LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Thursday, 13th May, 1993

______

Mr Speaker (The Hon. Kevin Richard Rozzoli) took the chair at 9 a.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

HOMEFUND MORTGAGE RELIEF BILL

Withdrawal

Order of the day for second reading of this bill discharged.

Bill ordered to be withdrawn.

NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE (EMU LICENCE) AMENDMENT BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr SMALL (Murray) [9.6]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Interest in emu farming began in Western Australia in the mid-1970s. By 1986 an emu farm operated by the Ngangganawili Aboriginal community was rearing about 600 emu chicks a year. The following year emu farming was recognised by Western Australia's Department of Agriculture as being technically feasible as a rural enterprise with prospects of development of an export industry for emu products. Western Australia's Department of Agriculture itself established an experimental emu farm in 1988 and commenced work on establishing optimal housing and husbandry standards for the commercial production of emus. By the end of 1988 17 emu farms had been licensed and the Western Australian Farmers Federation had formed a group called Emu Farmers of Australia to pursue the investigation and development of markets for emu products. There is a growing international market for emu products, including meat for human consumption, leather, oil for use in skin care products, medication and cosmetics, feathers, claws and carved eggs.

In 1990 the former Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Tim Moore, M.P., and the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs, the Hon. Ian Armstrong, M.P., established an interdepartmental committee to inquire into the feasibility of introducing emu farming into New South Wales. Officers of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and New South Wales Agriculture visited Western Australia to discuss the industry with their counterparts, a number of emu farmers and the Western Australian Farmers Federation. The committee reported to the Ministers in July 1990, recommending that steps, including amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Act, be initiated to facilitate the introduction of this new industry into New South Wales.

Commercial emu farming has been occurring in Western Australia since 1976, and about 39 farms are now operating there. In addition, there are two farms in Queensland and one in Tasmania, and emu farming has recently been approved in South Australia. It can be seen that emu farming is a new but growing Australian industry. The industry will not operate by way of culling animals from the wild. Rather, the emus that will eventually be slaughtered will be captive-bred animals. Licences may be issued to permit the taking of some chicks from the wild to provide breeding stock, but only from areas where, in the past, licences have been issued to kill emus that have been damaging crops and fences. The number of animals taken from the wild for breeding stock will not exceed those that have been killed in the past for damage mitigation purposes. The emu farming industry will not have any impact on the conservation status of emus in the wild.

When the industry commenced in Western Australia that State developed housing and husbandry standards and licensing conditions that have been adopted by Queensland and Tasmania and will be adopted by South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. It is important for the stability of the industry, the protection of the market and the protection of wild populations of emus that there be consistent standards for emu farming throughout Australia. Licensing fees will be set at $5,000 per annum so that the cost of introducing the emu licensing system is borne by the industry. The introduction of the licensing system will not divert resources from any conservation programs or the work of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. If interest in the new industry is even greater than expected, any surplus of funds from licensing fees over administrative charges will be used for research and development to benefit the emu farming industry.

The bill proposes that the National Parks and Wildlife Act be amended to permit persons holding emu licences to breed and raise emus and trade in emu products. Emus will be processed only in licensed abattoirs. Emu farming is a new and growing industry. It has the potential to provide jobs and income for the people of New South Wales and, in particular, the rural sector, which has been experiencing great difficulties. Establishing the industry will not pose a conservation threat to the species. Emu farming is in accordance with the principles of sustainable utilisation that in recent years have been endorsed by the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and the International Union for the Conservation of Page 2043 Nature.

I believe we have been very remiss in Australia, particularly in the eastern States, not to have introduced emu farming long before now. Emus are a natural resource in New South Wales, and in Australia generally. I commend the Government of Western Australia, which got its act together some years ago in regard to the issue of emu farming licences. That State has led the way. Emu farming could play a significant role in the eastern States, particularly in New South Wales. In this time of great hardship it could provide a boost for people in country areas.

I point out that ostriches have been imported into Australia and the ostrich farming program is thriving. Early last year I was invited to open an ostrich farming field day. Though I anticipated that 150 people might attend, the actual number was of the order of 1,150, which surprised me. People travelled to Bunnaloo, which is situated near the border close to Moama and Echuca. The attendance of 1,150 people at a field day indicated the tremendous interest in ostrich farming. At that time the price being paid was approximately $80,000 for a pair of 2½-year-old birds, and chicks were bringing approximately $3,000 to $6,000. Honourable members should appreciate that, with respect to a growth industry such as ostrich farming, when it becomes a viable commercial industry, the price will be dictated by the commercial value of the product, particularly the feathers, meat and leather.

It is essential that the proposed legislation be approved so that emu farming can commence. America is already farming emus and it is surprising that Australia has not got its act together long before this. The eastern States should follow the example of Western Australia in regard to the issue of emu farming licences. I congratulate the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs and the former Minister for the Environment on their initiative in arranging for staff from New South Wales Agriculture and the National Parks and Wildlife Service to travel to Western Australia and study emu farming there, and then return and put together a package of recommendations about how emu farming could be undertaken in this State. The present Minister for the Environment will have responsibility for administering the proposed emu farming licensing bill, if it is approved by the House, and I appeal to Opposition and Independent members to consider the benefits that will flow from the establishment of a new industry that has great potential for New South Wales.

It will not be necessary to import emus into Australia. There are already large numbers of emus in New South Wales, particularly in the Western Division. The numbers are huge. It is probably fair to say that the very severe drought that has been raging in the west and northwestern parts of the State - it has now moved to the northeastern parts as well - has undoubtedly caused a loss of wildlife, which could include emus. Last year when I was travelling down the Sturt Highway, through northwestern Victoria and eastern South Australia, I was surprised to see emus in mobs of up to 70 birds. I believe that is unique. Eighteen months ago I, together with a former member of the upper House, the Hon. Jack Doohan, visited the town of Louth. When I visited the property of the Hon. Jack Doohan on that occasion I was amazed to observe the wildlife on the property. It was remarkable. The number of emus in each of the mobs ranged from 50 to 100, and there were also kangaroos and wild goats on the property.

Honourable members should appreciate that, wherever abattoirs have been established - particularly in Cobar and Broken Hill, and in South Australia which will take supplies from New South Wales - the wild goat population has been managed in such a way that farmers are able to herd them, just as they do with sheep. It may not be as easy to manage the goats because they live in the wild and are very destructive. Whilst the farmers are not making large profits from these goats, prices range from $3 an animal to about $7. It is one way of successfully ridding a property of the damaging effects of wild goats and using the meat as a resource - not for human consumption but for pet food and other requirements.

As I have said, emus exist in very large numbers throughout western New South Wales, but that is not to say there are none in central New South Wales. Emus are to be found throughout the Murray electorate, but they are found in their largest numbers in the Western Division. I understand that the National Parks and Wildlife Service had received at least 60 inquiries about emu farming. However, I understand that that number has increased recently as a result of interest in the National Parks and Wildlife (Emu Licence) Amendment Bill, which is before the House.

Last week in the course of my media tour in the Willandra Lakes area, two farmers spoke to me about their interest in commencing emu farming. I know of an additional two farmers in the Wakool, Moulamein to Euston area who have also spoken of their enthusiasm for emu farming. The Minister for the Environment and his staff, as well as the National Parks and Wildlife Service, have assisted me greatly in bringing forward this bill. I commend the National Parks and Wildlife Service for its action and its harmonious working relationship with New South Wales Agriculture and the Minister. Emu farming will involve both agriculture and the environment. I should also include the Minister for Conservation and Land Management and Minister for Energy, whose electorate covers most of the area where it is proposed to enhance conditions for the farming of emus.

I am unaware of the price of a pair of emus in the United States of America. I expect the price would be high - though not as high as the price of a pair of ostriches in Australia - because emus are a Page 2044 natural resource in Australia, particularly in New South Wales. Though emus are a protected species, farmers are granted permits to cull them when, in large numbers, they destroy crops and fences. Under the proposed legislation the taking of eggs or chicks would not result in fewer emus in New South Wales. On the contrary, emu farming will enhance the breeding of emus, but in a controlled environment, thus minimising any destruction that large numbers of emus might cause. In times of drought the emu population suffers great losses. Importation of emus, particularly from Western Australia, is a possibility, but under the proposed legislation the taking of emus will be permitted by the National Parks and Wildlife Service on payment of a fee of $5,000. The fee is designed to preclude taxpayer involvement in the setting-up costs of the new industry.

The fee paid by those who obtain emu farming licences will pay the salary of a National Parks and Wildlife officer who will travel to the country to speak to those interested in setting themselves up as emu farmers. There should be no taxpayer involvement. There are two ways of looking at the fee. It has been suggested that it is too high and is unreasonable. On the other hand, a person interested in undertaking emu farming and practising good management will be prepared to pay the price. Genuine applicants will prove to be responsible managers. A breakdown of the licensing revenue will be fully addressed. A number of people are anxious to take up emu farming, not just in the western area but throughout the State. Farmers in coastal regions as well as those in the central and western regions have shown interest. Emu farmers will have to do the job well; it cannot be done half-heartedly. Ostrich farmers usually allow at least a hectare for a pair of birds. Emu farmers will have to allow at least a hectare, and fencing is expensive.

Setting-up costs for ostrich farming are high. The farmers have to keep a strict eye on the management of the birds. Hawks can cause enormous damage to eggs. Ostrich management is time consuming. The eggs are not always hatched naturally; often they are incubated. The setting-up costs for emu farming may not be as great as for ostrich farming, but anyone obtaining a licence must have the protection it will afford because of the cost involved. Struggling Western Division wool farmers who have a large number of birds on their properties would be vitally interested and would have a great opportunity to become emu farmers. It could provide western farmers with a second income stream. This bill could not be more timely for a depressed agriculture industry. In recent times prices for agricultural products have been poor. Agricultural commodities reach a peak and then bottom out. Apart from summer crops, such as cotton, which has suffered greatly through lack of water, and rice, where prices may not be high but the industry has improved enormously through increased production and yield per hectare, primary industry has had its ups and downs. The sheep and wool industry is in difficulty because of seasonal conditions.

Anyone on the land who has only one commodity, as we see today with many sheepfarmers, is in a most difficult situation. The provision of emu licensing would enable farmers to diversify. To assist the farm income, many farmers' wives who live close to towns have jobs in schools or offices. In the isolated Western Division women do not have that employment opportunity. Under these circumstances it could well be that emu farming would be a beneficial enterprise. I see the benefits there. Honourable members would appreciate that the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Department of Land Conservation and Management and the Department of Agriculture have offices throughout the State. Those authorities would be involved with land where licensed emu farming could be undertaken. I am pleased to present this bill to the Parliament, and I look forward to support from the Opposition and from the four Independents. I believe the bill has much merit and I commend it.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Face.

SOUTH TWEED TAFE COLLEGE LAND BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr FACE (Charlestown) [9.32]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill seeks to declare as a public reserve certain lands, known as additional lands, reserved for the South Tweed College of Technical and Further Education. The land is bordered on the south by Hourigan Street, which separates it from land that is not Crown land but is owned by the Tweed Shire Council and forms part of Arkinstall Park, and on the east by Roberts Street, which separates land from land that is Crown land reserved under the Crown Lands Act 1989 as the remainder of Arkinstall Park, and is described in schedule 1 to the bill. The object of the bill is to reserve the additional land so that it may be included in Arkinstall Park.

The land is one of the few portions in south Tweed suitable for the long-term and short-term recreational needs of a rapidly developing area. I understand many thousands of people will be housed in and adjacent to that area in the next few years, and certainly by the turn of the century it will be the fastest developing area of the upper Tweed region. The community has tried unsuccessfully to convince the Government that the land should be made available for recreation. The honourable member for Murwillumbah and some members of the local council are of the view that the community ought to pay for the land. They support the sale of the land, and suggest that the council could acquire it for $270,000. The Labor Party has had a concern about this land for some time. As the shadow minister for sport, Page 2045 recreation and racing it was drawn to my attention by the community that this land was originally set aside for a TAFE college.

The Opposition is giving this bill priority. The Leader of the Opposition visited the site and told the community to try to gain the support of the Independents to have the land set aside. I hope the Independents will support this bill. I understand the council has indicated that aldermen and officers of the council will seek the support of Independents to ensure that this valuable parcel of land is preserved. The State Government is seeking to sell the 2.2 hectare site for $270,000 rather than giving it to the Tweed Shire Council, which wants to keep the area as a sportsground as its first option. Though the land was originally acquired for a TAFE college, the Government now plans to use a larger site of 17.8 hectares at Kingscliff for the college. Obviously, given the magnitude of development on the North Coast and the expected growth in population, it was considered sensible to use the larger site.

The Opposition believes that the land ought to be given to the shire, not sold to it. The honourable member for Murwillumbah has defended the sale, saying that Tweed Shire Council could afford the land if it believed strongly enough that it should be retained as a sportsground. He said that if the land were given to the council it would rob the education department of $270,000, which could be spent on education infrastructure. That is a long bow to draw. I have been told by a fellow called Bert Swain, by representatives of the high school and by various sporting bodies - especially representatives of netball groups, and netball is the most popular women's sport in this country - that Arkinstall Park is well patronised, with between 1,000 and 1,200 people using it regularly. The State Government is being shortsighted. It is not looking five years down the track, let alone 10 years. As I said, by the turn of the century the population of this area will have increased considerably. If the land is sold, future generations will talk about the shortsightedness of this State Government. This is public land. It is not owned by the Government or, for that matter, by John Fahey. It is not theirs to sell.

Ms Moore: That is like the showground.

Mr FACE: Yes. My legislation will provide for the land to be given back to the children. Not only has Mr Swain and the south Tweed local community spoken to me about this matter, but the New South Wales Teachers Federation has been concerned about it also. The federation wrote to the honourable member for Drummoyne, enclosing a copy of a letter it had sent to the Premier and to Dr Ramsay, the Managing Director of Newcastle TAFE Commission, supporting the retention of the Tweed land, rather than its sale.

The community as a whole and the New South Wales Teachers Federation - which would have a reasonable knowledge of what is likely to occur in that area - have said that the Government's view is shortsighted and that this land should not be sold. In a few years' time people will be cursing those members of the Government who were so shortsighted. In the 1950s and 1960s there was considerable development - development beyond expectation - in my closely urbanised electorate. This was as a result of a number of things, such as the provision of sewerage and television reception services. Today, Charlestown - the electorate I represent - has a shortage of recreation land because of bad planning during that period.

We are not living in the 1950s and 1960s, so we should not have this shortsighted approach by the local member, some of the council members and the Government in not making this land available. A shortsighted approach could have been excused in the 1950s and 1960s when most local government bodies did not have planners, demographic surveys were not conducted, environmental impact statements were not required and long-term strategies for sporting and recreational purposes were unknown. It is unbelievable that we have such shortsightedness in the 1990s. Members of the Government will be culpable if they deny people in the south Tweed area the opportunity to use this land. As we have seen so often, this is about the highest bidder. I suppose flats will be built on this land, with a consequent increase in population. A densely populated area that is close to a recreation area invariably leads to complaints about the noise created by people following recreational pursuits. In this day and age the Government should have regard to the long-term needs of the people in this area, but it is allowing this land to be flogged off for medium-density housing.

A delegation which will comprise councillor Trevor Wilson, shire president Max Boyd, and the general manager of that shire, John Griffin, will seek out the Independents and inform them of the problems in this area. I hope the Independents will become aware of this Government's lack of vision in wanting to flog off this land for $270,000. It is recognised that the population of the North Coast is expanding rapidly and that there is a need for infrastructure. When this bill is debated I hope the Government will give serious consideration to preserving this land for the future needs of the people in the south Tweed area. The Government should be compassionate. It should realise that the almighty dollar is not everything when the lives of people are involved. I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Hartcher.

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (HOMOSEXUAL VILIFICATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [9.45]: I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would preclude consideration forthwith of Order of the Day No. 9 of General Business (for Bills).

Page 2046

I have moved this motion to enable this House to conclude debate on the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill and to vote on the matter.

Question - That standing and sessional orders be suspended - put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 50

Ms Allan Mr Martin Mr Amery Mr Mills Mr Anderson Ms Moore Mr A. S. Aquilina Mr Moss Mr J. J. Aquilina Mr J. H. Murray Mr Bowman Mr Nagle Mr Carr Mr Neilly Mr Clough Mr Newman Mr Crittenden Ms Nori Mr Doyle Mr E. T. Page Mr Face Mr Price Mr Gaudry Dr Refshauge Mr Gibson Mr Rogan Mrs Grusovin Mr Rumble Mr Hatton Mr Scully Mr Hunter Mr Shedden Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan Mr Irwin Mr Thompson Mr Knight Mr Whelan Mr Knowles Mr Windsor Mr Langton Mr Yeadon Mrs Lo Po' Mr Ziolkowski Mr McBride Dr Macdonald Tellers, Mr McManus Mr Beckroge Mr Markham Mr Davoren

Noes, 46

Mr Armstrong Mr W. T. J. Murray Mr Baird Mr O'Doherty Mr Blackmore Mr Packard Mr Causley Mr D. L. Page Mr Chappell Mr Peacocke Mrs Chikarovski Mr Petch Mr Cochran Mr Phillips Mrs Cohen Mr Photios Mr Collins Mr Rixon Mr Cruickshank Mr Schipp Mr Fahey Mr Schultz Mr Fraser Mr Small Mr Griffiths Mr Smiles Mr Hartcher Mr Smith Mr Hazzard Mr Souris Mr Humpherson Mr Tink Mr Jeffery Mr Turner Dr Kernohan Mr West Mr Kerr Mr Yabsley Mr Kinross Mr Zammit Mr Longley Ms Machin Tellers, Mr Merton Mr Beck Mr Morris Mr Downy

Pair

Mr Harrison Mr Glachan

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion for suspension of standing and sessional orders agreed to.

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29th April.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.52]: As I have said, the Labor Party solidly supports the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill. We have a number of concerns about the bill, but it is obvious that its intent and direction are appropriate, and it should progress. There is, however, a significant omission in one area: discrimination against those with HIV and AIDS. The bill will pass through this House and when the Government introduces its anti-discrimination legislation it will deal with HIV and AIDS. It is important that we do not forget that HIV and AIDS form an important part of the report into the anti-discrimination legislation with respect to homosexuality, HIV and AIDS.

Since I last spoke to the legislation, a report has appeared in the Sydney Star Observer that is worth bringing to the attention of the House. In reference to this debate the honourable member for Bligh is reported as having said, "I was just so disappointed because I had the numbers to pass the bill". I remind the honourable member for Bligh that as an Independent she has always said, "I do not have numbers; I stand as an individual". The honourable member does not speak on behalf of the Labor Party at all. The Opposition supports this bill - there is no doubt about that - but she does not have the numbers. It is important to point out that we support her right as an Independent, but it is appropriate to tell her that she does not have the numbers.

In the article the honourable member criticised me for being the last Labor Party speaker in this debate and said that the Labor Party stopped the bill from being passed. If the bill had been passed on 29th April it still would not have reached the upper House, because that House has not sat since then. The legislation will be passed if all who are expected to support it do so. There has not been a delay of this legislation, and it is the right of all members to stand up and say what they believe, and to support the gay community. When seven members of the Opposition support the gay community, it is a time for celebration, not a time for condemnation. When members of the left and right wings of the Labor Party say with respect to this highly contentious legislation, "We support this legislation, we support the gay community, and we will actively represent the gays in our electorates" - I know that Government members are having major problems deciding how they will vote on this legislation - it is quite offensive for the honourable member for Bligh to say that the Labor Party is trying to stop it, that we do not want it to be passed. This is the first time that I have heard the honourable member for Bligh - I hope she will not do it again - imply that members of this Page 2047 Parliament should not stand up and speak in support of the gay community.

Mr Photios: You were filibustering so it would not come to a vote, and you know it.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The honourable member for Ermington knows that this legislation will come to a vote and that the Labor Party will vote for it. I have a right to stand up on behalf of the community I represent and fight for legislation which I believe will give homosexuals a better go in society. In a nutshell, the Opposition totally supports this legislation, with a number of caveats that it has proposed with respect to this type of legislation - nothing to do with whether it is trying to protect gays or any other group. The Opposition is concerned that people go to gaol for what they say. I have pointed out that this measure is absolutely identical to that in the racial vilification legislation. It is important that we have that symbolism, that we have that equality and do not say that one group is worse off than another. [Extension of time agreed to.]

The Attorney General has to consent to prosecution. I believe that previous Attorneys from both sides of politics would have acted responsibly and appropriately. I feel reasonably comfortable with that. It is important to point out that I hope we will become a society with sufficient maturity to determine that extreme views, particularly those of the National Party and of some of those in the Liberal Party, have no value - as is the case. If society were mature, legislation would not be needed to protect homosexuals from those who might take their attitudes further. We do not have that now; that is why we need this legislation now. We need to protect gays from being bashed and killed; we need to send a very strong message to society. I welcome the Government's support for this legislation. It will ensure that the community receives a clear message that members of this Parliament - among the parties and the Independents - believe that gays should have the same rights as everybody else, including the right not to be vilified, the right not to be hated, and the right not to be killed, assaulted and bashed. This is important legislation, and it is wholeheartedly supported by every member of the Labor caucus. I am pleased to have spoken to this bill on behalf of the Labor Party.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [9.59]: This issue has been well canvassed, and I support the legislation. It is a mark of a civilised society that it be tolerant; it is a mark of a civilised society that it respects people's freedom of choice, their religious beliefs, their rights of free speech, their freedom of expression and their right to protection against vilification and violence. Events in Yugoslavia are a clear example of how the whole fabric of society can break down when people are convinced that they are absolutely right and that someone with a different view of life - in that case a religious view of life, a different race, a different culture - has no right to resist that opinion. If I had one prayer it would be to protect me from the arrogance and the danger of religious certainty, because there is no such thing. I feel that very strongly in my heart. A great problem in this debate is that people confuse love and sex. Love is the centre of all worthwhile religious teaching, it is the centre of all worthwhile society, and the love that exists in the homosexual community is as strong and as real as it is in any other community. Though the manner of expressing that love in a physical sense is abhorrent to some people, it has no impact on me; it is an expression of caring between two people.

In a heterosexual community, exploitation, violence, preying on young people, and subjugation of rights are just as abhorrent to me, irrespective of the sort of sexual relationship a person is in. It would be very difficult to convince me that we ought not campaign in the streets against violence in heterosexual relationships, which has caused death and years of misery and suffering in what is accepted in our society as a "proper" marriage between a man and woman. This bill is not about whether a person has a particular religious belief, or may have homophobic tendencies. It is about rights, tolerance, freedom of expression, love and caring, and it is about a civilised society. People have a right to be protected against violence and I will defend that view no matter what the issue, no matter what the expression. This is what the bill means to me.

When I read the bill my major concern was freedom of expression. In all legislation that seeks to protect a particular group in society from vilification, one must be extremely careful not to hinder the rights of free speech. I am satisfied that the bill does not do that any more than other anti-discrimination legislation does. I am pleased to support the bill, and I congratulate the honourable member for Bligh for introducing it.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [10.3], in reply: In my second reading speech I called for the bipartisan support that was given to racial vilification legislation in 1989. I thank the Opposition for its support of the bill and for its contribution to the debate. The Attorney General has given in-principle support for the legislation, but I do not thank Government members for their contributions to the debate, other than the honourable member for Ermington. This legislation was recommended by the HIV-AIDS discrimination report that was accepted by the Government in April last year. The recommendation stated that the legislation should be implemented six months after the acceptance of the report, which was October 1992. It is now May 1993.

I met with the former Premier, the former president of the Law Society and the president of the Anti-Discrimination Board in April 1992. It was agreed at that meeting that it would be most appropriate that I introduce homosexual vilification legislation into the Legislative Assembly, because I represent the electorate with the greatest number of lesbians and gay men. I spent six months preparing the bill, in consultation with the gay and lesbian community. I held a public forum to discuss the proposal on 25th October. I gave notice of the bill in February and I delivered my second reading speech in Page 2048 March. After my speech I met with the Attorney General. He said he was preparing a package and asked whether I would adjourn the debate on this bill until his package was finalised. Because I am interested in outcomes, I agreed, and I waited.

The ministerial committee that is recommending implementation of this report - of which I am a member - heard various rumours back and forth, and finally heard that the matter had not been approved by Cabinet until the Tuesday after the debate in this House. My second reason for agreeing to the Attorney General's proposal in March was that the Independents and the Government are meant to have a co-operative relationship. The Independents have co-operated. The Independents spent 20 hours or so in meetings with the city council, the Department of Planning and various authorities involved with the casino. They carried out site inspections and they spent many hours trying to find solutions to the HomeFund crisis and attending briefings and meetings. That co-operative courtesy has not been extended to me, as the member for Bligh, in relation to the gay and lesbian community in Bligh over recent months.

After 13 years as an elected representative, I am a little wary of the trust-me syndrome: trust me, I have something bigger and better to introduce into the House to benefit the gay and lesbian community. My bill is the only thing the gay and lesbian community has in this Parliament 10 months after the recommendation of the report. The Attorney General wants the vilification legislation to be part of a package. I have not been given any solid reasons why it must be part of the package, other than that the Attorney General says so. According to the statements he made at a forum in the Heffron Hall last Saturday, his package is still to be drafted by Parliamentary Counsel. He is waiting for the recommendations of the ministerial committee, of which I am a member, which he expects on 26th May. It will then go to Parliamentary Counsel and - as he said last Saturday - will be presented and dealt with in the next session of Parliament.

The Attorney General and the ministerial committee, in recommending the implementation of this very important report, have pushed constantly for immediate implementation of the report's 74 recommendations, wherever possible. The Independents have put a great deal of pressure on the bureaucrats and on department heads to immediately implement recommendations wherever possible. This bill will enable the implementation of recommendation No. 7, and I urge all honourable members to support it. It is proper that the Attorney General is preparing a package that reviews the Anti-Discrimination Act; it is his role to do so. It is my role, as the member for Bligh, to introduce a bill that deals with a very important issue for part of my constituency. If the Attorney General seeks by amendment to improve this legislation at some time in the future, I will support him.

A division was called on the Opposition's introduction of a bill on age discrimination - the only such legislation then before the House. I believed it was well and truly overdue and I wanted to support it. As I was about to leave my room to vote in support of the bill I received a phone call from the Attorney General, asking me not to support the bill because he would introduce a better bill in a few months. I told him that if he introduced a better bill in a few months I would support it then, but that I intended to support the bill on age discrimination, which was the only such bill then before the House. I urge all honourable members to support this bill on the same basis.

I am concerned about the approach of "Trust me. Let us wait. I can do it better". It is incumbent upon all of us to deal with what is before the House in the best way possible. It is farcical that a government that has ignored the gay and lesbian community for years should suddenly claim to be protecting its best interests. The Attorney General should read the comments of some of his colleagues in this debate before claiming that all Government members are supportive of lesbians and gay men. What we have seen is blatant politicking of the worst kind on an issue so important that even lives are at stake. I cannot emphasise too strongly that the bill is urgently needed by the lesbian and gay community of New South Wales. Violence against lesbians and gays is rife throughout the State, from the vicious gay bashings on Oxford Street to the ongoing violent harassment which many lesbians and gay men experience at work or in their homes. Though graphic murders of gay men in toilet blocks have reached the newspapers, people are unaware of the extent of the violence which this community endures. Reports of gay bashings and gay killings are constantly seen in the gay papers.

Mr Cochran: And this legislation will not stop it.

Ms MOORE: In the 14 months before I introduced this bill -

Mr Cochran: But it will not change anything. You are wasting your time.

Ms MOORE: I note the words of support from the honourable member for Monaro. The anti-violence project received 156 reports of assaults against lesbians and gay men. Police statistics show that 13 homosexual men have been murdered by gay bashers in the past four years. In Sydney's inner suburbs the lesbian and gay community has established the whistle project to increase awareness of personal security and draw attention to bashings when they occur. This project is aimed at dealing with the extensive and mindless acts of violence when they occur on the streets. The bill attacks the attitudes which support the violence. It was clearly stated in the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board's 1982 report on discrimination and homosexuality that violence against lesbians and gay men was a problem rooted in society's views of homosexuality.

The report stated that by hiding the existence of Page 2049 homosexuality and silencing informed discussion about it society allowed young people freedom to believe that violence against lesbians and gays was condoned. The bill attacks public acts which incite hatred against lesbians and gay men and feed the violence. It is a clear statement that such behaviour is totally unacceptable in this society. As the honourable member for South Coast said today and the Leader of the Opposition said on a previous Thursday when the bill was being debated, the standard response to behaviour which is not acceptable is to create penalties to deter people from these acts. This bill does create penalties but places primary emphasis on the process of conciliation. This clearly is the most effective means of addressing changes in attitudes.

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

Ms MOORE: The deep seated homophobia, which is constantly expressed by the honourable member for Monaro, which supports vilification of lesbians and gay men is challenged directly through discussion and negotiation - I invite him to become involved - which is preferable to the adversarial legalism of the court room. Conciliation also places emphasis on education. Problems which arise out of ignorance and homophobia can effectively be resolved. It is only when the process of conciliation fails - it has not failed on the racial vilification Act - that action before the Equal Opportunity Tribunal becomes an option. Criminal penalties are limited to those public acts which threaten or harm, or incite others to threaten harm, against a lesbian or gay man because of sexuality. I suspect that many people who could take action under the defamation laws or laws of assault will choose to bring a complaint under vilification legislation.

The conciliation process directly addresses the homophobia of the action. That is what we want, because we want a change of culture. There has been a lot of confusion about the bill. The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai believed the bill was an attempt to stifle religious debate. The honourable member for Monaro claimed that the bill prevented the individual from campaigning against anti-social behaviour. And I have received many letters from people concerned that they would not be able to express their views on homosexuality. Let me repeat the assurances that I gave in my second reading speech: the bill will not inhibit discussion of the morality of homosexuality, statements of religious views on homosexuality, or in any way prevent people from saying that they disapprove of lesbians and gay men.

Mr Cochran: That is your interpretation, not the interpretation of the magistrate.

Ms MOORE: Some members have expressed concern that the bill does not explicitly protect religious bodies or statements of religious belief. I draw the attention of those members to proposed section 49ZT(2). I notice the Government Whip trying to control the honourable member for Monaro. The proposed section states in part:

Nothing in this section renders unlawful . . . a public act, done reasonably and in good faith, for academic, artistic, scientific or research purposes or for other purposes for the public interest, including discussion or debate about and expositions of any act or matter.

Mr Hartcher: But it does not refer to religious beliefs.

Ms MOORE: I will deal with that. The proposed section provides protection for any public act which is done reasonably and in good faith and for a purpose which is in the public interest. I see no controversy in finding religious debate to be a purpose in the public interest and therefore protected by the section. Some acts purportedly done for a religious purpose will not be covered. The requirement that acts be done reasonably and in good faith will exclude some acts. It will exclude them because the act is so outrageous that it could not be considered reasonable. I see no reason for protecting these acts. An example of an act which should not be protected was given by a woman who rang my office. "Homosexuals are sinners", she said, "and violence is the right response". She said that if someone in her area called for people to drive out the homosexuals, she would be there to support them. Should we protect people who speak of lynch mobs because they believe they are lynching sinners?

The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai suggests that exclusion of religion from the list of expressly protected purposes was deliberate, that it was a conscious attack on Christianity. I assure him that this is not the case. The exclusion provision is the same as in the racial vilification provision, as recommended in the report accepted by the Government in 1992. Religious issues do arise in racial vilification matters, particularly in relation to the Islamic faith. The racial vilification bill received bipartisan support without even a reference to the religion issue. It has been suggested that homosexual vilification should be treated in a special way, different from racial vilification. Why should this be the case? Are people suggesting that lesbians and gay men should have less protection than people attacked because of their race?

I find it disturbing that some members perceived a need for explicit protection of religious purposes. Anyone who acts in accordance with the Christian principles of love and tolerance would not say the things which are regarded as offences in the bill and would not threaten a person because of that person's homosexuality. The bill is specifically worded. It applies to those acts which incite hatred or serious contempt towards lesbians and gay men, and those acts which seriously ridicule lesbians and gay men, either collectively or as individuals. The bill does not encompass every homophobic remark. I have been appalled by the comments of some of the people who have rung me or written to me about this bill. I have been told about plans to print pamphlets saying "Stop AIDS, castrate poofters" and to spray nitric acid on next year's mardi gras. This only makes it clear to me how necessary the bill is. When the bill becomes law people will have to think twice before they say such things, which feed into the violence against Page 2050 lesbians and gay men.

The bill has been long awaited by the lesbian and gay community. I emphasise the word "wait". The legislation was recommended by the "Off Our Backs" report on violence against lesbians, the "Streetwatch" report on violence against lesbians and gay men, and the Anti-Discrimination Board report on HIV-AIDS discrimination, which the Government accepted in April 1992. The bill was prepared with extensive consultations with the people most affected. It was pleased to hear that Cabinet decided to support lesbian and gay anti-vilification legislation and I hope it will endorse the bill today. After years of neglect by the major parties the lesbian and gay community is being courted by the Government. But this is a cynical courtship which threatens that the Anti-Discrimination Board will not be adequately resourced if my bill is supported instead of the long-heralded bill that will be part of the Attorney General's package that was due 10 months ago. This bill provides Parliament with the opportunity to provide leadership in relation to putting an end to violence and discrimination against lesbians and gay men, fighting ignorance and challenging homophobia. I call upon the Government to abandon its petty politicking, which is totally unacceptable when a community is placed at risk. I ask the Government to recognise that its decision will affect daily the lives of people in my electorate and throughout New South Wales and give this bill bipartisan support. I commend the bill to the House.

Question - That this bill be now read a second time - put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 49

Ms Allan Mr Markham Mr Amery Mr Martin Mr Anderson Mr Mills Mr A. S. Aquilina Ms Moore Mr J. J. Aquilina Mr Moss Mr Bowman Mr J. H. Murray Mr Carr Mr Nagle Mr Clough Mr Neilly Mr Crittenden Mr Newman Mr Doyle Ms Nori Mr Face Mr Price Mr Gaudry Dr Refshauge Mr Gibson Mr Rogan Mrs Grusovin Mr Rumble Mr Hatton Mr Scully Mr Hunter Mr Shedden Mr Iemma Mr Smiles Mr Irwin Mr Sullivan Mr Knight Mr Thompson Mr Knowles Mr Whelan Mr Langton Mr Yeadon Mrs Lo Po' Mr Ziolkowski Mr McBride Tellers, Dr Macdonald Mr Beckroge Mr McManus Mr Davoren

Noes, 17

Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page Mr Cochran Mr Rixon Mr Cruickshank Mr Small Mr Fraser Mr Smith Mr Jeffery Mr Turner Dr Kernohan Mr Windsor Mr Kerr Tellers, Ms Machin Mr Beck Mr O'Doherty Mr Schultz

Pairs

Mr Harrison Mr Glachan Mr E. T. Page Mr Peacocke

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

OATHS AND CROWN REFERENCES BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22nd April.

Mr ZIOLKOWSKI (Parramatta) [10.30]: In the next century in this country, or anywhere else in the world, there will be no place for the divine right of kings. There will be even less place for the divine right of foreign kings and queens, their heirs or successors. The notion of inherited wealth is one thing, but the majority of Australians are sickened by the notion of inherited power and privilege regardless of ability or desert. No one was born to rule - not the House of Windsor or the house of Fahey, regardless of what members opposite might think. That notion is alien to our national experience and ideals. I would go so far as to suggest that it is a notion that is un-Australian. I was brought up to believe that power and privilege had to be deserved and earned. Power and privilege are not granted unconditionally to anyone for a lifetime.

Sovereignty is not the personal right of any individual. It is time - almost 100 years after Federation in this country and a little more than 200 years since white settlement - that the rightful sovereignty of the Australian people and their elected representatives is formally acknowledged. When the Goss Government some time ago moved to introduce a bill remarkably similar to that being debated today it did not attract the wrath of Buckingham Palace. In a statement in the Daily Telegraph Mirror of 30th March, someone described as a spokesman for the Palace said that this was not something upon which the Palace would comment. The spokesperson went on to say that it was a matter for the people of Queensland and the Australian Government. I suggest that the proposals contained in this bill are matters for the people of New South Wales and Australia.

If the Queen can find it in her heart to acknowledge that Australian sovereignty rightfully rests with the people of Australia, I wonder why some members of this House find it so difficult to do so. The Federal Government has gone a little further. Page 2051 Recently it was noted that when the present Attorney-General was sworn in, the oath of office he swore went some way towards recognising that sovereignty and excluded reference to the monarchy. For these and other reasons it is appropriate to revise the oaths or affirmations of allegiance for office that members of Parliament are required to take. Until now those oaths have referred to the sovereign of the United Kingdom but must in future refer to the Australian people and the State of New South Wales, and their rightful sovereignty. The debate on this bill relates to the highest and most solemn oaths and affirmations that the State requires of citizens or officeholders. In a mature nation the oaths and affirmations must acknowledge the sovereignty of the people. The allegiance referred to in those oaths must be stated as being to the people and the nation, not to some foreign individual or power.

It is important that I refer to three specific matters. The first is that the proposed legislation does not deny that the constitutional monarchy, for all its faults, has served this country well for almost two centuries, first as a fledgling colony and subsequently as a young nation. Australia has leaned upon and drawn strength from some of the traditions and experience of that foreign parliamentary system - a system that has much to recommend it. That system provides stability and a fair measure of justice. Certainly there are worse models in the world. However, it is time that Australians grew up, cast off the training wheels and moved forward as Australians to assert this nation's independence and accept responsibility for their own destiny.

The second matter I should emphasise is that this bill will not change or deny history. That history, good and bad, cannot and should not be changed. However, we must acknowledge that history, in the same manner as we must move along the path of development as a nation. We must take the next logical step to full independent nationhood. That will not be possible while Australia has a Head of State who resides in and owes allegiance to another country, another nation and another people. It is fair to acknowledge that history; but Australia must also acknowledge that circumstances, people and attitudes have changed. The third specific matter to which I should refer is that nothing in the bill - in fact, nothing in the entire republican movement - will prohibit acts in support of the monarchy between consenting adults, in the way that section 12 of the Crimes Act threatens people who hold a republican point of view. Consenting adults will be able to gather in private and in public and participate in acts of loyalty to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, without any threat to their liberty, as is threatened by section 12 of the Crimes Act.

The British monarchy and all that it is supposed to stand for are becoming increasingly alien to a growing number of Australians. That is evident in citizenship ceremonies. All members of Parliament will have attended such ceremonies and will know that when people take the oath of allegiance to this country they express bewilderment at the oath they are required to take. In spite of the best efforts of royalists and monarchists, that confusion and disbelief continue. That problem is experienced particularly by many Irish people who feel that they are unable to take the oath and as a result are not able to become Australian citizens. That does not mean that they are not loyal or good Australians and will not continue to be so. But it does mean that the arguments that have been used to prop up the artificial organs and trappings of constitutional monarchy - arguments that have been used to justify the unsatisfactory state of affairs - no longer carry the weight they once did.

Candidates for citizenship want to commit themselves and make a pledge to Australia, not to a foreign Head of State. The Federal Government has acted to alter that oath. I acknowledge that this House can do nothing to affect that process, but the oaths that members of the New South Wales Parliament are required to take are inappropriate for precisely the same reasons. Section 12 of the Constitution Act refers to the oath that members of Parliament are required to take as specified in the Oaths Act 1900. That section reads:

And whensoever the demise of His present Majesty (whom may God long preserve) or of any of His Successors to the Crown of the United Kingdom shall be notified by the Governor to the said Council and Assembly respectively, the Members of the said Council and Assembly shall, before they are permitted to sit and vote therein, take and subscribe the like oath of allegiance to the Successor for the time being to the said Crown.

That oath makes no reference to the rightful sovereignty of the people of New South Wales. In fact, there is no reference at all to the people of New South Wales. The concern is clearly for the authority of Her Majesty or the monarch of the United Kingdom. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Let me now examine the nature of the oath itself. Section 9E of the Constitution Act 1902 states:

(a) a reference to the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance is a reference to an Oath or Affirmation swearing or affirming to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty and Her Majesty's heirs and successors according to law;

Again no reference is made to the rightful sovereignty of the people of New South Wales, or at all to the people of New South Wales. That omission must be addressed. The new oath provided for in the bill will remove such references and instead, as specified in schedule 1 to the bill, will require parliamentarians to take oaths or affirmations that recognise that sovereignty of the people of New South Wales. The bill will require similar changes to the oath taken by the Governor, members of the Executive Council, judicial officers, police, prison officers and special constables. So, too, the bill recognises that it is appropriate to change the titles of people performing other functions. According to the bill the titles of Crown Advocate, Crown Prosecutor and Crown Solicitor should more appropriately be referred to as New South Wales Government Advocate, State Prosecutor and New South Wales Government Solicitor.

It is right in modern Australia that the title of Page 2052 officeholders should reflect that the authority of these positions stems not from the Crown - as they were claimed once to do - but from the people of New South Wales directly or through their elected representatives. As with oaths, these titles should be altered to acknowledge this truth. Some time ago the House recognised it was inevitable that Australia would become a republic. If that is the case - and that vote, the media polls, public opinion and the observations of many honourable members in this Chamber would suggest that it is - and if the majority of Australians believe it is appropriate for Australia to become a republic, our democratic system demands that the House support the bill and should do all in its power to promote that end.

Mr COCHRAN (Monaro) [10.41]: I oppose the bill on the basis that it is part of the Keating push for a republic. It is not supported by the vast and silent majority of the people of New South Wales. The Leader of the Opposition is acting in indecent haste in bringing forward a constitutional matter. It should go to a referendum and not be decided by a minority Opposition, with the assistance of three Independents who hold less than 2 per cent of the vote of New South Wales. This is a bid by the Leader of the Opposition to save his political neck. He is fearful that the honourable member for Liverpool and the right-wing of the Labor Party are about to roll him. This is Carr's last stand. This is the loony left pursuing an ideology that developed on 11th November, 1975. In supporting the legislation the loony left of the New South Wales Labor Party is once again embarrassing the right-wing. Only a matter of minutes ago Opposition members supported a bill that will no doubt embarrass them throughout the State.

This bill is about the left-wing of the Labor Party asserting its authority and about competition between the Leader of the Opposition and the gentleman-in-waiting, the honourable member for Liverpool. I can see poor old Ando waiting on the Opposition benches in his kilt, while the Royal Scots Guards parade up and down Macquarie Street waiting for him to decide whether he will vote in favour of the constitutional monarchy or the oath of allegiance. Where does the honourable member for Liverpool stand? He portrays his allegiance to the United Kingdom by parading in his electorate in his kilt, marching to the pipes and drums of the Royal Scots Guards. I bet he has a tape in his car of the pipes and drums of the Royal Scots Guards. I feel sorry for Ando because he is wearing the influence of the left-wing of the New South Wales Labor Party, and it is embarrassed. The honourable member for Liverpool is not on his own. Honourable members should make no mistake that the honourable member for Kiama, the honourable member for Bathurst and other Opposition members are concerned about this legislation passing through the Chamber in the name of the Australian Labor Party.

Until the people of Australia decide at a referendum that Australia should become a republic and to break off association with the Queen, the Queen should continue to be recognised in the present manner. By supporting this bill the Leader of the Opposition is pre-empting public debate and denying the people of New South Wales a fundamental constitutional right to decide upon the future style of government. If the Leader of the Opposition feels strongly about this issue, it should go to the polls. I am not afraid of supporting the constitutional monarchy within my electorate because I have received extensive correspondence supporting my stand on the matter. However, the honourable member for Bathurst and the honourable member for Kiama would have some fears.

One of the most interesting aspects of the proposed legislation is the offences that will be created. I shall extend the debate by considering possible offences. Under a republic, will it become an offence to display a portrait of Her Majesty in a public place? If a monetary penalty is imposed, what will that penalty be? Would one be sent to gaol with homosexuals, murderers and rapists merely for having a fundamental philosophical belief in the constitutional monarchy. Does the Opposition want to incarcerate more people in gaol? That is what it is pushing for, and it is ludicrous. Will it be an offence to fly the present Australian flag? Would the penalty be 20 lashes from Ros Kelly? The Australian Labor Party is seeking to deny the Australian people a fundamental right and to pre-empt their decision. The people will not like that, and they will let the Opposition know.

One might ask what the penalty would be for referring to a Crown prosecutor? If it is sought to enshrine this in legislation, there must be a penalty. Will the penalty be a 20-minute speech from the honourable member for Auburn? What greater penalty could one suffer? The mind boggles when one surmises what the penalties might be if a person demonstrated allegiance to the Crown. After all, the House is dealing with the Oaths and Crown References Bill. Will Australia have a President Gough goose-stepping us down to Government House each Christmas to join him in drinking 28 schooners a minute - or whatever Hawke's record was - nibbling on crushed gum leaves and potoroo pâté. That is what the Labor Party is after. I oppose the legislation and believe that many Government members oppose it also.

The bill deals with the principal symbolic references to the Crown but will not remove all references to the Crown. For example, the title of Minister of the Crown will not be changed in the Constitution Act; statutory authorities containing in their title the word royal will not be affected; a number of references to the Crown in legislation will not be replaced by references to the State. The Royal Botanic Gardens will endure, but in future it might become an offence to call them the Royal Botanic Gardens or to refer to a Minister of the Crown as opposed to a Minister of the State. It should be borne in mind that members of Parliament do not swear allegiance to the Queen of the United Kingdom but to the Queen of Australia. There is a vast difference. Page 2053 Accordingly, it could be maintained that the oath recognises allegiance to Australia. The New South Wales Labor Party has missed the point that since 1986 the Queen has been Queen of Australia.

The bill highlights the hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition. Honourable members will recall that immediately before Christmas last year and again at the commencement of this session of Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition, together with all the Opposition members and their trappings, visited Government House and enjoyed the hospitality of the State Governor, the vice-regal representative in New South Wales. What a farce! The recent acceptance by the Leader of the Opposition of the Governor's hospitality demonstrates his hypocrisy. Some of the proposed changes, such as the title of Crown land being changed to State land, may cause confusion, as they involve departures from terms whose meanings are presently widely recognised. Such changes smack of the Big Brother syndrome - the State.

The citizens of what was formerly the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will certainly remember references to the State. That is where it all comes from. In times to come the Opposition will continue to follow the line of the left-wing loony policies. That is what members of the Opposition have to look forward to. The greatest shame about this debate is that while the present Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition continue to pursue the issue of Australia becoming a republic, Australia still has a $200 million national debt. Do members of the Opposition have any interest in that whatsoever? Should solving that problem not be a priority? Are they not concerned about the million people who are out of work in Australia? Is that not one of their concerns and priorities?

I urge members on the Opposition benches to re-order their priorities and start to consider what the fundamental objectives of any government or Opposition should be. Are they not concerned about the $2.1 billion trade deficit? The people of Australia will not thank them for directing their attention and priorities to the issue of Australia becoming a republic. That issue is dividing the nation and causing untold damage to relationships within families and communities across this country. The issue has certainly attracted the attention of the Australian people. As momentum develops among those who still support our constitutional monarchy, the silent majority will react to what it regards as an infringement of its rights. Australia has enjoyed 200 years of peace. No other republic in the world can claim the same record. Australia has not had one revolution or civil war.

Madam DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Auburn to order. He will have an opportunity to participate in the debate.

Mr COCHRAN: Members of the Opposition have seen fit to take it upon themselves to attempt to change something that must be right. We must be getting it right somewhere after 200 years of success. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Led by their hero, Paul Keating, members of the Opposition have now set out to change that. Let us remember some Australian heroes and put Paul Keating in the right context. We would have to go back to the Eureka Stockade and refer to Peter Lalor, Ned Kelly, Ben Hall, Darcy Dugan - Paul Keating fits in with all of them.

Mr Nagle: You are a sectarian; the Australian people love him.

Mr COCHRAN: We will see, because Paul Keating is about to come the greatest cropper of all time. Not so long ago the Opposition's little mate up in Queensland, Goss, the Premier of Queensland, was referred to in a headline in the Australian, which read, "Goss backs away from removal of State references". He is wise; he has tapped into the feelings of the people of Australia. Premier Goss is a wake-up. He is probably one of the most astute politicians in Australia. He is fairly well respected among friends of mine in Queensland. He will not be fooled by the left-wing loonies in New South Wales, who are pushing this issue. In recent times some incredible insults have been flung about. Perhaps the strongest recent recollection of many honourable members would be the present Prime Minister's visit to New Guinea. I keep referring to him as the present Prime Minister: I expect he will fall sooner or later. I visited New Guinea last year and walked the Kokoda Trail as part of its fiftieth anniversary commemorations. At about that time, or a little earlier, Paul Keating said in a broadcast made for the British Broadcasting Corporation about Australia's move to republicanism:

I tell you this. I learnt about self-respect and self-regard for Australia; not about some cultural cringe to a country, to a country which decided not to defend the Malaysia Peninsula, not to worry about Singapore, not to give us our troops back to keep ourselves free from Japanese domination.

Since September last year I have been trying to move a motion in this House which seeks to commemorate the heroism of the Allied forces during the fall of Singapore and the Coral Sea and Kokoda battles. Members of the Opposition should note that 386 Brits are buried at the Bomana war cemetery in addition to the 3,500 young Australians who are lying in graves there.

Madam DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Auburn to order for the second time.

Mr COCHRAN: Those 386 Brits fought and died for Australia on the Kokoda Trail. Paul Keating did not know that. The ignorance of the man! Seven thousand Brits in Singapore who fought for Australia finished up on the Burma railway. Two British ships were sunk in Singapore Harbour. Do not give me that nonsense about the Brits not defending Australia! Members of the Opposition should talk to the relatives of the fellows who died there. Paul Keating kissed the ground at the Kokoda monument, and the natives now regard that as absolute sacrilege. He embarrassed every Australian by doing that. Shame on him!

Page 2054

I could record in Hansard many other instances where people have recently told me about matters in relation to which they feel ashamed of the Prime Minister. I have referred to only one. The ex-service community in Australia has no time for Paul Keating. I have recently spoken to representatives of that community and I can assure honourable members they have never been so ashamed of a Prime Minister, with his push for Australia to become a republic at all costs. The Queen of Australia is still the Queen of Australia. Until such time as the Constitution is changed by a referendum this bill has no right to pass through this Parliament. The time of the Leader of the Opposition would be better spent addressing the failures of the president-in-waiting, Paul Keating, who has left Australia with the legacy of a $200 million debt, more than one million people out of work, a record foreign debt, devastating poverty and the highest level of bankruptcies ever known in Australia.

If members of the Opposition want to re-order their priorities, they should concentrate on the promise made by Bob Hawke, that no child should live in poverty. Objectives such as that should be fundamental priorities of the Labor Party. But no, against the wishes of the people of New South Wales, on with the push for Australia to become a republic! Push on, regardless of the feelings of the people of New South Wales or the allegiance of honourable members to the Crown. I repeat that the Queen of Australia will remain the Queen of Australia until such time as the Constitution is amended by the people of Australia through a referendum. The bill deserves to be condemned not only by both sides of this House but also by the people of New South Wales.

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [11.0]: Does the Opposition in New South Wales have to drag the National Party and the Liberal Party screaming and shouting into the twenty-first century? They should try to get it through their heads that the Premier, in a letter to the Prime Minister that was read to this Parliament in full by the Minister for State Development, stated that he stands for change and for Australia becoming a republic. The honourable member for Monaro has been carrying on a treat. He does not know the history of Australia. He said we did not have a civil war. I inform him that we did have a civil war. Cannons were fired across the Murray River in the middle of the 1800s in a dispute between the New South Wales and Victorian Army corps concerning tariffs. The civil war lasted for about 10 minutes before peace was declared. We had a revolution called the Eureka Stockade.

Not only Irishmen but also Italians and Englishmen were being oppressed by the bureaucracy in England. They protested about the tax being imposed on the licence they were required to have to earn a living. The British soldiers crept up on a Sunday morning when many of those men and women were attending mass, attacked them and were able to suppress the Eureka Stockade uprising. So we did have a revolution, but revolutions do not necessarily involve the firing of bullets; they come about after 200 years of participation in a democracy such as we have in Australia. Let me tell honourable members how my family came to Australia. My great-great-grandfather, David Cosgrove, came to Australia as a result of being a member of the Riverman Club, which was an Irish rebellious group in Galway. He was sent to Australia in chains but he was permitted to bring his son with him. My great-great-grandmother was able to persuade the government to permit her to join him.

On the Nagle side of the ledger, great-great-grandfather Nagle from Rathcormack in Ireland was granted assisted passage to Australia because the Irish Government decided it did not want him to blow up bridges in Ireland, that it was not the done thing. The government said, "We will give you a choice. The choice is you can be hanged or we will give you £10 to go to New South Wales". He was not silly. He took the £10 and came to New South Wales. That is how my family came to Australia. I note that the honourable member for Monaro has left the Chamber. That indicates his lack of interest in the debate. My great-great-grandfather was Sir Charles Hotham, the Governor of Victoria at the time of the Eureka Stockade. He was on the other side of the family. My mother's mother was a Hotham. I have Irish and English heritage.

The Hothams fought in the civil war in England but they fought for James II, the Stuart kings and the Irish Catholic group against the Roundheads. They joined the Cavaliers and we have been the Cavaliers ever since. The Opposition is expected to swear allegiance to the monarch. We swear allegiance to the monarch because that is the law of the land and we accept it. However, there is nothing to prevent the Constitution being amended. Such a change would not be an attack upon the Monarch, or on the monarchy in England and what it stands for. It would bring Australia into the twenty-first century. It would not mean that Australia would cease to be a member of the Commonwealth of Nations; that we would have to forget our British heritage and where our laws came from. Our laws come directly from the British system, as do our parliamentary institutions. The same situation applies in the United States of America, which is a democracy. America has many institutions that have been derived from the English model.

Two books by J. T. Lang - The Great Bust: the Depression of the Thirties and The Turbulent Years - are about the Catholic Irish and how they had to fight against the British and the establishment in Australia which had suppressed them for so many years. They are about the working-class, and they deal with the years during which the working-class had to fight hard for the right to become members of this Parliament and actively participate in democracy. These books tell the story of Sir Philip Game and what he did to J. T. Lang when he was Premier. Lang was sacked by Sir Philip Game. The same thing happed to Gough Whitlam when he was Prime Minister: he was sacked by Sir John Kerr.

Page 2055 It is about time Australians began to rethink the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers did not intend the Constitution to be immovable. The Constitution should be flexible. The Prime Minister is attempting to make it more flexible, and, to some extent, the Premier of New South Wales is in agreement with such a move. The Minister for State Development read to this House the Premier's letter to the Prime Minister, which reads:

I am writing to you in relation to the important question of constitutional change and review of aspects of the Australian Constitution leading up to the Centenary of Federation.

It appears to me that it is now critical to put in place a structure over and above the current Constitutional Centenary Foundation . . .

The major areas that I see requiring consideration at the moment are the issue of how Australia could transform to a republic . . .

The Opposition is taking the first step towards transforming the State of New South Wales to a republican model of society, democracy and parliament under the Oaths and Crown References Bill. The honourable member for Monaro attacked the Prime Minister. It is easy to attack a man when he is not present. My uncle was the first Australian soldier killed in Malaya in 1941, on the first day of combat with the Japanese. He is buried in the cemetery to which the honourable member for Monaro referred. He was of Irish parentage and was one of the first to enlist in the armed forces. That shows his patriotism. He, like my father and so many others who came to Australia from Ireland, or Italy in later years, joined the military for the benefit of Australia. The Opposition believes in Australia and what it stands for. That does not mean we have disrespect for the monarchy. It merely means that the Opposition has a view of society that is different from the model that the National Party, in particular, and some members of the Liberal Party believe we should have. They believe we should stay with the British model for ever and a day. Australia does not have to do that.

It should be remembered that this institution operates according to democratic principles. It is not the Queen's Parliament; it is the New South Wales State Parliament. Honourable members swear allegiance to the Queen, her heirs and successors according to law. The Opposition wants to change the Constitution so that we swear allegiance to Australia - Australia, our nation.

Dr Macdonald: One nation.

Mr NAGLE: One nation, one people, from various backgrounds and all parts of the world. The electorate of Auburn is multicultural and comprises Arabs, Turks, Chinese, Vietnamese, Ukrainians, Yugoslavs, many Australians from English and Irish backgrounds, Tongans and Islanders. All sorts of people make up the electorate of Auburn, 60 per cent of whose parents were not born in Australia or who themselves were not born in Australia. Those people want to swear an oath of allegiance to the nation they have adopted. Like my great-great-grandfather, my father and the fathers of members on both sides of the House, they bring with them the stuff that human drama is made of. All of them have a story to tell about how they came to Australia.

Of course, honourable members should not forget our Aboriginal brothers and sisters who were here when the first white settlers arrived. They occupied the land for 40,000 years or more before white settlement. They found a land where they thought they could live in peace. When white settlers arrived they changed the land and their world. That is the way society progresses. We should not forget that the Aboriginal people are also an integral part of the Australian way of life. We should consider the fact that the Australian population is no longer made up of seven million British, Irish, Welsh and Scottish descendants; it now comprises 17 million people from every corner of the globe. The Opposition has come to the realisation that we must do something more than merely swear an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors according to law.

The bill has been well thought out. Its purpose is not to change the way in which parliament works. As the Minister for State Development endeavoured to point out in his speech, it is only one aspect of the changes that are necessary. From my studies of the history of this Parliament and the history of Federal parliaments, I believe the only way to effect reform is to move as quickly as possible. When Jack Lang was Premier of New South Wales he introduced the widow's pension and unemployment benefits. He did so in spite of the kicking and screaming of members of the Liberal Party-National Party Opposition to the effect that Australia would be destroyed. They suggested that New South Wales would fall apart if that type of reform were introduced.

When Chifley and Curtin sought to introduce similar reforms federally it was similarly claimed that society would fall apart. Society did not fall apart, and society will not fall apart, as the honourable member for Monaro would have this House believe, if we pass the bill and, instead of swearing an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors according to law, we swear an oath of allegiance to our one nation - Australia. I was born in Australia of Irish and English heritage, and I am proud of both heritages. However, the time has come for the country to grow and mature, to prosper and to move into the twenty-first century. If the Opposition has to bring the Government kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century, it will do so because that is the only way the Government believes that it can be done.

I wish to tell the House how bad things were not in the 1800s but in the 1900s. On a Sunday in 1920 the Hon. Hugh Mahon, an Irish member of Parliament for the seat of Kalgoorlie, made a speech and called upon Australia to have its own national anthem, its own flag and to become a republic. As I said, that speech was made on a Sunday. Let me tell Page 2056 the House what happened in the Federal Parliament when the National Party-Liberal Party Prime Minister - although that title was not in use at that time -

Mr Kerr: Name him.

Mr NAGLE: Billy Hughes.

Mr Kerr: Ex-Labor Party.

Mr NAGLE: This day of infamy when a motion was moved in the Federal Parliament for the expulsion of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie was 11th November, 1920. Honourable members will remember the day of infamy, 11th November, 1975, when Sir John Kerr, using his prerogative powers as a representative of Her Majesty the Queen, in a cowardly way dismissed the then Prime Minister of Australia, the Hon. Gough Whitlam. [Extension of time agreed to.]

I will read what Billy Hughes moved in the Parliament:

That, in the opinion of this House, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, the Hon. Hugh Mahon, having, by seditious and disloyal utterances at a public meeting on Sunday last, been guilty of conduct unfitting him to remain a member of this House, and inconsistent with the oath of allegiance which he has taken as a member of this House, be expelled from this House.

What did he say? My heavens, what terrible things did the Hon. Hugh Mahon say? He was ill when this cowardly attack was made upon him by the then Nationalist Prime Minister.

Mr Kerr: A former Labor Prime Minister.

Mr NAGLE: That is okay; it does not matter whether he was a former Labor member. He was your man at the time and we were glad to get rid of him; you were stuck with him for the rest of his life. The Hon. Hugh Mahon said that two current Crown Ministers and the Lord Chancellor of England had at one time been charged with treason - and that was correct - and that the Irish people wanted a peaceful recognition of Ireland's right to be a republic and for the Irish people to live as free people. He also said that Australia should be a republic, should have its own flag and that its people should swear allegiance to Australia. The former Labor Attorney-General in the Scullin Government, Mr Brennan, said, speaking about the Irish question, "It is a matter of expediency then, and not of morality?" In 1920 the Prime Minister, Billy Hughes - using the same mentality that now totally pervades the National Party and much of the Liberal Party - said:

No. The Irish people are confident that they can hold their position against the great nations of the earth, in a world which, as yet, has but half sheathed the sword. They number only 4,000,000 souls, and are within cannon shot of England.

That was the mentality in 1920. I had hoped that by 1993 that mentality would have changed, that Government members would understand that Australia no longer has people only from Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England, but also from countries such as Poland, as the honourable member for Parramatta reminds me. I represent a multicultural electorate, with people who have come from many different countries. I am sure that even the seat of Cronulla is multicultural and that the honourable member for Cronulla will say, "Yes, I want to swear allegiance to Australia, not to the Queen of England"; because many a war has been fought. I am proud to be the successor in title of the Hon. Jack Lang as member for Auburn.

I do not mind giving a 20-minute speech in defence of a change to the oath of allegiance and in defence of a republic, but I can only manage to listen to a five-minute speech from the honourable member for Monaro. This is a very good piece of legislation. Even the Federal Leader of the Opposition is now adopting the attitude that perhaps it is time for Australia to move into the twenty-first century rather than be taken kicking and screaming when the law needs reforming. This Government is about conservatism but I hope that is not entrenched in the minds of a lot of Government members. Proposed new section 9E provides:

Oaths or affirmations of allegiance and of Office

9E. For the purposes of this Part:

(a) a reference to the oath or affirmation of allegiance is a reference to an oath or affirmation swearing or affirming to be loyal to Australia; and

(b) a reference to the oath or affirmation of office is a reference to an oath or affirmation swearing or affirming to perform the functions and duties of the particular office faithfully and to the best of one's ability and to do right to all people in accordance with the laws and usages of the State, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.

It is better to swear to do the right thing by the people than it is to do the right thing by Her Majesty the Queen. Section 12 of the Crimes Act makes it a serious offence, punishable by 25 years in prison, to say the things that I have said in this Chamber, the things that the honourable member for Smithfield said in the debate, the things that the honourable member for Parramatta has said and, I anticipate, the things that the honourable member for The Entrance will say. It is sedition. The Hon. Hugh Mahon said to that public meeting what the Opposition is saying in this House today, yet on a vote taken in the Federal Parliament he was expelled. He stood in a subsequent by-election and, to the joy of the honourable member for Cronulla, he lost the seat.

Mr Kerr: He lost? The people spoke!

Mr NAGLE: Yes, but you would not win it today. I call on the Government, if it wishes, to charge me under section 12 of the Act with sedition; I am quite ready and willing to face that charge. If the Government wishes to move that my seat, and the seats of the other honourable members to whom I have referred, be vacated because we dared to speak on a bill relating to oaths and affirmations of allegiance of office, sobeit. We will face that. That might be the mentality of the honourable member for Monaro but I was hoping that, as a member of the New South Wales fearless bar, the honourable Page 2057 member for Cronulla would be more interested in ensuring that the law changed and kept pace with the wills, the minds, the wants and the needs of the people of New South Wales, not the machinations of the National Party or that little guerrilla group in the Liberal Party.

Mr Kerr: Name them!

Mr NAGLE: Name them? I am about to listen to the speech of the honourable member for Cronulla and I am sure he will enlighten us and say that he supports the legislation because he is a progressive thinker and a member of the New South Wales fearless bar. When he takes his oath of allegiance he wants to swear it to Australia and not to Her Majesty the Queen. Her Majesty the Queen will have her place in Australia and will be able to assume a role deemed appropriate by the people of Australia. However, it is more important that Australia enters the last decade of the twentieth century and moves into the first decade of the twenty-first century as its own nation, with its own mind, its own will and its own determination to become part of the whole planet and not only a part of the British Commonwealth of Nations; to be a nation called Australia; the people to be known as Australians; to swear an oath of allegiance to Australia being one nation, one people in unity with the rest of our fellow brothers and sisters, so that the people of this nation will be proud to say, as Jack Lang would have loved to have said in his day, "It is for Australia. It is for the people of New South Wales. It is not for anyone outside this country".

Mr Scully: Wait until I get my pad and write some notes.

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [11.19]: The honourable member for Smithfield said he will get his pad. I will speak slowly and use words of only one or two syllables to assist him and he might put his hand up if he is having trouble keeping up with the flow of words. First, I should like to deal with the honourable member for Auburn. We love the honourable member for Auburn.

Mr Scully: He is a good bloke; leave him alone.

Mr Hartcher: He is a real asset to us.

Mr KERR: He is a real asset to the Government. If the Government wanted to select an Opposition leader in its interests, the Government would become the campaign manager for the honourable member for Auburn.

Mr Scully: You would be a good one; we would be in government for ever.

Mr KERR: The honourable member for Smithfield ought to take comfort in where he is, because he will be there a long time.

Mr Scully: That is a bold statement.

Mr KERR: I am persuaded by the honourable member for Smithfield; it is a bold statement. Given the nature of his branches, it may well be a bold statement in terms of replacement.

Mr Scully: I will get 75 per cent to 80 per cent of my -

Madam DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order. The honourable member for Cronulla will return to the subject-matter under discussion.

Mr KERR: Only a few years ago support for a republic in Australia was less than 30 per cent.

Mr Scully: It is more than 50 per cent now.

Mr KERR: That is right, about the same percentage that you say is against you in your branches, less than 30 per cent. Let us wait a few years to see how the numbers change. I return to the comments of the honourable member for Auburn. We are fond of him. He has the subtlety of an armoured tank, which is as well, because we always know where he stands. He will be treated unfairly by history, but there would be ironic justice in that, because he treated history unfairly during the course of his speech. He mentioned a former Federal member for Kalgoorlie who was attacked by a former Labor Prime Minister on 11th November, 1920.

Mr Scully: It was 1919, not 1920.

Mr KERR: We will not carry out a carbon dating test. I will accept that his colleague was wrong. Even the honourable member for Auburn admitted that when the member for Kalgoorlie submitted himself to the judgment of the people he was rejected. Today, the people's representative for Kalgoorlie is Mr Graeme Campbell. Is the honourable member for Smithfield aware of the views of the present Federal member for Kalgoorlie?

Mr Scully: I have heard them. It is ironic, is it not? I have enjoyed the irony.

Mr KERR: It is ironic and pertinent to the bill, because the present member for Kalgoorlie was resoundingly endorsed, unlike the former member, who was rejected by his constituents only a few months ago. I hope the honourable member for Smithfield is on the subscription list for the newsletters issued by the member for Kalgoorlie.

Mr Scully: Are you?

Mr KERR: I probably would subscribe to it if I were a little more right-wing. The member for Kalgoorlie talks a lot of sense in relation to the monarchy and the push towards a republic. This bill is about denying the people of New South Wales the opportunity to make a decision on their future.

Mr Scully: Rubbish.

Mr KERR: That is exactly what it is about.

Mr Scully: Have you read it?

Page 2058 Madam DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order for the second time.

Mr KERR: Through this bill the Opposition seeks to take out of the hands of the people of New South Wales the power to make decisions and to give that power to politicians. When a vote is taken the Opposition and the 2 per cent party will support it, but the people of New South Wales will never get a chance to have their voice heard. The Queensland Premier let the cat out of the bag recently when he spoke about getting rid of the States and the Senate. The honourable member for Parramatta mentioned the Premier of Queensland and said that he was going to get rid of oaths. He is not. He has backpedalled.

Mr Ziolkowski: I said the palace was not worried.

Mr KERR: Let us not talk about Sussex Street. Let us talk about the reaction of the Premier of Queensland. When it was pointed out to him that a referendum was required we did not hear much more about the matter. He backtracked. Every time people have had the opportunity to voice their opinion on a republic they have rejected the philosophy that is being peddled here. There is no doubt that this bill is an attempt to restructure Australian society in a way that was never contemplated by our Founding Fathers. Opposition members would not dispute these words, "The flag that is Australia's national flag is based on the blue ensign. It is a very beautiful flag. It is probably the most beautiful flag in the world. It incorporates the Union Jack, which indicates the intricate association of Australia with the United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth of nations". Would anyone dispute those words? Those are the words of Herbert Vere Evatt, after whom the Evatt Foundation was named, and through whose foundation the Prime Minister made his republican push.

Mr Ziolkowski: I do not see where the bill seeks to change the flag.

Mr KERR: The Prime Minister told the Evatt Foundation that this was the first step to changing the Australian flag. He told the foundation that he wants to change the most beautiful flag in the world. Are we to throw out every part of our British heritage? Are we to throw out cricket because it originated from Britain? Are we to throw out Dr Peter Macdonald because he came from Britain?

Mr Ziolkowski: We want to think about that.

Mr KERR: You may have a point there; obviously not all your arguments are bad. This bill seeks to take away from the Australian people the right to determine this matter in a referendum. The Oaths Act 1900 sets out the oath of allegiance, the official oath, the judicial oath and the Executive Councillors' oath. The oath of allegiance is most significant. The Governor, all judicial officers, Ministers, and members of Parliament must take the oath or affirmation of allegiance before assuming office. The oath of allegiance is to the effect that the person will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and her heirs and successors according to law. Who is that queen? That queen is the Queen of Australia - by virtue of Federal Labor legislation. It was Gough Whitlam who made Her Majesty the Queen of Australia.

The honourable member for Auburn spoke about 11th November, 1975, when the Australian Head of State, an Australian-born former Chief Justice of New South Wales, dismissed the Prime Minister. What happened then? In December 1975 the Australian people were asked to decide. Undertakings were given that there would be an election called and that the only purpose of the caretaker Government was to ensure that there would be an election. The Governor-General would not have appointed the Opposition leader without his giving that undertaking. The reaction of Labor Party members is significant. Whom did they appeal to? They appealed to Buckingham Palace. The Speaker of the Federal Parliament wrote to the Queen at Buckingham Palace. Mr Whitlam wrote to the Queen at Buckingham Palace when the Governor-General dismissed him. To whom did he ask to speak in London? The Queen. He sought intervention from the sovereign - the person whom Labor wants to remove from the picture. Is it not significant that Mr Keating sought to appeal to the Queen of England? Members of the Labor Party sought to appeal against the decision of an Australian! They are hypocrites!

Mr Scully: We never appealed.

Mr KERR: It is a matter of record that members of the Labor Party sought to appeal.

Mr Scully: Whose record?

Mr KERR: It is a matter of history. The Government takes the view that it is for the people to decide in a referendum whether Australia should become a republic. It has to be said that this will not create one more job for people in the electorate of Manly and it will not reduce our foreign debt.

Mr Scully: Rubbish!

Mr KERR: The honourable member for Smithfield says, "Rubbish!" I look forward to that economic guru telling us how a republic will lead to the transformation of our economy. What were the state of our economy, the number of jobless and the level of our foreign debt when the Labor Party came to power in 1973? The Labor Party has done to the Australian economy what King Herod did to babysitting. [Extension of time agreed to.]

The bill deals with symbolic references to the Crown, but it does not comprehensively remove references to the Crown. For example, the title "Minister of the Crown" used in the Constitution Act, is not changed. Statutory authorities with the word "Royal" in their names are not affected. A number of references to the Crown in legislation are not replaced by references to the State. I wonder whether the honourable member for Smithfield will get from the Page 2059 honourable member for Manly a list of hospitals with the word "Royal" in them.

Mr Scully: What a good idea!

Mr KERR: The honourable member for Smithfield says, "What a good idea!" He will get a stepladder - he would not have a real one - and remove the word "Royal" from signs on those institutions.

Mr Scully: What a top idea!

Mr KERR: The honourable member for Smithfield says, "What a top idea!" That shows the mentality of honourable members opposite.

Mr Scully: Will you help?

Mr KERR: No, I will not help. The honourable member for Smithfield should give me a list of the names of the people who will help. I will give him a solemn undertaking that their endeavours will be adequately noted by the general public. When he does that I might organise an interested crowd to have a look, if that would be helpful to him. It should be noted that the present oath of allegiance is not to the Queen of the United Kingdom; rather, it is to the Queen of Australia. We can thank Gough Whitlam for that. Accordingly, that oath recognises allegiance to Australia. Under the Australia Act, which was passed by this Government, the Governor is Her Majesty's representative in New South Wales. This bill would place the Governor in a position where he would not have to swear allegiance to Her Majesty while he is her representative. What a remarkable situation! What a brilliant piece of legislation! This bill will do nothing to create employment or improve the environment, but it has provision for this absurdity.

Some of the proposed changes, such as the title "Crown lands" being changed to "State lands", might cause confusion because they involve a departure from terms whose meanings are widely recognised at present. What about the cost of all this? Why should not we spend the money on schools or hospitals? Let us wait until we have a referendum. Apart from being expensive and illogical, these proposals are totally premature; they pre-empt the wishes of the public, who have not been given a go. This legislation will deny people the right to have a say about their future. The honourable member for Auburn said that the Queen will have a role in Australia's future. We do not know what that role is. Let us put it to a referendum. I do not think the honourable member for Parramatta believes that there is a role for the Queen in Australia. So there is a bit of dissension. Is there a role for the Queen, or not? This proposal is a confused, expensive electoral stunt.

Mr Ziolkowski: What about the Polish monarchy?

Mr KERR: I am reminded of the Polish monarchy. Who destroyed the Polish monarchy and the independence of Poland in the eighteenth century?

Mr Ziolkowski: At least the people had a say.

Mr KERR: The people did not have a say. The Polish monarchy was destroyed in the eighteenth century and the Polish people went into subjugation, which is where they stayed until after World War I. The destruction of the Polish monarchy led to the slavery of Poland. It was not an elected monarchy, but it was still a monarchy.

Mr Ziolkowski: In what year?

Mr KERR: It was about 1793. The honourable member for Parramatta might tell us when it was.

Dr Macdonald: A bit like good King Wenceslaus?

Mr KERR: The honourable member for Manly has a point. Will this legislation be a stylish rewriting of history? Will all references to King Wenceslaus in Christmas carols go by the board?

[Interruption]

The honourable member is right. Once the honourable member for Smithfield finds out about that he will be chasing all the children in the electorate of Smithfield who sing Christmas carols. A number of politicians are trying to take away the rights of the people of New South Wales. This Government stands for the people, and I say to Opposition members: Give the people a go. Let them decide. Do not let politicians decide. Let us keep what we have and put it to a referendum. Do not spend the people's money in this way; it should be spent on schools and hospitals. I will give the Leader of the Opposition a list of projects in my electorate of Cronulla on which the money could be better spent. We should not permit the honourable member for Smithfield to climb up ladders and remove the name "Royal" from institutions, as he has stated publicly he will do. Let us prevent that sort of thing and vote against the bill.

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [11.38]: I understood that this was to be a serious debate. I was very disappointed with the contribution by the honourable member for Cronulla. I was entertained, and I found his contribution to be much more interesting and entertaining than the contributions of many other Government members, but he missed a wonderful opportunity to present a reasonable case for why we should oppose this bill. I wish, first, to refer to comments made in the worthwhile contribution by the Minister for State Development and Minister for Arts. The Minister said that a deadline of 1st January, 2001, should be set for the establishment of an Australian republic. He said also that the Premier has the same objective, for Australia to be a republic by 1st January, 2001. The Premier, and his most likely successor, are in total agreement with members of the Labor Party on the republican timetable. They both support the agenda and the timetable - I do not know what agenda or timetable the honourable member for Cronulla supports; that is unclear.

I congratulate the Minister for State Development for praising the Prime Minister, Mr Keating, for putting this issue on the agenda. I Page 2060 wonder whether these admissions would have been made if the Labor Party had not been successful at the recent Federal election. I draw an analogy between the Minister's speech and the final parting of a child from its home. It was a recognition by the Minister of his and this nation's future - that is, that Australia will become a republic. The Minister's acknowledgment is an indication to this House that the grandchild of a British immigrant can be an Australian republican. In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of Tuesday, 27th April, 1993, Sir Rupert Hamer said, ". . . a republic could be achieved only through small steps and with bipartisan support". For those who do not have an historical knowledge of political parties, Sir Rupert Hamer is a distinguished former Liberal Premier of Victoria and is now a member of the constitutional commission. The Labor Party agrees with the view expressed by Sir Rupert Hamer - we should take small steps. This bill is one of those small steps.

Australia has changed, and is continuing to change. Australia is steadily moving away from the United Kingdom, England, the Queen and her heirs and successors. Bills such as this are not a denial of our history but a recognition of it. Australia will celebrate the one-hundredth anniversary of its Federation in 2001. To oppose today's bill is to oppose our existence, to put our heads in the sand, to ignore that Australia is a multicultural society. For example, Mr Zammit, who is sitting opposite me, and Mr Ziolkowski, who is sitting behind me, are examples of Australia's multiculturalism and, indeed, the cultural diversity of this Chamber. If we do not proceed with this bill, we will be ignoring that Australia is a multicultural country and, more importantly, that we are geographically closer to Asia than we are to Britain. We have stronger, closer links with Asia than we have with Britain. That is the reality, and it has been acknowledged by the Government, which has made contacts with China. Unfortunately, though the Government has taken such initiatives with respect to trade, it seeks to oppose this bill in this House. To oppose this bill is to oppose Australia's history and the culture, values and opinions of the non-British Australian citizens who are members of the community.

I shall now provide honourable members with a brief history of Australia's ethnic composition. In 1901, 18 per cent of Australia's immigrant population was from the United Kingdom; 2 per cent of the population was from Europe. In 1947, 6 per cent of Australia's population was from the UK; 2 per cent of the population was from Europe; and 0.3 per cent from Asia. In 1954 - after the influx of the Zammits, the Ziolkowskis and others - 7 per cent of the population came from the UK, 6 per cent of the population came from Europe, and the percentage from Asia doubled to 0.6 per cent. In 1961, 4.6 per cent of the population was from the UK; 4.7 per cent came from Europe - for the first time the percentage from Europe exceeded the percentage from the United Kingdom - and the Asian component also increased. In 1966, 7.8 per cent of the population was from the UK, 8.6 per cent from Europe - again in excess of the UK component. In 1976, 8.1 per cent of the population was from the UK, 8.7 per cent from Europe. In 1981, 7.8 per cent of the population was from the UK, 7.5 per cent from Europe. In 1986, 7.2 per cent of the population was from the UK; 7.1 per cent was from Europe.

At the turn of the century the ratio of UK immigrants to European immigrants was 9 to 1; today the ratio is 1 to 1. The cultural nature and diversity of Australia has changed. There has been a continuous process of change for almost 50 years. That change has occurred and we have to face up to it. The Opposition acknowledges what Sir Rupert Hamer said, that we have to progress. By supporting this bill we will ensure that recognition is given to the changes that have occurred. I refer to the ethnic composition of this Parliament - and I am pleased that Mr Zammit is in the Chamber and will be able to help me out. I shall refer first to the ethnic composition of the Legislative Assembly. First, Tony Aquilina, who is Maltese.

Mr Zammit: Italian, I believe.

Mr Moss: And Maltese.

Mr McBRIDE: Italian and Maltese.

Mr Zammit: Born in Cyprus.

Mr McBRIDE: He was born in Cyprus, of Maltese and Italian parentage. John Aquilina is Maltese; Bruce Baird is Scottish - and we all know that the Scots never surrendered to the British. I wonder what the ethnic origin of Kerry Chikarovski is. Can members opposite help me out there?

Mr Humpherson: She married a Chikarovski!

Mr McBRIDE: Kerry Chikarovski is married to a person of non-British origin. What are the ethnic origins of Deirdre Grusovin? Morris Iemma is Italian; Peter Macdonald is Scottish; and Sandra Nori is Italian. I wonder where Ivan Petch came from. I suggest they are still looking. Where did Michael Photios come from? Wherever it was, we hope he goes back there quickly. I wonder what the ethnic origins of our Speaker, Kevin Rozzoli, are. I wonder where Albert Schultz came from - and I am sure the Government is wondering also. What are the ethnic origins of George Souris?

Mr Jeffery: What about Bruce Jeffery?

Mr McBRIDE: He has just arrived. Where is Paul Zammit from? And what about Andrew Ziolkowski? Changes have occurred with respect to the ethnic composition of this House. Ethnic members of the upper House include Franca Arena, Jim Kaldis, Eddie Obeid, and Brian Pezzutti. I wonder about the origins of Brian Pezzutti!

Mr Jeffery: Who is he?

Mr McBRIDE: The honourable member for Oxley does not know that Brian Pezzutti exists. What a disappointment. He is on the Government's team. Other ethnic members of the other place include Jim Page 2061 Samios and Helen Sham-Ho. The Minister for Police does not understand the cultural diversity of the Parliament or members of Parliament. For example, I am the son of an Irish immigrant. My wife's sister is married to an Italian born in Italy; her cousin is married to a Greek born in Greece; my brother is married to a Japanese born in Japan; my cousin was married to a German born in Germany. Unfortunately, a number of those opposite live in middle-class, white, UK enclaves. They must be made to understand that the country has changed. They should go to Bankstown, Cabramatta and Parramatta to see how the rest of the people in this State live. Members on the Government side of the House have their heads in the sand, and if they insist on leaving them there, they will lose office at the next election.

One of my children read the front page of the Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners' Advocate of 21st March, 1932. It contained an article relating to the removal of the oath of allegiance that was embodied in the Irish Constitution. It referred to an interview with the new President of the Council of the Dail Erieann, Mr Eamonn De Valera. There are similarities between what was said in that instance and what is being said in Australia today. In relation to the penalty to be paid for abolishing the oath of allegiance in the Irish Parliament, the article stated:

The "Morning Post" reminds Ireland that "it is a mistake to presume too far on the yielding nature of the British people . . ."

"Ireland's interest, however, lies in a free British market, which henceforth will be reserved for members of the Empire. The Free State cannot have it both ways. If she repudiates her allegiance obligations, Britain must show just a severe resentment. The Free State might then find, to her bitter regret, that a petty republic on the skirts of Europe is a poor exchange for citizenship of the Empire."

[Extension of time agreed to.]

In 1891, 74 per cent of Australia's exports went to the United Kingdom. In 1991 our exports to the UK totalled 3.4 per cent and to other countries 96.6 per cent. Australia does not now have the same ties with the UK that it had in 1891. Australia still has an oath of allegiance to the Queen, but our trade with the UK has dropped. In 1991 our exports to Korea exceeded our exports to the UK; our exports to China and Singapore exceed our exports to the UK.

Mr Jeffery: What about Japan?

Mr McBRIDE: The difference is even greater. Our exports to New Zealand and to Taiwan exceeded our exports to the UK. The significance of trade between the UK and Australia has declined. The Queen is not Head of State in 34 of the 50 countries that are members of the Commonwealth; in two-thirds of Commonwealth nations she is not Head of State. The countries that have retained the Queen as Head of State include St Lucia, Tuvalu, Barbados and Grenada. One of the great white hot spots in the debate on the republic in Australia has been the flag. Canada did away with its flag but still has the Queen as Head of State. The former Premier has called on the Liberal Party to abandon the monarchy as an article of faith and to take a proactive role in leading the republican debate. The former Premier was a European, as are Mr Zammit, the honourable member for Strathfield, and Mr Ziolkowski, the honourable member for Parramatta. The former Premier has realised that change has already occurred and he is trying to drag the Government into the future.

Mr Alexander Downer, the Federal Opposition shadow Treasurer when challenging for the deputy leadership, said he would be absolutely delighted to promote discussion on the declaration of an Australian republic. John Howard, speaking on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio on 20th March, said, "I don't want to see the Liberal Party sidelined and I don't want to see this debate about national identity hijacked by the Labor Party". He has certainly changed his view since Hewson was appointed Leader of the Federal Opposition.

Mr Jeffery: Why do you not get on with the bill instead of the republican debate?

Mr McBRIDE: What do the Young Liberals say about the republican debate?

Mr Hazzard: On a point of order. The honourable member for The Entrance is obviously having some difficulty with the ambit of the bill. This bill does not touch on the issue of a republic. He is purporting to indicate to the House that some members have certain views in regard to a republic, and that is completely irrelevant to the matter being debated. We are debating a bill that is pre-empting public debate that all honourable members agree should take place. There is no question of -

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Chappell): Order! I have heard the point of order. It is not necessary for the member to deliver a speech on the matter.

Mr McBride: On the point of order. I question whether Mr Hazzard was actually here in the Chamber when I said at the start -

Mr Hazzard: On the point of order. As the honourable member for The Entrance has been a member of Parliament for some time he should know that if he refers to any member, he should do so by reference to the member's electorate.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I am sure he will do so in the future. It is a frivolous point of order.

Mr McBride: On the point of order. If he was here at the start of the debate -

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for The Entrance will address the point of order.

Mr McBride: On the point of order. At the start of the debate I quoted Sir Rupert Hamer, the former Victorian Premier.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Is the honourable member responding to the point of order?

Mr McBride: Yes. Sir Rupert said, "a republic Page 2062 should" -

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: The honourable member for The Entrance will either address the point of order or he will resume his seat.

Mr McBride: The point of order, as I understood it, was that the honourable member for Wakehurst said that the points I was making about the republican debate were not relevant to this debate. At the outset I said that we should agree with Sir Rupert Hamer when he said that this should be done in small steps. I made that point.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: I ask the honourable member for The Entrance to resume speaking to the Oaths and Crown References Bill and not stray too far into the general ambit of a constitutional debate, which will take place in this Chamber some time soon.

Mr McBRIDE: In regard to the proposal contained in the bill, the Premier said, when the issue was raised by the Leader of the Opposition on Australia Day that, "until such time as the people of Australia decide to break off our association with the Queen, politicians like Bob Carr should butt out of the issue, particularly on Australia Day". [Time expired.]

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [11.58]: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. It is appropriate to discuss a number of issues, but the key issue is the bill. In my view it is improper and inappropriate for honourable members to debate and discuss the bill and its objectives in the context of the wider community debate which is ongoing at present. The Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition are demonstrating contempt for the people of New South Wales, our system of government, our Parliament and our Constitution by attempting to impose change without having full and proper debate throughout the community. It is intended to be political, it is intended as a stunt and it is intended to be divisive. Most honourable members would note the hypocrisy demonstrated by the Leader of the Opposition in having proposed this change, yet earlier this year he, along with most members of the Chamber, took tea with the Governor in his residence.

Mr Jeffery: What hypocrites!

Mr HUMPHERSON: I have yet to see a greater example of hypocrisy. The Leader of the Opposition claimed the changing of State symbols was a simple matter. I do not believe the people of New South Wales would agree: there is a great deal more symbolism and meaning in these things than the Leader of the Opposition recognises. He has stated that his objective in introducing this bill is to accelerate the progress towards a republic. He wishes to achieve these objectives through this Parliament, not in consultation with the people of this State. The Leader of the Opposition referred to national identity. I believe that all citizens of New South Wales and Australia should be involved in deciding on any changes to be adopted. As the Premier has noted, in this year of indigenous peoples, Aborigines as well as other members of ethnic communities should be involved. The views, concerns and attitudes of all Australians should be considered.

Until the citizens of Australia decide at a referendum on a change to a republic system of government the Queen should be recognised as she is at present. The respect members of this House have for democracy should transcend political debate over a republic versus a constitutional monarchy. The issue is too fundamental to be politicised, as it has become following the actions of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. In the absence of adequate public debate I cannot express a view on behalf of my constituents but I agree with the Premier that it is highly likely that Australia will become a republic at some point in the future. It is not a certainty and the people must decide. Members of Parliament must represent the views of their constituents on this issue. Most of my constituents probably have not made up their minds on the republic and the ancillary issues because the matter has not been clarified. Debating this bill is pre-empting public debate.

I agree with the Premier that it would be appropriate to have a constitutional convention. In reviewing our system of government we should consider the roles of each level of government and try to eliminate duplication, particularly between Federal and State governments. The powers of each level of government should also be considered. The republic, oaths of allegiance and related matters should be approached in a bipartisan manner. Ultimately, all of us are responsible for accepting our Constitution as just that - our Constitution. The relevance of the constitutional monarchy in Australia has changed over time. Attitudes have changed as immigrants have come to Australia. The views of young people are different from those of older people. Some immigrants would strongly support the constitutional monarchy and others would not, according to where they come from. I acknowledge that the relevance of the monarchy has diminished and may diminish in future but it is not for me to impose my will on anyone else.

Regardless of whether Australia becomes a republic, it may remain in the Commonwealth. The Queen and her successor will have continuing relevance to this country as head of the Commonwealth. It is not necessary for Australia to become a republic to forge links with Asia; that will occur regardless of our system of government. Many Asian countries have a monarch as Head of State, including Malaysia, Thailand, Japan and Tonga. The issue which does not seem to be recognised in the debate about whether a constitutional monarchy is appropriate for Australia is the Head of State not being resident in Australia. The Queen resides on the other side of the world. Many people feel it is not appropriate to have the British Queen as Australia's Head of State when our ties with Britain are diminishing. As the world has become smaller, travel times have decreased and communications have improved our ties with the United Kingdom.

Page 2063 As the honourable member for The Entrance pointed out, a quarter of a century ago the United Kingdom was our primary trading partner, taking 70 per cent of Australia's exports. Our trade with the United Kingdom is now relatively insignificant as we have forged stronger trading links with South-east Asia and the United Kingdom has become more closely involved with the European community. Britain recognises that its future lies in Europe. People visiting Britain with Australian passports experience alienation. They are asked to queue as aliens, which they find offensive. I have sympathy for that view. Australians do not have the same access to the UK as previously. The move for change is understandable. Our historic ties with the United Kingdom cannot be ignored. Captain Cook discovered the east coast of Australia and many other Britons played a role in exploring Australia. White settlement in Australia started in 1788. Our history is an integral part of our State and country.

The United Kingdom is the source of our customs, our system of government and our language. Our ties with Britain were fundamental to the formation of Australia and they will always exist. Indeed, they are represented in the Union Jack, which forms part of our flag. It is not appropriate to criticise a system of government that has served us well. That is not to say that it should never be changed. However, it is appropriate to note that the role of the Queen has diminished over time, and to debate whether she should remain as Australia's Head of State. But the discussion should continue over a number of years with all points of view being heard. Nobody should be alienated or prevented from putting a valid point of view. This debate should not include the flag or membership of the Commonwealth.

The Leader of the Opposition has admitted that this bill is part of the debate on a republic. The flag has significant meaning for many Australians. It is symbolic of many things. Many ex-servicemen fought and died under that flag for what it represented. It would be disappointing if any Australian chose to ignore the meaning that the flag has for those people. The flag represents many things. The Union Jack represents our historical ties, the principles we stand for, the freedom which we have and the ideals which mean a great deal to us. The Union Jack represents our past. The remaining three-quarters of the flag represents our future, in the form of the Southern Cross. [Extension of time agreed to.]

It is appropriate that Australia remain a member of the Commonwealth. The Queen will remain the head of that Commonwealth, whatever the outcome. Australia has strong sporting, cultural and historical links with all other countries in the Commonwealth, not only the United Kingdom. Because of that common link we use the expression Commonwealth. I note the honourable member for The Entrance said in his contribution that two-thirds of the countries which form the British Commonwealth do not have the Queen as their Head of State. I do not believe remaining a member of the Commonwealth will hinder Australia. I am sure we and the general community have a strong supporting view in that respect.

A pre-condition of debating issues that are relevant and pertinent to a republic should be that Australia remain a member of the British Commonwealth and retain the existing flag. The honourable member for Auburn talked about one nation, our nation, in promoting a move towards a republic, but he missed the point. Earlier in the debate I said that the nation will have to make the decision via a referendum. It is not for the Parliament to impose its views on others who feel less comfortable with that view. The honourable member for Parramatta virulently attacked the monarchy and the Queen, saying, "She is alien to the national experience". I do not believe that is so. Many in our community feel the Queen adequately represents them. There are those in our community who have a great deal of affection for the Queen and what she represents. Comments such as those made by the honourable member for Parramatta are unhelpful in the extreme on the conduct of a full and proper bipartisan debate on this issue.

The Parliament should recognise that there is a demand for change, but also that the constitutional monarchy and the Queen mean a great deal to many people in our society. When debating these issues honourable members need to be tolerant of the views and feelings of others. This bill is an ad hoc, one-off, political stunt, intended for political gain and nothing else. It has significant shortcomings. Though it seeks to change some oaths, many Acts of Parliament containing references to the Crown are not covered by this bill. I emphasise that this bill underlines a politically motivated stunt by the Leader of the Opposition.

The honourable member for The Entrance mentioned the ethnic origin of many members of both Houses of this Parliament and implied that all of those of non-English speaking backgrounds do not have any allegiance or attach any relevance to the Queen. The honourable member is entirely wrong. He has missed the point. Many who have come to this country do not have an affinity with the Queen, but many of them feel a strong allegiance to the Queen and our system of government. On the other hand there are others, and I include myself, who are English born and yet accept that there is likely to be change. Attitudes are changing and I do not feel locked into a position of believing we should remain as an absolute constitutional monarchy for ever and a day.

It is unfair to paint people into particular positions; we all have our own views and it is appropriate that we have the opportunity to put those views without being labelled in any way. A number of questions need to be addressed in this debate. Is it appropriate to have change? That is a matter for the community to determine. We need to be conscious of the sequence of events and the timing of change. Change should not be hurried; there should be discussion about changes to oaths and Crown allegiance or whether we relate those changes to the Page 2064 constitutional monarchy. This bill pre-empts virtually all of the public debate and discussion which will occur in regard to a republic. That decision needs to be made by way of a referendum, allowing plenty of time so that all views can be canvassed. This bill is nothing less than a stunt. It is cheapening a debate of fundamental importance to all members of our community.

This debate on the constitutional monarchy versus the republic should be regarded as an opportunity to bring us together rather than divide us. This is an opportunity to forge ties between all members of our community, and to forge ties between all groups, regardless of ethnic origin or views. The issue dealt with by the bill is a question for all Australians. They should have the opportunity to decide issues that are fundamentally theirs - the flag; whether we should become a republic or remain a constitutional monarchy, or whether we need any change to our system of government. All of those institutions belong to the people of our country and we should respect that. The Leader of the Opposition, having brought forward his bill, has adequately recognised that. I urge this House at this time to reject the bill.

Mr MOSS (Canterbury) [12.16]: Most honourable members who have spoken in this debate have made some reference to their own heritage, be it British or of another country. I feel obliged and entitled to preface my remarks on my own ancestry in terms of Australian settlement. I, like the member for Auburn, have ancestors who settled in this country during the first decade of settlement, so I can speak with some authority in this debate on our historical associations with the Crown. My ancestors were British, which might be seen to be surprising to some members of this House because I am often referred to as an Irish Catholic Australian - a title I do not particularly like. I regard myself first and foremost as an Australian of Irish descent. I do not mind including Irish descent because most of my early ancestors do come from Ireland, others were definitely English, definitely British.

However, I point out that they came to this country out of no great love for any of the traditions that subsequently prevailed, out of no great love whatsoever for British law, out of no great love for British justice, because they were victims of that system. I have five ancestors who were convicts. Mr Speaker, you should not be horrified, but they were convicts. I am quite proud of the fact that my earlier ancestors were convicts rather than land barons or early day coppers who, of course, were the constabulary. My ancestors were convicts and because of that I do not believe they had any great love for British law or justice, of which they were victims, or no great love for the figurehead of law and justice which prevailed in those days because the figurehead was the Crown.

Having said that I now refer to the bill which I see in two basic parts. This legislation refers to deleting reference to the sovereign in oaths and affirmations, which are taken by a number of members of society such as members of Parliament, counsellors, judges and so on. Another section of the bill deletes reference to the Crown from titles of persons and places. I held the position of mayor of a municipality for more than seven years. Within that time it was my privilege and pleasure to officiate at citizenship ceremonies. At those ceremonies approximately 10,000 persons took out Australian citizenship, 99 per cent of whom would not have come from Britain. I always found it quite strange to be officiating at those ceremonies. It worried me somewhat asking people who had no allegiance or no association whatsoever with Britain to swear allegiance to the Queen of Australia. That term sickened me. The honourable member for Cronulla in his contribution referred to that expression and also to Gough Whitlam. No one admires Gough Whitlam more than I do, but if ever an error of judgment was made it was in declaring Elizabeth II Queen of Australia.

Queen Elizabeth was born in another country and has never lived in Australia. It was wrong to declare a foreigner as Queen of Australia. That decision had the effect of enhancing this nation's annexation to the Crown. Strictly speaking it merely spelled out in more detail the Queen's role as head of the Commonwealth of Nations. However, giving her the title of Queen of Australia did not help; on the contrary, it rather confused things. In another sense, although that title stuck in my throat as being in bad taste, it turned out to be an ill wind that blew everyone some good, for it brought home the point to loyal Australians like me and other members of the Opposition that the Queen of Australia was a woman from another country. In his second reading speech the Leader of the Opposition commented that it is a joke to ask people taking an oath or affirmation to refer to the Queen.

Few Australian-born people ever have to take an oath or affirmation. Unless one becomes the Governor, a member of Parliament, a judge, a prison officer, a special constable, a judicial officer or a member of the Executive Council, chances are that one will never have to swear allegiance to the Queen. Yet people who have no association with Britain are asked to swear allegiance to the Queen. That is a joke. In my notes I have written that the Federal Government should follow suit. I realise that I scribbled these notes when the legislation was introduced on 4th March, before the Federal Government introduced its legislation. New South Wales has led the way and the Commonwealth Government has followed suit.

It is high time that the term Crown was deleted from references to prosecutors, solicitors and advocates. The solicitor, the prosecutor and the advocate are selected by the Government of the State, not by the Queen of England. They should carry the title of the body that selects them. The Crown Solicitor, the Crown Prosecutor and the Crown Advocate carry out their roles according to the laws of New South Wales, devised by the Government of Page 2065 New South Wales. Their association with the Crown is, and has been since at least 1856, extremely remote. I do not care if the prosecutor, the solicitor and the advocate are referred to as the State Solicitor, the People's Solicitor, the New South Wales Advocate or the Government Prosecutor, so long as the title relates ultimately to New South Wales and Australia.

In this so-called enlightened age it is little wonder that the Aboriginal community continues to accuse us of stealing its land, when public lands continue today to be referred to as Crown lands. I do not believe that we stole the land, but we did annexe ourselves to this nation and tremendous atrocities were committed against the Aborigines; they were pushed off the land and other crimes were committed against them. While land remains known as Crown land it will be a constant reminder to the Aborigines of white settlement, and in their minds, of white invasion. The name should be changed, if for no other reason than to soften the blow on the Aboriginal community and bring about more harmony between the settlers and the indigenous people. Admittedly land in this country is owned by foreigners; the Japanese are a good example. The difference is that, though some people may not like it, the Japanese have bought the land. That cannot be said in regard to Britain.

I argue also that the monarch cannot claim title to Crown land. The land is vested in her name. That poses the question: why should land be given the title of Crown land when the Queen can claim no more right of ownership than can any individual? Before any land is termed as Crown land it must be owned by the Crown. If land is owned by the Government of the State, why is it not referred to simply as State land, New South Wales land, Government land, or the people's land? That is not the term used to describe land, because conservative elements of this nation continue to hold on to these meaningless traditions which did not emanate from Australia but from another country. The bill seeks to strip away those archaic and meaningless traditions in an effort to instil some pride in the people of this State. Also this bill will pave the way for an Australian republic.

Mr PACKARD (The Hills) [12.29]: I accept that the Oaths and Crown References Bill is a clever political move on the part of the Opposition, but it is vital that it does not put the country out of kilter. I wish to refer to some of the issues raised by honourable members opposite. The honourable member for Parramatta totally missed the point and I doubt that he understood what he was saying. He said:

As my name might suggest I am not a Fenian. I come into this debate with none of the real tribal or historical baggage which is so much associated with it.

This young man has a marvellous tribal background. I am sure that his ethnic ancestors would be dismayed that he is prepared to renounce the nation of his forefathers and its history because he does not want a monarchy. The honourable member for Parramatta is totally confused. Everyone in Australia has some tribal baggage. Only the Aborigines do not. Every person living in Australia is either the son, daughter, grandson, grand-daughter, great-grandson, great-grand-daughter, great-great-grandson or great-great-grand-daughter of a person who came here from another country. This is a very clever political manoeuvre, because this is a divisive issue. It is the thin edge of the wedge to change oaths of allegiance and reference to the Crown. It is designed to divert the people from the real issue.

Immediately prior to the election the Prime Minister cleverly put this onto the Federal Labor Party's political agenda when the election issue should have been the one million unemployed and the $200 billion deficit. We allowed the Labor Party, cleverly - and I give it full credit - not to address issues vital to this nation and instead to debate whether Australia should be a republic. It is a shame that the honourable member for Parramatta throws away his wonderful cultural heritage in the republican cause. Some honourable members have to personalise the debate. They cannot speak without vilifying other members. Every time the honourable member for Smithfield speaks he attacks someone. He said:

Members must swear allegiance. The requirement has to go. It is insulting and offensive.

The honourable member for Smithfield, who should be proud of Australia's 200-year history under a monarch, finds it insulting and offensive to swear allegiance to the monarch. He said:

It gives a feeling of revulsion among the ranks of the Labor Party that members have to swear that allegiance.

The honourable member is totally misinterpreting Labor Party attitudes. I have no argument that the debate is moving towards a republic, but honourable members must accept that many members of the Australian Labor Party and of the Liberal Party are staunch monarchists. The Government opposes the bill because it seeks a more general debate and a canvassing of all issues relating to the state of the country by the year 2000. The Governor said that any nation that ignores or puts aside its heritage - and the honourable member for Smithfield has just chucked it out the window because it is abhorrent to him - is less likely to be able to shape its future wisely. That is an excellent statement. We will have difficulty shaping our future if we do not have an affiliation with the past. Ours is a rich, colourful and proud heritage that had its origins in a British colony. I am not suggesting that by the year 2000 we will not have a different form of recognition of the monarchy. Australia must stand in its own right as a nation, but the Governor said, correctly, that we must act carefully to retain our rich, colourful and proud heritage. The Oaths and Crown References Bill seeks to eliminate any reference to our heritage.

Honourable members should consider the practicalities of enforcing the legislation. Some Page 2066 portions of the bill deal with small issues, but that is the thin edge of the wedge. Will the Royal Alexandra Hospital become the Alexandra Hospital? What are the practicalities of removing all references to the Queen? The Premier has said that the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, on a bipartisan basis, should be involved in the debate and then the question should be resolved by a national referendum. The people of Australia have to decide, anyway, so why is this small, focused bill before the Parliament? It puts the matter on the agenda of republicanism, but oaths and Crown references must be part of a bigger debate. The Governor made a lot of sense, as he normally does, when he said that people need to be aware that in a constitutional sense we are as independent as we could possibly be.

Honourable members should have no doubts that this is the Gough Whitlam bill. In 1975 Gough Whitlam stood on the steps of Federal Parliament House and said, "Well may he say, _God save the Queen' because nothing will save the Governor-General". All these years later this is repayment of the debt. The bill has nothing to do with the future of Australia or allegiance to the monarch; it is intended to wipe out any allegiance to the Queen, because Gough Whitlam said we do not need a Governor-General. Honourable members are being asked to support removal of allegiance to the Queen, through the Governor-General. If the Government were to support the proposed legislation, it would be agreeing to accept the changes without a wide-ranging debate. The Government does not support that. The Governor said that the office of Governor-General is significant in helping to safeguard the democratic process and the freedoms that we have all too often taken for granted. Our sophisticated political and constitutional system provides subtle relationships that prevent the gathering and exercise of absolute power by any one person. No one in Australia would want absolute power by any one person.

The key to the exercise is open debate. This bill will lock New South Wales Parliament into a position. Government support for the bill would mean that the New South Wales Parliament agreed with changing oaths and removing references to the Crown and to the Queen. The governing body of New South Wales is the Parliament. Debate would be pre-empted if the Parliament were to agree to the measures in the bill. The Government opposes the bill because it does not want to pre-empt the debate that rightly must take place among the Australian people. For years there have been those who have wanted Australia to become a republic.

Early in the debate the Minister for State Development and Minister for Arts suggested that change in this country is a slow and complicated process. If no debate ensues, the people of New South Wales will believe that the Government supports the change and wants to remove any reference to allegiance to the Queen. That step would most likely prevent Australia ever becoming a republic. The honourable member for Smithfield said that seven out of 10 people support a republic. Surveys may give that impression, but would an absolute majority of Australians be prepared to take the risk of changing to a republic if all the issues were not laid before them?

The Government opposes the bill so that deep, meaningful and open discussion can take place across Australia before the New South Wales Parliament adopts a final position on the issue. The Government will not support pre-emption of the debate without proper input from all sides. Lloyd Waddy will visit The Hills electorate in a couple of weeks to share with the constituency his views on retaining an allegiance to the monarch. We will then invite a staunch republican supporter to put the counterargument. The residents of The Hills electorate are highly intelligent people and, having heard both sides of the debate, they will form their own view. If the Government rushes into the debate and accepts the changes to oaths and references to the Crown, it would show tacit support for a republic. Constitutional problems have existed since Federation. The exchange of powers and many other issues between State and Federal governments must be sorted out. The Government cannot support the bill because it is part of a much bigger issue. To finalise my remarks I repeat what the Governor has said: our heritage is golden and must be retained and embodied in the next step for the future. I oppose the bill.

Mr CARR (Maroubra - Leader of the Opposition) [12.43], in reply: The bill seeks only to update references made under New South Wales law. The oath of allegiance ought to be amended to provide that when required to do so in New South Wales Australians take an oath of office to Australia. The mob on the treasury benches is trembling with paranoia at the prospect that they might be required to pledge an oath of loyalty to their own country! Nothing has made them rage and fulminate more than the terrifying prospect that they might have to declare their loyalty to Australia. What a bunch they are! The honourable member for Monaro vented his opinions through his least useful orifice telling us that the proposal was outrageous, offensive, and would be the end of civilisation.

During the last Federal election when the Prime Minister placed the republican question on the agenda, the National Party went into battle to do it down. Throughout rural New South Wales the National Party tried to rev up the issue of a republic. Poor Tim Fischer! Every time I see him I think he should be gainfully employed, stretched to the limit of his capacities, weaving straw hats in one of the Machin institutions owned by the family of the honourable member for Port Macquarie. Campaigning against a republic resulted in the National Party vote slumping to 7.15 per cent - its lowest vote since the Country Party was formed in 1920. The Australian Democrat Page 2067 vote decreased by 700,000. The Liberal Party and Labor Party votes increased, but the National Party was deserted, losing 82,000 voters around the country. The result of trying to rev up the issue of a republic was the lowest vote since 1920.

The Opposition will sympathetically view the amendments proposed by the honourable member for Manly if he chooses to proceed with them. The amendments to the important part of the legislation - the oath of loyalty to Australia - that I and the Labor Party want will give the people of New South Wales an alternative to taking an oath of loyalty to the House of Windsor, the Queen of Australia. The Opposition would live with that amendment in an endeavour to get the legislation moving and to expedite the pace of reform. In order to create the option for people to take an oath of loyalty to the country the Opposition would also accept the postponement of that part of the legislation that will remove references to the Crown throughout New South Wales statutes. I congratulate the honourable member for Manly for his sympathetic interest in the legislation.

The view of the Government is that this is all too hard; its members cannot make a decision now because they are divided. How pathetic! The Government is divided on the question of future constitutional arrangements for this country. The proposal from the Opposition would in no way diminish the bilateral links between Australia and the United Kingdom - which I believe are important - or diminish our pride in our British heritage, our love of the English language, English literature, our British heritage, our heritage of free parliamentary institutions and an independent law. I have no reservations about saying that I am glad New South Wales started as a British colony. But this country has matured and, though our British origins are a proud part of our national character, it is appropriate that we update our statutes to give a contemporary and relevant expression of our national independence. That is what the Opposition is seeking to do. Labor, by its initiative, is leading the way in this country, and I am proud of that.

Question - That this bill be now read a second time - put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 48

Ms Allan Mr Markham Mr Amery Mr Martin Mr Anderson Mr Mills Mr A. S. Aquilina Ms Moore Mr J. J. Aquilina Mr Moss Mr Bowman Mr J. H. Murray Mr Carr Mr Nagle Mr Clough Mr Neilly Mr Crittenden Mr Newman Mr Doyle Ms Nori Mr Face Mr Price Mr Gaudry Dr Refshauge Mr Gibson Mr Rogan Mrs Grusovin Mr Rumble Mr Hatton Mr Scully Mr Hunter Mr Shedden Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan Mr Irwin Mr Thompson Mr Knight Mr Whelan Mr Knowles Mr Yeadon Mr Langton Mr Ziolkowski Mrs Lo Po' Mr McBride Tellers, Dr Macdonald Mr Beckroge Mr McManus Mr Davoren

Noes, 45

Mr Armstrong Mr W. T. J. Murray Mr Blackmore Mr O'Doherty Mr Causley Mr Packard Mr Chappell Mr D. L. Page Mrs Chikarovski Mr Petch Mr Cochran Mr Phillips Mrs Cohen Mr Photios Mr Collins Mr Rixon Mr Cruickshank Mr Schipp Mr Fahey Mr Schultz Mr Fraser Mr Small Mr Griffiths Mr Smiles Mr Hartcher Mr Smith Mr Hazzard Mr Souris Mr Humpherson Mr Tink Mr Jeffery Mr Turner Dr Kernohan Mr West Mr Kerr Mr Windsor Mr Kinross Mr Yabsley Mr Longley Mr Zammit Ms Machin Tellers, Mr Merton Mr Beck Mr Morris Mr Downy

Pairs

Mr Harrison Mr Glachan Mr E. T. Page Mr Peacocke

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

SELECT COMMITTEE UPON THE ADMINISTRATION OF STATE OWNED COAL MINES

Report

Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [1.0]: I wish to say a few words about the report of the Select Committee upon the Administration of State Owned Coal Mines, which was tabled last week by the chairman of the committee. I reiterate the remarks I made on an earlier occasion this year when the first report of the committee was tabled. I thank the chairman and members of the committee for the sincere efforts they Page 2068 made to arrive at a set of figures that may enable the consortium of Newvale miners, led by Mr McCullough, to reopen the Newvale mine. I cannot speak for the other members of the committee, but I believe there was a genuine commitment on the part of all members of the select committee to do what they could to get the mine reopened. After all, it involved the jobs of 50 miners, their families and the local community on the Central Coast, the mining of coal and its export to overseas markets, thereby helping the State and the nation.

My own disappointment in not being able to produce the figures to support the Newvale miners' lease proposal was shared by the miners themselves, their families and the local communities. Mr Robert Armstrong, one of the leading members of the consortium, spoke by telephone to me yesterday and the bitter disappointment he felt was obvious. He and other miners felt that they had been cheated. It cannot be said that the committee did not do its job by endeavouring to arrive at figures that would have led to the mine being reopened, but that was the feeling among the miners. I believe the miners have taken action and propose to write to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman to express their concerns. I have no indication of just what those concerns are.

In my view the committee had no alternative but to accept the figures put before it by the Electricity Commission. Though some of those figures were qualified by the committee, overall the position was that the figures provided by the Electricity Commission were validated by leading firms of consultants such as Coopers and Lybrand and Sinclair Knight and Partners. Try as it may, the committee could not - certainly I could not - come up with another set of figures which would have led to a recommendation that the lease be granted to the mining consortium. Indeed, even on the consortium's own figures - if the committee accepted those figures - the best the committee could have done was recommend a subsidy of $200,000-odd a year. Based on the Electricity Commission figures, that amount would have been of the order of $1.4 million a year. It was clear that a substantial subsidy would have been involved.

My colleague the honourable member for Cessnock and I suggested that the Federal Government might consider providing the money as a subsidy for a job creation program. I understand that suggestion has been rejected and the Federal Government has said it is a State matter. The real tragedy is that an additional 50 miners are unemployed in a region where more than 800 miners were already unemployed. That situation is of concern to me and, I am sure, to the House generally. In that regard, I was disappointed that the figures did not support the consortium's lease proposal. [Time expired.]

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [1.5]: On behalf of all members of the committee, I thank Amanda Olsson and Leslie Gönye for their assistance and co-operation in completing the committee's report in a relatively short time frame. I acknowledge also - and I believe I do so on behalf of the chairman of the committee - the contribution made by Opposition members on the committee. In my view all members of the committee worked very well together in endeavouring to achieve consensus. All members of the committee recognised the arguments, both for and against, put forward by Pacific Power and Alliance Investments.

I acknowledge in particular the contribution of the miners themselves. I was impressed, as no doubt were all members of the committee, by their determination and commitment to achieving a lease. They left no stone unturned in their efforts. They were prepared to walk to Parliament House in a demonstration. The substantial and widespread community and family support they received is also worthy of comment. In the face of adversity they were prepared to fight as hard and for as long as they possibly could to get a chance to operate the mine.

I believe all committee members were prepared to give the miners and Alliance Investments a fair go. We hoped that there would be some basis for the granting of a lease. It would have given the miners a chance to prove themselves, find their own markets and operate as an independent entity. Nevertheless, I was satisfied there was no basis on which a lease could be granted. I was primarily influenced by the value of the residual equipment at the Newvale mine and its value to other ENC Management mines in offsetting any potential purchase of new equipment. That was the key basis on which we found that it was not possible for lease payments to be offered by the Alliance Investments to Pacific Power in excess of the amount under consideration. The miners and honourable members would be interested to ensure the transfer of equipment to its identified purpose.

The miners were critical of Pacific Power and ENC Management, and I think it is reasonable to say that they do not come out of this process entirely unscathed. I think there was some warrant for criticism there. If there had been better communication and co-operation in the early stages of the lease proposal, it may not have been necessary for the committee to be established. Some relatively minor errors were made, which I do not believe Pacific Power and ENC Management were prepared to acknowledge. Those errors have not affected the outcome but they underline the need in the future for Pacific Power and ENC Management to ensure that they demonstrate in the extreme that everything is done absolutely correctly.

I wish the former Newvale miners the very best. Obviously they have a very difficult time ahead. I trust that whatever luck comes their way comes soon. So far as State owned coal mines located in other areas are concerned, this matter underlines yet again the need for co-operation and communication between mine managers, employees and unions concerned to ensure not only the more efficient removal of coal from the ground but also the maintenance of current Page 2069 employment levels.

Mr NEILLY (Cessnock) [1.9]: I share and endorse the sentiments expressed by my fellow committee members. Committee members were inspired by the fact that a group of men appeared to be intent on working together to ensure that a mine survived and to be given an opportunity to prove that they could undertake the task they had in mind. The committee was thorough in its examination of the offers made by Alliance to acquire Newvale mine either by lease-purchase or by lease only. It was impressed by the Newvale delegation, particularly by the leader of the consortium, Mr Ron McCullough. Mr Robert Armstrong, the former president of the ex-miners' lodge, and his compatriot, Mr Phil Dunne, the former secretary of the lodge, acted responsibly on behalf of the consortium. However, the committee had to appraise the option on a commercial basis and it could not accept the proposal put by ENC Management or that put forward by Pacific Power. Mr McCullough acknowledged, in a letter the committee received on its final day of deliberations, that, using his figures involving an exchange of Newstan coal, his proposal was short by $199,000 per annum - virtually $600,000 over the proposed three-year period.

Under the guidelines the committee had to acknowledge that, even if it agreed with the consortium's figures, those figures would not get the miners across the wire. Other State mines that have only five-year contracts will have to address the same problem within the next three years. Equipment values were at the centre of the appraisal. It was suggested that much of the equipment at Newvale was required by other mines if they are to be competitive on the open market when tenders are renewed in 1996. There was dissent between ENC Management and the Newvale consortium; they could not agree on the value of the equipment. Ultimately the committee settled on auction values for the lease-only arrangement but such an arrangement failed to arrive at a viable proposition. Last Monday I attended a public meeting to discuss a proposal that valuations be independently appraised once again. However, I have a gut feeling that 10 different valuers would arrive at 10 different valuations.

The committee did its best to reach a fair and equitable decision. I subscribe to the view that neither ENC Management nor Pacific Power - and I suspect Pacific Power was responsible - had their hearts in the game from the kick-off. I do not believe that Pacific Power, as a vendor, had a bona fide desire to sell the mine. If anything is for sale - whether it is a mine or anything else - negotiators usually sit around a table, thrash out their differences, and reach a conclusion. The consequence of this exercise is four months of stress, not only for the miners but also their wives and families. I do not want that to transpire again. Everyone has learned from this exercise that there is a spirit of making something work if one wants it to work, and that was portrayed by the delegation from Newvale. The Government should ensure that its departments act more efficiently. As politicians, we recognise that despite - [Time expired.]

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Tink) left the chair at 1.14 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______

CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM

Mr CARR: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. In view of today's unemployment figures for New South Wales again being above the national average, why is this year's capital works program currently underspent by $754 million?

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

Mr FAHEY: We have just heard from an apologist for the Federal Labor Government. I presume that the question was asked in some wimp approach to offset the comments made yesterday by Senator Peter Walsh on this very issue.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order.

Mr FAHEY: For the benefit of honourable members who have not yet heard, Senator Walsh said that the Federal Government's outline of economic policy failed to address the country's underlying economic ills and that it pandered to selfish lobby groups, that the Government was ignoring the fundamental problems of foreign debt, and the significance of economic growth was not being recognised.

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

Mr FAHEY: Senator Peter Walsh, one of the honest members of the Federal Parliament, and perhaps the only honest Federal Labor member, has not hidden the problems of this country. Those problems are national and, of course, they impact upon New South Wales. It is interesting to note that the unemployment figures released today revealed that the New South Wales figure was down 0.3 per cent - an improvement of 0.3 per cent on last month's figures. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not like me talking about his friend, Peter Walsh, in this manner because it embarrasses him. It is interesting to note also that today's figures show that the recovery in the job market, which the Federal Government has been desperately pretending is just around the corner, is not occurring. Predictably, Opposition members are acting as apologists for their failed comrades in Canberra. They have failed on the economy. The figures show that month after month they have failed.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Hurstville to order for the second time.

Mr FAHEY: Questions are never asked in this House about what has happened under the Keating Government's administration in relation to Federal authorities in this State -

Page 2070

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Kogarah to order. I call the honourable member for Keira to order. I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order. I call the honourable member for Hurstville to order for the third time.

Mr FAHEY: - including the 8,000 staff from the Commonwealth Bank who are to be put off, as well as the 40,000 other jobs from Qantas, Telecom, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Australian Defence Industries at Garden Island, Australia Post, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The programs for employment in this State, as all honourable members know, have had remarkable success in difficult times. The mature workers program, the only one of its kind in Australia that deals with people of an advanced age, has had remarkable success. Record capital works spending in this State has made an enormous impact upon the number of people in employment.

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

Mr FAHEY: Projects are broadly on target.

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

Mr FAHEY: Opposition members may refer to all the monthly figures they like, but I indicate that because of the recession the Government's purchasing power in its capital works program is a lot better than it might have been. It is certainly better than it was estimated to be. This financial year we are undertaking capital works programs at a lesser cost than was originally estimated. Of course, that will impact upon the amount of money that has been spent so far. If honourable members want examples I can refer to my own electorate and to such projects as the Mittagong bypass and the Goulburn bypass.

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

Mr FAHEY: A little south of my electorate, in the electorate of the honourable member for Burrinjuck, roadworks have been completed in the Cullerin range. That deviation came in at $30 million below estimate because of the purchasing power and efficient operations of the Roads and Traffic Authority, under the leadership of the Deputy Premier. If it were not for our record capital works programs, unemployment in this State would be a lot worse. Let us put the blame where it lies. Opposition members know that it lies with the Commonwealth Government, yet they never talk about that. They never talk about how the Commonwealth Government is managing the economy.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the second time.

Mr FAHEY: Very few Labor members are as honest as Senator Peter Walsh. The sooner we get more honest Labor politicians like Senator Peter Walsh the sooner something can be done about the economy.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the third time.

Mr FAHEY: The smoke and mirrors trick might have succeeded during the election, but it has not helped Australia.

WARRINGAH PENINSULA TRANSPORT SYSTEM

Mr HAZZARD: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport and Minister for Tourism. What action does the Government propose to provide a new transport system to the Manly-Warringah-Pittwater peninsula and to encourage people to leave their cars at home?

Mr BAIRD: The honourable member for Wakehurst, Chairman of the Staysafe committee, and someone who has taken a strong interest in this matter, has been one of the prime movers in regard to this proposal.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ashfield to order for the second time. I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order.

Mr BAIRD: I am sure that those members on the northern peninsula - the honourable member for Wakehurst, the honourable member for Davidson and the honourable member for Manly - would be aware of the improved JetCat ferry services to Manly.

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

Mr BAIRD: A lot has been done to improve services to the northern beaches in the Warringah area. Too many people are still driving to and from the northern peninsula. Successive governments have grappled with this problem for several decades, but it has always ended up in the too hard basket. This Government is serious about reducing smog and easing congestion on our roads. I am sure all honourable members would agree that we have to do all we can to extend our public transport system. I am pleased to be able to announce that today the Government will call for expressions of interest from private firms interested in developing a mass transit system from the northern beaches to the city. This project has the potential to create thousands of jobs, provide up to 30,000 new home sites, and give the economy of this State a major boost.

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

[Interruption]

Mr BAIRD: Labor had 12 years -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection in the Chamber. The Minister for Transport has the call.

Mr BAIRD: Did Opposition members, when in Page 2071 government, produce one public transport initiative for the peninsula other than the outdated hydrofoils that used to run for only about 68 per cent of the time?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wallsend to order for the second time.

Mr BAIRD: The JetCats introduced by this Government run for 98 per cent of the time. The former Government produced no other initiatives. It did nothing for 12 years.

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

Mr BAIRD: One of the stipulations of this project is that it will have to be fully funded by the private sector. So there will be no cost to the taxpayer. The route will be flexible to enable operators to consider running their services via major commercial centres on the lower North Shore, including St Leonards, Crows Nest, North Sydney and Chatswood. I assure the House that this is no fishing expedition; it is a genuine attempt to address the transport needs of the northern beaches region. The Government has already been approached by several major firms which have indicated that they believe they can provide viable transport services to the region without taxpayers' funds.

One proposal, from Abigroup Limited, is for a light rail system from North Sydney to Dee Why. A second consortium has suggested a heavy rail link from St Leonards to Dee Why, via Seaforth. In other words, many firms are eager to be involved in providing new transport services. This Government will encourage that type of venture. The Department of Planning has estimated that up to 30,000 homes, which will accommodate about 60,000 people, could be built along the route, or close to the transit system. So as well as providing a vital transport system this project will help to contain Sydney's urban sprawl. It is obvious to everyone that New South Wales has been starved of funds by the Federal Government. This proposal will avoid the need for government funds, but it will provide us with a real alternative - a public transport infrastructure.

The Government will not rush to sign secret contracts, like the Labor Party did with the Sydney Harbor Tunnel, without calling for expressions of interest or tenders; it did a deal in the middle of the night and introduced legislation which was debated until 3 a.m. This will be an open process and the Government will call for expressions of interest, as has been the case with other projects. This project will provide a welcome jobs boost in New South Wales, as well as a transport boost.

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

Mr BAIRD: Again the New South Wales Government has taken the lead with respect to transport in Australia.

MILK MARKETING (NSW) PTY LIMITED CHAIRMAN

Mr MARTIN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs. Did Mr Graham Crouch receive a salary of $200,000 during 1991-92 because the Minister appointed him as head of the Milk Marketing Authority, the Homebush Bay Abattoir Corporation, and the Fish Marketing Authority - three jobs? Has the Minister now appointed Mr Crouch to a consultancy on the Sydney Market Authority?

Mr ARMSTRONG: I had word that this question was coming, and I understand that the Hon. I. M. Macdonald wrote the question for the honourable member for Port Stephens because he could not think up a question himself. The honourable member is not doing too badly; that was one of his better questions. Actually, it was the fourteenth question in five years and two months. The honourable member is getting some momentum going. Provided the Hon. I. M. Macdonald keeps pushing, we might get the honourable member for Port Stephens there yet.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order.

Mr ARMSTRONG: Quite clearly the question calls for a considerable amount of detailed information -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is absolutely no call for outbursts of that nature from either side of the House, particularly that from the Opposition. I ask the Opposition to exercise some decorum.

Mr J. H. Murray: On a point of order. The Minister said he had prior notice of this question but has now said that he is unable to answer it today.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is an intriguing point of order, which, if I upheld it, would create a dangerous precedent.

Mr ARMSTRONG: The problem is that I was forewarned of a number of questions prepared for the honourable member, but I was unable to ascertain which one he would ask. I will be pleased to ascertain that information and provide it to the Opposition for its edification.

Later,

Mr ARMSTRONG: I now have the benefit of additional information to respond further to a question asked of me earlier this afternoon by the honourable member for Port Stephens. The honourable member obviously asked the wrong question without notice. The honourable member asked that same question of the Premier and Treasurer by way of question upon notice in Questions and Answers No. 34, and a detailed answer was provided on Tuesday, 11th May. The answer now is the same as it was then. I refer the honourable member to the Questions and Answers paper for his full information.

Page 2072 BLUE GUM FURNITURE

Mr SMITH: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Assistant Minister for Education. Is the Minister aware of the business activities of a Sydney retailer trading as Blue Gum Furniture? Have complaints been lodged with the Department of Consumer Affairs with respect to this company?

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: I thank the honourable member for Bega for his question and his continuing interest in consumer affairs. I am indeed aware of the Blue Gum Furniture company, and I am seriously concerned about its practice of seeking large deposits or full repayment for leather lounge suites ranging in price from $1,700 to $4,500. At least 30 complaints have been lodged with my department since March last year against this company. They have concerned a number of problems, including protracted delivery delays, faulty goods, and lengthy delays in receiving refunds. Consumers have also experienced great difficulties in obtaining any response to their inquiries and are generally not given the courtesy of a return telephone call.

I am advised by my department that Blue Gum Furniture is the retail arm of Australian Furniture Manufacturers Pty Limited. The business specialises in selling budget-priced lounge suites and operates six retail stores in New South Wales - at Rydalmere, Erina on the Central Coast, Chatswood, Moore Park, Blacktown and Punchbowl. The company is operated by Wilhelmus Kruger, an accountant who became known to my department in 1991. At that time Mr Kruger was the financial adviser to a company then associated with Scorpio Designs Pty Limited, then trading as Furniture Price Busters.

Mr Scully: Freddy Krueger.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: A lot of people were hurt by Mr Kruger.

Mr Scully: Your worst nightmare.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order for the second time.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: Scorpio Designs was placed in liquidation in 1991, resulting in hundreds of consumers losing their deposits. The total loss suffered by unsecured creditors was in excess of $1.3 million. Naming a trader in Parliament is a very serious step for any Minister for Consumer Affairs to take.

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

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: It is a step I do not take lightly. A trader is named only when there is no other avenue left by which my department can tackle a serious consumer problem. In this case I have no choice but to alert consumers to some of the practices used by Blue Gum Furniture. The company has failed to co-operate with my department, not only in its attempts to resolve the existing complaints but also in preventing future complaints. The company continues to refuse to inform potential customers of realistic delivery dates before taking their money. The company has also refused to deposit existing consumer pre-payments in a trust account.

Blue Gum Furniture has been repeatedly contacted by my department. As late as 5th May officials from my department again contacted the company asking for proper documentation and advising it of the consequences of not complying. The department is still waiting for an adequate response. I am particularly concerned that Blue Gum Furniture solicits a substantial deposit at the time consumer orders are taken. In some cases the full purchase price of up to $3,200 has been extracted from customers. A major concern is the fact that the company has accepted, and continues to accept, orders for lounge suites even though it has a backlog of unfilled orders. My department believes that consumer pre-payments and deposits are funding the day-to-day operations of this business. In other words, the company is using consumers' deposits as a form of working capital, which is much cheaper than the overdraft rates offered by banks.

I have warned consumers in the past, and I warn them again today, about the risks they face by paying substantial deposits for goods in advance of their delivery. I cannot emphasise strongly enough that my department can offer little assistance in circumstances where consumers have pre-paid for goods or services and the trader ceases to operate. This is an ongoing problem involving Federal company law. It is a problem that I have highlighted in the past, and will continue to highlight, in discussions with Federal authorities responsible for company law. I warn consumers to exercise care in dealing with Blue Gum Furniture with respect to substantial deposits or pre-payments. Any consumer who is experiencing difficulties with that company should contact my department immediately.

WAGGA WAGGA ELECTORATE PUBLIC SECTOR RETRENCHMENTS

Mr J. H. MURRAY: My question without notice is directed to the Premier and Treasurer. Did the State Rail Authority cut 70 jobs at Junee last week? Will another 15 rail jobs go from Wagga Wagga, Temora and Cootamundra? Is the Government planning to cut up to 50 jobs in the Department of Housing in Wagga Wagga? Since the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing - the honourable member for Wagga Wagga - refuses to comment on these issues, will the Premier do so?

Mr FAHEY: I thought when the honourable member for Drummoyne referred to Junee he was going to congratulate the Government on creating employment by opening Junee prison. He could have mentioned also that the Commonwealth Government - the mates of those opposite - is talking about moving the operations of the National Rail Corporation, when it is established, to Adelaide, although rightfully it should be in New South Wales.

Page 2073

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Bulli to order for the second time.

Mr FAHEY: I am sure that there have been no representations from the Leader of the Opposition to ensure that those jobs remain in New South Wales, where they rightfully belong. The establishment of the National Rail Corporation will result in a readjustment of employment. It is a Commonwealth initiative that has the support of the States involved. If the honourable member for Drummoyne were serious about obtaining an answer to his questions - I do not think he is serious about anything he does - he would have addressed it to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing. I am sure that the Minister has those figures at his fingertips.

WOOL STOCKPILE

Mr COCHRAN: My question without notice is directed to the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads. In view of the crisis facing the wool industry and the need to find new uses for wool, will the Government consider using it is an alternative to synthetic materials as a bonding and reinforcing agent in road sealing?

Mr W. T. J. MURRAY: I thank the honourable member for Monaro for his question. It is abundantly clear that the Opposition treats with contempt any proposal to assist agriculture in New South Wales. The stupidity of the Opposition and the fact that its contempt is so obvious is reflected in today's figures of one million people out of work in this State - supported by that mob on the Opposition benches. Australia has an enormous wool stock, and the Labor Party could not care less that new methods need to be adopted to assist the wool industry. The Labor Party welched on every deal made with the wool industry in this country. John Kerin, the Federal Minister at the time, said, "We will not go below 700 cents", and immediately cut the legs from underneath the industry. What a record these people have of destruction of primary industry in this State.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Kogarah to order for the second time.

Mr W. T. J. MURRAY: The honourable member for Monaro represents a fine woolgrowing area of Australia that has made enormous contributions to the wealth and production of this nation. His concern is expressed in his question. As a result of the desperate need for an adequate sublayer of base material for roads in country New South Wales, the Roads and Traffic Authority has developed a geotextile reinforced seal that is used to strengthen the seal placed between two layers of tar during road construction. The use of wool in reinforcing all-weather pavements in the geotextile area may sound unlikely, but synthetic material is currently being used for this purpose and there is no reason why wool should not replace polyester.

The Roads and Traffic Authority has amassed considerable experience in the use of geotextile reinforcement, enabling research to be carried out to ensure that the 900,000 kilometres of roads in Australia - 65 per cent of which are unsurfaced - may now be sealed with an all-purpose seal. This would, at the same time, significantly contribute to the use of wool. In sparsely populated areas with traffic volumes of less than 50 vehicles a day, large tracts of expansive clay soils are particularly difficult to service with a cost-effective, all weather pavement. The electorate of the honourable member for Broken Hill - one of the hyena pack that jumped up and down when this question was asked - will be the major beneficiary of such a program in this State. Most of the experimental work has been carried out in his electorate and he does not have the nous to recognise the benefits of those proposals.

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

Mr W. T. J. MURRAY: About 70 per cent of the 100,000 kilometres of unsealed roads can be rendered unusable after light rainfall of about 50 points. Conventional seals have substantially reduced the life of the roads when placed over clay pavements. The cost-effective treatment of the clay pavements using geotextile results in a cost reduction of about 30 per cent to 40 per cent. The reinforced seal comprises an application of bitumen tack coat followed by the geotextile fabric and a seal coat. Polyesters have been used for this. The use of wool in road seals would produce greater strength, and allow greater expansion and contraction. The new paving would be of enormous benefit to the wool industry and to Australia generally. New methods have to be discovered and alternative uses found, and this is probably one of the best uses the Government can consider.

AUTOMATIC TICKETING MACHINES

Mr LANGTON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport. Is it a fact that automatic ticketing machines will not accept $10, $20, $50 or $100 notes?

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

Mr LANGTON: Is it also a fact that weekly tickets will not be available where a journey exceeds 35 kilometres? As four full-time staff currently monitor one machine in the Devonshire Street tunnel, how many extra staff will be needed across the network to change bank notes to $5 plastic notes?

Mr BAIRD: I thank the honourable member for Kogarah for his question. I thought he would telephone me to congratulate the Government on the successful World Transport Conference which was held last week. Even the honourable member for Kogarah found himself there. It would be the first time he has learned anything about transport. The transport conference was very successful and brought delegates from around the world.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Blacktown to order for the second time.

Mr BAIRD: This morning I was delighted to Page 2074 receive comments about how fantastic the conference was. The comments indicated that all the delegates were unanimous in their view about the welcome afforded them by Sydney, and the excellence of the public transport system. It is about time the Opposition congratulated the Government on the great job it is doing. It is correct that the automatic ticketing machines accept only a $5 note, because the Opposition's mates in Canberra take a long while to get their act together. The machines take plastic notes and, according to the Reserve Bank, the other plastic notes will be in circulation by the end of the year. When the Opposition was in office it wasted money. This Government is responsible and is not about to waste money on a machine that accepts only paper notes, when plastic notes should be in circulation by the end of the year. At that time the machines will be adjusted accordingly.

MATURE AGE UNEMPLOYED

Mr BLACKMORE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services and Assistant Minister for Health. What specific programs has the Government initiated to help mature age workers who have lost their jobs because of the national recession? Is the Federal Government assisting these programs?

Mr LONGLEY: I thank the honourable member for Maitland for his question. I particularly acknowledge his hard work and dedication on this issue and his high level of service in his electorate. I acknowledge also the presence in the Chamber today of 79 students from St Joseph's Lochinvar school in his electorate. It is very good to see them. This Government has led the nation in reducing mature age unemployment and therefore in alleviating the effects of Paul Keating's recession on older workers. My colleagues the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and the Minister for Consumer Affairs and I are working closely to see that more action is taken to assist this disadvantaged group in our community and to help those people whom Paul Keating has forgotten.

As honourable members know, the Consultative Committee on Ageing is an independent committee appointed by the Government to give advice on the needs of older people and on the ageing of the population. I am the Minister with responsibility for cross-portfolio social policy issues, and the committee reports through me to the Premier. I am pleased to advise the House that the committee recently conducted a very successful public forum called "Over 40 and Unemployed"; it was concerned by the extent to which older people in the labour market seemed to have been ignored by both the media and the community generally. They have certainly been ignored by the Federal Labor Government.

When I opened the forum I called on the Federal Government - and I repeat the call today - to do more for the mature age people in the labour market and to follow the lead we have set in New South Wales and enact Federal age discrimination legislation. This Government, unlike the Federal Labor Government, knows that the most effective way to manage the needs of an ageing population is to remove the barriers that limit their full and active participation. The previous Labor administration did nothing to assist unemployed mature age people in the Labor market. While it had ample opportunity it passed up the chance to legislate against age discrimination.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. I call the honourable member for Mount Druitt to order for the second time.

Mr LONGLEY: This Government has already started to provide the mechanisms for assisting mature age unemployed people. We are pursuing a strategy based on integration and retention of older workers. Apart from the landmark achievement of abolishing compulsory retirement, this Government has introduced the mature workers program, the first labour market program in Australia specifically designed to assist mature age people to re-enter the work force. The Commonwealth Government does not run anything like it anywhere. This is the first government in Australia to have targeted a program specifically to mature age people. The program has been very successful, placing more than 50 per cent of people in the scheme in employment. Some of the more effective training programs are achieving an 80 per cent placement rate. The figures show the success of the program: by the end of March this year more than 1,600 employment places and another 600 training places had been provided. Based on these figures, we will exceed the program target of 3,000 mature age persons in jobs or training and retraining courses by the end of the financial year.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

Mr LONGLEY: The program is fully State funded; Canberra cares nothing for the mature age unemployed. Again, this State is leading the way. The Government also implemented a series of other pilot labour market initiatives in 1992, including increasing opportunities for older workers to establish their own enterprises, establishing a retrenched workers retraining project, and implementing measures to increase employers' awareness of mature workers. We have also established the mature workers task force, which comprises people from business, unions and the State and Commonwealth governments to monitor the implementation of the initiatives I have just mentioned and to develop strategies for possible future action in this area.

We conducted a series of seminars for employers promoting awareness of mature worker issues as part of the "Age Adds Value" public awareness campaign in 1992. Recently the Government announced its intention to include age as a ground of discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act. As honourable members may know, information gathered from the Consultative Committee on Ageing is being compiled into a report and will be presented to the Premier and Page 2075 me. It will be available to members of the public and the media. I will ensure that a copy of the report is sent to the Commonwealth Minister for Employment and Training, Mr Beazley, so that he can read firsthand what the policies of the Federal Government are doing to older workers and how they are failing miserably to address mature age unemployment.

In particular, I will seek a commitment from the Federal Government that it will do more for mature age people in the labour market and will follow our lead by enacting Federal age legislation. The New South Wales Government will continue to provide programs to help mature age people into employment and to encourage and assist employers to create job opportunities for mature age people. It is this Government which is doing the work; the Federal Labor Government does not care two hoots about mature age unemployment.

Mr Newman: You need acting lessons.

Mr LONGLEY: Opposition members are the actors. The fact that the former Federal Minister for Finance said what he did demonstrates clearly that the Australian Labor Party is hypocritical and has nothing to offer people to reduce unemployment. It is this State which is leading the way in addressing the problems of mature age unemployment.

KHAPPINGHAT MINING LEASE

Dr MACDONALD: Will the Minister for Natural Resources agree to restrict the mining lease area at Khappinghat to that recommended by the commissioner of inquiry and will he obtain a copy of the lease? Further, will he provide for community representation on the monitoring committee consistent with the inquiry report?

Mr CAUSLEY: The honourable member for Manly would well know that there was a prolonged debate in this House about the Khappinghat reserve, including the fact that the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Blacktown lost face and were rolled by caucus. The Ministers of this Government have had extensive discussion on the area and I will provide the information that is available at present. In all deliberations the Government has taken note of what was said in the Parliament. It has also taken note that 150 mining jobs are at stake, that is, jobs that, particularly after today's release of figures, are important to New South Wales. The Government also considered the recommendations of the commissioners of inquiry, which the honourable member for Manly chooses to ignore. The honourable member for Manly wants to change the rules after the game. The Government went back to the commissioners to ask what they meant in the inquiry recommendations in regard to boundaries. There have been extensive discussions on the mining lease and the reserve. I will provide the honourable member with the information he asked for.

PICTON POLICE

Dr KERNOHAN: I address my question to the Minister for Police. What action is the Government taking to expand police services and police numbers at Picton given the rapid growth in the area?

Mr Scully: What about my electorate?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I thank the honourable member for Camden for her question and her continuing interest in the police in her electorate. Many questions come from the Government side of the House in regard to police but not many come from the Opposition side. I just heard the mouth from the west call out, "What about my electorate?" I have not received any representations from him or heard anything from him in this House about the matter. There is not much point in the honourable member now yelling out in the way he did when he has not raised the matter with me.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order for the third time.

Mr Tink: On a point of order. The honourable member for Smithfield was called to order twice this morning by the Chairman of Committees during consideration of the Oaths and Crown References Bill.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear what the honourable member for Eastwood is saying.

Mr Tink: As the honourable member has been called to order five times today, I suggest that under the provisions of Standing Order 392 he be directed to leave the Chamber.

Mr Face: On the point of order. It is a longstanding convention of Deputy-Speakers and Chairmen of Committees that calls to order by one occupant of the chair are not deemed to have been made by subsequent occupants of the chair. I think the honourable member for Eastwood is trifling with the House and with you, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not uphold the point of order. It has not been the general practice of this House that calls to order carry over from one sitting period to another. The honourable member for Smithfield is now on three calls to order. Therefore, he will place himself under threat of removal if he again attracts my attention during question time. Order! I call the honourable member for Ermington to order for the second time.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I congratulate the honourable member for Camden on her absolute interest in policing and the aggressive and committed way she fights for law and order within her electorate.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am disappointed that I have never heard a whimper from the honourable member for Smithfield about police in his electorate.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair is not displeased that at this stage of a long week there is a certain amount of humour in the Chamber but I ask members to constrain themselves until the end of question time for fear that someone might Page 2076 unintentionally, in a burst of enthusiasm, attract my attention and be directed to leave the Chamber.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am sure every member of the House is as disappointed as I am that I have never heard any appreciation expressed by the honourable member for Smithfield about the outstanding job that the police are doing in his electorate.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have already warned the House about the level of interjection. The Minister for Police will answer the question.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member for Smithfield is an absolute disgrace.

Mr Newman: On a point of order. I have never witnessed such -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear the point of order in silence.

Mr Newman: - obvious provocation of a member in this House. I ask that the Minister be directed to answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I can assure the honourable member for Cabramatta that in my 20 years in the House I have seen far greater provocation of a member than we are seeing at the moment. However, there is substance to the point, and the member for Smithfield is on three calls to order. I ask the Minister for Police to address himself to answering the matter about which he has been asked.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Recently I visited the Camden electorate, following extensive and competent representations from the local member -

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

Mr GRIFFITHS: In fact I drove through Smithfield on my way to that fast growing region of Sydney. As the honourable member for Camden informed me, the population of Picton has grown rapidly and with an increase in population came the inevitable but not disproportionate increase in crime.

Mr Newman: Once more with feeling.

Mr GRIFFITHS: As the honourable member for Cabramatta says, once more with feeling. The honourable member ripped up a parking ticket, and two police officers have said that he lied -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will not permit question time to be reduced to a comic farce. I therefore suggest to members on both sides of the House and I suggest quite seriously to the Minister that enough is enough. At this late stage of question time an answer to the question would be appreciated as the House has other business.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Picton patrol has been operating for 16 hours a day, seven days a week. In the remaining eight hours the area has been patrolled, when possible, by mobile police units from Camden. I was concerned by this situation, as was the honourable member for Camden. Not only were the residents of Picton deprived of 24-hour service but Camden residents were sharing their police resources with Picton when that patrol was closed. I am sure that if Labor were still in government this matter would not have been resolved until Picton reached crisis level. I am pleased to inform this House that the Fahey Government, with its record of careful management, has been able to keep pace with the rapid expansion of this area of Sydney's west.

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

Mr GRIFFITHS: Before I visited the Camden electorate I consulted the Police Service on this issue. I was advised that eight police vacancies were available to boost the Picton patrol strength to a level where 24-hour operation was achievable.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Moorebank to order for the second time.

Mr GRIFFITHS: These positions are available because the Fahey Government has undertaken a cross-portfolio venture to release police officers from court security and prisoner transportation duties. While corrective services officers take on these roles over the next 12 months, the equivalent of 214 extra police positions will be available for operational duties. These positions will be allocated to areas of greatest operational need around the State. Already eight have been given to the Cabramatta patrol for beat duties. I am sure the honourable member for Cabramatta thinks that is simply outstanding, and I am sure he will write to police to compliment them on the superb job they are doing. To date he has not done so and that disappoints me.

Mr Newman: I have met with them.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The honourable member might have taken his parking ticket with him. The police officer has now given evidence that the member for Cabramatta lied -

Mr Newman: The Minister lies.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member lied and he has misled this House. Eight police have been allocated to Picton to allow that patrol to operate a 24-hour day, and a further three police have been allocated to the Campbelltown patrol to boost the beat police strength in that area. I am sure that the honourable member for Campbelltown appreciates that magnificent effort. Yet again the Fahey Government has improved service to the people of New South Wales by better management.

______

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Mr SPEAKER: I draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of Mr Souichi Sugwara, Vice-President, Mr Kiyousumi Kuroda, Director-General, and Mr Mamoru Kosaka, Director-Secretariat Section, Management Division of the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly.

Page 2077

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

Mr Price: On a matter of privilege. With regard to the current question and answer paper, I point out -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! On several occasions I have ruled that matters relating to answers on the notice paper are not matters of privilege. If anything, they are matters of order, and the Chair has no power over the way in which a question is answered. I cannot allow the honourable member to proceed.

PETITIONS

F6 Freeway Emergency Telephones

Petition praying that the House will consider the installation of emergency telephones on the F6 Freeway from Yallah to the north of Wollongong, received from Mr Rumble.

Serious Traffic Offence Penalties

Petition praying that laws relating to road accident fatality or injury be re-evaluated, received from Mr Newman.

State Rail Authority Heritage Buildings

Petition praying that heritage buildings in the Newcastle region be allowed to be used by arts and crafts people and that Newcastle Contemporary Artists Incorporated be given approval to occupy a building on the Honeysuckle land for use as a gallery of contemporary art and cultural workshop, received from Mr Gaudry.

Hunter Valley Railway Line Privatisation

Petition praying that the House support the retention of the Hunter Valley railway line in public ownership and that the rail line between Civic railway station and Newcastle railway station not be closed, received from Mr Gaudry.

Newcastle Rail Services

Petition praying that the rail line between Civic railway station and Newcastle railway station not be closed, received from Mr Gaudry.

Canley Vale Railway Station

Petition praying that the Government not proceed with plans to automate ticket sales at Canley Vale railway station and ensure the comfort and security of rail commuters by maintaining adequate staffing levels, received by Mr Newman.

Drummoyne Boys High School

Petition praying that Drummoyne Boys High School be reopened as a co-education high school, received from Mr J. H. Murray.

Capital Punishment

Petition praying that the Government will hold a referendum on the reintroduction of capital punishment in extreme cases of murder where there is absolutely no doubt that the offender committed the crime, received from Mr Windsor.

Pyrmont Point Public Land

Petition praying that surplus public land at Pyrmont Point be gazetted as part of the City-West Strategy and not be disposed of to commercial interests, received from Ms Nori.

Public Housing Tenant Water Charge Liability

Petition praying that the House reject the proposed amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act to charge public housing tenants for water consumption, received from Mr Sullivan.

Public Hospital Privatisation

Petitions praying that the House will reverse the Government's decision to privatise public hospitals, received from Mr Davoren and Mr J. H. Murray.

Caroline Bay Multi Arts Centre

Petition praying that the House order the establishment of a commission of inquiry under the Environmental Protection Act to consider the environmental and fiscal effects of the Multi Arts Centre proposed for Caroline Bay, East Gosford, order a half-term election for the ten aldermen of Gosford City Council on 18th September, 1993, and order the council to cease expenditure on the centre until the results of the election become known, received from Mr McBride.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Printing of Reports

Motion by Mr West agreed to:

That the following papers be printed:

Report No. 2 of 1993 to the Premier on the determination of Maximum Prices under section 11(1) of the Government Pricing Tribunal Act 1992, dated 10 May 1993.

Report of the Fish River Water Supply Undertaking for 1992.

Report of the Southwest Tablelands Water Supply Undertaking for 1992.

Report of the Broken Hill Water Board for 1992.

Report to Parliament under the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act 1991, dated 23 April 1993.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Unanswered Questions upon Notice

Mr SPEAKER: In accordance with the sessional orders I draw the attention of the House to unanswered questions upon notice No. 433 standing in the name of the Minister for Natural Resources and No. 439 standing in the name of the Minister for Health.

Mr PHILLIPS: Question upon notice No. 439 standing in my name has been answered today.

Mr CAUSLEY: I did submit an answer to a question upon notice today. I am not sure whether it Page 2078 was to question No. 433.

Mr West: Today's Questions and Answers does not show question No. 433.

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE UPON POLICE ADMINISTRATION

Second Report

Mr YABSLEY (Vaucluse) [3.12]: I bring up and lay upon the table of the House the second report of the Joint Select Committee upon Police Administration.

Ordered to be printed.

Mr YABSLEY: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Honourable members will be aware that on 31st March the Joint Select Committee upon Police Administration tabled a comprehensive first report in the Parliament on reference (2)(a) of its terms of reference on the circumstances that resulted in the resignation of the Hon. E. P. Pickering, M.L.C., as Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Since then the committee has been addressing itself to term 1 of its reference, which is concerned with mechanisms of accountability and the existing roles of, and the reporting arrangements between, the Minister for Police, the Police Board, the Inspector General and the Commissioner of Police. The committee had no opportunity to focus on issues associated with term (1) until it had completed term (2)(a).

In the period since the committee's establishment on 14th October, 1992, significant changes have occurred in accountability and in reporting. The committee recognises that the Government could not realistically have delayed the implementation of reform. This is because the events that are chronicled in the committee's first report, and which unfolded from the evidence as the committee's sittings progressed, required the taking of urgent corrective action. Since his appointment as Minister for Police the Hon. T. A. Griffiths has directed and oversighted a comprehensive review of police administration. The overall plan for change was contained in a submission by the Minister to the committee, dated 13th November, 1992. On 4th March the Premier announced the reforms that the Government intended to introduce to enhance accountability, strengthen command and control, improve communications and clarify the chain of command. The Premier said that the package of reforms would include:

1. The Police Board be expanded from three to five members with the Director-General of the Police Ministry and the Commissioner of Police to be additional non-deliberative members.

2. The Commissioner enter into a five year employment contract with performance agreement, similar to other department heads.

3. The Commissioner be removed by recommendation of the Minister to the Governor-in-Council with the recommendation only to be made with the concurrence of the Chairperson of the Police Board.

On 31st March - the same day as the committee tabled its first report in the Parliament - Minister Griffiths introduced into the Legislative Assembly the Police Service (Management) Amendment Bill. The bill provides for the reforms announced by the Premier. Debate on the bill was adjourned following the delivery of the second reading speech by the Minister that day, in order that this committee could consider the terms of the legislation and report to the Parliament. The Minister sought early consideration by the committee so that the bill could be debated by Parliament in the current session, and the committee has been pleased to assist, otherwise the matter could have been delayed for several months. The committee has not yet inquired into all the matters associated with term (1) of its reference and will be deliberating further on that reference. The focus of the committee's second report is therefore the Police Service (Management) Amendment Bill. The committee has given very careful consideration to the terms of the bill and through this second report provides advice to the Parliament of its overall endorsement. Nevertheless, the committee has some reservations and suggests that the following be considered:

An amendment to provide that the Commissioner of Police and the Director General of the Ministry for Police may be excluded from meetings of the Police Board by a majority vote of the voting members; instead of by the unanimous vote of those members.

Where the Board resolves to exclude the Commissioner and/or the Director General, the Chairperson shall advise the Minister as soon as practicable in writing.

An amendment to require the Police Board to disclose in its Annual Report the number of occasions on which the Commissioner and the Director General were excluded from meetings.

An amendment to confer on the Police Board the authority to undertake audits of the procedures of the Police Service that are designed to safeguard the integrity of the Police Service.

An amendment to provide specifically for the Police Board to provide reports or recommendations on matters arising from inquiries carried out by the Police Board on its own initiative after consultation with the Minister.

An amendment to remove the restriction on the class of persons to whom the Police Board may delegate its functions and an amendment to require the Police Board to consult the Minister about any proposed delegation.

Amendments to omit the requirement of the bill that the proposed removal of the Police Commissioner from office must be supported by the Chairperson of the Police Board; and to replace it with a requirement that the proposed removal must be supported by a majority of the members of the Police Board or by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

A majority of committee members present during the deliberations of the committee also felt that the bill should be amended to reduce the period of appointment of the current Commissioner of Police, after the commencement of the proposed Act, from five years to three years. The present commissioner, Mr Lauer, has already served two years as commissioner, and appointing him for three years would give him five years in office prior to consideration of reappointment. The committee wishes to record its disquiet that there is a widely held misapprehension that the Minister for Police is unable Page 2079 to direct the Commissioner of Police on operational policing issues. That is not the case, and the committee wishes to emphasise that any such belief is patently wrong.

Section 8(1) of the Police Service Act 1990 provides that "The Commissioner is, subject to the direction of the Minister, responsible for the management and control of the Police Service". That is unequivocal and is not to be altered in any way by the bill that is before the Parliament. The committee is under no doubt that this empowers the Minister to direct the commissioner on operational issues. The committee agrees that it is best expressed in the submission of the former Commissioner of Police, Mr John Avery, when he said:

A strict interpretation of the legislation indicates that the Minister has power to give directions to the Commissioner if that direction does not require the Commissioner to neglect his or her statutory duty by act or omission.

The commissioner and the New South Wales Police Service are and remain accountable through the Minister to the Parliament.

Debate adjourned.

COMMITTEE ON THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION

Evidence - Correspondence.

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [3.18]: On behalf of the parliamentary joint Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption I bring up and lay upon the table of the House the following documents: minutes of evidence from a review of the ICAC Act; correspondence on the primary facts issue from the review of the ICAC Act; and minutes of evidence and correspondence relating to the matter raised by the honourable member for Eastwood.

Ordered to be printed.

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [3.19]: I move:

That the House take note of the papers.

Debate adjourned.

RELEASE OF PRISONER GRAHAM JACK WALKER

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr Whelan: I seek leave of the House to move suspension of standing orders to permit the Minister for Police and the Minister for Justice to explain to the House the circumstances surrounding the wrongful release of the convicted rapist and escapee Graham Jack Walker and to explain to the House why the said Graham Jack Walker has not been returned to prison.

Leave not granted.

MILK MARKETING (NSW) PTY LIMITED CHAIRMAN

Personal Explanation

Mr Martin: I seek leave to make a personal explanation relating to matters raised in question time.

Leave granted.

Mr Martin: Today I asked the third question in question time. My question was: did Mr Graham Crouch receive a salary of $200,000 during 1991-92 because the Minister appointed him as head of the Milk Marketing Authority, the Homebush Bay Abattoir Corporation -

Mr West: On a point of order. Though I appreciate that the honourable member for Port Stephens is trying to recover from the embarrassment he suffered at the end of question time, it is clear he now seeks to debate the matter contained in the question he asked earlier and in the answer on the notice paper. It is inappropriate that the honourable member should misuse the forms of the House in an attempt to apologise for his mistakes.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! A member may make a personal explanation to show how the member's character has been impugned by some particular action. As what happened in question time - whether right, wrong or indifferent - could not impugn, in the sense that that is meant, the character of the member for Port Stephens, a personal explanation is not permitted.

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. The matter is more serious because the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs stood in this Parliament and said that the question had already been answered. The Minister deliberately and wilfully misled the House. He took the opportunity to lie to the Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Ashfield well knows that there are other forms of the House to permit a member to challenge a matter. If members of this House sought to refute everything said by a Minister in reply to a question because the response was felt by the member to be not perfectly accurate or not in accord with that member's version of the truth, we would be here for ever and a day hearing personal explanations. There is no personal explanation involved.

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE UPON THE SYDNEY WATER BOARD

Consideration of Urgent Matter

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [3.22], by leave: I move:

That, notwithstanding anything contained in the standing and sessional orders, a joint select committee be appointed to inquire into and report on the following terms of reference with regard to the Sydney Water Board:

(1)(a) the operation and effectiveness of the clean waterways program with regard to its objectives;

(b) the credible and independent regulation of water quality and quantity with particular regard for environmental factors;

(c) to take into account the recommendations of the Government Pricing Tribunal inquiry into water pricing;

Page 2080 (d) improvements to accountability and efficiency to the Water Board through changes to institutional arrangements within the Board;

(e) the Water Board's longer term strategies for catchment management and demand management and the impact of the proposed water quality treatment plants;

(f) to review the current and projected environmental standards for discharge to receiving waters in terms of whether they reflect community needs and with regard to their affordability;

(g) long term strategic planning of Sydney's waste water treatment including urban drainage decentralisation and beneficial re-use;

(h) the existing capital structure and the future capital needs having regard to the impact of the payment of $200 million in dividend payments to consolidated revenue on the Board's capacity to fund capital works and environmental improvements, including the impact of borrowing by the Board in or outside Loan Council guidelines to fund capital works;

(i) an account of expenditure upon the Special Environmental Service charge;

(j) the use of consultants, professional services and contractors by the Board as defined by the Office of Public Management; and

(k) any matters relating to or arising out of the above terms of reference.

(2) That the committee shall consist of ten Members of the joint Houses, being:

five from the Government (3 Assembly Members and 2 Council Members);

three from the Australian Labor Party (2 Assembly Members and 1 Council Member);

one from the Australian Democrats; who shall be nominated in writing to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly by relevant Party Leaders;

and Dr Macdonald.

(3) That the chairman of the committee be Dr Macdonald, who shall have a deliberative and casting vote.

(4) That at any meeting of the committee, the chairman and any other five members shall constitute a quorum provided that the committee meets as a joint committee at all times.

(5) That such committee shall have leave to meet during any sittings or adjournment of both Houses, to adjourn from place to place, to make visits of inspection within NSW and other States of the Commonwealth of Australia, and have power to take evidence and send for persons and papers and to report from time to time.

(6) That should either or both Houses stand adjourned and the committee agree to any report before the Houses resume sitting:

(a) the committee have leave to send any such report, minutes and evidence taken before it to the Clerks of each House;

(b) the documents shall be printed and published and the Clerks shall forthwith take such action as is necessary to give effect to the order of each House; and

(c) the documents shall be laid upon the table of each House at its next sitting.

(7) The committee be given adequate resources to conduct the inquiry including the resources for such consulting or advisory services as it may determine to be required.

(8) That the committee report to both Houses by Thursday, 14th October, 1993.

This is a great moment for Parliament because of the scrutiny and accountability that will flow from the decision of this House to support an inquiry into the Water Board. The inquiry should not threaten anyone. I welcome the initiative because my commencement in politics related to matters which flowed into the sea from the Water Board. I thank the Government for its support for the establishment of a joint select committee which could only be established through support of the Government and discussions held over the past 24 hours. With the Government's undertaking, the committee can be properly resourced and staffed and is an example of how results can be achieved co-operatively. I had originally intended to move the motion 24 hours ago but in conjunction with the Government it was decided that the consultation process would be more effective if the matter were delayed for 24 hours. That climate and culture is welcomed and I thank the Leader of the House, the responsible Minister and the Water Board.

This committee will be in the public interest and in the Water Board's interest. It is high time that we are able to reach into one of the largest utilities in this State - perhaps one of the largest in Australia. This has been difficult in the past, as I know only too well. The Water Board has traditionally been closed and secretive. The new Minister responsible for the Water Board has no baggage to carry into the other place and into the portfolio. The inquiry is also in the interests of the new managing director, particularly as he indicated some clear preferences for the direction in which he would like the Water Board to go. This committee will allow a forum for him to express his views.

I see the role of the committee as being in two parts. First, it will permit disclosure of some of the history of the Water Board and areas of concern raised previously in this place. Also, it will bring to the notice of Parliament previous decisions made by the Water Board, and their consequences. As chairman I would be particularly keen for the committee to determine future policies of the Water Board. It has always been left to those outside this place to make those determinations. This is an historic opportunity for the Parliament to steer that ship. The motion and the establishment of the joint select committee flow from the Australian Labor Party's motion of no confidence of two days ago. I commend the ALP for raising this matter and pursuing it vigorously. I commend the Opposition spokesman for the environment for relentlessly raising questions which now can be dealt with in the more formal structure of a committee.

I reflect on 15 months ago when there was a motion to establish a committee, not very different from my motion. Indeed, it is perhaps some indication of the change in climate and culture that the joint select committee is fully supported by the Government. On reflection, it is a disappointment that matters were not dealt with then which may have headed off some of the confrontation experienced over the past few days. This committee has a large task to Page 2081 undertake in dealing with the range of terms of reference listed. Also, the size of the Water Board is an important factor. It employs 9,500 people and has an annual income of $2 billion. Over the years it has been amazingly unaccountable. I have tried for years to gain access to information about the Water Board; only now is that prospect likely.

The formation of this committee has become urgent because over the past few years and recently, mixed messages have been received from the Water Board. One of the terms of reference is the direction the clean waterways program is taking. The program was implemented more than four years ago, but it appears that the expenditure on consultants has not produced the expected outcome. The special environmental levy has existed for three years but there is public disquiet whether its objectives have been achieved. The Minister, managing director, deputy managing director and chairman of the Water Board have changed. Is the institution sending a signal of change? That is a message in itself.

The committee will deal with dividend payments, which have been the subject of much public anger. The concept of a large public utility being drained of funds, which may limit its ability to provide adequate maintenance and to meet its objectives, should cause us all concern. The remarks of the new managing director are a signal that he will act differently. He has raised questions about whether consultants have been worth the expense, whether contractors are being overpaid and whether it is better for the work to be performed by the Water Board's employees, and indicated that capital works and the clean waterways program will be reviewed. These are good reasons for bringing the matter to a head, for the need of an inquiry into the Water Board and why the Government and the Opposition should support the motion. The impact of the Water Board has been felt across the State and particularly in the Manly electorate. For that reason, I am pleased to move this motion containing the terms of reference. I look forward to chairing the committee.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Minister for State Development, and Minister for Arts) [3.32]: On behalf of the Government I welcome this motion and the establishment of the joint select committee. It will give the Government an opportunity to recount the massive cultural changes brought about within the Water Board since the election of the Greiner Government in 1988. As the honourable member for Manly has said, in the past the Water Board has been a closed culture, but that has changed radically under this Government. I take the opportunity to acknowledge on the record the contributions of former Ministers, the present Minister, and previous chief executive officers and chairmen of the Water Board, one of whom I acknowledge as a personal friend - David Harley. He was a most able chairman and over the past five years made a singular contribution in bringing the Water Board up to modern administrative standards.

Scrutiny of the sort proposed can only benefit an organisation like the Water Board - there is nothing to be lost in the process; only gains will be made. It is fitting and appropriate that the honourable member for Manly, who came to my attention some years ago when I was Minister for Health, should move this motion. I am pleased that he will play an important role on the committee because in the period 1988-1991 on a number of occasions he raised with me when I was health Minister the question of water quality on Sydney's northern beaches. A number of investigations were initiated and we took seriously a number of the claims the honourable member for Manly and other doctors on the northern peninsula of Sydney made in order to improve these important waterways and extremely important tourist venues.

The establishment of the committee presents a certain symmetry. The Government welcomes the opportunity to look at what has occurred over the past five years and what directions may be followed in the future. The Government is confident that the deliberations of the committee will endorse the actions taken by the Water Board and assist in future plans. In line with the Government's policy to be open and accountable, the Government endorses the committee from the outset. It will provide an opportunity to place a wide range of issues under the microscope. Specifically, it will provide another venue at which to review the findings of the scientific investigations undertaken by the board's Clean Waterways program. The honourable member for Manly has mentioned those. This will provide the committee with the resources to consider important matters such as the regulation of water quality and quantity with regard to the environment; the pricing of water; longer term strategies for demand management and catchment protection; current and future environmental standards, and how these reflect community needs and their affordability; and strategic planning for Sydney's wastewater treatment, including the role of local government in urban drainage, as well as options for decentralisation and beneficial reuse.

The Minister in another place responsible for the Water Board has committed the resources of the board to provide whatever assistance is required by the committee in its deliberations. No question about resources and co-operation arises. Indeed, I acknowledge the benefit derived by this House of direct discussions between all parties leading to this motion today. A brief delay and positive constructive discussions have led to the establishment of this committee, which can now proceed with the full support of the Government, adequately resourced for its task. Accordingly, I see no reason to detain the House any longer in this debate. The Government welcomes the establishment of this committee.

Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [3.37]: I welcome the Minister's endorsement of the proposal. I will not labour the point because it was eloquently made earlier this week. However, had this committee been established approximately two years ago after the substantial discussion in this Chamber and the majority recommendation along similar lines, the current crisis might not exist in the Water Board. Page 2082 The Government would have been in a stronger position to deal with the overflow of crises that have beset the Water Board in the past six months. It is apparent that only when the Government is faced with no confidence motions and threats of no confidence motions do Ministers finally take action and respond positively to suggestions that bodies such as the Water Board and HomeFund receive the scrutiny they richly deserve.

This joint select committee will be the Parliament's opportunity to rein in the board's waste and mismanagement that was outlined at length earlier this week. The Opposition is happy to work in a bipartisan fashion to get the committee going and present a united report on the Water Board later this year. The Opposition regards the report as an opportunity for the Government, the Water Board and the Opposition to work closely together to develop a blueprint to revive the Water Board and lift staff morale from the lowest levels. More important, the committee's report will set the blueprint for a resurgence of the Water Board.

The Water Board's response to some of the issues to be included in the committee's terms of reference will be of considerable interest. Its response to the impact of the payment of $200 million in special dividends to consolidated revenue will be fascinating. It will be interesting to ascertain what impact those dividend payments have had on the capital works and environmental improvements undertaken by the board. The committee will seek to address the Water Board's response to the as yet unreleased privatisation reports prepared by consultants. The Water Board's response to allegations made by the Opposition in relation to the diversion of funding from the Clean Waterways program will also be pursued by the committee. I look forward to the response of Government representatives who will appear before the committee to the allegations made in recent weeks.

The committee will have the important task of overseeing the accountability processes that have been put in place for the special environmental levy. Earlier this week in the Chamber the Premier waved around a document that he claimed was the most recent report on the expenditure of that levy. At that stage, as is generally the case, I was on about three calls to order and could not interject. But the document he was waving around was about mark six of a series of documents that took at least two years to prepare before the Government received a suitably sanitised version that it was able to release. It was embarrassed about the types of activities and projects that had been associated with the special environmental levy.

The select committee will also be able to thoroughly examine the use by the Water Board of consultants, expenditure during the past few years and the apparent blowout that has occurred. I am looking forward also to the exploration of the relationship between the Water Board and other authorities that have responsibilities in this area, particularly the Environment Protection Authority. In addition, the committee, when it examines strategic planning for the future of Sydney's wastewater and other water treatments, will be able to look at the roles of other authorities such as the Department of Water Resources. I look forward also to the involvement of the Auditor-General in the process. The motion refers to proper resourcing. The Minister assumes that is taken for granted, but honourable members who have served on committees in recent times know very well it is often difficult to secure the appropriate resources for committees. Ministers tend to take such things for granted, but I can assure the House that shadow ministers do not.

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [3.42]: I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Government in support of the formation of this select committee. The Government is proud of its significant achievements in relation to the Water Board during the time it has been in office. It refutes the claims about maladministration and mismanagement made in the debate on the motion of no confidence moved in this House two days ago. The Government is committed to improving the Water Board. That has occurred in the past and will continue in the future. It is committed to open government and supports enthusiastically the formation of the select committee. It is somewhat ironic that during the debate on the no confidence motion Opposition members made a series of allegations and accusations. Bearing in mind the record of the Labor Party in relation to corruption and mismanagement, and its simple lack of understanding of the important issues when in office in New South Wales and, indeed, in other States, it is hardly in a position to make such allegations and accusations.

I should like to refer to some of the Water Board's achievements on the northern beaches. As the Minister noted, the honourable member for Manly has played a significant role in focusing attention on some of the issues pertaining to his electorate as well as the North Head outfalls and sewage treatment works. Since 1990 complaints about odours emanating from the North Head treatment works have decreased by 97 per cent. In the three years to 1992, as a result of the installation of additional screening and back-up equipment, bypasses of the treatment works have been significantly reduced from 1,136 hours per annum to just 5.7 hours per annum. About 70 per cent of the sludge removed from North Head treatment works is now being used for composting and for other land applications. The removal of solids during that time has increased from 9 per cent to 35 per cent. I hope that significant and substantial increase will be enhanced as further technology is investigated and tested.

One of the primary objectives of the Water Board is to ensure that by July 1994 all industrial effluent throughout Sydney will be of a domestic Page 2083 standard. It is likely that that significant objective will be achieved. The Government has a proud policy of open government, allowing access to information and allowing people to make appropriate judgments. In the past the Leader of the Opposition has admitted that the Labor Party was timid when it came to accepting freedom of information legislation. When it was in office the former Labour Government was not as open as the Government. The Government has not only had the courage to allow open access but has also had the courage to take on key issues relating to pollution, waste management and water quality - whether it be rivers and estuaries, the harbour or the beaches. In its time in office the Labor Party was too timid to make decisions relating to the environment, structural reform or changes to government trading enterprises.

Unfortunately the Leader of the Opposition made a number of allegations in this House on Tuesday relating to the North Head treatment works. Those allegations could best be termed as scurrilous. The Leader of the Opposition named one person who is not in a position to defend the allegations. He also made accusations about the development of a first-aid facility. The North Head treatment works had never had such a facility. An appropriate facility was developed under the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The Leader of the Opposition also attacked the new managing director of the Water Board, as well as consultants. Much of his attack was without foundation and was made in this Parliament without the people to whom he referred being able to adequately to defend themselves. The Government is more than pleased to support the formation of the committee and participate in its deliberations. Obviously members from both sides of the House and the Independents will have roles to play. As the Minister indicated, the committee will be able to consider water quality and quantity, particularly as it relates to the environment. It will certainly examine other issues such as the pricing of water. I hope it will, with all the information to hand, make decisions and recommendations in regard to long-term strategies for the management of catchment areas. [Time expired.]

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank) [3.47]: I join previous speakers in endorsing the formation of the select committee to investigate the operations of the Water Board. Despite the no confidence motion that stimulated the establishment of the committee, all honourable members should view the formation of the committee positively and with an expectation that it may assist the present Government, and future governments, to determine policy directions for the operation of the Water Board and, indeed, other government trading enterprises. Government trading enterprises in New South Wales are in an embryonic and evolving state. The reliance on their dividends by government is an increasing factor in the collection of State revenues. Dividends from government trading enterprises have increased from an insignificant amount in 1988 to a point where about 5.5 per cent to 6 per cent of State revenue is collected directly from GTE dividend payments. That figure is projected to increase in future budgets.

That, of course, raises the policy question of what role GTEs and the Water Board will play in the provision of services to the community, which honourable members of course represent as a Parliament. Honourable members, particularly those representing electorates in western Sydney, will recall meeting only a few months ago with the then Managing Director of the Water Board, Mr Wilson. They were given explicit details of the then policy stance of the board, that is, that the board is not only an operator of a system but is also an active participant in the regulation and management of water quality and in the planning of Sydney's urban growth.

The sudden policy change by the present managing director, by way of public announcements, indicates a massive policy shift, with government trading enterprises being involved as operators and, in my view, abrogating responsibility for the planning process. If the Water Board drops out of its participatory role in the urban planning process, someone else will have to do the planning work in respect of Sydney's urban growth. That matter has to be thought through, but it cannot be left in a hiatus, in the hope that someone else will pick up that role. The timing of the inquiry coinciding with the new change in policy is appropriate. I hope that the committee will give positive direction to government to address some of the issues, in particular to ensure that the Water Board's enormous database is used in the planning process.

Another area of concern which I hope the committee will investigate relates to the way in which the private sector is now used to provide public infrastructure. I realise that the Public Accounts Committee is currently drawing to the end of its inquiry into that subject. By way of a submission to the committee, I have posed some very serious questions about the way in which the current processes of calling for public tenders and expressions of interest, and the implementation of contracts by the private sector for the provision of public facilities and infrastructure, are being carried out. This relates generically to the Water Board and to other government agencies but, as the Water Board has a huge capital works budget, that requires detailed investigation.

I refer in particular to price variations, to price capping mechanisms in line with government policy, and to maintenance requirements, particularly in relation to building and operating contracts for water treatment plants. Another issue is the quality of the asset that is handed back to government at the end of the contract. These are all issues that, because of Cabinet decisions based on commercial confidentiality, are kept secret from the general public. Though I respect commercial confidentiality, there has to be a better way. The Water Board, with its massive capital works budget of the order of 30 per cent of the overall State capital works budget, should play a leading role in determining some of those issues of public policy, and I hope the committee may assist in Page 2084 achieving that end. The Opposition is also interested in issues such as the use of consultants and proper management functions, but I express the view that the growth and operations of the Water Board are too valuable and important to ignore and they should be fully investigated.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [3.52], in reply: I thank the Minister for State Development and Minister for Arts, representing the Minister in the other House, and honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the motion to establish the committee. I send a message to my fellow committee members that I have no vendetta against the Water Board. In fact, I have a dream that one day things will be very different in the way we manage our water and water disposal in Sydney. It is that dream that I will bring to this committee, exercising my energies as best I can. In my dream I see that ultimately we will do things differently, that we will not adopt the Roman technique of collection and disposal but will look to the twenty-first century. Perhaps New South Wales can lead the way for Australia and endeavour to decentralise the system. Centralisation of any service - whether landfill or sewerage - creates problems. Honourable members have seen that happen in the past.

If we decentralise and have people take responsibility for their own waste, there will be enormous gains. My aim is to encourage people to opt out of the wastewater system altogether and deal with their own waste at house level. That would be an achievement. Part of my dream is that grey water will have a use. We should not constantly be using potable water for uses other than drinking. The Minister for State Development and Minister for Arts, representing the Minister in the other House, raised the question of health issues and my involvement in the debate relating illness to swimming in polluted waters. It is true that for many years I sought to bring some expertise from the health angle into the debate, but it was not without cost. I will be frank now - and I have been frank in the past concerning this issue. There were times when I could not get a cup of coffee on the Corso at Manly. There were people who objected to the fact that I raised issues that related to pollution in an area as beautiful and important as a tourist destination as Manly.

There were times when local thinking was similar to that of the mayor in the film "Jaws" who believed the shark should not be mentioned. Things have changed. Now we are permitted to talk about such issues. Things have improved, although there is still an out of sight, out of mind attitude about the deepwater outfalls. Pollution has had a significant impact on my community - and on your local community, Mr Acting-Speaker - as well as on communities up and down the seaboard of Sydney. The impact in my electorate has not only been one of health, but also one of failure to treat the sewage to a sufficient standard, not to mention the controversy about the effect of the deepwater outfalls. Another impact is the effect of pollution on one of the most beautiful jewels in the crown of Manly, the pine-trees. Over the years 350 pines have been lost in Manly and only 150 remain. The effect of the pollution is beyond doubt.

A report was commissioned by a Liberal leader of this House that showed that the loss of the pines was the result of the disposal of sewage and wastewater at sea. The incineration of sludge at North Head had an impact on the health of the community, although that situation is now changing. Those headland treatment plants were responsible for an enormous waste of water. I am delighted that the committee will be established. It is a great moment for all of us, and particularly for me. I look forward to working hard with the committee, to expending energy, and to reporting to the Parliament in October with some useful solutions.

Motion agreed to.

CANNES FILM FESTIVAL AND AUSTRALIAN FILMS

Ministerial Statement

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Minister for State Development, and Minister for Arts) [3.58], by leave: Members of the House will recall my mentioning yesterday the great success of New South Wales films in the lead up to the Cannes Film Festival. No fewer than five New South Wales films have been nominated. In the course of the answer I gave to the House an Opposition member interjected and asked whether I would attend the film festival. I thought this would be an opportune moment to indicate that though there is a very strong, compelling and, indeed, most persuasive argument for me to go, because there are no fewer than five out of five films from New South Wales short-listed for Cannes as the Australian contribution, regrettably I am not attending the festival.

I have never attended the Cannes Film Festival, but the fact that I am not attending the festival in no way detracts from the magnificent contribution made by local film makers. I am extremely pleased to have this opportunity to reaffirm the contribution made by the New South Wales film industry. Tonight that industry will take a further step as the shooting of the film "Sirens" moves only a short distance from this Parliament, to the Art Gallery of New South Wales. I welcome the opportunity that the House has given me to again pay tribute to New South Wales film makers.

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank) [4.1]: I join with the Minister in expressing the congratulations of this side of the House to the successful entrants at the Cannes Film Festival. All five films deserve the plaudits, not only of the people of New South Wales but also of the entire country. Film making is an extremely competitive business and to have reached the level where not one but five New South Wales films have been short-listed at the Cannes Film Festival is indeed meritorious. As a regular attendant Page 2085 of the Sydney Film Festival I have seen it develop over the years from a small, high quality festival to one where its activities are regarded internationally as leading edge.

I note with some pleasure that this year's Sydney Film Festival has already been presold and prebooked with a record number of entrants and films and, of course, it has attracted a wide international level of entry, as well as international attendees. I think it is only fair to acknowledge the Minister's decision not to attend Cannes. In these times of financial constraint and recession he has avoided the obvious opportunity to participate as the Government's representative. In saying that, the absence of representation by this State does not detract from our desire for the films to do well. The Opposition extends its congratulations to all those associated with the films that have been entered in the Cannes Film Festival.

SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Conservation and Land Management, and Minister for Energy), on behalf of Mr Fahey [4.4]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Subordinate Legislation (Amendment) Bill will amend the legislation governing statutory rules. In part, the bill arises from the Government's decision to improve and streamline the procedures relating to the notification to the Parliament of the making of statutory rules. As honourable members will be aware, at present written notice of the making of a statutory rule is required to be tabled in each House of Parliament. Either House may move a motion disallowing the rule at any time before the relevant written notice is tabled, or after the written notice is tabled, so long as notice of the resolution was given within 15 sitting days of tabling.

Under present arrangements, however, there is potential for the tabling of the written notice of the making of a statutory rule to be subject to lengthy or even indefinite delays. This is a matter to which the Regulation Review Committee has frequently referred. The Government has decided that it would be preferable to introduce a centralised system for the automatic tabling of notices of the making of statutory rules. This system will ensure that the Parliament is promptly advised of the making of statutory rules. It will also ensure that the disallowance period commences to run promptly. The new system will involve the identification of the relevant statutory rules by the Parliamentary Counsel's Office, the preparation of the relevant notices for tabling purposes by the Parliamentary Counsel's Office and tabling of the notices by the Clerks.

In connection with this new system, certain legislative amendments are appropriate and these are contained in the bill. First, the Subordinate Legislation (Amendment) Bill will amend the Interpretation Act to confirm that the Clerks can table the relevant material. In addition, the bill will also reduce the time in which a copy of the relevant regulatory impact statement and all written comments and submissions are required to be forwarded to the Regulation Review Committee after gazettal. The Subordinate Legislation (Amendment) Bill will also make other changes to the legislation which governs statutory rules. The bill will increase the number of occasions on which it is possible to postpone the automatic repeal of a statutory rule that would otherwise occur.

The need for this amendment has arisen because experience is demonstrating that the present two occasions on which postponement of repeal is permitted are simply not enough in some circumstances. These circumstances arise where the principal Act under which a statutory rule has been made is in the process of being revised or replaced, or where new statutory rules are being developed as part of a scheme for uniform regulations with other jurisdictions. As all honourable members will be aware, these legislative changes can proceed at a very slow pace, arising from such matters as the need to consult widely with interested community groups or with other jurisdictions. But, where such changes are progressing, it is simply a waste of time and resources to have a statutory rule expire automatically by the operation of the Subordinate Legislation Act and then go through the process of remaking the rule, with a need for regulatory impact statements and so on, when it is clear that the statutory rule involved will only have a limited lifespan.

It is clear that taxpayers' money can be spent on more useful activities than on the preparation of statutory rules which will soon be superseded because the relevant legislation on which they are made is to change, or because new uniform regulations are being prepared. Hence, the Subordinate Legislation (Amendment) Bill will enable the automatic repeal of a statutory rule to be postponed on five occasions rather than the present two. However, on the occasion of a third, fourth or fifth postponement of repeal, the Minister responsible must cause notice of that fact to be given to the Regulation Review Committee as soon as possible.

The intention is that the Regulation Review Committee will then be able to examine the reason for the postponement and, if it considers it appropriate, report to the Parliament. The Subordinate Legislation (Amendment) Bill will also amend the provisions of the Subordinate Legislation Act relating to the automatic repeal of statutory rules so as to provide that all repeals take effect from 1st September of the relevant year. At present, all statutory rules published Page 2086 before 1st September, 1990, are being progressively repealed with effect from 1st September of the applicable year. However, a statutory rule published on or after 1st September, 1990, will be repealed on the fifth anniversary of the date on which it was published.

As statutory rules are published throughout the year, there will constantly be various statutory rules being repealed. In order to bring coherence and order into the system, make it easier to keep track of repeals, and ensure that the final period before the repeal of all statutory rules normally occurs outside a parliamentary sitting period, it is proposed that all repeals of statutory rules should take effect from 1st September of the relevant year. The Subordinate Legislation (Amendment) Bill will streamline, simplify and improve the legislation which relates to statutory rules. I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Knowles.

STATUTE LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

STATUTE LAW (PENALTIES) BILL

Bills introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Conservation and Land Management, and Minister for Energy), on behalf of Mr Fahey [4.11]: I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill continues the well-established statute law revision program which commenced in 1984. The principal bill is the twentieth bill to be introduced in the program. The statute law revision program is recognised by all members as a cost-effective and efficient method of dealing with amendments of the kind included in the principal bill. The form of the principal bill is similar to that of previous bills in the statute law revision program. Schedule 1 contains policy changes of a minor and non-controversial nature that the Minister responsible for the legislation to be amended considers to be too inconsequential to warrant the introduction of an amending bill.

The schedule contains amendments to some 45 Acts. I will mention a few to give the House an indication of the kinds of amendments concerned. One kind of amendment merely transfers to the relevant Acts matter currently dealt with in the regulations or by-laws made under those Acts. Amendments of this kind include amendments to the Pay-roll Tax Act 1971, the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991, the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority Act 1968, and the University of New South Wales Act 1989. The matter transferred ranges from the minimal to the extensive. For example, the sole item transferred to the University of New South Wales Act 1989 is the specification of the chancellor's term of office, while the matter transferred to the Pay-roll Tax Act 1971 includes provisions concerning expenses of witnesses, payment of tax, rates of interest, public officers, records, signatories, authentication of signatures, documents and lodgment of documents.

Another example of the kind of amendment contained in schedule 1 is the amendment to the Sydney Electricity Act 1990. That amendment is made in consequence of the constitution of the municipality of Pittwater. The amendment includes that municipality in the North Shore electricity supply district under the Act. One of the effects of the amendment is to qualify the members of the Council of the Municipality of Pittwater for election as a director of Sydney Electricity for that supply district, and to render them eligible to vote in the election concerned. The Council of the Municipality of Pittwater, Sydney Electricity itself, and each of the councils at present within the North Shore electricity supply district have been consulted on the amendment. Each of those parties has confirmed that it has no objection to the amendment.

A final example of a schedule 1 amendment is the amendment to the Crimes Act 1900. That Act currently provides that a plea of guilty in a trial may, on conviction, result in a shorter sentence than would otherwise have been imposed. The amendment makes explicit the fact that the provision also applies in the case of a retrial or the reopening of proceedings. Schedule 2 deals with matters of pure statute law revision comprising minor technical changes to legislation that the Parliamentary Counsel considers are appropriate for inclusion in the bill. Some amendments in schedule 2 update references to Acts and the titles of positions. Some omit obsolete or unnecessary material. Some make changes for consistency with modern style or in consequence of amendments made by other Acts, and some give effect to amendments made in Committee.

For example, the amendment to the State Authorities Non-Contributory Superannuation Act 1987 corrects an error in the setting out of the provision that closed the State authorities non-contributory basic benefit superannuation scheme. The effect of the amendment is that the benefit under the scheme will continue to be available to specific contributing employees and to employees who were employed before 1st July, 1992, and who did not contribute to other State superannuation schemes. This was the intention of the legislation. Schedule 3 contains repeals. It repeals amending Acts that are no longer necessary because the amendments have been incorporated in reprints of the relevant principal Acts. It also repeals an Act containing uncommenced provisions.

More than 300 Acts were repealed by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) legislation passed last Page 2087 year. Accordingly, only a small number of Acts are proposed for repeal on this occasion. Schedule 4 contains provisions dealing with the effect of amendments on amending Acts, savings clauses for the repealed Acts, and a power to make regulations for transitional matters, if necessary. The various amendments are explained in detail in each explanatory note set out beneath the amendments to each of the Acts concerned. Rather than repeat the information contained in these notes, I invite all honourable members to examine the various amendments and the accompanying explanatory material and, if any concern or need for clarification arises, to approach me regarding the matter. If necessary, I will arrange for government officers to provide additional information on the matters raised. If any matter of concern cannot be resolved, and is likely to delay the passage of the principal bill, the Government is prepared to consider, as has previously been the case, withdrawing the matter from the bill.

The Statute Law (Penalties) Bill is cognate with the principal Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I summarised the background of the penalty unit system for the House on 29th October, 1992, in my second reading speech on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No.3) 1992 and its cognate bill, the Statute Law (Penalties) Bill 1992. A recapitulation of that summary may be of assistance now. The penalty unit system was introduced in this State with the commencement of the Interpretation Act 1987. Section 56 of that Act provides that a reference in an Act or a statutory rule to a number of penalty units is to be read as a reference to an amount of money equal to the amount obtained by multiplying $100 by that number of penalty units.

The use of penalty units is of assistance in assuring that the relative values of penalties as between various offences remains constant. The levels of all penalties for all offences for which penalty points are specified can be changed by an amendment to section 56 of the Interpretation Act 1987 that alters the value of a penalty unit. Alternatively, if an individual penalty is only to be varied, the number of penalty units for the offence can be amended. Acts enacted since the commencement of the Interpretation Act 1987 and statutory rules made under those Acts have generally expressed a pecuniary penalty for an offence in penalty units in accordance with section 56 of that Act.

The Statute Law (Penalties) Act 1992 was the first Act to deal systematically with penalty conversion as part of the regular statute law revision program. It dealt with more than 200 Acts generally enacted before the commencement of the Interpretation Act 1987 in which pecuniary penalties for offences were expressed in money amounts. The object of the Statute Law (Penalties) Bill is to follow that Act in further facilitating the adoption of the penalty unit system by amending certain additional references to penalties of actual amounts in 87 principal Acts that were generally enacted before the penalty unit system was introduced.

It is envisaged that any remaining Acts in which actual penalty amounts appear will be amended on a progressive basis as part of the regular statute law revision program. A table of the penalty unit levels proposed is set out in the explanatory note to the penalties bill. To promote consistency, the range of penalty units proposed is limited. The penalties bill does not provide for any significant penalty increases but merely converts existing penalties to penalty units. Generally speaking, if a current maximum penalty falls between levels on the proposed penalty unit table, the provision is proposed to be amended by fixing the maximum penalty at the next higher penalty unit level on the table. However, there are no penalties between $10,000 and $100,000, or over $100,000, that are proposed to be increased.

The penalties set out in the Acts are the maximum that may be imposed. Courts, therefore, are able to tailor the penalty to the particular offence. The opportunity has also been taken in the penalties bill to remove any minimum pecuniary penalty when expressing the maximum penalty in terms of penalty units. In recent years, only maximum penalties have been imposed for offences. The discretion of courts as to the appropriate level of penalty is not now limited by an obligation to impose a specific minimum penalty, irrespective of the circumstances of the case. I commend the bills.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Knowles.

STAMP DUTIES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Finance, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs) [4.22]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This Government has an ongoing commitment to improving and simplifying the New South Wales tax system. This will benefit the people of this State by reducing administrative costs for both the Government and the taxpaying public. Innovative technology will enable the Government to provide better services at cheaper cost to the taxpayers of this State. This bill contains three proposals which will assist government and private sector organisations to provide better service to the public by the use of such technology. The first proposal is a pilot program, to be undertaken by the Office of State Revenue, known as Taxline. Page 2088 This program will allow the stamping of some documents by way of electronic data interchange and payment of duty by electronic funds transfer.

This program will lead to a more rapid turnaround of documents because some taxpayers will no longer be required to physically present certain documents to the Office of State Revenue. This scheme will also provide the capacity for improved statistical analysis of revenue. As an operational scheme, Taxline should provide continuing administrative savings over the next five years. The two remaining amendments relate to electronic settlement systems adopted in the private sector. Credit Union Settlement Services Ltd, or CUSS, is an association of credit unions which provides credit union members with settlement services such as cheque facilities and automatic teller machine cards. A similar organisation, Credit Union Financial Services (Australia) Ltd, was exempted from financial institutions duty when it commenced operations in 1985. In the interests of equity, it is proposed to grant CUSS a similar exemption.

Second, Solicitors Electronic Information and Settlement Interchange Network, or SEISIN, is an electronic system for the settlement of real property transactions. It is being developed by the Law Society of New South Wales. SEISIN has the potential to substantially improve conveyancing practice in New South Wales with consequent benefits to the legal profession, financial institutions, and statutory and government authorities. The ultimate beneficiaries will be the general public when they are parties to real property transactions. This bill contains an exemption from financial institutions duty on the SEISIN settlement account, which would otherwise be subject to an additional liability to duty. The proposed exemptions for both CUSS and SEISIN will ensure that the benefits provided by these organisations are not eroded by an unintended tax liability. The reforms contained in this bill will contribute to the provision by this Government of a simpler and more equitable tax system for the taxpaying public of New South Wales. I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Knowles.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

IMPOUNDING BILL

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL

ROADS BILL

TRAFFIC (PARKING REGULATION) AMENDMENT BILL

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 11th May.

Clause 40

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [4.30]: I move:

Page 24, clause 40. After line 3, insert:

(2) If the proposed amendment will have the effect of reclassifying a natural area as a sports ground, a park or general community use, the council must arrange a public hearing in respect of the proposal.

(3) In any case, a natural area may not be reclassified unless the council satisfies itself that its reclassification is essential for a public purpose in the public interest and that no prudent or feasible alternative exists to the change of use.

Clause 40 relates to amendments to plans of management. Any amendment to a plan of management which seeks to reclassify natural areas should be carried out only after a public hearing. My amendment seeks to reinforce a shift in conceptual frameworks by which one views natural areas - they are not solely for potential development. My amendment views natural areas as critical to ecological integrity and the preservation of the biodiversity. It would be appropriate to adopt such an amendment as it would clearly indicate that the intent of the bill is to conserve and look after those natural areas.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [4.31]: The Government opposes this amendment on the grounds that it is proscriptive and an extension of the classification process, which would be costly for councils. It is not an appropriate use of the local environmental plan process.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 45

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [4.32]: I move:

Page 24, clause 45, lines 30-32. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(2) An authorisation in a plan of management for the granting of a lease or licence must be limited to the granting of a lease or licence for a public purpose.

(3) Any lease or licence of land within a natural area (as categorised by a plan of management) must prohibit the erection of buildings on the land.

(4) This section does not prevent the renewal from time to time of any lease or licence that was in force immediately before the commencement of this section.

This amendment seeks to omit all the words contained in lines 30 to 32, which read, "An authorisation in a plan of management for the granting of a lease or licence may be limited to the granting of a lease or licence for a public purpose or by reference to other matters". Quite frankly, that does not make sense. I see this as an opportunity for local government to Page 2089 lease or issue licences for private purposes. My amendment seeks to restrict leases and licences for public purposes. In fact, this was not included in the draft exposure bill. I believe that we must restrict the leasing and licensing of community land for public purposes and we must not have a clause which states, " . . . or by reference to other matters".

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [4.34]: The Government opposes the amendment on the ground that the leasing of land should be governed by a plan of management not State government legislation.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 46

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [4.34]: I move:

Page 25, clause 46, line 12. Omit "5", insert instead "2".

Clause 46, as it stands, refers to leases and licences of community land for more than five years - additional requirements. It is proposed that councils grant a lease or licence for community land for a period, including any period for which the lease or licence could be renewed by exercise of an option, exceeding five years. The existing provision allows for two years. The Opposition feels that there is no reason to change that provision.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [4.35]: The Government opposes this amendment, which if accepted would seriously reduce leasing options for councils and even for community organisations. In fact, contrary to what the honourable member for Coogee said, the existing Act does not contain a maximum term for similar leases.

Amendment negatived.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [4.35]: I move:

Page 26, clause 46. After line 21, insert:

(8) Before making a decision on the application, the Minister must make public the report of the Director of Planning.

This is a matter of public scrutiny and accountability. It is consistent with remarks that have been previously made by the Minister. The report of the Director of Planning should be made public. I seek the Government's support in this regard.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [4.36]: The Government opposes this amendment. The report of the Director of Planning would be publicly advertised prior to the stage the honourable member refers to. The council would have considered all objections. The Government considers this amendment to be unnecessary.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [4.36]: Does the Minister agree, however, that people in local government areas and councils concerned have a right to know exactly what conclusions have been arrived at in the report?

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [4.37]: The documentation of the Minister for Planning is open to any member of the public who is interested enough to inspect it. It is unnecessary for this provision to be in the Act for that reason. The publication of a planning report would be lengthy and costly. If anyone has any worries, they can look at the documentation at the council - an option which is available to them under the Act.

Page 2090 Amendment negatived.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [4.37]: I move:

Page 26, clause 46, lines 27 and 28. Omit all words on those lines.

Under clause 46 the Minister, if satisfied that subclauses (1), (2) and (6) have been complied with, may consent to the granting of a lease or licence. The Minister for Local Government and Minister for Cooperatives has argued that the Minister's decision should be final. I reject that proposition and I seek the Government's support for this amendment.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [4.38]: The Government opposes this amendment. It is quite appropriate that the Minister's decision be final, otherwise it opens up the way to numerous costly appeals. Local government is already plagued by countless appeals and legal costs. That is one of the major problems facing local government.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 50

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [4.39]: I move:

Page 28. After line 21, insert:

Use of land held for drainage purposes

50. Land that is held by a council for drainage purposes may be used for any other purpose that is not inconsistent with its use for drainage purposes, subject to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and any environmental planning instrument applying to the land.

This amendment was foreshadowed by the Opposition and the Independents, particularly the honourable member for Bligh. The Government is happy to amend the legislation to give effect to the sensible suggestion of the honourable member for Bligh.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Explanatory note.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [4.39]: I move:

Page 30, Explanatory note following clause 52, lines 1-40. Omit all matter on those lines, insert instead:

Page 2091

This is merely a revised chart that has been indicated by the Parliamentary Counsel as an improvement on the original chart.

Amendment agreed to.

Explanatory note as amended agreed to.

Clause 53

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [4.40]: I move:

Page 31, clause 53. After line 39, insert:

contract for which, because of provisions made by or under another Act, a council is exempt from the requirement to invite a tender

The amendment recognises the likelihood that other legislation will exempt councils from the requirement to tender, and is merely a technical amendment. It means, in simple terms, that if later legislation is passed under the Local Government Act which exempts a council from the need to tender, that legislation will automatically apply and will not require amendment to the Local Government Act. The clause is meant to correct the situation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 54

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [4.41]: I move:

Page 32, clause 54, line 8. Omit "$100,000", insert instead "$250,000".

An enormous amount of controversy has arisen about the original proposal in the legislation that the limit for tendering out would be $100,000. That is, the tendering out requirement would come into play at that point. Submissions in regard to this have been received from many councils. The Opposition has put very strongly that the figure of $100,000 in the original legislation is impractical and that generally the original legislation was unsatisfactory. The increase of the limit from $100,000 to $250,000 recognises the need for greater flexibility in council's contracting arrangements and attempts to overcome the rather restrictive provision that was first contained in the bill. That has occurred as a result of the submissions received and acceptance of the cogent arguments that have been put.

The amendment, if carried, will be followed by a further amendment which appears in the list of circulated amendments. This will also allow the Minister of the day to exempt, by notice, some services to be provided by councils without the need to prepare and consider tenders. That proposal, in conjunction with the proposal now under discussion, would eliminate such requirements as councils having to tender for library services and services which are better provided by themselves. The Government believes this is a crucial part of the legislation. This Government, and any government, has to be deeply concerned that councils efficiently manage their affairs for the benefit of ratepayers. All honourable members would recognise that at present farmers, small businessmen and many people who are struggling to keep their homes are heavily burdened with rates.

This efficiency provision will allow a council to gauge whether work carried out by its own day labour force could be better carried out by outside contractors. However, it does not mean that merely because a contract has to be tendered out if it is over $250,000 the council of necessity must accept an outside tender. The provision is intended to show the council, the councillors and the public what the real cost of the work or a particular item would be if contracted out rather than performed by day labour. Councils will have the power to say that even though the work can be carried out cheaper by contract, they will continue to use their day labour force. Clearly the bill contains provisions which allow councils to take social issues into consideration. These items were discussed firmly and at great length in the second reading stages of the debate, and I will not cover them again. The amendment is intended to overcome the quite clear and serious objections to the original proposal of $100,000. A contract in the amount of $250,000 is a big contract.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [4.45]: I am prepared to vote in favour of the amendment, but only because it is an improvement on the original proposal. I will speak forcefully in favour of the next amendment to be moved, which would have the effect of deleting this whole provision. I will refrain from referring to the main points of my argument at this stage. Though the Minister said that the figure has been increased substantially, it is still a money figure and it may not be too much longer before that in itself becomes reasonably small by financial standards. If a proper amendment were inserted to safeguard the decision-making of councils, it should be done in a separate way and not simply by using financial figures which easily become outdated. In yesterday's debate on the Dog (Amendment) Bill maximum fines were increased on the Minister's recommendation because they had become outdated. The Minister mentioned a principle yesterday which is not being followed today. Because it is the lesser of two evils, I am prepared to vote in favour of the amendment, but I will be speaking against the principle when the next amendment is moved.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [4.47]: I seek leave of the Committee to enable the honourable member for Coogee to move circulated amendment 34.

Leave granted.

Page 2092

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [4.48]: I move:

Page 32, lines 5-29 and page 33, lines 1-9, Division 2, Part 3, Chapter 6. Division (Clause 54).

I object strongly to this division. This provision goes against the rationale of the proposed new Act of giving councils more decision-making power and more autonomy. It is available to councils currently to contract out if they feel it is within their interests to do so. Directing a council to call for tenders under certain conditions will remove part of that autonomy. The situation is best left for the council to decide when it will and when it will not contract out. There are a number of points against contracting out.

The honourable member for The Entrance described vividly to the House from his experience the drawbacks for local councils and organisations in contracting out work. In country areas the process will be extremely detrimental: the smaller the town, the greater the effect. Councils have been a major source of employment in country towns. The new procedure will probably mean that outside contractors get the work. My colleague the honourable member for The Entrance mentioned that his group travelled from Sydney to country areas for work. There will be a diminution of essential employment in country areas. Following the State public service cutbacks in country towns the change to tendering procedures could sound the death knell of the viability of many country areas.

At times of natural disaster the shock troops and equipment come from the local councils. They are readily organised and on the job. People know where they are or they can be located by bush telegraph and called out to deal with a disaster. It will be a problem for small towns if such people cannot gain local employment. From my experience in industry I am yet to be convinced that contractors are better than day labour. Honourable members would have knowledge of situations in which a contractor has gone broke, causing a hiatus while the legal problems and who will pay for what are sorted out before the work can be completed. This invariably results in increased costs to the community.

Another problem is that contracting out of a job requiring capital equipment will result in the council shedding its capital equipment. Thereafter the council will not be able to tender meaningfully for the work because the capital infrastructure will be gone. The council will then be at the mercy of the small number of contractors willing to go to the area. The more remote the area, the more this will be so. This requirement should not be imposed on councils. The council should be able to make the decision on what staff to keep on certain projects and where contracting out should occur. In my 25 years on the council I had no problem in contracting out work when the council did not have the expertise or the capital infrastructure to do the work or if staff were not available to do the job. This enabled the council to operate efficiently. I suggest that would be the broad view of local councils throughout New South Wales. I oppose this provision.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [4.54]: The exposure draft referred to work "of a significant nature". I believe those words have been lost. I wonder where they have gone. I believe the provision is ideologically driven. The mandatory tendering process does not seem to be consistent with the aim of the bill to provide autonomy to local government. The legislation committee supported a non-mandatory approach. Members have received an enormous number of submissions on this issue from a broad range of community groups, councils and shires. A common theme to the submissions is that there would be enormous public pressure to accept the lowest tender, which would not necessarily always be the best. This has been the case at Manly with the tendering out of the cleaning of beach toilets; it has been a disaster. The submissions warn of increased costs, particularly for administration and in remote areas.

The honourable member for Coogee referred to the problem after a council has reduced its resources and day labour. It is not appropriate that there should be a blanket provision when councils are at different stages of organisation development. Exposing some councils to competitive tendering could be damaging. There are questions about award restructuring and work design processes which the Local Government Association is still involved in. If the Minister does not have a convincing explanation for this move, I will be forced to believe that the provision has been driven by ideology.

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [4.57]: I welcome the Minister's suggestion that the tender limit be increased from $100,000 to $250,000. I do not know whether that is in response to my comments to him.

Mr Peacocke: Oh, that was part of it.

Mr McBRIDE: That is really good. It is a terrific improvement. The Minister knows the Opposition's attitude on this issue. Since I spoke on the bill last week I have had the opportunity of discussing this issue with representatives from Narrandera, Leeton, Griffith, Hay, Carrathool, Junee and Wagga Wagga councils.

Dr Macdonald: You have been busy. You are the member for The Entrance.

Mr McBRIDE: I spoke at some length about how this provision would impact on my region. I contrasted the effect on regional councils and councils in the Sydney metropolitan area. The areas I mentioned are represented by National Party members. I was told that a contractor won the tender and performed the work for a number of years but a Sydney company has since taken over the provision of the service. Councils fear that the requirement that work be open to tender would enable collusion of contractors within the western area. There may be cost reductions initially but in no time at all contractors would realise that it was in their best interests to do what was exposed in the royal Page 2093 commission into the building industry: there was co-operation in the preparation of tenders by major tenderers.

I was told that what might happen in the future was of great concern to the local community, even if the contract system were employed. We know what people on the land are like. It would not take too long before they found a way to get around the system and to employ practices that were not in the best interests of the people in the area. Every one of the representatives I spoke to from all those local council areas said the same thing; they were universal in their belief that this clause would be detrimental to local government in country areas. They also indicated that they were not happy with this provision and said it would impact on employment. Some small councils have budgets worth as little as $5 million or $6 million a year. A project worth $100,000 is a major works for those local areas. Those councils employ a total of only 50, 60, 70 or 90 day labour staff. If councils are forced down this track, they could lose five to 10 local jobs for local people.

As was referred to earlier, the loss of a few jobs in a local government area has a tremendous impact on the local community. One of the councils pointed out that it employed only 30 staff in total. I had not experienced that before. I had always compared Sydney with the Central Coast. In the country a one kilometre stretch of road would cost $100,000. That amount of money would not do anything on the Central Coast and in the city it would achieve even less. From my conversations with the people in the country areas I have determined that they do not want this provision; they see it as a real problem and an attack on continuous public employment. It will also have an impact on recession proof jobs in country areas. The Government accuses the Opposition of not caring about people in the rural areas - or perhaps I have misinterpreted that aspect.

These are recession proof jobs in country areas. If this legislation results in five or 10 jobs in a work force of between 10 to 50 being lost, that would have is a tremendous impact on the local area. People are suffering in the local government areas and things are tough. I was impressed to learn that Leeton council and Wagga Wagga council were so concerned about creating jobs in their areas that they conducted feasibility studies into Sydney's garbage being disposed of in their areas. It is acknowledged that Sydney has a major problem with its garbage. Those country councils are so keen to create jobs that they are prepared to do feasibility studies into the disposal of Sydney's garbage in their areas. Last week I said that jobs will be lost in the country area if this legislation is passed in its present form. A similar view was expressed by representatives from seven rural local government areas. This bill as it stands will damage country areas; it is an attack on their work force, their viability and employment in those areas. I am glad the Government has proposed that the limit be increased to $250,000. However, the Government needs to increase that amount further; it should give consideration to the amendment proposed by the Opposition, which provides for the amount to be left open. Perhaps in the future the provision will need to be tightened up again. Increasing the amount from $100,000 to $250,000 is a knee-jerk reaction to the situation.

In the future a new mechanism may need to be introduced. At this stage I welcome the fact that the Government has made this concession. It is a move in the right direction, but it still does not go far enough. It will impact negatively on recession proof jobs in rural areas. In the future this provision will come back to bite the Minister for Local Government and other Government members who represent rural areas. Of course, that is not such a big worry for the Minister as he will be leaving the Parliament, as will the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads. The Minister's commitment and representation has been fierce for his constituency. This provision is contrary to what had been done in the past. I urge the Government to reconsider what is proposed and possibly consider implementing some additional mechanism in the future. In its present form the bill is not satisfactory and needs to be examined further.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [5.5]: I have listened with great interest to the debate on the proposed amendment. What has been said is really a repeat of what was said in the second reading debate. The honourable member for Waverley said that $200,000 was the limit. I draw attention to the provision as it will read once the $250,000 limit is accepted:

. . . not less than $250,000 or such greater amount as may be prescribed by the regulations . . .

The honourable member for The Entrance was very sincere in what he had to say during his contribution. I understand his attitude and in some ways he is right, but in most ways he is wrong. In the second reading debate I used the Central Darling shire as an example of a small shire that could be affected in the way the honourable member mentioned. Last Saturday I was in Bourke where members of the Central Darling Shire Council conducted a meeting. At that meeting I found out that that shire is now doing its work by contract. I was interested to learn that by doing its work by contract it was able to do more work for less money. That did not result in fewer people being employed in that area because the contractors were also using local people, the local farmers, to do contracting work. The Central Darling shire is a classic example of a shire that covers a large area but with only 700 ratepayers now facing the most devastating time in its history. The shire has suffered from a very severe drought and historically low wool prices. Every adversity that could befall those farmers has in fact happened.

It is one thing to say that those people who pay the rates must keep paying in order that those employed on contract by the council will remain in Page 2094 secure employment. The honourable member for The Entrance referred to recession proof jobs in the town. They are not recession proof jobs, because in country areas the time is rapidly approaching when ratepayers will not be able to afford the level of rates they are paying now. As I have pointed out previously, if a council can establish that it needs to retain its day labour force, and if that is what the community wants, that can be done. There is some misunderstanding about this section of the Act. It does not provide for compulsory contracting out; it provides for compulsory tendering if the cost of a project is above a certain figure. It is open to the council to not accept the lowest tender. It is left open to the council to consider all the issues mentioned by the honourable member for The Entrance and to decide whether it uses its own day labour force.

If the arguments put by the honourable member have the cogency he claims they have, obviously they will be cogent to the ratepayers and the people that the council represents. The council will have no difficulty in saying to the community, "We know the work can be done for less by using a contractor because we have received a tender that demonstrates that it can be done for less; but we want to keep our work force intact and keep jobs in our community. For that reason we will continue to use day labour to do our work". That argument is easy to sell.

That proposition is easy to sell. On the other hand, some councils have had an enormous growth in the employment of day labour and engineering staff. The cost of that is largely unknown to the ratepayers; the efficiency of the day labour force is largely unknown to the ratepayers, and often is unknown to the councillors of the council involved. There is no way to test whether the work has been done at an efficient cost level, because no means of comparison is available. The tendering out provisions will simply provide a method by which a council can measure the efficiency of its cost structure. If a contractor comes to an area and can do a job for one-third of the cost of carrying out that job with day labour, either there is something wrong with the council's day labour force - it is inefficient and costly - or the contractor is doing the work under its value, for some ulterior motive that will become evident down the track.

Even in difficult times such as at present I cannot imagine that a contractor would submit a tender that was too far below the cost to him of doing the work. This is a core part of the legislation. It is critical to the attempts to get back the efficiency of local government, to give elected members of local government an opportunity to gauge the cost efficiency of their day labour force. That has been asked of the Government, not once but many times, by ratepayers and councils throughout the State. It is all very well to say that the councils are autonomous and can contract out without the need for special legislation. That is quite true; but the question to be asked is whether they will tender out. A lot of councils do not tender out. A lot of engineers like to build empires within councils.

Mr McBride: Pick on lawyers.

Mr PEACOCKE: Lawyers might do the same. The Government wants this measure retained in the bill. If the figure of $250,000 is too low, I will have no hesitation while I am Minister - and I am sure any other Minister of either political persuasion would have no hesitation - in increasing it to a more appropriate figure.

Dr Macdonald: Ideologically driven.

Mr PEACOCKE: It is not with me, I assure the honourable member. The Government wants to retain that provision so that it will give councils a measure of the value of their work forces. It is a core part of efficiency requirements of councils and of accountability. Somewhere along the line engineers and staff must prove that the work they carry out is done efficiently and cost effectively. For that reason, the Government strongly opposes the amendment moved by the Opposition.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [5.13]: I shall comment on a few matters mentioned by the Minister and raise several other issues. The Minister referred to the Central Darling Shire Council. If that council wishes to contract out, it can do so. It is doing that under the existing legislation, and I have no objection to that fact. When I was the mayor of Waverley, the council contracted out in certain circumstances. If it was in the council's interests, the council would contract out specific work; if it was not in its interests, that would not be done. The Minister failed to mention employment in the townships or the availability of disaster troops when a natural disaster threatened a town or district.

Contracting out in country areas provides openings for collusion between people, by means of dummy tenders. I am told by my colleague the honourable member for The Entrance that Leeton Shire Council had received from a local contractor a good tender for a garbage service. That contractor then pulled out, the council could not provide the service because it did not have the necessary equipment, and it is now being overcharged by a large Sydney organisation. The council has grave concerns about its foray into contracting. I should raise two other matters. Today in question time the Minister for Community Services made great play about the need to have employment opportunities for older people. He was quite eloquent, and in principle I did not disagree with anything he said on that issue. Employment opportunities must be available throughout the community for the whole labour force. However, with contracting the emphasis is very much on young, active people.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Tink): Order! It being 5.15 p.m., I shall now leave the chair and report progress.

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Page 2095

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS ______

FRENCHS FOREST EAST TRAFFIC

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [5.16]: I raise a matter concerning the interests of constituents in the residential area of Frenchs Forest East in my electorate. The streets involved are Adams Street, Rabbett Street and Frenchs Forest Road. The residents are concerned about the significant volume of traffic and the speed at which it travels through that region. Over the years residents have progressively lost the residential amenity that many of them enjoyed when they first moved to the area. The potential is that the problem will be exacerbated by recent subdivisions in the nearby area, access to those subdivisions being via Adams Street in particular. People in that residential area complain about the volume of traffic, especially in the morning and late afternoon, which affects the quality of their lives and homes and makes it awkward for them to enter and leave their driveways.

The advice I have been given is that traffic flow in this region is of the order of 10,000 vehicles a day, which approximates the rate of traffic flow one might expect on a four-lane arterial road. In this instance it is occurring in residential streets. The majority of the traffic is of a non-local variety; drivers use the route as a shortcut to bypass the Warringah Road-Forest Way intersection at Frenchs Forest. The residents have suffered these problems for a long time. Often the delays in getting out of their immediate area on to the major thoroughfares of Forest Way, Warringah Road and Wakehurst Parkway exceed half an hour - to cover a distance in many cases of less than 100 metres.

There is a significant demand and a demonstrated need for traffic flow improvements at the Forest Way-Warringah Road intersection to enable traffic that is westbound from Beacon Hill along Warringah Road, turning into Forest Way and heading north, to flow adequately and consistently; and, likewise, for traffic travelling south along Forest Way to be able to turn left into Warringah Road and head east without the delays and congestion that occur at present. The delays encourage people to use back streets to bypass the intersection. What is needed to solve the problem is not something in the nature of an interchange, as has been suggested by some people from the area, but an increase in the number of lanes and the removal of obstructions that slow down traffic. The intersection needs to have a greater capacity to transfer traffic.

In discouraging through traffic it is important to note that growth in the area is exacerbating the problem. It is essential that the problem be alleviated now rather than allow it gradually to worsen. In 1991 the council responded to the concerns of local residents by establishing a local area traffic management scheme. This has marginally slowed the traffic but has not diminished the volume flowing through the area. Residents are still inundated by a significant volume of non-local traffic. The relevant local traffic committee has a plan that deserves reconsideration. In the past it has been referred to as a pressure release valve to take traffic from the major road to residential streets. I do not share that view, and I am sure the majority of - if not all - the residents would object to that description.

I am pleased that the traffic committee is now addressing concerns of residents in an endeavour to restore their residential status. A suggestion deserving close consideration as a short-term solution is peak hour closure to through traffic. It would cause minimal inconvenience to some local residents but substantially reinstate the amenity and quality of life that most hope to regain. It could be trialed for a number of months and in time could become a permanent arrangement. I acknowledge that buses and emergency vehicles need to pass through this area as there is a police station situated on Frenchs Forest Road. I ask the House to note my statement and I ask for the support of the Minister for Roads and the Roads and Traffic Authority in addressing this problem.

LAKE MACQUARIE ELECTORATE GOVERNMENT CHARGES

Mr MILLS (Wallsend) [5.21]: I express concern for the 55 per cent of my constituents who live in Lake Macquarie city. This year the council has suffered enormous increases in certain imposts and large increases in charges by the State Government. This is not the first time I have objected in the House to the impact on my constituents of huge increases in State Government charges, grossly in excess of consumer price index increases. The mine subsidence fees for certificates that I raised in this House last year come to mind. Increases way above the CPI rate are unreasonable and unfair. I wish to provide some figures to demonstrate the adverse impact these increases have on my constituents. I expect that the minority of my constituents who live in the Newcastle City Council area have suffered similar increases, though these are probably a little lower.

Imposts beyond the allowable revenue increase when government sets maximum rate increases will lead to a reduction in community services provided by councils for ratepayers. I shall quote some figures for Lake Macquarie. For valuation fees for valuation lists in 1992 the council paid $160,730 and in 1993 paid $188,358, an increase of $27,628, or 17.2 per cent increase. In the past year financial institutions duty has doubled. Over the past two years contributions to New South Wales Fire Brigades have shown an increase of $97,000, or 27.4 per cent. Contributions to the Bush Fire Fighting Fund over two years have increased from $92,916 to $184,656, an increase of $91,730, or 98.7 per cent.

Also, this year councils must pay the 5 per cent levy on income generated by caravan parks on Crown reserves. Those five government imposts alone have Page 2096 increased by more than $250,000. All of them greatly exceed the CPI and the maximum rate revenue increase that councils are permitted to make. I have written letters of representation on behalf of the council to the Premier and three other Ministers. I have had the courtesy of a reply only from the Leader of the House, the Minister for Conservation and Land Management. I thank him for his courtesy and diligence. However, his reply is of concern. On the question of increased valuation list fees, the Minister wrote:

These fees have not increased since 1989 when they were set at $2.55. I approved an increase in the fees by catch-up CPI adjustments.

And he gave examples for the next three years. The fee went to $2.95, which is an increase of 15.9 per cent. The CPI increase over the same period was 15.4 per cent, but the rate increase allowed was only 9.4 per cent. The Minister was hoodwinked by his department in preparing his reply. He stated that he had been advised that councils were permitted rate increases and he provided four years of rate increases to demonstrate that councils were allowed to increase rates. A three-year period of rate increase was being considered but the Minister can only justify it by referring to a four-year rate increase. That does not work, and it is not fair. The Valuer-General should be forced to achieve some of the same efficiencies that have been imposed on local government in recent years.

In response to the charge on caravan parks in Crown reserves the Minister said that the levy is not a charge, nor does it penalise local government. I disagree because the council had to find the money from fees already collected before the levy was directed. The fee increase was double the CPI increase for that year. The Lake Macquarie council told me that it considers the Government should not levy a tax such as financial institutions duty on another level of government. In February the council resolved that the government levy on local government to the New South Wales Fire Brigades and the Bush Fire Fighting Fund should be abolished. In the meantime they request that any percentage increases in these contributions be kept to the maximum allowable percentage increase for local government rate levies. [Time Expired.]

WINGHAM FOREST LOGGING

Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie) [5.26]: I draw to the attention of the House events occurring last week in the forests outside Wingham. Recently those forests have been the subject of an environmental impact statement under the moratorium imposed by the former Premier. A month or so ago the EIS was determined by the Minister for Planning recommending that logging could commence in many areas, with some areas exempt until further study had been done and some put aside for habitat preservation and the like. Since that time the green movement has signalled that it does not care what the law is and will protest against logging - and it made that clear before the EIS commenced. If the green movement does not like the outcome of the process, it will not abide by the umpire's decision. We are getting used to that, but it does not make it any more palatable to the many people trying to make a living in the area. In the past week or so the Forestry Commission decided to lock the forest to the public. It is a shame that it is necessary to lock up one of our beautiful State assets. However, that is necessary for the safety of the workers and their equipment.

In the past few days logging has commenced and the contractors have to bring their equipment to a central place each evening where it is guarded. Two policemen are on duty at all times to make sure that the equipment is not vandalised, as has happened in this area in the past. I am referring to machinery with a replacement value of $90,000; I am not talking about minor vandalism. On Monday or Tuesday of this week a protest was held at the mill that gets most of the timber from Mount George, just outside Wingham. I gather about 70 or 80 protesters demonstrated, having carried out peaceful protests last week. In great style they sent the women and children into the mill first. That is a disgraceful and extremely cowardly action, but unfortunately par for the course. Following that, they protested at Taree - one of the large towns in the district - and that community had the good sense to boo and laugh them off the streets because of their actions.

It is widely understood that these people are being paid $60 a day by the taxpayers - through a number of their peak organisations, which are largely funded by the Federal Government - for their professional protest. Many are local residents who belong to the North East Forest Alliance, a nebulous organisation that is not accountable for any cost to the community for damage inflicted on equipment but likes to claim credibility when it suits its arguments in court cases or in the media. If the Federal Government is fair dinkum, perhaps it could get the Department of Social Security to check how many people are double dipping - collecting the dole and a $60 payment to stop people carrying out legitimate work.

The residents of country New South Wales have had enough of this type of behaviour. It costs the community dearly. Two policemen are on duty at all times. However, the local inspector for the district said that approximately 17 men were involved in the operation and provision has been made for more assistance when necessary. Happily, I can say that to date the protest has been fairly low key. The Wingham Forest Action Group conducts pop-up protests, where people hide in the forest and then pop up. This activity was attempted in the Southeast Forests a few weeks ago and my colleague the honourable member for Monaro expressed his disgust, pointing out if this behaviour continued to occur, the protesters run the risk of local people going into the forest and removing them. The protesters should not be in the forest. The forest should not be locked. Page 2097 Logging is a legitimate operation. The timber industry is extremely important to the State, but the honourable member for Blacktown does not seem to understand that.

Ms Allan: Is it important in your electorate?

Ms MACHIN: It certainly is in my electorate. I bet the honourable member is not game to front these people because she does not have the guts.

Ms Allan: If the honourable member invites the committee, I will come.

Ms MACHIN: Let the record show that I invite the honourable member for Blacktown to come to my electorate to meet the timber workers. I will release that request to the media tonight. The timber workers would love to talk to the honourable member for Blacktown about some of her legislation that has been passed; they would love to take her through the process of approvals that I have here. It consists of a page, if it is drawn in chart form, and involves numerous public displays. Many of the people being hurt are those who the honourable member for Blacktown used to purport to represent. The sleeper cutters say, "Hey, we are not organised; we are scattered; we do not have the education, and all you are doing is stopping us and many others working". [Time expired.]

GLEBE ROWING CLUB

Ms NORI (Port Jackson) [5.31]: I wish to speak about the problems faced by the Glebe Rowing Club if the Waterways Authority's proposal to put a marina in Rozelle Bay goes forward. The proposal will effectively put an end to the life of the Glebe Rowing Club because the plan is quite incompatible with a rowing club's needs. The Waterways Authority seems to be concerned about powerboats and yachts and does not try to understand the problems of rowers. The Glebe Rowing Club commenced in 1879. It is the oldest club in Australia and has been continuously sited at the same place in Blackwattle Bay. It is one of the few clubs that supports female members - some rowing clubs will not admit women members. The captain of the Glebe Rowing Club is a woman. I applaud the club for its efforts in encouraging women to take up rowing.

Many luminaries have come from the Glebe Rowing Club, including George Cook, professional world champion sculler in the late 1940s and early 1950s - George is now 79 and still rowing; Kym Mackney, who represented Australia in 1967 on the New Zealand tour and at the 1972 Munich Olympics in the pair oar; and Graham Gardiner, who represented Australia and won the world championships in the lightweight coxless four in 1980-1981. The club also produces many New South Wales and Australian champions. The club offers many facilities to children in the area. A number of schools, including the local high school and, indeed, private schools - for example, Pymble Ladies College, Croydon - use the services of the club. The club is very oriented towards making sure the community can participate in rowing and provides the opportunity for all schoolchildren to learn to row. The club sees itself as a community based club.

Under the City West strategy, the population of Pyrmont and Ultimo will increase by approximately 20,000 in the next five to seven years. Obviously a rowing club would be an important part of the social and recreational infrastructure. Sydney does not have many rowing clubs, and there are none within the port of Port Jackson. It is amazing that the most splendid harbour in the world does not have a rowing club facility other than the fairly modest Glebe Rowing Club facility at Blackwattle Bay. Much attention is paid to providing yachts and powered motor vessels with plenty of facilities, yet it is a pity no attention is paid to rowing. Rowing is an Olympic sport at which Australia has excelled. Port Jackson harbour is a splendid location to encourage rowing as an activity.

The difficulty with the marina is that it will create wash, which may not mean much to us but means a lot to rowers. The wash can capsize boats. A single scull is 25 feet long and only 11 inches wide; it will split if it is hit by a large wash. Rowing boats are rowed with the rower facing backwards, and since coxed craft are dwindling, the majority of rowers now effectively row blind. It is important that their rowing course is not obstructed, and a clear separation must be maintained between rowers rowing up and down the course. Inexperienced rowers can get into all sorts of strife trying to dodge fishing boats and other vessels. A no-wash zone exists in Blackwattle Bay, but it is not policed. I have observed the activities of the rowing club and it is clear that even experienced users of the bay, like fishing boats operators, charge up and down the bay without regard to the needs of the rowers.

The Waterways Authority proposal to construct a 60- to 64-foot masted yacht marina and public boat ramp will destroy the club because the peak time for the use of the marina and ramp will clash with the needs of the rowers and make it impossible for them to continue. I also do not approve of the plan to abandon the Glebe Island swing bridge. It will be needed for local use once the high bridge is opened. Accidents have occurred in Blackwattle Bay. A barge literally ran over the top of a rower. The rower was pitched into the water, suffering abrasions and bruises. Collisions can not only damage a boat but rowers can be trapped and face drowning if they cannot disentangle their feet. A fishing boat almost mowed down a pair oar - [Time expired.]

YOWAKA BRIDGE

Mr COCHRAN (Monaro) [5.36]: My concern is on behalf of my constituents in the Eden-Merimbula area and also on behalf of the honourable member for Bega, Russell Smith, who no doubt shares similar concerns about the width of the Yowaka Bridge over the Yowaka River and the threat it poses to traffic on the Princes Highway. I have spoken to the Minister for Roads, the Deputy Premier, on other occasions about this matter and I thank him for taking remedial action to assist in alleviating the potential for motor vehicle accidents, particularly those involving wide vehicles and trucks.

Page 2098

I regret to inform the House that yesterday an accident occurred on the bridge and the time has now arrived when serious consideration must be given to establishing a reconstruction program to allow the widening of the bridge. Though the Roads and Traffic Authority has identified that the pavement width of the bridge is within the normal guidelines and configuration of a bridge, in this instance the bridge has vertical rails on the side that are normally found only on much wider bridges on the highway. If the sides and rails of the bridge were to be laid out at an angle, it would give passing trucks more room to negotiate the bridge.

At present when school buses travelling from Merimbula and the surrounding area across the Yowaka River to Eden High School and primary schools pass on this bridge, their side mirrors almost touch. It is necessary for trucks and other forms of heavy transport to signal to oncoming drivers via their CB radios that they are approaching the bridge from north or south. One truck usually gives way so only one truck is on the bridge at a time. Although this overcomes the problem to a large degree, the threat of an accident is still present. At the time the Deputy Premier and I visited the area and inspected the bridge, we made certain decisions and recommendations after receiving professional advice from Roads and Traffic Authority engineers. The remedial action that took place following our visit included the erection of warning signs. Speed limits were implemented and various other action was taken to try to reduce the level of risk, to make the drivers of oncoming vehicles aware that the bridge was narrow and to make them aware of the potential for a collision.

It is now patently obvious that those remedial measures are not working effectively. The matter needs to be considered further. Therefore I ask the Minister for Consumer Affairs to note the matters I have raised and to refer the Minister for Roads, the Deputy Premier, to the Hansard so that he will be fully aware that further action is needed. I understand that funds have been made available for improvement of the section of road between Merimbula and the Victorian border. Bearing in mind the threat of these incidents recurring, the priorities of construction work on that section of the Princes Highway should be changed to accommodate the reconstruction of this bridge. I urge the Minister for Consumer Affairs to take the matter to the Deputy Premier so that he can ensure that funds are made available for a future construction program.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove - Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Minister for Education) [5.41]: I assure the honourable member for Monaro that I will refer his remarks to the Minister for Roads. I am sure the Minister will look at and consider the honourable member's remarks.

CANTERBURY-BANKSTOWN UNEMPLOYMENT SUPPORT SERVICES

Mr MOSS (Canterbury) [5.41]: I speak in relation to unemployment support services, or rather the lack of them, in the Canterbury-Bankstown area and compare those services with the services available in a neighbouring region, the St George-Sutherland area. One welfare worker is running unemployment support programs in the Canterbury-Bankstown area. However, the funding for that person's job, which has been in existence now for almost nine months, will run out in June of this year. At this stage there is no likelihood that the position will be re-funded. Unemployment support services are essential in the Canterbury-Bankstown area. The unemployment rate in that region is running at 13.5 per cent. Sixty per cent of the population come from non-English speaking backgrounds and 34 per cent of that number have a poor level or no level of English.

Of the unemployed in that area, 21 per cent have lived in Australia for less than five years; so support services are essential. Furthermore, 40 per cent of the unemployed in the Canterbury-Bankstown area are teenagers. As I have said, a grant has been made and a worker is involved in establishing programs. She conducts workshops at three different locations - from the Canterbury Community Aid Bureau at Lakemba, from the Riverwood Community Centre and from the Earlwood Caring Association. She works three days a week at Lakemba and the other two days are spent in either Riverwood or Earlwood. The program operating from Lakemba has been so successful that it has attracted 80-odd people. Approximately 25 of those persons have found employment but, more importantly, those who have not yet found employment are taking on other training courses, which will equip them with certain skills to eventually enable them to obtain employment.

Prior to these people attending this local unemployment service, most of them were not aware of the availability of other programs such as SkillShare. As I said, funding for the social worker's job will run out in June, and at this stage it seems that there will be no further funding. I want to talk briefly about the problem with mainstreaming this particular welfare service or, rather, the lack of mainstreaming. Mainstreaming, of course, does not guarantee a service, but it is supposed to guarantee equal access to available services. However, in the neighbouring area, the St George-Sutherland region, four welfare workers are at present providing unemployment support services

In that area, the unemployment rate is 5.8 per cent, compared with, as I said earlier, an employment rate of 13.5 per cent in the Canterbury-Bankstown area, which is serviced by one social welfare worker only. That is very unfair. Furthermore, the four workers in the St George-Sutherland area are employed on recurrent funding, so their funding does not run out; they are re-funded time and time again. That is totally unfair and unbalanced when compared with the Canterbury-Bankstown area. I urge the Minister for Community Services to ascertain whether he can provide additional assistance to the Canterbury-Bankstown area. If he cannot, he should at least move some of the workers from the Sutherland-St George area to the Canterbury-Bankstown area where the service is urgently needed.

Page 2099

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove - Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Minister for Education) [5.46]: As the Minister responsible for some matters relating to employment and training, I assure the honourable member for Canterbury that the Government is very concerned about employment in this State. I will have a look at the services provided in the Canterbury-Bankstown area and provide the honourable member with that information. I assure him that I will bring the matters relating to community services to the attention of the Minister for Community Services.

CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYEES REDUNDANCY TRUST

Mr SMILES (North Shore) [5.47]: I bring to the attention of the House concerns I have relating to the Construction Employees Redundancy Trust - CERT, as it is called in the building industry. The trust was established in the 1980s under a common law agreement between employer parties and unions. Originally it cost about $20 per week per member, and those moneys were paid into the trust. It is now about $40 a week. During their investigations both Federal and State royal commissions into the building industry took a careful and critical look at the building industry. As part of their investigations they looked carefully at the Construction Employees Redundancy Trust. The building industry award contains redundancy provisions like any other award.

However, in the 1980s building workers had a particularly powerful industrial relations position and attempted to introduce the trust to provide perhaps more generous opportunities for workers. To offset the cost of payouts the Building Workers Industrial Union and two smaller employer parties, the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors and the Master Builders Union, started CERT. I should mention that the latter two organisations to which I referred have instructed their members not to continue paying into CERT. Today an employer can choose to either pay into CERT or to meet redundancy payouts. The present rate for membership of the trust is approximately $41 per week per person.

In May last year the royal commission into the building industry found that the trust which is managed by the Building Workers Industrial Union had a huge surplus of funds, because of the number of dodgy employees - for tax or social security reasons - who had been forcing employers to pay into CERT, though those employees could not claim on it themselves. The commission also found that the trust had unreasonably high running costs and many expenses could not be appropriately accounted for. As a direct result, the Government decided that the CERT concept was, in many ways, a scam and as an employer it stopped paying into CERT for government sector employees. The royal commission also found evidence of union bullying to force employers to pay into CERT, even though such payment was not compulsory.

I believe that as a result of the evidence and findings of the royal commission the New South Wales Department of Industrial Relations should look very carefully at CERT and should recommend to the Parliament the winding up of the trust. I say that on behalf of a number of constituents in the building industry who, in the past year or so, have expressed to me their distress about CERT and about its management and financial accountability. I appreciate that this is a difficult area and that the founding impetus for CERT was probably beyond criticism. It is essential that fair, reasonable and compassionate provision be made for employees who are made redundant. My comments are not intended to be critical of that concept but critical of the Construction Employees Redundancy Trust as it is presently managed. I have a view that constituents in my electorate, both employers and employees in the building industry, would be better served if CERT were wound up. I ask the Minister for Consumer Affairs to bring this important issue to the attention of the Minister for Industrial Relations in another place.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove - Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Minister for Education) [5.51]: The matters raised by the honourable member for North Shore are obviously of a very serious nature, not only to the honourable member but also to his constituents. I assure him that I will make his concerns known to the Minister for Industrial Relations in another place.

JUNIOR MEMBERSHIP OF BOWLING CLUBS

Mr FACE (Charlestown) [5.52]: I wish to raise a matter concerning the general plight of bowling clubs in New South Wales. My comments are based on my recent discussions with the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Royal New South Wales Bowling Association. As I indicated last night during the very lengthy debate on the Registered Clubs (Amendment) Bill, many small clubs are in difficulties. There are approximately 718 bowling clubs in New South Wales and they are in a situation slightly different from other registered clubs - although golf clubs are probably in a similar situation. Bowling clubs have overheads that other clubs do not have, even though they fall well and truly within the aims and objectives of the clubs. Golf clubs and bowling clubs are established primarily for the use of bowlers or golfers and incur overheads in the maintenance of greens.

I ask the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing, in consultation with the Chief Secretary and Minister for Administrative Services, to investigate a problem associated with junior bowls that has confronted the Royal New South Wales Bowling Association for some time. Most people believe that only the elderly or infirm play lawn bowls. However, it is a flourishing sport among juniors. I am pleased to report that the Junior Bowls Association is in the formation stage and will include membership from boys and from girls. The women's bowling Page 2100 movement in New South Wales has co-operated in the formation of the junior association. Many juniors are interested in playing lawn bowls because health problems preclude them from playing body contact sports. One State champion is only 22 years of age and has moved up from junior bowls which he began playing at about the age of 15.

The junior association has been formed for young people between 12 and 18 years of age. There is no problem about junior membership of bowling clubs. However, young players can join the new Junior Bowls Association without having to join a bowling club. If bowling club membership comes about later, well and good. Regardless of the number of representations that have been made about overcoming the problem of young people entering licensed premises after competing in games, the liquor authorities, the Chief Secretary's Department and the Liquor Administration Board appear to have put this matter in the too-hard basket.

To suggest that they must comply with various regulations - some of which, quite frankly, are outdated - is too much, to say the least. Many clubs do not have the financial resources to provide separate facilities for juniors. In some country towns the bowling club is often the only sporting facility available. It is wrong for the liquor authorities to adopt a head-in-the-sand approach; they should try to resolve this problem for the Royal New South Wales Bowling Association. No one has suggested that young people should be allowed to engage in unreasonable activities on the licensed premises. At present no mechanism is available to resolve the situation.

Of the 718 clubs in New South Wales, 100 of the bigger clubs are doing well but I assure honourable members that I know from my discussions with the clubs that another 100 clubs at the bottom end of the scale are not doing well. As I said last night during debate on the Registered Clubs (Amendment) Bill, not all clubs are driven by economic considerations. I ask the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing and his departmental head, together with the Chief Secretary, to set up a working party or consultative body in conjunction with the Royal New South Wales Bowling Association to see if they can overcome the problems of allowing junior members to join bowling clubs and participate in club activities. Lawn bowls is a sport that young people are taking up at a rate of knots and I believe their interests should be accommodated. [Time expired.]

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove - Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Minister for Education) [5.57]: I assure the honourable member for Charlestown that I will pass on his concerns to the Chief Secretary and to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing. It is in the interests of all honourable members to encourage sport in New South Wales, particularly junior bowls.

CARLINGFORD PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [5.57]: Recently I attended the 110th anniversary celebrations of Carlingford Public School. Carlingford Public School was established at about the time that the Public Instruction Act of 1880 came into effect. At that time it was considered to be a very progressive school in a very progressive area. It is interesting to note, 110 years later, that Carlingford Public School is again at the forefront of innovative changes in relation to multipurpose learning and long day care. Some years ago the school's parents and citizens association, led very capably by Allan Dodd, started to look at proposals for setting up a long day care centre at the school, and at private participation in that project. As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee that is considering a reference at the moment of the financing of infrastructure, I am very interested in what has been happening at that school.

The school has a very strong parents and citizens association and there was parental identification of the need for before and after school facilities. In that sense, I suppose it would not separate that school from any other school in New South Wales. However, the school followed through with a feasibility study and sought expressions of interest, by means of newspaper advertisements. Approval was sought from and granted by the assistant director-general of the metropolitan west education region in November 1991 for the establishment of a before and after school facility and the matter was taken up with the Minister for School Education - as she was then known - the Hon. Virginia Chadwick. At that time private participation was a novel idea and it took some time to obtain all the necessary consents but, to the Minister's great credit, they were forthcoming reasonably quickly. Quality Children's Services Management Consultants were selected by the school parent committee as the successful applicant to establish and manage what is now known as the Carlingford Multipurpose Learning Centre.

The centre is on the old school library site, and the library has been relocated to a surplus teaching area in another part of the school. The interesting thing is that the relocation and the refurbishment of the library were carried out at the expense of the consultants running the day care centre. They also doubled the size of the original library to provide appropriate recreation areas, luncheon areas, toilet facilities and so forth for the long day care centre. They have a contractual arrangement; they use the fees they receive to cover their costs and expenses - in effect to allow them to run a business.

To get the project under way in a practical sense a number of joint consultative forums were established, involving the P and C, consultants, the legal and architectural representatives, the Department of School Education and the metropolitan west region properties staff, the legal staff, the cluster director, and the school principal. It was a major logistical exercise. I believe it was a unique negotiation process that enabled direct input and decision-making by the Page 2101 school's community in the determination of the proposal, and in the development and determination of a suitable licence agreement for the construction and running of the centre.

The centre was completed in term 3, 1992, and it has been operating since term 4. The library complex has more recently been completed and was the focal point of the 110th anniversary recently when the new, refurbished library was formally dedicated. I think this is an innovative venture by the parents and the staff of the school. Although there is a similar arrangement at Meadowbank, I understand that this is quite likely the first time that an entrepreneurial initiative has resulted in private funding to construct a library within an existing school.

As both the local member and the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I think that in the context of looking at private funding of infrastructure this is a very exciting initiative. It is a credit to Alan Dodd; to his successor; to Margaret Wilson, the immediately retired principal of the school, who had a lot to do with it; and the current principal, John Hale. In conclusion I will be interested to see how Department of School Education private child care centres are likely to operate in dozens of schools, making use of empty classrooms and vacant land to assist parents. [Time expired.]

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove - Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Minister for Education) [6.2]: I should like to join with the honourable member for Eastwood in congratulating the Carlingford Public School both on its 110th anniversary, and, more particularly, on what is, as has been mentioned by the honourable member for Eastwood, a very innovative venture by the parents and staff of the school. I understand that the long day care centre is a well-used facility; it is one that the school has taken on with great delight and is using in all sorts of ways. I also understand that a close liaison has developed between the school and the multipurpose learning centre, and that children are benefiting greatly from both the educational resources provided by the centre and the experience of attending it. I congratulate everyone involved, including Mr John Hale, the principal. I am sure Carlingford Public School will be a model for other schools and I look forward to hearing of other similar entrepreneurial developments throughout the school system.

BLACKTOWN ELECTORATE ETHNIC AFFAIRS SERVICES

Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [6.3]: Last Thursday the Labor Party's parliamentary party ethnic affairs task force - headed by the Hon. Franca Arena and including a number of my colleagues from this House and the Legislative Council - visited my electorate and met, as guests of the Blacktown City Council, at the Blacktown City Council chambers. It was a very significant meeting, enabling community representatives of various organisations from Blacktown to raise various concerns.

Recently I read an article by Deirdre Macken in the Spectrum section of the Sydney Morning Herald of 1st May entitled, "Our Changing Cultural Map". Miss Macken provided a lot of useful information about where various ethnic communities are concentrated in the Sydney metropolitan area. Although this article told some of the story, it did not tell the whole story. It ignored probably the largest area in the Sydney metropolitan area - western Sydney. The reason it was ignored is that western Sydney and southwestern Sydney have a concentration of many ethnic communities. Various individual ethnic communities do not cluster together in certain suburbs in western Sydney and southwestern Sydney, as for instance the Chinese do in Chatswood, the Koreans in Campsie, or the Japanese in Northbridge - and they were the communities mentioned in the article.

On average in the Blacktown local government area, 30 per cent of residents come from non-English speaking backgrounds, but in some parts of that area the figure is as high as 60 per cent. That is an enormous number of people. Blacktown is also associated with some ethnic communities. In particular, the Filipino community is often identified as having one of its largest concentrations in Blacktown. The Blacktown area has many outstanding Filipino leaders, people like Concietta Soriano, who is an outstanding leader of the Filipino community.

Blacktown City Council has many different ethnic communities, and, as was made clear to the task force last Thursday, they are experiencing many problems with various government services, at the local, State or Federal level. I should like to emphasise that problems are experienced in the provision of community services, in which obviously the State Government has a major role to play. It is well known that community services in western Sydney suffer from severe funding limitations. Those services are in high demand, but the funding base is very narrow.

At the task force meeting, the Blacktown Migrant Resources Centre made an outstanding presentation highlighting a number of key areas where ethnic communities are having problems with the delivery of community services. They particularly mentioned mainstreaming, which the honourable member for Canterbury referred to in another context. They also highlighted the fact that many community service providers in western Sydney are not in a position to cope with the normal day-to-day demands from non-English speaking background communities - the traditional communities within western Sydney; and that they do not have a hope of coping with the constant demands of people who have language and other cultural difficulties.

The Blacktown Migrant Resources Centre asked the ethnic affairs task force to raise this matter with the Department of Community Services. I should like to recommend to the Ethnic Affairs Commission that it begin a series of public consultations so that it Page 2102 might get the sort of feedback that the Labor Party was able to receive last Thursday. I should also like to highlight an issue in relation to Homecare and the problem of bilingual workers. These people have had their travel allowance reduced, and that has placed Homecare in the anomalous situation where its bilingual workers are not able to work in other regions. For example, a Maltese speaking worker based in the municipality of Holroyd is not able to travel to other areas outside Holroyd, because there is no money for that. So, that person would not be able to visit an older migrant or a disabled person currently on the Homecare program.

Many other issues were raised last Thursday in relation to this matter. Resources are now being made available to migrant placement officers, for example, for employment projects. Again the task force was very impressed by the information provided to it. I call on this Government, as well as other levels of government, to deal with the situation. [Time expired.]

Private members' statements noted.

[Madam Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 6.8 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

ASSENT TO BILLS

Royal assent to the following bills reported:

Home Purchase Assistance Authority Bill Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Amendment Bill

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

IMPOUNDING BILL

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL

ROADS BILL

TRAFFIC (PARKING REGULATION) AMENDMENT BILL

In Committee

Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

Clause 54

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [7.31]: Following discussions with the Minister I seek leave to withdraw my amendment that is now before the Committee, and to move it again later in the debate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [7.31]: I move:

Page 32, clause 54, lines 8 and 9. Omit "estimated to cost not less than $250,000 or such greater amount as may be prescribed by the regulations" and insert instead "of a significant nature".

Page 32, clause 54, after line 13, insert:

(2) In determining whether goods, materials, services, facilities, or works are of a significant nature, a council is to take the following matters into consideration:

their cost, whether they form a significant component of the council's annual expenditure,

whether a contract for the provision of the goods, materials, services, facilities or works is a contract for which tenders must be called in accordance with Division 1.

Page 33, clause 54, lines 8 and 9. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(7) This section does not apply to the provision of goods, materials, services, facilities or works:

(a) in a case of emergency; or

(b) if they are of a kind exempted from this section for the time being by order of the Minister published in the Gazette.

The effect of these amendments is to revert to the provisions of the original exposure draft of the Local Government Bill. The amendments will be readily understood and followed by all who have been interested in the discussion process and in the original exposure draft with regard to contracting out. That is widely accepted by many councils. It will overcome the objections voiced by members of the Opposition and Independent members that it was unnecessarily rigid to provide a monetary amount in defining the requirement as to contracting out. The form of this measure will allow significant freedom to councils to determine what is significant expenditure. I do not wish to traverse the reasons why this clause is of extraordinary importance to the bill. I mentioned them in earlier debate.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [7.34]: I will not oppose these amendments, because I see it as an improvement on a bad principle espoused in this provision. I will support the amendments, but subsequently I shall move my amendment to delete the whole clause.

Amendments agreed to.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [7.35]: I move:

Page 33, clause 54. Omit the clause.

The aim of the legislation is to give local government more autonomy and more decision-making power, yet this clause is a further restriction on councils who already, as the Minister said, have a choice to contract out. He instanced Central Darling council. I do not know the details there, but if that council wishes to contract out for a particular activity, that is its prerogative under existing legislation. I see a problem with county councils contracting out services, as there is no guarantee that the contractor will be based in the town. The odds are that the contractor's labour will come from outside the town.

The council, as a major employer, will no longer provide as many jobs for people who live in the area. Contracting out also entails a diminution in capital equipment. Obviously councils will not be able to afford to keep capital equipment once their labour force is decimated. Once that happens, the odds are that councils will not be able to tender in future and, in effect, thereby keep the contractors honest. If the labour force and the capital equipment is gone, and a town faces a disaster - a flood or a bushfire - council troops will no longer be available and the town will be prone to more damage.

Page 2103

Mr Morris: It would not make any difference.

Mr E. T. PAGE: If the honourable member for Blue Mountains asked the people in Nyngan, they would have a different view. The council certainly was on the job when Nyngan was ravaged by flood. That is a problem. Another difficulty I see, and I instance the answer given by the Minister for Community Services today in question time, is the need to provide employment opportunities for older people. The Minister castigated the Federal Government because he believed it was not doing enough in this area. People who work for councils tend to view their employment as a career, and they remain with councils for the major part of their working lives. When employees reach their forties and fifties, councils still employ them. That does not happen with contractors.

Contractors, particularly if they are doing outside work, want young and vigorous people. Contracting in country towns will reduce employment opportunities. People who have been employed by councils or are looking for outdoor work and are over the age of 40 will find it difficult to get jobs. The very principle that the Minister for Community Services was espousing earlier today will be abrogated by this legislation. I know from personal experience that Sydney Electricity contracts out the cleaning of depots. I know of one depot - I will not name it - that is cleaned by a family. The mother, father and children clean the depot at night. I think that is horrific. In effect Sydney Electricity is saving money through of the use of child labour.

Dr Macdonald: That is a bit of a longbow.

Mr E. T. PAGE: It happens; it is true. I am not sure whether it is a terribly good principle. People should vote against this division and rule out this unnecessary intrusion into council activities.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [7.40]: I will provide the Minister with some comfort in relation to this amendment. A number of people have said that there are other ways of doing this; that guidelines could be provided to councils to improve their efficiency. Matters such as the separation of service delivery and service control functions are consistent with good management. Separate council accounting systems would be a way of providing councils with good guidelines. Strengthened contracts and management inspection services are ideas that have been proposed in various submissions and also by the Local Government Association. So all is not lost.

I appreciate that the Minister is attempting to salvage some portions of this division. At first he attempted to salvage that portion relating to services costing $100,000. He now wishes to amend that figure to $250,000. If the amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Coogee is successful, I do not believe the sky will fall in. Councils will get a clear message if they are provided with good guidelines from the Department of Local Government and Co-operatives and, if necessary, those guidelines could be incorporated in this legislation.

Question - That the clause as amended stand - put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 44

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Doherty Mr Baird Mr Packard Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page Mr Causley Mr Peacocke Mrs Chikarovski Mr Petch Mr Cochran Mr Photios Mrs Cohen Mr Rixon Mr Collins Mr Rozzoli Mr Cruickshank Mr Schipp Mr Fraser Mr Schultz Mr Griffiths Mr Small Mr Hartcher Mr Smiles Mr Hazzard Mr Smith Mr Humpherson Mr Souris Mr Jeffery Mr Tink Dr Kernohan Mr Turner Mr Kerr Mr West Mr Kinross Mr Yabsley Mr Longley Mr Zammit Ms Machin Mr Merton Tellers, Mr Morris Mr Beck Mr W. T. J. Murray Mr Downy

Noes, 48

Ms Allan Mr Mills Mr Amery Ms Moore Mr Anderson Mr Moss Mr A. S. Aquilina Mr J. H. Murray Mr J. J. Aquilina Mr Nagle Mr Bowman Mr Neilly Mr Clough Mr Newman Mr Crittenden Ms Nori Mr Doyle Mr E. T. Page Mr Face Mr Price Mr Gaudry Dr Refshauge Mr Gibson Mr Rogan Mrs Grusovin Mr Rumble Mr Hatton Mr Scully Mr Hunter Mr Shedden Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan Mr Irwin Mr Thompson Mr Knight Mr Whelan Mr Knowles Mr Windsor Mr Langton Mr Yeadon Mrs Lo Po' Mr Ziolkowski Mr McBride Dr Macdonald Tellers, Mr Markham Mr Beckroge Mr Martin Mr Davoren

Pairs

Mr Fahey Mr Carr Mr Glachan Mr Harrison Mr Phillips Mr McManus

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause omitted.

Page 2104

Clause 57

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [7.50]: I move:

Page 33, clause 57, line 28. After "works", insert "(and of land on which the works are, or are being, constructed)".

This is a technical amendment which clarifies that land is also handed over with the works referred to in the clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 58

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [7.52]: I move:

Page 34, clause 58, lines 6-17. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

58.(1) The Minister for Public Works may, by notice published in the Gazette, declare that the land acquired for the purposes of any such works, or any part of the works, and all right, title and interest of the Minister in the works, or part of the works, on the land are vested in the council or councils.

This is a technical amendment which simplifies and clarifies the process of vesting. Any outstanding liabilities in connection with the works will not be transferred. This is, in fact, a better deal for councils and it is a less prescriptive process for the vesting of works in councils.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 59

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [7.53], by leave: I move the following amendments in globo:

Page 34, clause 59, line 35. Omit "or any associated works".

Page 35, clause 59, line 3. Omit all words on that line, insert instead:

(d) as to flood retarding basins prescribed by the regulations - construct or extend any such basins.

Page 35, clause 59, lines 4-10. Omit all words on those lines.

The three amendments are technical in nature and will give councils a better deal. There is no need for the approval of the Minister with respect to works associated with water treatment works and only some flood retarding basins will need approval. This will give local management more flexibility. The third amendment will have the effect of increasing local autonomy. There is no need for ministerial approval for flood prevention and drainage.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 60

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [7.54]: I move:

Page 35, clause 60, line 15. Before "maintenance", insert "safety,".

This amendment seeks to insert the word "safety" as a matter for ministerial direction. Safety is an important issue which, arguably, might not be adequately covered by maintenance. This amendment is intended to clean up the section to ensure that it covers public and occupational safety.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 67

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [7.55]: I move:

Page 41, table to clause 67. After line 14, insert:

7. Any activity for which approval is required under a plan of management for community land specified by the management plan for the land as requiring the prior approval of the council.

The Labor Party believes that this amendment adds to the approval process.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [7.56]: The Opposition's amendment is unacceptable to the Government. It looks harmless but, if accepted, will have major implications. It would allow councils to add to the list of approvals contained in the bill. It is not appropriate to give councils de facto lawmaking powers in this way. The amendment would lead to considerable confusion with planning controls and uncertainty over what law governs the use of a particular parcel of land. The bill, as it stands, is flexible enough to allow activities to be added if necessary, for which approval is required. I refer to form 8 in that regard. I am advised that if the amendment is carried, it will cause major problems for councils in the future. It is so important to the Government and to councils that this amendment not be carried that the Government will cause the Committee to divide if the amendment is persisted with.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [7.57]: I have not made a decision with respect to this amendment. I would like further clarification about a matter. Page 10 of the Minister's consolidated amendment sheet states that it would add to the list of approvals contained in the bill. I would like somebody from either side of the House to tell me why it is necessary for this amendment to be carried. What would be lost in terms of powers to councils and what problems would be created for councils if the amendment were not carried?

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [7.57]: The Opposition believes that credence should be given to the plan of management. If a council has a plan of management for community land, any activity for which approval is required should be included in the Page 2105 schedule. I will not be upset if the amendment is not carried, but I think it will improve the clause.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [7.58]: I reiterate for the benefit of the honourable member for South Coast that the Government's advice from experts within the Department of Local Government and Co-operatives is that the amendment would be a complicated and confusing addition to that clause. The amendment refers to any activity for which approval is required under a plan of management for community land. The amendment goes beyond what is in the legislation and the planning laws. It will add another structure of control, which this legislation is trying to overcome. The amendment achieves nothing of value for the legislation; in fact, it is detrimental to it. Although I appreciate the reason the honourable member for Coogee introduced the amendment, adequate protection is available already in the bill and under planning legislation. The Government is opposed to the amendment. We should not be seeking to complicate the approval mechanisms any further - they are complex enough as it is. The amendment would create a problem for councils.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [7.59]: To save a possible division on this amendment, I indicate that I support the Government's position.

Amendment negatived.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [7.59]: I move:

Page 40, Table to clause 67, lines 30-38. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

PART B - WATER, SEWERAGE AND STORMWATER DRAINAGE WORK 1. Carry out water supply work 2. Draw water from a council water supply or a standpipe 3. Install, alter, disconnect or remove a meter connected to a service pipe 4. Carry out sewerage work 5. Carry out stormwater drainage work 6. Connect a private drain or sewer with a public drain or sewer under the control of a council or with a drain or sewer which connects with such a public drain or sewer

This is a simple technical amendment to insert the word "drainage" before the word "work". It is a minor wording improvement suggested by Parliamentary Counsel. There are no policy implications; it is purely an improvement to the wording of the section.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [8.1]: I move:

Page 41, Table to clause 67. After line 35, insert:

8. Operate an undertaker's business.

9. Operate a mortuary.

The Government had intended to reduce the licensing regime on the undertaker and mortuary business and felt that health and safety standards were adequately regulated by the orders regime, and the public health regulations were to be amended to provide for notifications to councils and registration by councils of mortuaries; plus an offence of failure to notify. However, in discussions with Opposition members, it has been agreed that the better method of dealing with it is as now proposed.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [8.2]: I thank the Minister for acceding to the argument which was put forward. A fair bit of informal discussion has taken place on the amendments. There has been some agreement and some give and take. I thank the Minister for his method of operation. No doubt he would have received representations from people both in and out of the funeral industry on this matter, as has the Opposition. Traditionally, with this operation coming under the ambit of the Local Government Act, the system seemed to work quite well. The Opposition was impressed with arguments it received from people in the industry that the position should remain rather than change, as was recently proposed. The Opposition is happy to support this amendment.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [8.3]: I was of the view that the Government was right on this matter. However, after meeting representatives of the funeral industry, my mind was changed. I believe a major problem exists in the Department of Health in the standard of inspection and policing in this area. I felt that if local government were responsible for this industry, bringing it closer to the people, it would be preferable. However, to remove licensing from the industry reduces the control. Therefore I am pleased with the Government's withdrawal on this matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Table as amended agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 68

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [8.4]: I move:

Page 42, clause 68, lines 2-8. Vote against the clause.

This is a very important amendment about binding the Crown. It goes to the very heart of what the new bill is all about; that is, giving local government - the third tier of government - independence and autonomy. It is also about ensuring that the same rules apply to the Crown as apply to the rest of the community. It will mean that the Crown will have to obtain approval for erection and demolition of a building, which is very important.

Page 2106 Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [8.6]: I support the honourable member for Bligh. I believe the Committee should divide on this amendment. It is important that a clear message be sent out that things have changed. I argued this in an earlier amendment which I moved - which seems like years ago - on the objectives of the bill. The question of binding the Crown appears to fill the State Government, and I think the Opposition, with some fear in the sense that they anticipate that in the future they may be in Government. Things are changing. Even the current Federal Government policy is that Federal instrumentalities follow procedures which are articulated in Crown legislation regarding the Crown being bound. I draw to the attention of the House and the Minister the report of late last year of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The document is known as the Doctrine of the Shield of the Crown. It is a recent evaluation of this matter by no less than the Senate Standing Committee. It states, among other things:

Any automatic application of Crown immunity, especially to public entities engaged in commercial or trading activities, seems difficult to justify. The modern State's pursuit of varied, often commercial, undertakings, requires that legislation intended to protect and further public goals should apply equally to all sectors of the community - including the State.

One only needs to look around the suburbs to see evidence of where things have gone wrong because the State has been free from the need for local council approval regarding buildings. Ugly electricity sub-stations and telephone exchanges are a standing indictment of the incapacity of State and Federal instrumentalities to erect simple structures. There is no reason why these agencies, the State and the Crown should be exempt from the same planning principles and processes that apply to all other persons. The Minister has stated that if this amendment is agreed to, the Government will be unable to build schools and hospitals, but that argument would be hard to substantiate. It is disappointing that the Labor Party does not intend to support the amendment, yet it has introduced the Oaths and Crown References Bill, which was carried with amendments, and which the Labor Party characterises as a modern and progressive move. But they are still supporting a dangerously antiquated system of two laws. How is it that there can be two sets of laws: one for the Crown and one for the rest of the community? I commend the honourable member for Bligh for moving her amendments which seek not to shield the Crown. The doctrine of the shielding of the Crown has been heavily criticised in the report of the Senate standing committee. I ask the Minister to take it on board, to give it serious consideration and to recognise that times are changing and the two-tier system is no longer acceptable.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [8.10]: The Government opposes the amendment, and the following amendments. The matter was thoroughly aired during the second reading debate. If the honourable member for Manly and the honourable member for Bligh wish to see examples of why the Government should not be bound, a trip to the Tweed will show how many schools and technical and further education colleges are held up as a consequence.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [8.11]: I understand, Minister, that only buildings and not development applications are involved. That is how it reads.

Mr Peacocke: Yes.

Mr HATTON: What sort of conditions could a council impose on a State government authority that it would not impose on other people? In the case of a development application and associated section 94 contributions and so on, obviously there would be weight in the argument. But I am at a loss to understand why, if it applies only to buildings, the Crown should not comply with the law the same as everybody else.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [8.12]: It is not a question of complying with the law or not complying with the law; it is a question of the council requiring certain methods of building and so forth. Generally speaking, Crown buildings are not buildings for profit; they are schools, hospitals, police stations and constructions of that nature. The architectural design is always done extremely well by government architects. It is the long delay that the Government is concerned about. I can establish beyond any shadow of a doubt that at least two schools in the Tweed have not been built because of these difficulties. One school should have been started in January of this year. It is still awaiting building approval by the council.

Mr Hatton: They do not require it.

Mr PEACOCKE: It is not required now. We are trying to avoid delay for public buildings. I can assure the honourable member that I know of no public buildings that are not architect designed and safe, because the Government's reputation is staked on safety. No government could agree in the present circumstances to being bound by council decisions on these issues.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [8.13]: I have to put on the public record that the Minister does not seem to understand what the Public Works Department is doing under the coalition Government. Under the former Government the government architect won many awards and had the very highest standards, and set an example to the rest of the community. When I was on the city council and the government architect brought a development before the city council planning department I was proud to be a New South Wales citizen. But since the coalition Government came to office the government architect's branch has been emasculated. The work is contracted out now. It does not have the same high standards it had under the former Government.

Mr Peacocke: What are we doing?

Ms MOORE: It is very well documented.

Page 2107 Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

Division called for. Standing Order 208(c) applied.

Ayes, 3

Mr Hatton Dr Macdonald Ms Moore

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 88

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [8.21]: I move:

Page 49, clause 88. After line 5, insert:

(3) Without limiting subsection (2), in considering the public interest the matters the council is to consider include:

(a) protection of the environment; and

(b) protection of public health, safety and convenience; and

(c) any items of cultural and heritage significance which might be affected.

This is another instance where an environmental statement is essential for council consideration. As previously stated, the Opposition believes the legislation should take cognisance of the environment and, in this case, public health, safety and convenience and any items of cultural and heritage significance. I do not understand why the Government objects to this amendment, as it merely calls for a council to take those matters into consideration in its approval criteria.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [8.22]: The Government opposes the amendment on the grounds that the term public interest used in legislation is a well-known term to be read widely. It is like the common law as opposed to statute law. In common law a wide range of matters can be considered. Notwithstanding the inclusion of the words "Without limiting subsection (2)", the effect of this amendment would narrow the council's discretion by setting limits to the concept of public interest. I strongly prefer the common law style of wide-ranging interest rather than the statutory style, which narrows the interest that the council must consider and protect.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [8.23]: It is clear from the amendment moved by the honourable member for Coogee and the wording of my amendment that we are conscious that the words "public interest" are used in subsection (2). That is why he in his amendment, though I did not do so in mine, has said "Without limiting subsection (2)". The Minister has repeatedly fallen back on the argument that things can be too proscriptive, but on occasions we need to be clear what we mean by including certain clauses in a bill. These are matters for consideration in the approval process. The draft exposure bill said that if no ordinances were prescribed and no criteria had been adopted, the council was to balance the public interest against the private interest in determining the application.

The draft exposure bill in clause 75 invited the council to consider, balance and weigh various factors, such as the protection of public health, safety and convenience and the protection of the environment from pollution and degradation against factors such as the applicant's right to pursue a chosen way of life or means of livelihood. This bill gives no such guidance and merely states that in the absence of regulations or local policy, the council is to take into consideration all matters relevant to the application to seek to give effect to the applicant's objectives to the extent to which they are compatible with the public interest. A statement of the criteria to be considered in determining that public interest is extremely important. The list that the honourable member for Coogee has put forward is not intended to be absolutely exclusive, but it gives clear guidelines and also it is absolutely consistent with the draft exposure bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 96

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [8.28]: I move:

Page 51. After line 38, insert:

No "in principle" or "staged" approval if environmental assessment not possible

96. (1) This section applies to approvals referred to in sections 94 and 95 (that is, "in principle" and "staged" approvals).

(2) A council must give public notice in a local newspaper of any application for an "in-principle" or "staged" approval, and must include the full terms of the proposal in the notice.

(3) The period of public notice must be not less than 28 days.

(4) An "in principle" or "staged" approval must not be granted if the procedure for granting the approval would prevent the carrying out of an adequate assessment of the cumulative environmental impact of the proposed activity.

Subclauses (1), (2) and (3) of the amendment will allow for increased public scrutiny. I urge the Committee to accept the amendment. The question of in principle and staged developments invites all sorts of difficulties for local councils. The concept of approving processes or approving applications is not clear. The end result might be, especially in regard to applications for the building of a block of units or a group of homes, that someone will end up with an unfinished building or find that when construction is completed the building does not meet their expectations.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [8.30]: The Government rejects the amendment, which would undermine the regulatory reform process that has been instigated at both the State and Federal levels. The proposed amendment would effectively make in principle and staged approvals impossible to obtain Page 2108 and would have an extraordinarily adverse economic effect across the State.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 97

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [8.31]: I move:

Page 52, clause 97, lines 24-29. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

97. (1) An approval may be granted subject to a condition that a specified aspect of the activity that is ancillary to the core purpose of the activity is to be carried out to the satisfaction of the council or a person specified by the council.

The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the meaning of the clause regarding approval subject to conditions. Councils will be less able to impose inappropriate conditions on approvals. Paragraph 97(1)(a) will be deleted from the bill as it was too broad. This amendment has been suggested by the Parliamentary Counsel.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 102

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [8.33]: I move:

Page 55, clause 102, line 23. Omit "5", insert instead "2".

I am opposed to the Government increasing the approval period from two years to five years. The amendment will maintain the status quo. If that does not happen, one administration will be shackled to the next. Approval given at the end of one administration conceivably could remain in force over the period of two council elections. I should repeat a few of the comments I made to the Minister when I discussed this clause with him. Community expectations and standards in relation to development change. One need only look at the city of Sydney to realise that is so.

Mr Peacocke: They have made a mess of it.

Ms MOORE: Indeed. I assure the Minister that most of the mess has been made as a result of Government interference.

Mr Peacocke: As a result of council's actions.

Ms MOORE: No, I assure the Minister that it has been the result of Government interference. The Government now has its appointees on the Sydney central planning committee to ensure that developments that often are not in the interests of the community can be approved. That is why the Government has carved up the city and introduced special legislation. When one looks around the city one can see the results of the interference by successive governments, which have treated the Sydney City Council as a political football. The community has an increasing concern about development in Sydney; for example, the interest manifested about the development of east Circular Quay among people living in the suburbs, through to the Prime Minister. Everyone has an opinion, wants to be involved and is concerned.

Under the clause proposed by the Minister, if approval had been given to the development of east Circular Quay under one administration, it could have been that five years down the track the approval of the development was maintained; yet community expectation could have changed dramatically. I shall give the Committee a comparison with the Gateway development in the 1980s. The concern and outcry in regard to that development came mainly from the professional and conservation groups - the National Trust, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, and the Royal Institute of Planners. Now, 10 years later, the whole community wants to have a say about what should happen at east Circular Quay. On behalf of the city I urge the Minister not to remove the status quo and not to increase from two years to five years the period in which development approvals will lapse.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [8.36]: I am sure the honourable member for Bligh misunderstands the clause. Its effect will be that if a council does not fix a lesser or longer time, five years will be the period for which the approval will apply. That is consistent with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Councils will retain a discretion to fix a greater or lesser time. A council might decide that the approval will last for one year, two years, or six months, if it does not want the approval to go for the full five years. The clause will leave the matter in the hands of the council, but it will give the council the opportunity to allow the approval to last for the five-year period. That is the meaning of the proposed section. The amendment is unacceptable to the Government.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [8.37]: I ask the Minister to show me where councils are given a clear discretion to impose their own period before an approval will lapse. I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bligh.

Mr Peacocke: I draw the honourable member's attention to clause 102(2).

Dr MACDONALD: I will look at that. Anything that does not allow for short periods of approval but seeks to extend approvals to five years will only assist development interests. As the honourable member for Bligh said, that is contrary to good planning principles. Having a short time before an approval lapses will mean that development can be approved and carried out in planning and environmental conditions that exist at the time of the approval. Section 73 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act requires that local councils keep local environment plans and development control plans under regular review, having regard to changing circumstances. How can the Minister contemplate Page 2109 approvals lasting for five years? That is not consistent with section 73 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

I understand that in 1988 the Falk study was carried out into planning and approval processes. The study was jointly funded by the Department of Planning and the Local Government Association. It highlighted the need for planning controls and approval processes to be kept up to date. The Minister's proposal will subvert that principle. If the Minister sees any substance in my comment that five years is too long a period before an approval will lapse, and it is not in the interests of good planning principles, I would ask him to withdraw the amendment. I shall look at subclause (2) of the clause, which the Minister says gives councils an opportunity to impose a time frame.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

Division called for. Standing Order 208(c) applied.

Ayes, 2

Dr Macdonald Ms Moore

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 113

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [8.45]: I move:

Page 61, clause 113, line 26. After "plan", insert "in an approved form".

The necessity for this amendment is to allow councils to specify a simple plan for notification of neighbours, instead of having to provide the full plan of specifications. It will assist neighbours in responding to applications for approvals to erect a building because it will give them, in simple terms, exactly what they can understand. It makes it clear that supplying a simple plan is a straightforward and cheap process for the council. It will save council costs and I am sure it will receive the support of honourable members.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [8.46]: I move:

Page 60, clause 113, lines 29-31. Omit "if, in the council's opinion, the enjoyment of the adjoining land", insert instead "and to any other person who owns land that, in the council's opinion,".

If my memory serves me correctly, this matter was before the Parliament previously when an amendment was moved to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in line with Hornsby v. Porter. My reading of clause 113 in the bill seems to weaken the rule that was affirmed in Hornsby v. Porter that required the giving of notice to adjoining owners. A council is granted discretion not to give notice to a landowner if it determines that the owner's enjoyment will not be affected. This is a ludicrous proposal. It replaces an important principle, that is, the right to know. It lists a number of useful criteria that should be considered in that determination, but this is really a debate about affected versus adjoining. We have had this debate before. In this amendment I have not used the word affected, but it is very much implied. I appreciate that the Government has some objections to the amendment but it is consistent with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and allows for a council to notify someone who has been affected rather than just an adjoining owner.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [8.48]: I strongly support the amendment. Referring to the Minister's notes, this amendment will broaden the requirement on notification of neighbours, not merely adjoining land users. It will make notification mandatory to a broader class of neighbours. It is particularly important in urban areas where the majority of people in New South Wales live. Developments that are going before councils could dramatically affect their amenity and future. Affected people need to be informed, not only adjoining owners.

I have had 13 years' experience with local government. Local residents have constantly asked me to speak on their behalf at council committee meetings about developments. Two weeks ago I attended a meeting of South Sydney City Council in relation to a proposed development at Elizabeth Bay. Fifty-one speakers at that meeting objected to a proposal that would destroy the amenity of one of the most densely populated areas of Sydney - the very beautiful, quiet Beare Park - and would cause dramatic setbacks for the lifestyle of the people residing in that area. The council did not notify the residents of the proposed development; they had to find out about the proposal for themselves and ensure that the local community was aware of this development. People constantly complain to the council and me that they are simply not being informed about important development proposals that go before the council. These people want to be informed and have the opportunity of addressing the council, which is the spirit of open committee meetings. This amendment will make a tremendous difference to the majority of residents who live in urban areas.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [8.50]: The amendment is rejected by the Government because it would greatly increase costs to councils and increase the possibility of litigation. It is too wide a discretion for a council to determine which land is likely to be affected. Clause 114(1) makes provision for councils to notify others in accordance with their local policy. The amendment seeks to make notification to a broader class of neighbours mandatory and is totally unacceptable to the Government.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

Page 2110 Division called for. Standing Order 208(c) applied.

Ayes, 3

Mr Hatton Dr Macdonald Ms Moore

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 117

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [8.55]: I move:

Page 62, clause 117. After line 36, insert:

(3) In assessing the application and any submissions duly made in connection with the application, the council must take into consideration the effect that the proposed building would have, after its erection, on the following:

the views to and the views from nearby land

the overshadowing of nearby land

the privacy of nearby land

the likelihood of nearby land being detrimentally affected by noise

the streetscape

any relevant matter in criteria in a local policy adopted under Part 3 by the council.

Clause 117 relates to the making and consideration of submissions. The amendment essentially broadens the number of matters that must be taken into account in making and considering submissions. The amendment is not overproscriptive. It must take into consideration the effect a proposed building would have after its erection on views, overshadowing, privacy, the likelihood of nearby land being detrimentally affected by noise, streetscape and any relevant matter. I have probably spent less time in local government than any other member of the House, but any one of the many members in this place who have spent time in local government would be impressed by the fact that these particular heads of consideration are the very matters that tend to dominate a debate at a local council. In urban areas particularly the overshadowing of views impacts on the amenity of an area. It is appropriate that this amendment clearly spells out the matters that should be taken into consideration by a council.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [8.56]: The amendment is opposed. The amendment amounts to conditions of approval and will contradict clause 88 and the approvals regulation, and will also confuse the relationship between the Act, the regulation and the local approvals policy in a council's decision-making process. The amendment is unacceptable to the Government and is rejected.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 123

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [8.57]: I move:

Page 70, clause 123, lines 2-24. Omit all words on those lines under the heading "In what circumstances?", insert instead "Work carried out on land has caused or is likely to cause environmental damage".

I have sought support for this amendment, which takes into account environmental matters. This provision in the bill relates to orders. Councils are given power to order a person to do certain things or refrain from doing certain things - and these matters are listed in column 1 of an attached table - if the circumstances specified in column 2 exist and if the person comes within the description specified in column 3. Item 11 in the table states that a council can order an owner or occupier of land to do or refrain from doing such things as are specified in order to prevent environmental damage, to repair environmental damage or to prevent further environmental damage. That is an outrageous qualification of a council's powers. This provision did not appear in the earlier draft of the bill, and in my view it makes a total mockery of the consultation process.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [8.59]: This amendment is unacceptable to the Government. It seeks to make the orders far too broad, particularly having regard to potential conflict between a council order and a licence from the Environment Protection Authority. For that reason it is totally confusing and unacceptable.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [8.59]: The amendment is similar to an amendment I propose to move. However, I prefer to move my amendment as it stands rather than in contradistinction to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Manly.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Tink): Order! In so far as there is a clash between the amendment moved by the honourable member for Manly and the amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Coogee, I will put as a test vote lines 2 to 4 of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Manly, which is the point at which the amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Coogee begins.

Amendment negatived.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [9.1]: I move:

Page 70, Table to clause 123, lines 4-24, under the heading "In what circumstances?". Omit all words on those lines, insert instead "environmental damage".

The intent of the amendment is somewhat similar to the intent of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Manly. I seek the support of the Minister for my amendment.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [9.1]: For the reasons I outlined previously, this amendment is also opposed and rejected.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [9.1]: I ask the Minister for his opinion about the effect of this amendment, in country areas in particular.

Page 2111

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [9.2]: If the amendment is successful, the table will read:

Work carried on land has caused or is likely to cause environmental damage not being environmental damage arising from premises, works or equipment the subject of an approval or licence issued under the Pollution Control Act 1970 or subject to a notice or direction issued by the Environment Protection Authority.

The existing clause relates to damage caused by drainage, drainage works or the obstruction of a natural watercourse, other than by a work constructed or used, in effect under a water licence. The amendment will have a detrimental effect in country areas. There is clearly a potential for conflict between a council order and a licence from the Environment Protection Authority. The amendment will make the clause too broad to operate satisfactorily.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [9.3]: I am concerned about this. Could it possibly apply to agricultural practices, for example?

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [9.3]: One of the problems in country areas is that it could apply to those practices. As it stands, the table relates to damage caused by a specific list of things. The amendment seeks to take that specific list out of the table. It will mean that anything at all done to land can have an effect. I assume that could include ploughing and things of that nature in country areas.

Amendment negatived.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [9.4]: I move:

Page 72, Table to clause 123, lines 5-7, under the heading "In what circumstances?". Omit "in the case of premises not in a catchment district", insert instead "in the case of any premises (whether or not in a catchment district)".

This simple amendment, which re-creates the existing law, relates to premises in catchment districts. It is a formal amendment which was recommended by Parliamentary Counsel.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [9.5]: I move:

Page 73, clause 123. After line 24, insert:

23. To separate Separate collection Owner or occupier of domestic waste services are provided land or premises and recyclable and waste and materials at recyclable materials are source for not being separated to domestic waste allow effective management household collection services

This is one of the most important amendments I will move. It relates to waste management. It is appropriate that the amendment be made to this clause. It will confer on councils the necessary power to order certain action to be taken. The amendment relates to the regulatory functions of the council. Councils may exercise the power to be conferred by the amendment only if they choose to do so. The amendment provides, in the middle column, "Separate collection services are provided and waste and recyclable materials are not being separated to allow effective household collection". This is a key amendment which will allow councils to move down the path of waste minimisation, which is perhaps close and dear to my heart, as I come from a council that has led the way in this State, and indeed perhaps in Australia, in kerbside recycling.

Separation and diversion of the waste stream is one of the key components of any waste minimisation policy. The bill does not make it clear that a council can order mandatory self-separation of domestic waste. As self-separation is such an important waste reduction tool, councils should have the power to make the order. There is little in that requirement that would threaten the Minister. It does not impose on all councils a requirement that they must mandate for waste separation. The amendment provides that, if a council so chooses, it will have the power under clause 123 to do so. Clause 123 of the bill gives wide-ranging powers to councils, but they are discretionary, so nothing is being imposed on councils from above. The amendment will assure councils that the Government believes in waste minimisation and kerbside recycling. If a council has a collection service in place, but wants to be able to order ratepayers to comply and to separate, the bill will give it the power to do so.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [9.8]: This amendment is opposed by the Government because it makes the requirement to separate garbage mandatory. That is far too onerous a responsibility to impose on councils. Councils may, of course, encourage separation by providing appropriate collection arrangements. In fact, clause 494 of the bill provides a financial incentive for councils to encourage separation of waste by way of domestic waste management charges. The amendment will create a new order in relation to mandatory separation of waste. If it were not mandatory, what would be the point of the amendment? Some councils would certainly like to order self-separation. It is similar to contracting out. Councils should have the option of doing it at their own discretion but they should not at this stage be directed to do these things. Later on down the track, as systems become better, the Act could be amended, but it should certainly not be amended at this stage.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [9.10]: I wonder whether this has been thought through to the nth degree by the honourable member for Manly. I agree that we ought to be doing something about it, but if a council has a right to make it mandatory to separate garbage, there will be problems associated with that for the disabled, the aged, people living in units, and shiftworkers; and in a whole range of other circumstances yet to be considered. If a council took the view that a decision would not seriously disadvantage a minority of people, how will that multitude of problems be overcome? Is the council then able to make exceptions for some ratepayers? Page 2112 How will it work? That is what concerns me.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [9.11]: I want to address the questions raised by the honourable member for South Coast. He asked how a council would cope with people who might be disadvantaged by a decision of council to mandate for self-separation. Let me go back one stage. Many councils are now mandating for and making a decision to have kerbside recycling and self-separation because of the imposition upon them of increased landfill charges. That does not directly answer the point raised by the honourable member for South Coast, but I wanted to lead in with that comment. Increased landfill charges have placed an enormous onus on councils, particularly as there is rate-pegging of garbage charges.

More and more councils are taking the view that they should opt for self-separation for kerbside recycling. Provisions can be built in to the regulations. Manly council led the way in this regard and I am happy to quote examples for the benefit of the Committee. There are safety net provisions so that people with large families will receive extra stickers if they require extra bins. This has been proved, not only in the Manly municipality but in other municipalities. When councils provide a good, reliable service, people are keen to comply. Some problems exist in respect of large blocks of units but, again, we are being drawn into a debate about kerbside recycling and perhaps this is not the occasion to engage in such a debate.

I want to challenge the Minister's comment that it is mandated. It is not mandated. The measure says quite clearly, in relation to the circumstances in which a council can make an order, "where separate collection services are provided". A council may choose not to provide those services; it is not mandatory on the council to do so. But, where the services are provided, the council has made the choice - and more and more councils will make the choice to adopt self-separation because of landfill and other costs. Once councils have made that decision we should give them assistance. This House should give them the power to make the order. I can answer the concerns of the honourable member for South Coast as to the downside risks. Really, there are none, because many councils have thought this through and have made the necessary provisions. The Minister's comments that it is mandated for are quite misleading, because it is not.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [9.13]: I can understand the point that has been made by the honourable member for Manly, and I am in sympathy with him, but I believe there should be more community education and acceptance of what is happening with recycling, before the requirements become mandatory. I believe that in the medium term people could be worse off if a council were to say, "As from one month from this date we will fine people who do not separate their refuse". In order to make such a regulation work, I think we have to come to a higher level of community appreciation and co-operation with separation of domestic waste than now exists. It could well be counter-productive. I am somewhat unconvinced by the argument.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

Division called for. Standing Order 208(c) applied.

Ayes, 2

Dr Macdonald Ms Moore

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 127

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [9.15]: I move:

Page 76, clause 127, lines 4-9. Omit all words on those lines.

This amendment relates to giving the Government the power to declare an area a catchment area. Apart from the fact that it has the effect of creating an offence, as will be discussed later, it also allows a council, under subclause (2), to make orders to demolish a building or to make structural alterations to a building that has been erected in a catchment district which causes or is likely to cause pollution of the water supply. Clause 127(2) provides that an owner of a building who complies with an order set out in the subclause is entitled to compensation from the council for expenses incurred. In no other case, as far as I can determine, is there provision for compensation for compliance with the orders. That is why I have moved that lines 4 to 9 in clause 127 be omitted. It should be noted also that the system of catchment districts should not conflict with the catchment management committees. I think that is important, something that the Minister would recognise.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [9.17]: The amendment is rejected. It is absolutely preposterous that the honourable member for Manly should be so obsessed as to want to change what has been the law for many years in catchment districts. What he is really saying is that if the Governor declares a district to be a catchment district and someone is unfortunate enough to live in the area and has to remove his or her house as a consequence, that person will not be compensated. That is absurd.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Tink): Order! With the leave of the Committee I propose to put clauses 153, 154 and 155 together.

Clauses 153 to 155

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [9.19]: I move:

Page 2113 Page 83, clause 153, lines 12-30. Omit all words on those lines.

Page 83, clause 154, lines 31-34. Omit all words on those lines.

Page 84, clause 155, lines 1-14. Omit all words on those lines.

The clauses relate to ministerial intervention and ministerial power to give orders. Clause 153 allows the Minister to exercise any function concerning an order that the council might exercise, and there is absolutely no right of appeal from an order given under the Minister's direction. Clause 154 states that in the event of any inconsistency, the Minister's order overrides a council's order. Clause 155 states that the Minister may revoke or modify a council's order. The Minister's power is without qualification. The question of ministerial powers bears some relationship to the debate about the Crown being bound by legislation. The Minister for Local Government and Minister for Cooperatives and those who might seek one day to be Minister intend that the Government should retain its powers, and that the Minister should have power over local government.

That is quite inconsistent with the original theme and objectives of the discussion documents through to the draft bills - that local government should have autonomy. Apparently it was an empty theme, an empty promise, because the State Government is seeking, through the Minister, to have power over local government. He is not subject to any fair process requirements; nor does he have to qualify regional or statewide significance. If the Minister believes circumstances may arise that would justify his exercising power, surely he should be required to spell out in the legislation the limit of the application of those powers and in what circumstances it should be used. If this provision is included, it must be in such terms that no additional legal liability is imposed on councils. That is fundamentally at odds with local government autonomy, and ministerial intervention should be strongly opposed.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [9.23]: The Government opposes the amendment. I draw the attention of the honourable member for Manly to the amendment to be moved later, by which the Minister's powers in this part will be extensively qualified. That matter was agreed upon between the Opposition and the Government. Any sensible person would be quite satisfied that proposed new clause 156 will qualify the operation of the Minister's powers under this clause.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [9.24]: The Opposition shares the concerns of the honourable member for Manly, and for that reason our proposed amendment will limit the Minister's audit powers. In response to community concern and the amendments prepared by the Labor Party and the Independents, the Minister has foreshadowed amendment No. 79, which deals with the limitation on his orders, and goes further than the Opposition's amendment. On behalf of the Opposition I am prepared to support the Minister's proposed limitation in clause 156. It clarifies the situation.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [9.24]: Can the Minister give me an assurance that the amendment to clause 156 will cover clause 152?

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [9.25]: The honourable member for South Coast has my assurance.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [9.25]: Clause 156 covers the entire part?

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [9.25]: Yes.

Amendments negatived.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 156

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [9.26], by leave: I move:

Page 84. After line 14, insert:

Limitation on Minister's orders.

156. The Minister must not give an order under this Part that is inconsistent with, or has the effect of revoking or modifying, an order given by the council unless the Minister is of the opinion that:

(a) it is necessary because of an emergency; or

(b) it is necessary because of the existence or reasonable likelihood of a serious risk to health or safety; or

(c) the order relates to a matter of State or regional significance; or

(d) the order relates to a matter in which the intervention of the Minister is necessary in the public interest.

I have great pleasure in moving the amendment. I have taken note of what has been said in statements and of what has been said by the Opposition and the Independent members. The qualification is that the Minister can use the powers provided in that part only in the case of emergency, serious risk to health or safety, and in matters that are of severe regional significance or are in the public interest. All those matters have a clear connotation of limiting the Minister's powers so that he will not be able to ride roughshod over councils. Those powers will be used only in times of emergency, such as the Nyngan flood. I was there at the time, and the council was not doing certain things. Had the Minister for Local Government of the day been there I am sure that he would have ordered that certain things be done, and that they would have had an effect on what happened at Nyngan at that time.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 162

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [9.29]: Page 2114 I move:

Page 87, clause 162, lines 23-27. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

Local policy not to be more onerous than this Act or the regulations.

162. (1) If a criterion is prescribed by this Act or the regulations in relation to:

(a) a specified aspect of an activity that may be carried out only with the prior approval of the council; or

(b) a specified aspect of anything for which an order may be given under Part 2, a local policy adopted under this Part by a council, to the extent to which its provisions impose a more onerous criterion in relation to the specified aspect, is void.

(2) However, for the purposes of this section, the imposition of a criterion in a local policy in relation to a specified aspect, does not, in the absence of the prescription by this Act or the regulations of a criterion in relation to that aspect, constitute a more onerous criterion.

The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that when no requirements in the Act or regulations exist, local policy applies. A problem arises when the State has prescribed criterion in relation to a particular aspect. The deletion of the clause could lead to council policies that are isolationist and narrowly prescriptive. In other words, if there are no requirements in the Act or regulations, local councils may apply their local policies. If there are requirements in the Act or the regulations, councils cannot create additional conditions. Where the Act is silent they can, but where the Act is not silent they cannot.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [9.31]: Though I have concerns about this clause, and it would appear also that the honourable member for Manly has, I am willing to support the Minister's amendment. There may be instances when I would disagree with the principle, but in general where there is a reasonable State policy then all councils should comply with it. Certainly problems arise when people deal with different councils that, for no apparent reason, have different rules for different organisations. The Government does not often establish a requirement statewide for councils, but when it does, it is usually for good and cogent reasons. By and large I have no difficulty with that. The Minister's amendment will allow councils, where there is no overriding State requirement, to adopt their own policies to cover matters specific to their own areas. It will give councils some autonomy, and though specific arguments could be mounted against the measure, it is a reasonable requirement.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [9.33]: Clause 162 is unnecessary and should be omitted from the bill. The honourable member for Coogee, the honourable member for Bligh and I have indicated this by foreshadowing amendments Nos 88, 89 and 90. The Government's amendment is insidious. The clause seems to provide that any aspect of local policy which is more onerous or is inconsistent with the standards in the bill is void. It is important that local councils should be free, in specific instances, to apply more rigorous standards than those provided in regional, State or Federal laws - which is consistent with the concept to increase the autonomy of local government. There is a discrepancy between what is set out in the objects of the bill and what local government can do. It seems to suggest that the Government will say to councils, "We are going to allow you to do a lot of wonderful things, but if your policies are more onerous than the provisions of the bill, you will not be able to do them". Local government is growing up. It should be allowed to continue to grow and to set policies. The Minister's attempt to amend the clause is not necessary. Quite frankly the clause is redundant.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [9.35]: I support the honourable member for Manly. I have discussed with him my proposed amendment, which is about local councils making decisions for local communities. It is about grass roots democracy and local councils responding to local needs. That is what this bill is meant to be all about. I believe that the clause should be deleted.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [9.35]: I agree with my Independent colleagues. There could well be special circumstances, an extraordinarily beautiful area with a sensitive environment about which tough decisions may have to be made, but if those decisions are out of kilter with the requirements, needs and aspirations of the people represented by the council concerned, the view of the people will be reflected in the vote.

Amendment agreed to.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [9.36]: I move:

Page 87, clause 162, lines 23-27 be deleted.

As I said, local councils should make decisions in the interests of local communities and local people.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [9.39]: The amendment is opposed for the same reasons I advanced in relation to the previous amendment.

Question - That the words stand - put.

Division called for. Standing Order 208(c) applied.

Noes, 3

Mr Hatton Dr Macdonald Ms Moore

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 166

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [9.41], by leave: I move the following amendments in globo:

Page 2115

Page 88, clause 166, lines 24 and 25. Omit "4 (in so far as it would require the carrying out of structural work),".

Page 89, clause 166, lines 4 and 5. Omit "(except in so far as it would require the carrying out of structural work)".

These amendments will reinstate the capacity to deal with fire safety issues, even if a building certificate is in place. The amendments were suggested by the department and by Parliamentary Counsel to clarify the legislation and improve it.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 170

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [9.43]: I move:

Page 90, clause 170, lines 8 and 9. Omit "4 (in so far as it would require the carrying out of structural work),".

This amendment again reinstates the capacity to deal with fire safety issues, even if a building certificate is in place. It simply reinstates existing fire safety law. The amendment was recommended by Parliamentary Counsel and the department.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 177

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [9.45]: I move:

Page 92, clause 177, line 31. Omit "or without adequate reason".

The Opposition shares the concern expressed by the honourable member for Manly in regard to this clause. However, we are prepared to support the clause if the last four words, "or without adequate reason", are deleted. This clause, which concerns the awarding of compensation concerning approvals, states:

(1) The Land and Environment Court, on the hearing of an appeal or otherwise, has a discretion to award compensation to an applicant for an approval for any expense incurred by the person as a consequence of:

(a) a council's refusal to grant the approval; or

(b) a council's delay in granting the approval,

if the Court considers that the council would not have acted in the way it did but for the fact that it was unduly influenced by vexatious or unmeritorious submissions made by members of the public or that the council has acted vexatiously or without adequate reason.

The amendment will delete the words "or without adequate reason". There is no definition of this terminology so it will be a completely subjective criterion and, therefore, should not be countenanced. By and large, I believe the provision will be unworkable. I do not believe that there will be any successful court action over this. In my period in local government I formed the firm view that many developers knowingly put in applications which were outside council's planning and building requirements, which they knew would be rejected by council - something like an ambit claim. So if they were left with 50 per cent of what they asked for, they would be quite satisfied. Generally I found that those who yelled the most were those who least deserved to have approvals granted.

It is rather ironic that the word "vexatious" is used in this clause. Recent legal history in New South Wales shows us that our most vexatious litigant was a man called Azzopardi, who turned out to be right every time a matter he was complaining about was properly investigated. I have no doubt that an Azzopardi in a council who was trying to influence council to reject an approval would be looked at in the same light, even if he were proved correct as time went on. The Opposition is of the view that the last four words of that clause "or without adequate reason" should be deleted on the basis that because there is no defined meaning all sorts of problems could be caused for councils and individuals.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [9.49]: The Government accepts the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [9.50]: I move:

Page 92, clause 177, lines 22-34, and page 93, clause 177, lines 1-9. Delete the clause.

This amendment seeks to remove the whole of clause 177. This clause is one of the most outrageous clauses contained in the bill. There should be a court determination as to what is "vexatious and unmeritorious" - but the definition could only be subjective. The extensive opposition to this clause has been most impressive, both when I was a member of the legislation committee examining this bill and since. I think the democratic process is at risk - I do not use the words loosely. Public participation and community submissions will be hampered by this clause; it will discourage public participation. The clause is a retrogressive step; it is draconian; it is heavy-handed. There is a lot of opposition to the clause

At present there is not a level playing field when it comes to considering applications. As the honourable member for Coogee said, if an application is rejected the applicant can come in with an ambit claim which is way over the top, which is rejected, and goes straight to the Land and Environment Court; they will then come out with something which they started with anyway. Applicants have an advantage in that they can go to the Land and Environment Court; the objectors and the residents do not have that advantage. I see it day after day in local government. This clause is outrageous. It will definitely hold back the process of meaningful public participation and input in terms of councils' deliberations. I would like the Minister to give me a good reason as to why we should have clause 177 at all. The tampering around the edges by the honourable member for Coogee - the removal of the words "or without adequate reason" - is mere tokenism; it does nothing to satisfy me or a broad range of the community who are outraged by this clause.

Page 2116

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [9.53]: I, too, am strongly opposed to clause 177. I believe that the clause goes against grass roots democracy. I feel that the community - particularly the city community and urban community - would feel frustrated, excluded and intimidated. Two weeks ago 51 people went to South Sydney Council to tell it that a commercial development at Elizabeth Bay would damage the local environment, destroy their residential amenity and be quite wrong in that part of Sydney. The developer could then go to the Land and Environment Court and a decision such as this could be made. It could have a long-term detrimental effect on that area. I could give the Minister countless examples of where the same would apply around Sydney.

There is a tremendous achievement in this Act, as I said during the second reading debate, but I agree with the honourable member for Manly that this clause undermines what the Government has put into the bill in terms of bringing local government into the 1990s, preparing it for the twentieth century, giving it autonomy, making it accountable, involving local communities and giving some strength to the third tier of government. The Government is now saying that any developer can go to the Land and Environment Court and there can be a ruling that the residents have no right to be involved in a development application process. It is hard enough for residents to get justice through that process, as any city councillor could tell the Minister, so I urge him to remove this clause which I think undermines the good that the Government has achieved in the bill.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [9.55]: I find the contributions of the honourable member for Manly and the honourable member for Bligh quite preposterous. I can understand the view of the honourable member for Manly - the Scots lived in clans and worked in that way. However, I believe in the individual rights of people. I also understand the approach of the honourable member for Bligh with respect to individual rights. If those honourable members look at this clause carefully they will see that the Government is not penalising people or councils for doing normal, proper things; the clause refers to matters which are influenced by vexatious or unmeritorious submissions. I could give honourable members dozens of examples - I invite them to come to my office to see those examples - where ordinary citizens, not developers, have been held up for months and even years in building their homes because someone, out of spite or some trivial reason, wanted to spike their application. I can give examples of that in every part of the Sydney metropolitan area. This clause relates to unmeritorious objections; no one will stop the objection if there is merit to it. It is stupid to even suggest that.

Ms Moore: This overrides it.

Mr PEACOCKE: No, it does not. The Government rejects the amendment very strongly. I think this clause is a first small step towards the restoration of individual freedom of people, within reason.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [9.57]: I must respond to what the Minister said. What I am putting forward is about individual rights, too - it is about the rights of residents to be able to go to a council and put forward a strong case as to why a development should not proceed.

Mr Peacocke: If they put forward a strong case there is nothing for them to fear. Is a strong case vexatious?

Ms MOORE: The Minister has invited me to go to his office to see the various examples; I invite him to go to the South Sydney Council with me when the next controversial issue is raised and I have to defend the community's rights. I have done that twice in the last month - once over a local environmental plan which related to the Showground and Moore Park and another time over the proposed development at Elizabeth Bay to which I have already referred.

Mr Peacocke: Were you being vexatious there?

Ms MOORE: Certainly not. I want the Minister to come along and see what it is like in the city where we have to constantly defend our patch, where people have to become urban guerillas just so their amenity is not destroyed. We pay very high costs in the cities. There are tremendous benefits. A person may properly oppose a development but be told by a court subsequently that they were being vexatious because they were defending their local area and their basic rights as an individual to be able to live in harmony, without having their peace and quiet destroyed. I would like to take the Minister on a tour of my electorate and introduce him to a whole range of residents' groups who have fought such developments over the years. I believe that there will be outcry and outrage in our cities with respect to this clause. If the Government believes in grass roots democracy and the rights of individuals to be able to defend their patch, which is their right, it should withdraw this clause.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [9.59]: The Minister should take note of what the honourable member for Bligh is saying. She has spent many years in local government. I, too, would be willing to submit examples of concerns in my area. My entry into politics was through the biggest resident action group in Australia, which sought to save Manly from high-rise development. The development taking place now is much more appropriate because of the activity, spirit and energy of resident groups. Years before that development occurred, when my municipality was run by pro-development groups, some of the worst mistakes were made. The Temporary-Chairman would know what I mean. Buildings up to 20 storeys high, which were erected when residents had no say, are totally out of place in my community. Residents now have a say. This clause will intimidate resident action groups and residents from pursuing claims. The Minister was suggesting that this clause would have merit. The Land and Environment Court will determine on a subjective basis what is unmeritorious and vexatious. The terms used by the Minister are Page 2117 completely inappropriate. In communities where people have not had a say, buildings are burgeoning.

Question - That the clause stand - put.

Division called for. Standing Order 208(c) applied.

Noes, 3

Mr Hatton Dr Macdonald Ms Moore

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Introduction to Chapter 8

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [10.2]: I move:

Page 96, Introduction to Chapter 8, line 5. After "functions.", insert "These functions are "ancillary" in the sense that they are auxiliary to, they give support to, and they aid the carrying out of, the other functions of a council, particularly its service and regulatory functions."

This is a technical amendment proposed by Parliamentary Counsel. It clarifies the nature of functions and is intended to improve the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Introduction to chapter as amended agreed to.

Clauses 189-190

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [10.4]: I move the following amendments in globo:

Page 97, clause 189, line 14. Omit "purposes of this Act", insert instead "purpose of enabling a council to exercise its functions". Page 97, clause 190, line 20. Omit "purposes of this Act", insert instead "purpose of enabling a council to exercise its functions".

These amendments again clarify functions which are broader than those in the Local Government Act. The move was suggested by Parliamentary Counsel.

Amendments agreed to.

Clauses as amended agreed to.

Clause 191

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [10.5]: I move:

Page 98, clause 191, line 16. Omit all words on that line, insert instead:

(b) if entry to the premises is required because of the existence or reasonable likelihood of a serious risk to health or safety

This amendment provides slightly wider entry provisions to allow inspections. It is consistent with other recent entry powers legislation and State Government policy generally.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 222

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [10.8]: I move:

Page 108, clause 222, line 14. Omit "13", insert instead "15".

The clause I seek to amend is one of the most outrageous clauses in the whole legislation. It is political and specifically targeted. A maximum of 15 aldermen is a reasonable number on a council. A maximum of 13 was too restrictive in these rather complicated times. Councils with aldermen who have a deep interest in the environmental aspects of the community are overtaxed now - even those councils with 14 or 15 aldermen. In view of the population of council areas, 15 is not an inordinately high number of representatives. Councils that have 15 members include Blacktown, with 220,000 residents; Campbelltown, with 147,000 residents; Fairfield, with 182,000 residents; Penrith, with 159,000 residents; Randwick, with 119,000 residents; and Wollongong, with 175,000 residents.

The population in many of these areas is increasing rapidly. Two councils have 14 members. Sutherland has a population of 194,000 and Orange has a population of 33,000. The Minister has claimed that there is justification for the limit of 13 members but only a couple of years ago he revamped the representation of Sutherland council as a result of political representation. The community wanted to maintain the three wards of five councillors because this gave good proportional representation. At that time the council was controlled by the Liberal Party. It saw that it might not do well at the coming election and, against community opinion, asked the Minister to alter the council representation. It was altered from three wards of five councillors to seven wards of two councillors - a dramatic change.

Under the Act, if three or more councillors are to be elected from one ward or riding the election is by proportional representation. In other words, the major groupings in the community have a chance of having a representative on the council. With only two councillors to be elected for each riding, it is a first past the post system, as it is in Ku-ring-gai. The group or combination of groups in such a situation can win both seats. The Liberal Party in Sutherland thought that that system would suit it. As it turned out, the Liberal Party in that area was in such poor odour that only three of its members were elected to council. Not only did it not get control; its representation was dramatically reduced.

Ms Moore: It was the Markhams.

Mr E. T. PAGE: That is another story, and a longer story. It is contained in Hansard in contributions I made on the subject.

Dr Macdonald: You have privilege; don't worry.

Mr E. T. PAGE: I am well aware of that. Sutherland is not a small council and it is not a simple council area. The council, on behalf of its residents, Page 2118 has run an effective campaign against the extension of the megatip in the area. The council has effectively represented the community that voted it in. The council now has a problem with the Federal Government wishing to replace the Lucas Heights reactor. Again, the councillors have run an effective campaign on the issue. Because of quirks of history the council has problems that in my view require significant numbers of councillors to provide representation for the community. If the larger councils are restricted to 13 councillors, what sort of representation will the Minister allow? Will there be wards and ridings of only two representatives, or of more than two so that there can be proportional representation? I do not support councils being made up of one grouping, whether it is from the Labor or the conservative side. Unless there is effective opposition in any representative form of government there is corruption because there is no one to query decisions and ensure that those making decisions are accountable to the community.

Dr Macdonald: Bring on the Independents.

Mr E. T. PAGE: I agree. If people have support in the community, under a proportional system they should get a guernsey on the council. The position should not be as it is in Sutherland and Ku-ring-gai. Therefore, I strongly believe that the maximum number of representatives should be 15. This allows flexibility because of the factors of three and five: there may be three wards or ridings of five councillors or five of three councillors. I would be most disturbed if the Minister applied the logic he applied to Sutherland to councils such as Blacktown, Campbelltown, Fairfield, Penrith and Wollongong, which have large populations and many environmental problems. By and large their infrastructure is not as fully developed as it should be. So the Committee should support my amendment.

If the Minister is successful in maintaining the limit of 13 councillors, what will be his next plan for Sutherland? Will it be a shire as a whole, six wards of two representatives or four wards of three? I would like to know his plans for Sutherland and the larger councils I have mentioned. The workload on voluntary representatives is becoming very heavy and a reasonable number of councillors is required to enable the community to be effectively represented. Another fact of life that must be remembered is that all representatives are not equally keen. Some do not pull their weight for the community. So it is not as though all 15 councillors would be working their butts off. But with 15 councillors there is a chance of having a reasonable number of people representing the community.

Even a small council such as Waverley - about which I know something - with a population of 60,000 has a large number of committees on which aldermen are represented to deal with particular local problems. Waverley and Woollahra run an incinerator together, for which there is a joint management committee. Obviously that requires representation from the two councils and a fair bit of interest from the members. The board of directors of the waste disposal authority needs to be made up of people who take an active interest. The boundary of Waverley and Woollahra runs through the middle of Bondi Junction, a major regional shopping centre. There is a committee to ensure that there are common planning parameters in both councils to ensure uniformity of building and traffic regulations and so on.

The council has three beaches which are very important tourist attractions. They cost a lot to maintain and can cause a lot of trouble because large numbers of people use them. Not only does the council have to manage the beach front, it also deals with usual council matters, building applications and all manner of things that aldermen receive representations about. I am convinced that 15 members is not an inordinately large number for a council. Therefore, I firmly believe that the House should support the amendment.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [10.21]: This is obviously an opportunity to debate the whole of clause 222. I challenge the honourable member for Coogee, as the mover of this amendment, to convince me that 15 is better than 13. On what basis does he arrive at that figure? I think the fault that the Minister has made, that is, to be prescriptive about the upper limit, is the same fault the honourable member for Coogee has made. There is really no adequate and clear basis as to why he selected that number. I think I will move 14. Why 13, why 14, why 15? It is really a matter of principle, not the actual number. I have received a number of submissions - and I am sure the Minister would have received more than I have - that make it quite clear that this matter should be left to the council. I like the words of the Mayor of North Sydney, Mr Gerry Nolan, who referred to the prescriptive nature of this statutory limit as being akin to child abuse. He said:

It's like child abuse, the State Government doesn't seem to be able to control itself when it comes to abusing its perceived offspring . . .

They [the Government] started the revision of the Local Government Act with the best intentions, like a parent saying they wouldn't abuse their child any more, but the urge to beat local government has over-whelmed them again.

That is what has happened here. It would make more sense if the Government was not prescriptive about a number but issued clear guidelines, that in determining the upper limit of the number of councillors, councils should take into account matters such as population, and other matters that may be of community interest. Councils should be able to argue for manageable levels to facilitate effective decision-making. Those are the important matters. I do not believe there is a good reason for choosing 13 or 15. Perhaps clause 222 should contain a provision that, at every alternate local government election, a referendum should be held relating to the number of councillors. I would have no objection to that. Councils should argue the case as to how many aldermen they should have.

The larger councils in the country would need to Page 2119 put up a yes-no case at a referendum as to how many aldermen they wanted. The matter should be determined by the people at a referendum. It is certainly not for a State government to tell a local council how many aldermen it should have. This is an unnecessary provision. If the Minister wanted to assist, the Government should move in another direction by introducing guidelines requiring a council to hold a referendum every six or eight years. Councils would have to put up a strong argument, based on population distribution, as to how many councillors they should have. Manly Municipal Council has resolved to reduce the number of alderman from 12 to nine, and I am very comfortable with that decision. Manly is a small, densely populated area, similar to Mosman where the local council has nine aldermen. I believe it is appropriate for many of the smaller city councils to reduce their numbers, but it is not the place of the State Government to be so prescriptive.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [10.25]: I have listened with great interest to the comments made by the honourable member for Coogee and the honourable member for Manly. This figure of 13 was not plucked out of the air; a great deal of thought has been given to it. The proponents of the maximum figure of 13 and minimum of five looked all round the world at what other councils did. By and large in countries such as the United States, particularly in California, and in the United Kingdom, very large areas of population are administered by councils with small numbers. The object of the exercise was to create an adequate number of councillor positions. Conflict arises when the number of aldermen is in the range of 20 to 30, such as Parramatta City Council which has 20 aldermen. The Government acknowledges that approximately 19 councils have 15 or more aldermen, as provided for under the present Act. Only two or three councils have approached the Government to increase the figure above 13, one being Blacktown City Council and the other being Sutherland Shire Council.

The Government is prepared to make amendments to allowing a council that already has 15 or more aldermen to have 15 aldermen, provided that the council's population area is above 140,000. The Government accepts that as reasonable. Orange City Council has 14 aldermen and a population of 32,800. Sutherland Shire Council also has 14 aldermen to cope with a population of 196,000. Blacktown City Council has 15 aldermen with a population of 220,000 people. Botany Municipal Council has 15 aldermen to look after 34,700 people. Parramatta City Council is the biggest council, with 20 aldermen who look after a population of 130,000. The reason that 13 was selected was to get a figure of 12, which is divisible by three or four - in the event that the council area is divided into wards - and to allow for an independently elected mayor. The figure was carefully considered for a long period of time.

The Government is seeking to ensure that councils are of a manageable size. Any council can declare how many members it has; it could have as many members as there are in this Parliament. A mayor and 12 aldermen would be a manageable number. Many large councils wish to reduce their numbers to nine, and one council wishes to reduce to seven because it considers that would be more efficient. Under the new Act, with the efficiencies to be introduced by the new legislation, life will be easier for councillors because they will be engaged in making policy decisions, not in having to inspect Mrs Bloggs' burst water main. The council will send an engineer to inspect the burst water main, and that is the right person who should go out. I have been associated with two separate councils. One does not have to spend hours and hours in order to do a job properly. Councils always have people to carry out policies; if they do not, the aldermen are not doing their jobs efficiently. The Government opposes the amendment moved by the honourable member for Coogee, simply because it prefers to introduce the amendments that I have foreshadowed which will permit a council that has 15 or more councillors to continue to have 15 councillors, provided the population of that council's area is 140,000 or more.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [10.30]: I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Coogee as its provisions are better than those in the proposed amendment by the Government, which would impose a limit of 13 councillors, or 15 in certain circumstances. That is too prescriptive. The basis of the bill is to give local councils autonomy. Councils must respond to local needs. By prescribing the numbers of aldermen who may serve on councils the Minister is not allowing for that to happen. I strongly support the submission made by the Local Government and Shires Associations that the number of councillors should be determined by individual councils. I have a different view of local government than does the present Minister and successive State governments. Their assumption has always been that councils do things for the wrong reasons. The great majority of people who serve on councils do so because they want to serve the local community, not for their own personal promotion. They make decisions in the interest of that local community. It is difficult in this place to make decisions for city councils, suburban councils and country councils that will respond adequately to the needs of the local people.

I have served on a council with 12 councillors and another council which had 28 councillors. I have observed the city region being carved up into councils with seven or nine aldermen. South Sydney City Council has only nine councillors, and that is totally inadequate. One ward of that council is almost the same size as the whole area of the former South Sydney Council before the amalgamation brought about by the previous government. Often the arbitrary decisions made in Macquarie Street are not in the interest of local councils. The thrust of the proposed legislation is to establish grass roots democracy, to allow councils to respond to the needs of local areas reflecting the diversity across the State. Page 2120 Obviously the interests of the city of Sydney will be different from those of Dubbo or Orange. Those who offer themselves as candidates for service to local communities on local councils should be the people who determine the numbers of representatives who will serve on councils. The proposal by the honourable member for Coogee will give greater flexibility than the more prescriptive proposal by the Minister.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [10.32]: I agree with the amendment moved by the honourable member for Coogee. I realise that is a change in my stance. Today I had discussions about whether the number of councillors should be 13 or 15. I disagree with my Independent colleagues. There must be a limit to the number. Even this Parliament has a limit on the number of its members. In fact, the number of members of the Parliament was reduced not long ago. Sooner or later we had to come to grips with that problem. I note from the list I have that Lachlan Shire Council has 15 councillors for a population of only 8,000. If a limit of 15 is set and councils are at liberty to determine the number of councillors who will serve on individual councils, that will give councils flexibility but still impose a maximum number.

I note from information I was given tonight in summary form that only five councils will be affected: Cessnock City Council, Lake Macquarie City Council, Maitland City Council, North Sydney Municipal Council and Parramatta City Council have more than 15 councillors. Many years ago in the Shire of Shoalhaven a council of 18 members asked the Minister to appoint an administrator because they could not reach agreement on anything. They actually sacked themselves. I have served as a member of a council representing the whole of the Shire of Shoalhaven which had seven councillors and was then increased to nine councillors. I thought the council of seven did a good job, though their task was difficult and onerous. I have sympathy with the Minister's stance that a population of 140,000 should be the cut-off figure. The problem is that a population of 140,000 in one area may be quite different from the characteristics of a population of 140,000 in another region. This is a difficult question for me, but I have come to the conclusion that the upper limit to be fixed should be 15 councillors, as a first step towards letting councils decide for themselves the number of members they should have.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [10.34]: I have great admiration for the argumentative and debating powers of the honourable member for South Coast, but I believe that his arguments are flawed. I know that the Minister does not want this to turn into a debating contest, but the honourable member for South Coast raised the issue regarding the reduction in the number of members in the State Parliament. Who reduced those numbers? It was not the Federal Government. The State Government made that decision. A referendum was held to reduce the membership of the upper House from 45 to 42. The State Government is the creature that made the determination about the lower House, though in the upper House the matter was decided by a referendum. That is what should happen with local government. It is not for the State Government to stipulate the number of members a council should have.

The other argument the honourable member for South Coast entered into related to the population of 140,000. I agree with his comments. Why should the number be 140,000? That does not take into account the diversity of the population. The Government is trying to grip on to centralised power. It must let that power go to the community so that councils make the decision themselves, bearing in mind local factors. Local government should be able to take the mature position of being able to go to the community and arrive at a proper decision. One cannot factor in all of the variables and arrive at an answer in this place. That is why the Minister is resting with his proposal that there be 13 councillors, the honourable member for Coogee is insisting that there be 15, and the honourable member for South Coast is going from one figure to another. The State Government made up its mind and local government should be able to make up its mind.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 47

Ms Allan Mr Martin Mr Amery Mr Mills Mr Anderson Ms Moore Mr A. S. Aquilina Mr Moss Mr J. J. Aquilina Mr J. H. Murray Mr Bowman Mr Nagle Mr Clough Mr Neilly Mr Crittenden Mr Newman Mr Doyle Ms Nori Mr Face Mr E. T. Page Mr Gaudry Mr Price Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan Mr Hatton Mr Rumble Mr Hunter Mr Scully Mr Iemma Mr Shedden Mr Irwin Mr Sullivan Mr Knight Mr Thompson Mr Knowles Mr Whelan Mr Langton Mr Yeadon Mrs Lo Po' Mr Ziolkowski Mr McBride Tellers, Dr Macdonald Mr Beckroge Mr Markham Mr Davoren

Noes, 45

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Doherty Mr Baird Mr Packard

Page 2121 Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page Mr Causley Mr Peacocke Mr Chappell Mr Petch Mrs Chikarovski Mr Phillips Mr Cochran Mr Photios Mrs Cohen Mr Rixon Mr Collins Mr Rozzoli Mr Cruickshank Mr Schipp Mr Fraser Mr Small Mr Griffiths Mr Smiles Mr Hartcher Mr Smith Mr Humpherson Mr Souris Mr Jeffery Mr Tink Dr Kernohan Mr Turner Mr Kerr Mr West Mr Kinross Mr Windsor Mr Longley Mr Yabsley Ms Machin Mr Zammit Mr Merton Tellers, Mr Morris Mr Beck Mr W. T. J. Murray Mr Schultz

Pairs

Mr Carr Mr Fahey Mr Harrison Mr Glachan Mr McManus Mr Downy

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [10.44]: I move:

Page 108, clause 222, line 16. Omit "During the third year of each term of office", insert instead "Not less than 12 months before the next ordinary election".

The amendment will provide greater flexibility to councils to determine councillor numbers and the reallocation of time. It does not conflict with the Opposition's amendment just agreed to by the Committee.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [10.45]: The Opposition has no objection to the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 224

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [10.46]: I move:

Page 108, clause 224, line 30. After "council", insert ", including the giving of directions on policy to the general manager between meetings of the council".

This amendment will enable the mayor to exercise policymaking functions and give directions on policy to the general manager between meetings of council. The aim is for the council to be a board of management and the general manager to be the hands-on administrator who administers council policy. It is essential when a policy matter is to be determined between council meetings that the mayor, and not the administrator, makes policy decisions. Administrators are not elected representatives and should not have a policy role. I believe in the sanctity of the Australian democratic process whereby people are elected to office every three years - and are thereby accountable to the electorate - to represent the community. Others - the administrators - implement policy decisions and carry out administrative and planning functions. The decision-makers should be elected officials. The general manager, the chief engineer and health and building surveyors are not elected officials and therefore are not accountable to the voters. The amendment is consistent with the aims of the legislation. Philosophically, policy decisions to be made between council meetings should be made by the mayor, not by the general manager.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [10.49]: I draw the attention of honourable members to the first dot point of clause 224 which states that the role of the mayor is:

to exercise, in cases of necessity, the policy-making functions of the governing body of the council between meetings of the council.

That power for the mayor to make those policy decisions in cases of necessity is exactly the same as the power he now has. The proposed amendment complicates the issue. It is an unnecessary expansion because it says, "including the giving of directions on policy to the general manager between meetings of the council". It is the role of the general manager to know council policy, but if he is unaware of it, the mayor, who has the power to make those decisions between meetings of the council, can give directions to the general manager on matters of policy. The proposed amendment is an unnecessary expansion because the power already exists in the clause. For that reason the Government opposes the amendment.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [10.50]: Though the Minister is perhaps not meaning to do so, he is misleading the Committee because the first dot point says that the mayor may exercise policy-making functions between council meetings and the amendment says that he shall give directions to the general manager on policy between meetings. The proposed amendment is different to the existing clause. The clause relates to what the mayor may do - in other words, he may exercise certain functions himself - but the proposed amendment moved by the honourable member for Coogee is different because it refers to giving directions to the general manager. I fully support the proposed amendment.

I echo the concerns raised in a whole range of submissions about the fact that there appears to have been some watering down of the powers under section 87 of the Act. Indeed, the submissions that have raised that matter in a sense have sought the recognition of the mayor as the chief executive officer of council, which provision is prescribed for in section 87 and should be retained. The mayor is the leader of the community. In the municipality of Manly a recent referendum determined that the mayor is to be popularly elected for four years. He will be Page 2122 seen as a leader in the community and should be given due recognition as such in terms of that power. The honourable member for Coogee by his amendment is seeking to clarify the role of the mayor in his relationship with the town clerk between meetings. In other words, the mayor will be able to give directions on policy to the general manager. That is appropriate. For the Minister to say that the amendment is unnecessary on the basis that it is already contained in the first dot point is not true.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [10.52]: When outlining his disagreement with my amendment, the Minister said that the terms of the amendment are already contained within the clause as it stands. The first dot point states:

to exercise, in cases of necessity, the policy-making functions of the governing body of the council between meetings of the council.

What are cases of necessity? Once it is said that there are cases of necessity, it follows that there must be cases of non-necessity. In which areas does the mayor have a policy-making power and in which areas does the general manager have a policy-making power between meetings?

Mr Peacocke: The general manager has no power.

Mr E. T. PAGE: That is not what the clause says. It says the mayor has the power in cases of necessity. Who has the power in the case of non-necessity? Presumably, it is the general manager. My amendment seeks to clarify that aspect and to provide that in respect of matters of policy the council has the power at council meetings or the mayor, not the general manager, has the power between meetings. Without the proposed amendment the clause does not say that. The clause says that the role of the mayor is to exercise that power in cases of necessity. Once the occasions on which he is given this power are qualified, it follows that there are other occasions when he does not have the power. This confusion will probably result in a legal battle at some stage between a general manager and a mayor. The legislation should be designed in such a way that court cases are not invited. I would be happy if the Minister were to remove the words "in case of necessity". If they were removed, in plain English the clause would read:

224.The role of the mayor is:

to exercise the policy-making functions of the governing body of the council between meetings of the council.

That would state the specific situation, and I would be pleased with that result.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [10.55]: I cannot accept that suggestion because it would destroy the effect of the clause. Honourable members must understand that the power vests in the whole council. The council delegates such powers as it wants to give to the mayor and he can exercise those delegated powers at any time. Council can delegate certain powers down to the general manager. The situation is quite clear. The reason the clause is expressed in the way that it is is to replicate the current situation with respect to the mayor. In between council meetings the mayor, in case of necessity, can make policy decisions, otherwise he must wait until the council meets before a decision can be made. The Act certainly does not give the general manager power to make policy decisions. In fact, the situation is the reverse: it is the council that makes the policy and the general manager who carries it out. The Government wants to make the Act uncomplicated, if it can.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [10.56]: I agree with the Government on this proposed amendment. I have given the matter a lot of thought. One of the problems in local government is that mayors take too much power unto themselves and build up cosy relationships with the administration in exercising that power. Too much discretion is given, sometimes in a discriminatory way, in favour of some service of council and against others. I have a lot of experience in observing that abuse of power. I believe the Government has the balance right on this occasion.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE UPON THE SYDNEY WATER BOARD

Message

Message sent to the Legislative Council informing it of the Legislative Assembly's resolution to establish a Joint Select Committee upon the Sydney Water Board, and requesting it to appoint four of its members to serve on such committee and to name the time and place for the first meeting.

LIQUOR (AMENDMENT) BILL

REGISTERED CLUBS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Bills read a third time.

The House adjourned at 10.59 p.m.

______

Page 2123

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following questions upon notice and answers were circulated in Questions and Answers:

POLICE OFFICERS CLARK, HANRAHAN, VINCENT AND BURDEN

Mr Face asked the Minister for Police -

(1) (a) Did a member of the NSW Police Force in 1989/90 supply information to the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission concerning a man named Ainsworth and a large number of New South Wales citizens including members or former members of the police force? (b) Was the information supplied of a nature that could not be sustained before any court or other properly constituted tribunal? (2) Was a large proportion of that information previously inquired into by courts or tribunals and found to be unprovable or completely untrue? (3) Was part of the information supplied to the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission an allegation of the improper purchase of poker machines by a leading New South Wales registered club? (4) (a) Have the police previously taken legal action of a criminal nature against a very senior employee of that club? (b) Has that case been dismissed? (5) Was the particular purchase of poker machines fully and properly inquired into by experienced persons from the Liquor Administration Board who found it to be a perfectly legitimate transaction involving no breach of the law? (6) (a) In 1986 was a Preliminary Report prepared by the Ombudsman concerning a person named Ainsworth which was issued to a restricted number of persons, including a Sergeant Hanrahan and Clark, on strict privacy conditions and not for public use? (b) Was this produced in a civil action in Puerto Rico by lawyers representing overseas gaming manufacturers to their advantage and the disadvantage of the New South Wales manufacturer Ainsworth? (7) Was Sergeant Clark in Puerto Rico for those court proceedings at that time? (8) Was some of the information contained in that preliminary report corrected, amended or deleted from the Ombudsman's Final Report issued later that year? (9) How many times did Sergeant Burden, a workmate of Sergeant Clark, make use of information contained in that Preliminary Report of the Ombudsman that had been corrected or deleted from his Final Report after the Final Report had been issued in an attempt to discredit other people? (10) (a) Since 1984 how many police officers or former police officers have been accused of misconduct or other impropriety by Sergeant Hanrahan and/or Sergeant Clark, under privilege? (b) How many of those allegations have been found to have any substance or resulted in any criminal or departmental conviction? (11) In all such cases have those allegations made by Sergeant Hanrahan and/or Sergeant Clark been made when they were defending themselves against criticism or misconduct on their part and never made at any other time? (12) In 1990 in the Supreme Court, did Detective Vincent unreservedly apologise to Ainsworth Nominees Pty Ltd and its principals for any embarrassment caused, harm suffered to the company's reputation and adverse inferences which may have arisen? (13) (a) Was leave given to Sergeant Clark in the Supreme Court in 1990 to read a statement in open court? (b) Was the effect of the statement that should Mr Ainsworth or any other person have gained the impression from the speech or press coverage of it, to the effect that such adverse comment was being made against him, Sergeant Clark wished to state unreservedly that such impression would be unfounded and wrong? (14) Was Sergeant Clark's visit to Puerto Rico in 1986 not official police business? (15) Did Sergeant Clark give evidence in a civil matter on behalf of the Puerto Rican Tourism Company with a person, Ainsworth being the plaintiff? (16) Did the Police Service pay Sergeant Clark's wages and allowances and did the Puerto Rican Tourism Company pay his airfares, travelling and out-of-pocket costs? (17) Is the question of Sergeant Clark's being in Puerto Rico the subject of an Ombudsman's inquiry? (18) If the matter of his going to Puerto Rico has not been referred to the Ombudsman, will he refer it to the Ombudsman's office for investigation?

Answer -

(1) (a) I have been advised that Detective Sergeant Clark supplied information to the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission concerning Ainsworth and others involved in and around the gaming industry. This included a number of former Police. (b) I understand the information supplied was not of an evidentiary nature. (2) No. (3) I am advised that the information supplied did not touch on this aspect. (4) and (5) The Club would have to be identified before any informed comment can be made. (6) (a) The former Ombudsman, Mr Masterman, granted permission for Sergeants Hanrahan Page 2124 and Clark to show the Preliminary Report to other people to enable them to fully answer or comment upon any questions or issues that arose out of the report. (b) Not to my knowledge. (7) Yes. (8) Yes. (9) As Mr Burden is no longer a police officer, an answer to this question cannot be provided. (10) (a) Not known. (b) Unknown. There are still reports on this matter outstanding and indeed I expect the Ombudsman to release a comprehensive report in due course. (11) See (10) above. (12) This is a matter of public record. (13) (a) No, but leave was granted to the Crown Solicitor. (b) The Crown Solicitor's representative read a prepared statement of which the quoted extract is only a portion. The entire statement needs to be read to put the matter in proper perspective. (14) The visit was undertaken with the approval of the then Commissioner of Police and Minister. (15) No. (16) The Puerto Rican Tourism Company paid a portion of the cost with the approval of the then Commissioner of Police. (17) Yes. (18) Not applicable.

INTERVIEW OF VICTORIAN MINISTERS BY DETECTIVE SERGEANTS CLARK AND HANRAHAN

Mr Face asked the Minister for Police -

(1) Did police officers Bob Clark and Lionel Hanrahan interview State ministers in Victoria? (2) If so: (a) For what reason? (b) When were these interviews conducted? (c) Where were such interviews conducted? (3) (a) During any interviews did Hanrahan indicate to Clark that they were getting the words on paper? (b) Was this statement designed to indicate that they were taking notes and not being taped? (4) (a) Was Minister Tresise taped? (b) Was it with the Minister's permission? (c) What procedures or obligations regarding taping were in place in the NSW Police Department at the time these interviews were taken? (5) (a) Were tapes used to interview Minister Matthews? (b) If so, for what reason? (c) What were the obligations and procedures operating in the NSW Police Department at the time of this alleged taping?

Answer -

(1) Yes. (2) (a) As part of their investigations into the activities of Mr Leonard Ainsworth. (b) In 1982. (c) Parliament House, Melbourne. (3) (a) The question is unclear and needs to be further clarified. (b) Not applicable. (4) (a) Yes. (b) No. (c) There was no policy in existence at that time regarding the taping of interviews. (5) (a) Yes. (b) Accurate recording purposes. (c) See (4)(c).