuck the material in the nearest bin. Effectively, two tiny groups of people, those who do not want their mailboxes stuffed with promotional material and those who are trying to make a buck being paid small amounts for delivering that material, are fighting it out while the Government stands back and says, "Oh, we don't think we can interfere." The junk mail company says, "We got out 60 billion and we hit the whole country 50 times." That is the way it happens. I go to my medical practice fairly rarely these days because of the time I spend in this place, but I keep my little finger in the pot. Whenever I go to my medical practice I find two or three letters from people who actually want to write to me about a patient and I find endless junk mail from drug companies¾Australia Post mail. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Is that addressed mail? The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: In that case it is addressed mail.
The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: It is not junk mail. The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Well, we could start— The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt: Exactly. The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Yes, it is frightfully difficult Minister! It is much too difficult to deal with! We could not even say Australia Post! It is bad enough taking Australia Post mail without one's address being sold on databases. It is quite a serious problem. Endless flyers and other things fill up one's mailbox. If people have one of those small mail boxes, which is only a hole in the wall, after a couple of days, or even less, letters cannot be put inside because of newspapers and other things that have been stuffed into it. People cannot even find mail in their mailboxes because of the amount of junk mail. Of course, definition problems have suddenly become frightfully difficult. We put people in gaol for practically nothing, but defining Australia Post mail, other mail, junk mail and so on becomes frightfully difficult. Who will be prosecuted if this bill were to be passed? The poor little person trying to earn a tenth of a cent for every piece of material delivered or the person putting out thousands of tonnes of this stuff throughout the country when people do not actually want it? I can guess who will be prosecuted—the poor school kid working after school hours to earn a tenth of a cent per letter! This issue must be addressed. The Government righteously saying that it is lessening junk mail in fact is actually abdicating from an issue that at least the Greens are attempting to deal with.
The Government's failure to address this matter is a very poor effort. Crossbench members have pointed out that there is an obvious difference between Australia Post mail and other addressed mail, such as electricity bills, which seem to be delivered by somebody other than Australia Post—junk mail in the form of advertising flyers; community mail such as notifications of precinct committee meetings and local action groups; and political mail, which may vary from "save our park" to "vote for our party". Everybody understands that junk mail relates to advertising material. 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5243
Some people think that political material is junk mail. I have been berated, inexplicably, for putting Democrat stickers in letterboxes which had "no junk mail" signs. The problem could be handled by having an appropriate definition at the beginning of the bill. The Government seems to have dropped the issue in fright. The Opposition, which could not possibly go across the bows of big business in favour of the poor old consumer, once again dissolves into a flurry of rhetoric to avoid having to actually think seriously about the matter. The amendment should be supported.
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [5.51 p.m.]: Many people—usually elderly and usually living on their own—see this so-called junk mail, to use the expression of the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans—
The Hon. I. Cohen: Then they do not have a sign on their letterbox.
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I will come back to that. I am picking up on the term "junk mail". These people see it as a link to the outside world. They like to know, for example, whether cheaper prices are being offered at the local supermarket. They see this material as something that is friendly to them as consumers. The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans tries to dismiss all this material as junk mail. Making a distinction between political mail and material for a commercial purpose is just introducing a red herring. It does not add to the debate at all. It is about material that is registered through the post or otherwise. The issue is really about the right of people to have a sticker on a mailbox that states "no junk mail". For many people—
The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: It will make no difference under your system.
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: Let me just get to what my system might be. I have not got there yet. People do respect such signs. These days they are available as magnetic stickers and they can be put on at different times. For people going on holidays having such signs makes it appear that the house is not unoccupied. There are good reasons for people having such signs over and above whether they want to receive that type of mail. I recall some time ago that there was a problem with real estate firms in particular using sandwich board types of signs on footpaths. This became a problem for local government and people in the community. We attempted to bring together the various organisations, the key interest groups, to develop a code of practice across the industry.
The problem in this case is that, while there is a significant number of major distributors, I doubt whether there is a major industry association, but there may be. Many organisations from time to time use this form of communication. It may be a church letting people know about the local fete. There should be a code of practice for at least the major distributors requiring them to observe such signs. We should forget the punitive approach of fining organisations. We should try to develop a co-operative approach. There are valid reasons for people not wanting certain types of mail in their letterboxes. But, having said that, I take offence at the term "junk mail" because for many people in the community it is not junk mail but a link to the outside world. They actually look forward to the information it contains. They cannot afford and do not buy newspapers. They rely on this information as a consumer position for them—cheaper prices at the local supermarket.
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [5.55 p.m.] The Hon. Patricia Forsythe made a good point. We recognise that unsolicited material placed in letterboxes is a problem for many people, but gaining agreement between the various parties would be a more effective way of dealing with the problem. That would be a more appropriate approach than a heavy-handed legislative approach. The Distribution Standards Board has put together a code of practice to cover some of the issues raised by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. The question is whether that code of practice is effective in addressing community concerns.
As I indicated, the Government does not support the amendments moved by the Hon. I. Cohen. The Government has undertaken to initiate a process by 30 June this year that will enable all parties—Government, environmental groups and industry—to examine a means of prohibiting the delivery of unsolicited, promotional, commercial material to letterboxes with mail receptacles that are clearly marked with a "no junk mail" sign. The Government will initiate this process with a view to introducing an amendment reflecting this intention by the end of the year. So the Government recognises that there is a problem, but there are better ways to deal with it than the amendments proposed by the Hon. I. Cohen.
The Hon. I. COHEN [5.57 p.m.]: On the points made by the Hon. Patricia Forsayth, if older people and others want to receive this type of mail all they need to do is not have a sign on the letterbox. It is as simple as that. It gives choice. 5244 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000
The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: It is not junk.
The Hon. I. COHEN: Did I say "junk" then? I agree that anything of a derisive nature does not work. I have signs at the flat, where the worms live, in Sydney that state "no junk mail". If I had a choice it would be "no unsolicited commercial mail" or something like that. All sorts of other wordings might be more appropriate. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones spoke of his experience in Manly. I stay in the eastern suburbs when I am working in Sydney. In that area there is an absolute overflow of this material. I am told that in many areas of the western suburbs it is a major problem—different areas, different problems. There should be clarity in targeting the material and some sort of legislative backup with a penalty. My amendment would reduce the penalty to the deliverer and increase the penalty to the corporation behind the advertising. That is a fair way to go, because it does not appear that agreements with industry are successful in changing practices on the ground.
The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [5.58 p.m.]: I have been campaigning about this sort of thing for about 20 years. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the Hon. I. Cohen has said. The Achilles heel of the bill—it is the same Achilles heel as the amendments have, which I would otherwise be happy to support—is the simple matter of enforcement. I must have been living in another world but in the last four addresses I have lived at I have had various stickers on my letterbox. One I got from Australia Post which said "Australia Post mail only". One did say—with apologies to the Hon. Patricia Forsythe—"no junk mail" or "no unsolicited mail". I have found that the reaction to such signs is that people immediately start stuffing twice as much into the box. I have also been the secretary of two bodies corporate, one involving a large block of units which contained a large number of elderly people. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe is absolutely right. We took a poll among the elderly citizens of that block of units and they all wanted to receive promotional mail.
For many of these people it was the only mail they ever got. At the same time, those of us who put signs on our letterboxes saying we did not want it got twice as much. At present I am the secretary of a body corporate that has a large secretary's mailbox. The other day I retrieved from the box 200 leaflets for a pizza delivery outlet. When these people who earn one-tenth of a cent for each piece of mail they deliver find a large box they shovel it in because it will hold more leaflets, and that becomes a problem. The chief offender in all of this is Australia Post. I have a post office box at Port Macquarie to which my mail goes. I find two or three letters and about 20 or 30 leaflets in that every time I open it. I have asked Australia Post, in the interests of not having trees cut down unnecessarily, to please not put that stuff in the box. Australia Post said it has to do it because it is paid to. It is littering, it is wasteful and it is driving me up the wall.
I would like to know where one gets the sort of sticker one can put on a box to stop people putting mail into it. I have never seen such a sticker and the difficulty with the bill, which I support, and with the amendment, which I am in two minds about, is that it is all very well passing laws and saying ways will be found to stop people putting stuff in boxes. But unless they are caught in the act and it can be proved they put the stuff in the box, and unless it can be proved that the people whose leaflet it is asked them to do so, nothing can be done about it.
The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.01 p.m.]: I like the idea that pensioners love their junk mail. Presumably, they also enjoy day-time television. One day I met someone who liked the advertisements on television because the programs were so bad. As my colleague the Hon. I Cohen said, one does not have to have a sticker saying "no junk mail" on one's mailbox. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe thinks it is extremely difficult to differentiate between commercial mail, political mail and unsolicited mail. I think there is no difference. Commercial mail seeks business, political mail seeks votes, and there is no difference in that. Political mail only tends to arrive just before elections. It is all very well to use the term "unsolicited" mail. Often I get letters from people whom I did not ask to write to me, but I am still pleased to get their letters. So "unsolicited" is, in a sense, a nonsense word.
These stickers have been in use for years. They have been promoted by the Direct Mail Association because the direct mail people know they do not work. They can say, "You have a sticker there, we encourage you to have a sticker and we even give away free stickers," because they know they do not work. That will prevent any legislation from being meaningful. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe says it is valid to claim that people do not want this mail, but that is not supported because it is too cumbersome. If a heroin-addicted person drops a syringe, under this legislation that person can be fined $3,300 and will go to gaol if he or she cannot pay. For the sake of one syringe we are putting people in gaol, yet it is much too difficult to deal in the same bill, at policy level, with the fact that people do not want to receive mail when they go away on holidays. It is a question of what one defines as a problem. It is convenient to define a problem so the powerless cop it and those with the power to stop it do not address the issue. 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5245
The Distribution Standards Board is undoubtedly a self-regulatory body of the direct mail agency. In other words, it sounds very good but it is making the decisions for us and the Government is sitting by watching. This is a major problem because of the inconvenience associated with mail boxes and mail delivery that needs to be dealt with, but this bill does not deal with it. . This problem is equally as important as the other problems the bill deals with. It is interesting that the Government and the Opposition choose to ignore it because it is convenient and easier to do so. The idea that the Government cannot be responsible for this problem but it can put people in gaol for dropping a syringe seems to be an absurd juxtaposition that honourable members have chosen not to notice.
Amendment negatived.
The Hon. I. COHEN [6.04 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 2, 3 and 10 in globo:
No. 2 Page 7, schedule 1 [7], proposed section 145A (4), lines 23-27. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 3 Page 8, schedule 1 [7], proposed section 145A (6), lines 1-6. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 10 Page 16, schedule 2 [4], lines 35 and 36. Omit ", for example syringe,".
The Greens propose to delete the offence of aggravated littering in respect of syringes. The Greens do not believe that this offence belongs in an environmental protection bill. It is a law and order provision that stigmatises intravenous drug users. This does not mean that the Greens approve of syringes being dropped in streets, far from it. We believe, however, that there is no sensible reason to single out this particular type of littering. It should be subject to the same penalties as the general offence of littering covered elsewhere in the bill. I note what the Minister said about the Government's role, and I compliment the Government on the efforts it has made with regard to medically supervised injecting rooms and sharps disposal units in public areas. Their number needs to be increased. The Greens are concerned that we are dealing with a vulnerable section of the community, people who are breaking the law in any event. It is hard to imagine the provision being policed effectively, as people use syringes in darkened streets in the middle of the night. As the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield- Evans said, the draconian penalty of $3,300 for such an offence is targeting people in the wrong area. It is looking for a reaction from the media rather than for effectiveness. The Greens' amendments put this issue into the right perspective.
The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.06 p.m.]: The Democrats support these amendments. We have asked the New South Wales Users and AIDS Association about this. There is a penalty for the self- administration of drugs. People may carry a syringe and a needle. If they also carry a spoon and a swab, which are also used in heroin injection, they tend to be arrested. If they have just used these things they would be vulnerable to being charged with the offence of self-administration. It is true that once they have used heroin they are sometimes a little dopey and likely to drop things. If they are not dopey they will drop these things because they are likely to be arrested if they are caught with them and then there will be a large fine. So there is a strong incentive to get rid of syringes and needles, and that is unfortunate. Only one injecting room is open 35 hours a week for the whole of New South Wales, so the chance of these people dropping in there has to be low and there are not that many safe disposal boxes.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Where is the safe injecting room?
The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I am sorry, I take the point. That one place in New South Wales has not yet opened, but when it does open it will be open for only 35 hours a week for the whole of New South Wales. No doubt that will be useful for those in the vicinity, but for the rest of the people addicted to drugs it will not be available. These people can ring "1800 needle" and an organisation will pick up a discarded syringe within two working days, although they try to do that more quickly if it is near a schoolyard. The disposal of needles is a real problem and the offence of self-administration means it is dangerous for addicted people to carry with them the material they use for self-injection. This legislation places them in double jeopardy. There is no way they can do it safely within the law and maintain their heroin addiction. So the victims are being severely punished by this.
Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: They can go into rehabilitation.
The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Of course, redirection into rehabilitation or other options like that are still not being looked at by the Government and by legislation that comes from this place. 5246 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000
Clearly, littering by discarding a syringe should be discouraged, but the legislation should not specify 30 penalty units or $3,300 for people who are often unemployed and will not be able to pay. The law will simply make them criminals if they carry the stuff and criminals if they drop it. They will be unable to pay the fine, which will pave the way for them to be gaoled as criminals. Parliament should not pass legislation that will be unrealistic when put into practice. This is simply populist nonsense. The amendments give the Government the opportunity not to take this silly course and for the Opposition to say something sensible. The Australian Democrats hope that the two major parties support the amendments.
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [6.10 p.m.]: The Government does not support the amendments, which seek to remove amendments that were moved by the Opposition in the other place and supported by the Government. Removal of the words set out in the amendments would not change the intent of the bill. These matters were already fully accommodated in the original bill. The Coalition's amendments simply emphasise a particular offence. The Government acknowledges that the community has a genuine concern regarding the safe disposal of syringes and lit cigarettes. There is no question about that. It is both erroneous and simplistic to suggest that this provision is the Government's sole response to the many complex issues that surround the problem of drug abuse in our community. It is not. The bill deals with litter. The litter of syringes is a major problem, particularly in some communities. If carried, the amendments would not change the intent of the bill.
The Hon. J. F. RYAN [6.11 p.m.]: The Opposition does not support the amendments because they seek to remove the initiative of the Opposition in the other place. The Minister has adequately summarised the views of the Opposition. One needs only to remember the circumstances of ironman Jonathan Crowe: he was in tears as result of stepping on a syringe that had been discarded on a beach. Even if that did not result in him having a significant level of ill health, it may have destroyed his career. Clearly, there is concern in the community about discarded syringes.
The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: But we will charge him $3,300 to fix it!
The Hon. J. F. RYAN: We might for some. The penalty is a maximum penalty, not a mandatory penalty, and may result in some other penalty from the court at the time. I believe the courts will interpret this legislation in the spirit in which the Parliament intends it. Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.13 p.m.]: A fine of $3,300 for people who drop syringes has no place in this legislation or any legislation. It is a clear law-and-order approach. The Coalition and the Government have come together on this matter, which makes one wonder about the purpose of the Drug Summit. The Drug Summit tried to come to grips with the problem that is facing our society. Some measures will provide for people who are regular users, but bringing in a fine like this is horrendous and will certainly not change the situation or save people on the beaches. What it will do is put more people in gaol. I hope that the Coalition and the Government comes to their senses because this is a totally inappropriate way to deal with a tragic problem. Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [6.14 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the amendments moved in the other place and does not support the Greens amendments to delete them. The education campaign which is part of this policy should emphasise these penalties and educate those involved with heroin that there is a penalty for throwing away the needle. That is the whole point of the proposal. I believe it should be retained in the bill, and supported by a strong education and rehabilitation program to get addicts off drugs so that they do not require needles in the first place. Amendments negatived. The Hon. I. COHEN [6.15 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 4 and 5 in globo:
No. 4 Page 8, schedule 1 [9], proposed section 146A, line 15. After "mail,", insert "unless a sign prohibiting the deposit of advertising material is displayed on or near the receptacle,".
No. 5 Page 8, schedule 1 [9], proposed section 146A, line 18. After "newspapers,, insert "unless a sign prohibiting the deposit of advertising material is displayed on or near the receptacle,”" These amendments aim to give householders control over the amount of junk mail delivered to their houses. Some responsible people who reject the consumer lifestyle symbolised by junk mail have "No Junk Mail" stickers on their letterboxes. Unfortunately, these fines often have absolutely no effect in stopping the flow of junk mail. The Greens amendments simply give householders the right to choose whether they receive commercial advertising material. I commend Greens amendments Nos 4 and 5. 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5247
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [6.15 p.m.]: The Government does not support these amendments for the reasons that have already been outlined. We believe they are unworkable, but we have given an undertaking to have further discussions about the broader issue.
Amendments negatived.
The Hon. I. COHEN [6.16 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 6, 7 and 11 in globo:
No. 6 Page 8, schedule 1 [9], proposed section 146A, line 20. Omit "5 penalty units". Insert instead "1 penalty unit".
No. 7 Page 9, schedule 1 [9], proposed section 146B, line 12. Omit "5 penalty units". Insert instead "1 penalty unit".
No. 11 Page 17, schedule 2 [4], lines 1 and 5. Omit "$200 $400" wherever occurring. Insert instead "$20". Earlier in the debate the Minister made a statement about the intent of the Minister for the Environment in relation to negotiation and further communication to resolve some of the outstanding issues. Although it is appropriate to put these amendments to the Committee, I appreciate the move by the Minister, representing the Minister for the Environment. I would very much like to participate in ongoing negotiations and communications on this matter. It is important to have ongoing communications. I will take the commitment from the Minister as in indication of the Government's intent to negotiate further. The Greens welcome that as a way of resolving the matter over time. Some of these amendments, although they are not presently acceptable, may receive acceptance with further negotiation. I thank the Minister for giving the commitment. The Greens also propose amendments to reduce the penalty for persons depositing advertising material and to increase the penalty for persons causing or requiring another person to contravene the Act. We are seeking a reduction from five penalty units to one penalty unit for the person delivering the material. There has been significant debate regarding who is at fault. People struggling to earn a few dollars by delivering this type of material should not be penalised. The Greens have sought an agreement from the Government that the reduction of penalty units is appropriate. The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [6.18 p.m.]: The Government does not support these amendments because a reduction in the fines will not provide a sufficient deterrent. It will be administratively inefficient and inconsistent with fines for environmental offences in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act and penalties that apply to offences such as parking infringements. Amendments negatived. The Hon. I. COHEN [6.19 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 8 and 9 in globo:
No. 8 Page 10, schedule 1 [9], proposed section 146C, line 6. Omit "20 penalty units". Insert instead "30 penalty units".
No. 9 Page 10, schedule 1 [9], proposed section 146C, line 7. Omit "5 penalty units". Insert instead "7 penalty units". The Greens seek to increase the penalty from 20 units to 30 units for a corporation and from five units to seven units for an individual who causes another person to deliver the material. The purpose of the amendments is to make clear that the primary responsibility under the legislation rests with the distributing company rather than the person employed to distribute the material. Many people employed to distribute this type of mail are poorly paid and many have intellectual disabilities. The bill should not target those people and penalise them. Companies that profit from the delivery of the material will incur a substantial penalty for non-compliance with the legislation, so there may be an incentive for them to train their staff in relation to matters set out in the bill. I understand that the Government supports the amendments, which are an effective step towards ameliorating inappropriate mailing practices.
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [6.19 p.m.]: The Government supports these amendments, which increase the penalties for distributors of advertising material. The Government is of the view that it is appropriate to have higher penalties for distributors, and it indicated in the lower House that focus on improving the performance of distribution companies was an aim. The community certainly expects commercial organisations and entities to bear responsibility for ensuring that their advertising materials do not pollute the environment. The Government supports these amendments.
Amendments agreed to. 5248 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [6.20 p.m.]: I move:
Page 10, schedule 1 [9]. Insert after line 7:
146D Littering reports
(1) The EPA is required to furnish to the Minister a biennial report on littering.
(2) The report is to contain estimates of the type of material that comprises litter deposited during the period concerned and the quantity (by weight and volume) of each such type of material, by reference to locations considered by the EPA to be places of significant littering activity.
(3) The EPA must cause advertisements to be published setting out the proposed methodology to be used in compiling such reports and inviting comments from members of the public concerning the proposed methodology. The EPA must allow at least 30 days for such comments to be made, and must consider comments received within the time allowed.
(4) The Minister is to cause a copy of each report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 30 sitting days after receiving the report.
(5) If the Minister or the State Waste Advisory Council, after consideration of the report, is of the opinion that:
(a) the managers or other persons responsible for any of the locations referred to in subsection (2), or
(b) the producers of or other persons responsible for any products whose components or packaging comprise litter at any such locations,
are not acting in a manner that minimises littering, the Minister may make recommendations aimed at improving litter avoidance strategies. This amendment expands the concept of aggravated littering by allowing the Minister to target places, events or products that are managed in such a way that unacceptable littering results; requiring the Environment Protection Authority to report every two years on the occurrence of littering in locations known to be a source of significant littering activity; requiring the Environment Protection Authority to advertise for 30 days for public comment on the methodology used to compile a report; requiring the report to be tabled in Parliament within 30 sitting days; and giving the Minister the power to obtain improved event or public space management by recommendations aimed at encouraging improved litter avoidance strategies. The Hon. I. COHEN [6.21 p.m.]: The Greens support the amendment moved by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. While great advances have been made generally in terms of appropriate action on littering, which has been adequately described during this debate, significant events create major problems. It is important that the Government act to bring a degree of control to these events. We have a similar situation in Byron shire in terms of a major landfill problem. Although the Byron shire exports its landfill, it attracts significant musical and other cultural events that have an impact on the area. It is appropriate that that impact be closely monitored and modified appropriately. I support the amendment. The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.22 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats support this amendment. In a sense, it simply provides for a documenting every two years of what is happening, and does not provide for enforcement. We believe that it is a step in the right direction. I note that the environmental liaison officer, Anne Harrison of the Nature Conservation Council, also feels that this is an important initiative. The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [6.22 p.m.]: The Government supports this amendment. It agrees to two-yearly litter reports by the EPA and advertising the methodology for such reports prior to the reports being prepared. The Government is of the view that this could form a useful reporting tool, together with things such as a state of the environment report and littering reports that are already prepared by industry. The Hon. J. F. RYAN [6.23 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the amendment. Coalition members raised this matter in the second reading debate. We are concerned that a significant amount of reporting on litter is already undertaken. However, it would not be difficult for those reports to be compiled into one report for the Minister. The Coalition is concerned that increased reporting may undermine the activity that occurs with industry waste reduction plans. Sometimes, additional reporting does not necessarily result in good waste outcomes; people can become caught up in the business of reporting, rather than necessarily achieving. Nevertheless, the Opposition will not oppose the amendment. Amendment agreed to. 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5249
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [6.24 p.m.], by leave: I move the Government amendments in globo:
No. 1 Page 11, schedule 1 [13], line 12. After "offence", insert "(other than a littering offence)".
No. 2 Page 11, schedule 1 [13], line 15. After "offence", insert "(other than a littering offence)".
No. 3 Page 11, schedule 1 [13]. Insert after line 16:
(4) In this section, littering offence means an offence arising under Part 5.6A.
Since this bill was introduced a drafting error has surfaced which requires amendment. These amendments will ensure that local government maintains its current power to prosecute and to issue penalty notices for littering offences, regardless of whether the premises or activities are the responsibility of the Environment Protection Authority [EPA]. Item [13] in schedule 1 requires that only officers or employees of the Environment Protection Authority are authorised to deal with offences in relation to works or activities licensed by the EPA, or offences committed in relation to activities carried out by the State or a public authority. As it stands, this includes littering offences. The Government wants other authorised officers, for example from local government, to be able to issue notices for littering in these circumstances. These amendments will allow that to happen. However, EPA officers will maintain sole authority in all other circumstances. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee with amendments and passed through remaining stages.
ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [6.29 p.m.]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
GANDANGARA LAND ACCESS
The Hon. M. I. JONES [6.29 p.m.]: When the Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land Council had 750 hectares of their traditional lands in the Menai area restored to their custodianship via the State Government they were given a dumping ground. Builders rubbish, car bodies and household refuse littered the area. Is this all the State Government is prepared to give the Aboriginal people: a rubbish tip? The state of the land is a problem beyond the resources of the Gandangara alone, and the Deputy Premier has agreed to establish a task force with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to assist in co-ordinating the efforts of various government agencies.
However, good intentions are not enough. The Government has declared loudly and clearly its support for Aboriginal reconciliation, but what of the Worimi people's land claim that has been gridlocked in the Premier's Department for more than 12 months? Government committees are often too slow to get moving. A multitude of recreational users pass through the Gandangara's land, which has long been regarded as "vacant" bushland on the fringes of Sydney. To develop some momentum, the Gandangara appealed to local user groups and to the Sutherland Shire Council for help. Four-wheel drive usage of the area ranges from totally incompetent ventures by new owners to well-planned trips by clubs in the Sydney region. The land has the potential to become something much better than a rubbish dump.
When the Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land Council sought help from the Recreational Four Wheel Drive Clubs Association [RFWDCA] its request was well received. Sydney-based club committees knew that parts of the landholding along Heathcote Road are interlaced by a network of haphazardly developed car dumpers' trails, most of which are of no interest to genuine four-wheel drivers. The RFWDCA has long 5250 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000 advocated properly managed access to all lands so that continued use is sustainable, whether the land is owned publicly or privately. After discussions with the Gandangara, the RFWDCA. was asked to develop a mutually acceptable system of access management.
The club movement's push for sustainable access parallels the land use policies being developed by the Gandangara. Clearing up the area was in everyone's interest, and the four-wheel drive clubs were able to offer real expertise in the task of removing hundreds of dumped cars. On Clean Up Australia Day, the RFWDCA turned up in force, and 175 trained volunteers registered for duty with their vehicles and specialised recovery equipment. A staggering total of 250 wrecks were collected in one day. Their transfer to convenient stockpiles for later pick-up demonstrates the community mindedness of members of the Recreational Four Wheel Drive Clubs Association, and their efforts were greatly appreciated by the Gandangara people.
However, in co-operation with State Forests of New South Wales and the local community, the RFWDCA has been participating in clean-up days for years. This was not a new idea and certainly not a one-off event. To its credit, this was a case of good intentions being realised. The RFWDCA has done much admirable work. In March this year the combined four-wheel drive clubs of the Hunter took sick children from Camp Quality to Stockton Beach, where the leader of the local Aboriginal land council spoke to them about Aboriginal traditions, threw boomerangs and so on. More than 100 four-wheel drive vehicles transported the children. Instead of paying lip service to reconciliation while doing little or nothing, the Government should follow the example of local clubs that are working with Aboriginal communities. I have spoken before about the Worimi people's land claim, which has been before the Premier's Office for more than a year and still nothing has been done.
MYALL CREEK MASSACRE MEMORIAL
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [6.32 p.m.]: I draw the House's attention to an act of grassroots reconciliation that is about to occur in the north-west of this State, which will culminate in a ceremony on 10 June. At Myall Creek between Bingara and Delungra lies the site of one of this nation's most tragic massacres. On that site a memorial is being constructed to the memory of the 28 Aboriginal men, women and children who were killed late in the afternoon of 10 June 1838 in a vicious and unprovoked attack. Apart from the horrible nature of the deaths inflicted on the Weraerai tribe of the Gamilaroi people, this story is significant as it was the first time in the history of this nation—in fact, the only time in the nineteenth century—that white men were hanged for the torture and massacre of indigenous Australians.
The reconciliation process needs to involve truth telling, and the remembrance of these indigenous Australians who died in so tragic and horrific a manner is an important step along that path. Most of Australian history has been told from the perspective of the white settlers and their descendants. It is time we heard more about the perspective of the original occupants of this land and how they see their history. It is not about focusing on the darkness and shame of our history but about acknowledging what has happened and apologising for the pain. In October 1998 Mrs Sue Blacklock—a descendant of the Weraerai tribe—requested that a commemorative service be held at Myall Creek. There followed a meeting chaired by Mrs Blacklock and Reverend John Brown from the Uniting Church in Canberra that resulted in the establishment of a committee to set up a memorial to the massacre.
The memorial that has resulted from this process is to be opened on 10 June this year. The centrepiece of the memorial is a large boulder with a single plaque. Leading to the boulder will be a 350-metre walkway, with several plaques telling the story of the massacre. As a symbol of reconciliation visitors will be invited to bring a rock from their area and place it along the walkway. Among those attending the opening of the memorial will be descendants of both the perpetrators of the massacre and its victims. The descendants of John Fleming, the only free man involved—a squatter who led the massacre and was the only man to go unpunished for his crime—have expressed interest in attending the ceremony, as have the descendants of some of the men who were executed for the crime. It is worth pointing out, in the light of the survival of the squatter who was the leader, that all of those who were punished were assigned convicts or ticket-of-leave men.
At this stage of the reconciliation process, when people like Pat Dodson are thinking of not attending Corroboree 2000 events later this month, ceremonies such as that at Myall Creek are important in helping to heal the wounds of the past. Our history and our legends are important to us not only to get our past straight but also to shape our present and our future. Our interpretations and perspectives of our history have changed over the years. I believe it is important to continue to look back on what happened in the past in order to throw light on the present and enable us to recognise that our interpretations and perspectives may change. 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5251
I was most struck by a Sydney Morning Herald cartoon the day after Anzac Day. It showed our Prime Minister in one frame saying, "What happened to Australians at Gallipoli 85 years ago is our heritage" and in another frame saying, "What happened to Aborigines in Australia over 30 years ago had nothing to do with me." Since then I have noted that the Prime Minister was quoted in Paris, on the subject of the history of the teaching dispute, arguing against placing emphasis on issues and preferring instead the facts. Ignoring for a moment the flaws in Mr Howard's simplistic take on history, it might be worth repeating the facts of the Myall Creek massacre. Twenty-eight men, women and children were raped, tortured, beheaded and burnt to death by a group of 11 heavily armed white men who attacked them on horseback. Witnesses reported hearing only two gunshots, yet the charred remains of 28 bodies were found.
Those people had been living on the Myall Creek run with the knowledge and permission of the superintendent. They were living peacefully with the convicts who were working the station, one of whom had developed a relationship with one of the Aboriginal women. He did not participate in the massacre but played an important role in choosing to testify against the people responsible for that event. Seven of the 11 men involved were hanged for their part in the massacre. As I have said, it was the first occasion in Australia on which white men had been punished for murdering Aboriginal people. A lot of other interesting material from that period would be worth looking at, but unfortunately I do not have time to do so. I appeal to the Government to provide some money for the memorial, which still requires extra funding to make the dream come true.
PARKLEA MARKETS TRADING HOURS
The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN [6.37 p.m.]: I should like to advise the House of an unfair trading situation affecting Parklea Markets, in the Blacktown local government area. The markets were developed by a local, self-made entrepreneur, Mr Con Constantine, some 13 or 14 years ago. Mr Constantine had judged that there was sufficient demand in western Sydney for a set of markets to operate along the same lines as Paddy's Markets and the Flemington Markets. When Parklea Markets started operations the shops had significant restrictions on their trading hours and the days of the week on which they could operate. Since then the Australian economy has been transformed into a global economy and shops have had to adapt to community demands, for customer convenience, by extending their hours of operation.
Parklea Markets were no exception. About seven years ago they applied to the Blacktown City Council for an extension of trading hours to allow them to operate on a Friday, as do Paddy's Markets and Flemington Markets. Blacktown City Council took six years to deliberate on the application. At the end of the process the council was unable to make a decision, so it flicked it off to Commissioner Mark Carleton of the Commissioners of Inquiry for Environment and Planning. Mr Carleton inquired into the issue and reported back to Blacktown City Council on 3 November 1999. Incredibly, he recommended that there be no weekly extension of trading hours for Parklea Markets.
One can only speculate what bureaucratic box this commissioner has been hiding in for the past decade. He is obviously not aware that major shopping centres have been trading seven days a week, with some shops operating 24 hours a day. Where has this Luddite been hiding? As for the Labor council in Blacktown, it is obviously stuck in some sort of time warp! The recommendation of the commissioner—and the decision of the Blacktown City Council—to reject the application for an extension of trading hours for Parklea Markets makes a mockery of the boastful assertions of the Treasurer that New South Wales is a progressive, free enterprise economy. I can only assume the Treasurer is unaware that one of his Labor councils in western Sydney is a rotten borough in an otherwise progressive global economy.
The decision of Blacktown City Council has to be challenged, because it is denying budding entrepreneurs from western Sydney a fair start in life. Yesterday in another place the Labor member for Blacktown, Paul Gibson, acknowledged some of the success stories which have emanated from Parklea Markets. Success stories include a company called Fantastic Furniture, which started with two stores in Parklea Markets, and today it has 20 outlets across Australia. Décor Rugs started there with two stalls and now has seven shops across New South Wales. Nads Hair Removal started at Parklea with one stall in 1991 and has developed into a multimillion dollar retail marketing company supplying products Australiawide. Ellerman Clothiers started with one store in 1990 and is now a large company in the city, and still trades at Parklea Markets.
The list of success stories includes Spot On Fashions, Steves Fishing, and many other businesses that had the opportunity at Parklea Markets to establish themselves and expanded into much larger trading enterprises. Parklea Markets have been denied justice in this case and have been the subject of foul play. There 5252 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000 have already been reports of major shopping centre involvement in clandestine campaigns against the application, and these are currently before the court. It is ironic that other shopping centres objecting to the application did not exist in the Blacktown local government area when Parklea Markets were first established.
This issue is about free enterprise, fair competition and community demand. It is about providing business opportunities for budding entrepreneurs who would not be able to meet the costs associated with establishing themselves in a major shopping centre. It is about meeting the demands of our diverse multicultural community in western Sydney. Besides being a vibrant, friendly and interesting marketplace, Parklea is also a major tourist attraction for western Sydney. Up to 20 tourist buses visit the market each weekend. I add my support to the call on the Labor Government by the Labor member for Blacktown, Paul Gibson, to facilitate the application for an extension of trading hours at Parklea Markets. I invite Blacktown City Council to take a tentative step forward in the new millennium.
GLENWORTH VALLEY MUSIC FESTIVAL
The Hon. D. J. GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.41 p.m.]: Would honourable members be happy if twice a year, every year, a three-day music festival was held on the property next to their family home, with little or no regard to their property rights, the safety and wellbeing of themselves or their family during that period? That is exactly what happens twice a year in the Glenworth Valley on the New South Wales Central Coast. The web site of the festival organisers states:
It's people coming together to enjoy the environment together. The valley itself is spectacular not only in its size but in its beauty. On my first trip into it I felt like I was in one of those half-remembered cheesy movies from childhood where they discover a lost valley in the middle of Tibet. It's serene and there's nothing like it on the East Coast of Australia. There's a creek running through the middle, with the festival and the camping on either side of the creek.
I think the diversity that we're offering is a style in itself. I like the idea of something that appeals not only to a whole range of different people, but to the whole region of different people within each person.
I would like to interpret that statement in the context of what actually happens at the festival and the experiences of one family who have written to me and met with me over the past three years regarding ongoing problems with the festival. The initial Glenworth Valley Festival was granted a one-off approval for the summer of 1998. The festival and other events at the site have continued since then, despite the protests of Graham and Dorothea Marler. The Marlers operate a citrus industry on their property adjoining the Glenworth Valley site. They had initial concerns about the festival when it was first proposed, and detailed those issues to Gosford City Council.
When council considered the initial application for an open-air music festival, it chose to do so in a closed committee, thus making it impossible for detractors and opponents of the project to put their case. I detailed concerns about this practice to then Minister for Local Government, Ernie Page, but, as usual, little or nothing was done. Since that time the festivals have continued, despite the original proposal being for a one-off event. To my reasoning, and I am sure to the reasoning of many people, a one-off event means just that—once, and once only.
According to the organisers, the Glenworth Valley festival now attracts approximately 8,000 people. Last year the festival was held not once but twice, in a three-month period. The preparations for the festival begin at least two weeks prior, and the clean-up takes from a week to 10 days. In effect, the Marlers have had to put up with increased traffic flow and noise for up to a month at a time. The road to the Glenworth site is not a highway. It is not designed for heavy vehicular use. It is a country road and it is showing wear and tear from constant use.
The other problem that has emerged in recent times has been the use by festival patrons of a paddock which is right next door to the Marlers' home, for parking and camping. The development applications lodged with the Gosford City Council covered an area of the Glenworth Valley property that is away from the home. Indeed, the paddock next to the house was never included in the development application. The result has been the use of the adjoining paddock for a camping and parking area and this has led to reduced privacy and increased noise and rubbish.
The Marlers are not whingers. They are not party poopers. They are not wowsers. These people are trying to get on with their lives in what is basically a rural environment, but they are finding it increasingly difficult to do so because of this intrusion. Complaining to the council and the organisers about the problems associated with the event has not helped. The Marlers have been subjected to intimidation, harassment and threatening phone calls—all because they want a solution to a problem that is affecting their lives. The manner 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5253 in which the festival has been allowed to proceed over the years, with little or no regard being shown by the organisers of the event and the Gosford City Council for the concerns of the neighbouring land-holders, is nothing short of disgraceful.
The Marlers have suffered enough. They have been forced to become part of a culture which twice a year sees thousands of people travel along the F3 to attend a festival and then leave the valley to return to their normal lives. Unfortunately, the concept of normality has disappeared for the Marlers and the other residents who live too close to Glenworth Valley. [Time expired.]
STEVE ANAS GREEK CRIMINAL COURT HEARING
The Hon. D. E. OLDFIELD [6.46 p.m.]: Towards the end of last year I asked the first in a series of questions about alleged murderer Steve Anas. Next Monday the trial of Steve Anas, in connection with the armed hold-up and murder of Mrs Toula Soravia in Summer Hill on 26 April 1994, will commence in Greece. Let us all understand the ridiculous nature of this situation. Mrs Toula Soravia is an Australian citizen who was murdered in this State. Anas, the alleged murderer, was born in Australia and is, of course, an Australian citizen. Anas, by virtue of a series of inexcusable acts, managed to flee to Greece, where he will now be the first Australian citizen ever to be tried in another country for a crime committed against another Australian citizen in Australia.
After pleading guilty to a drugs charge, Anas applied for an urgent passport, which he received on 19 May 1994. On 20 May 1994—the next day—Anas was detained at Sydney airport because he was known to be a suspect in the murder of Toula Soravia. Unfortunately, despite being caught, in the first of a series of escapes he was allowed to board a plain to Greece. A year later, in May 1995, New South Wales police issued an arrest warrant through Interpol and the Australian Government made a request to the Greek Government for Anas's extradition. On 9 August 1995 Anas's parents lodged an application with the Greek Consul in Sydney, Mr Daras, for their son to be registered as a Greek citizen.
On 18 October 1995, after walking freely in Greece for a year and a half, Anas was arrested and the extradition hearing was scheduled for 1 November 1995. Unfortunately, in yet another lucky escape for Anas, the extradition was adjourned to 8 November. By that time the court had received notice of Anas's Greek citizenship, which had only been granted on 3 November—after the date scheduled for the original extradition hearing. The Australian Government's extradition request was refused on the basis of Anas's Greek citizenship. I reiterate that Anas was born in Australia and was an Australian citizen. His Greek citizenship had been granted only five days before his application was received and processed by the Greek Consul, Mr Daras, despite his having been informed of the warrant for Anas's arrest.
The only Australian present at the hearing was Mr Loui Soravia. The Federal Government was not represented at the hearing, nor did it take the opportunity to appeal within the 10 days available. If not for the presence of Mr Loui Soravia and his statement to the magistrate, Anas would have been released. Due to the work of Loui Soravia, Anas was charged with instigating homicide with intent and robbery. However, amazingly, he was granted bail in the Australian equivalent of about $25,000. After his release Anas breached his bail conditions. Nothing was done until Loui Soravia discovered that Anas had once again been walking free for more than a year, this time enjoying the high life of Athens. Only after pressure from Loui Soravia was Anas finally arrested again. Can honourable members believe that while spending two weeks in gaol Anas appealed to the Australian Ambassador for help?
It is clear that Anas is a Greek on some days and an Australian on others, depending on the dubious needs of his circumstances at the time. Despite the outrageous bungling by Australian authorities, particularly the Federal Government, Loui Soravia was unable to convince the Federal Attorney-General, Senator Amanda Vanstone, to use the convictions of Anas's alleged co-conspirators Zammit and Souleymann as the basis for a second application for extradition, an action clearly allowable under Greek law. In yet another of Anas's perplexingly lucky escapes, a suspicious hospitalisation saved him from a trial scheduled for October 1999. This case has a long way to go and the implications of its outcome are far-reaching.
I assure the House that we will hear more about the alleged murderer Steve Anas. There are those who have a lot to answer for: the Australian authorities, the Greek Consul Daras and the Greek Government for having the hide to allow Anas Greek citizenship and then to refuse his extradition on that bogus basis. We can only hope and, where possible, do what we can to make sure that those responsible for this miscarriage of justice are made to pay for their involvement. 5254 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 May 2000
Mr AND Mrs BLACKBURN AND HOME OWNERS WARRANTY LTD
The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [6.51 p.m.]: I would like to raise the plight of the Blackburn family who are owners of a landscape contracting firm in the Newcastle district. Mr and Mrs Blackburn have been in contact with me during the past few weeks regarding problems that company has experienced with the Home Warranty Insurance Scheme. Since May 1997 their company has held this insurance without problems until last year. Mr and Mrs Blackburn applied to renew their annual blanket policy with FAI Insurance, now HIH Insurance, who informed them that it no longer insured landscapers. They then applied to Dexta Corporation and received a premium quotation of just over $5,400. The underwriting conditions included the submission of directors' personal assets and liabilities statements, personal indemnity from all directors and a request for all details of the Fair Trading Tribunal claim of one of their clients. Mr and Mrs Blackburn informed me that this was the first claim ever lodged against them and it was amicably resolved.
Mr and Mrs Blackburn were not able to afford a premium of more than $5,400, and upon review of the initial quotation Dexta Corporation provided an additional premium quotation of $1,756. However, the underwriting conditions now included a bank guarantee of $25,000 and further details of the Fair Trading Tribunal claim. After failing to obtain a bank guarantee, which they fundamentally objected to, Mr and Mrs Blackburn applied to Home Owners Warranty Ltd and were informed that their company did not meet the criteria of their lead insurers. One of the clearest ironies of the situation facing the Blackburns is that had they been members of the Master Builders Association prior to the end of 1999, HIH would have continued their insurance. Dexta Corporation is the only insurance company that will provide annual blanket policies and Home Owners Warranty Ltd is the only insurance company that will provide job specific policies for landscapers. That leaves no alternatives available to their company and they are unable to obtain builders warranty insurance from any of the approved insurers. Mr and Mrs Blackburn are required by the Department of Fair Trading to either have or be eligible to obtain home warranty insurance by the date of renewal of their contractor licence. They will be required to apply for exemption and their licence will be issued with the condition printed on it stating "only for contracts not requiring home warranty insurance". This can be prevented only if they are able to meet the insurance underwriting conditions.
Mr and Mrs Blackburn have outlined to me that their company has been prevented from entering into contracts that would be financially beneficial. They have been trading only with contracts not requiring home warranty insurance since their initial attempt at renewal of their insurance. Trading in those circumstances has severely restricted their company's ability to financially improve and perhaps meet the underwriting requirements. Home Owners Warranty Ltd has told the Blackburns that it requires at least 10 per cent of their annual turnover in paid-up capital in their company—that is, in excess of $28,000—and the Dexta Corporation will not remove the requirement of a $25,000 bank guarantee. They have tried to negotiate with Dexta by providing benchmark comparison analysis and references from clients. However, Dexta remains adamant that it will not remove the bank guarantee requirement. Can honourable members honestly understand an insurance company that offers insurance but then seeks a bank guarantee from the insured company to recover any payout that may be made? That insurance scheme being pushed upon the unsuspecting small businesses of New South Wales by the Department of Fair Trading through its home building policies clearly has failed the building community. The experiences of Mr and Mrs Blackburn in Newcastle is one that this Government seriously needs to address. As I indicated earlier, I will continue to put example after example onto the record until such time as the Department of Fair Trading and, indeed, the Minister acts on these urgent matters for the continuing success of businesses in New South Wales. MAY DAY
The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN [6.56 p.m.]: On Sunday 7 May the streets of the central business district of Sydney will play host to the annual May Day march. This big event has been organised by the May Day Committee and, like any major event, an enormous amount of time, energy and effort by volunteers has gone into it. I congratulate all May Day Committee members on their efforts. They have a commitment to the rights and dignity of workers and they want to demonstrate solidarity to workers and resistance to oppression and tyranny. In our time that has become more difficult to do, given the changing nature of society and politics. But, like many things that wax and wane, the need for our unions and union movement is even more pressing now. Given that a lot of government business activity and industry have been privatised, corporatised, outsourced, globalised or some other "ised", the way to protect workers' entitlements and rights presents us with more of a challenge. 4 May 2000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5255
What is May Day? It is about celebrating international workers day. It was given birth in the United States of America. I could say a lot more but I have limited time. I want to say that the first national public holiday declared in East Timor was declared on May Day, 1 May. A lot of people sent messages of congratulations. My message said, inter alia, "I understand it is very difficult because there is no employment and times are tough, but the fact that you have actually chosen your first National public holiday as May Day is really symbolic of the sort of society and of the future you want." I say well done to the East Timor May Day Committee and comrades there.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at 6.59 p.m. ______