6984
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Friday 9 June 2000 ______
Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Henry Murray) took the chair at 10.00 a.m..
Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.
KU-RING-GAI CHASE NATIONAL PARK BUSHFIRE
Mr SPEAKER: Yesterday the Minister for Emergency Services made a ministerial statement in this House in relation to a tragedy in the Ku-ring-gai area. The shadow minister, the honourable member for Southern Highlands, and the honourable member for Hornsby, in whose electorate that tragedy occurred, also addressed the House. It is now appropriate for the House to acknowledge the tragedy by observing a minute's silence.
Members and officers of the House stood in their places.
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 6 June.
Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [10.02 a.m.]: Mr Speaker, I echo the comments made by you, by the Minister for Emergency Services and by the honourable member for Hornsby in relation to the tragedy that occurred in the northern area of Sydney. Many of us are aware of and recognise the terrific job that is done under difficult circumstances by officers from the National Parks and Wildlife Service in the Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park and the Garigal National Park. Our thoughts are with the families of those who have been hit by this terrible tragedy.
On behalf of the honourable member for Gosford and manager of Opposition business in this House, who is unavailable today, and the Hon. M. J. Gallacher, Leader of the Opposition in the other place and shadow Minister for Industrial Relations in the Legislative Council, I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Industrial Relations Amendment Bill. The Opposition is deeply concerned about the lack of notice it was given in respect of the Industrial Relations Amendment Bill. A great deal of reform has occurred in the industrial relations area, particularly under the former Minister, John Fahey. Since 1995, under the Carr Government, there has been a subsequent winding back of some of those initiatives and reforms. I acknowledge the work done at the Federal level by the Minister, Peter Reith, who has made substantial improvements to industrial relations legislation. We now have in place a better structure which facilitates workplace agreements and better relationships between employees and employers. The legislation also enables unions to play a role in those circumstances, where appropriate.
The Opposition's central concerns in relation to this legislation are the lack of notice that it has been given and the fact that this legislation seeks to reinforce, expand and entrench the role of unions in areas in which the Opposition does not believe unions should play a role. The effect of this legislation will be to wind back the progress that has been made in this State over the past decade. It will arm unions with legislative clubs and powers which ought not be given them in the first place and it will vest greater authority in the Industrial Relations Commission. I do not believe that appointees to the Industrial Relations Commission, because of their strong Labor Party and union affiliations, are regarded as being objective. Effectively, this legislation will create a framework which is targeted—albeit shrouded in sugar-coated rhetoric—at assisting unions and diminishing the legitimate role and relationship that should exist between employees and employers. In many respects, the bill is a legislative Trojan horse. The Coalition has great sympathy and support for some of the provisions in this legislation, but contained within it are also some fairly damaging powers which will have an adverse impact on many independent contractors and many employees and employers throughout New South Wales. This legislation, which is about reinstating the power of unions and recognising their influence, will disproportionately increase their influence. The overall tenor of this bill is against the 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6985 worldwide trend with respect to industrial relations. Because of the lack of notice that the Opposition was given, we are still consulting with stakeholders throughout the State to determine what impact the bill will have on those stakeholders.
After the passage of the bill through this House there is a strong likelihood that the Opposition will move a number of amendments in the upper House which will seek to remove or mitigate some of the powers intended to be given to unions and to amend clauses which will undermine the legitimate relationship which should exist between employees and employers. The Opposition will not oppose the transition of this legislation through the Legislative Assembly and it will not move any amendments in Committee. Most Opposition members have chosen to reserve their right to speak in debate on this bill in order to facilitate its passage through this House. The Opposition is not at all comfortable with this bill in its current form. The overview of the bill states:
The object of this Bill is to make a number of miscellaneous amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1996, including the following:
(a) to empower the Industrial Relations Commission to declare any class of persons (working as contractors but not under a contract of employment) to be employees for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Act … if it considers they would be more appropriately regarded as employees,
(b) to enable the parties to a project award or an award relating to a single employer (or to two or more associated employers) to agree to the award commencing retrospectively from any earlier date than the date of the commencement of proceedings for (or that give rise to) the award,
(c) to clarify the application of the "no net detriment" test in relation to the approval of enterprise agreements that apply to employees to whom a Federal award applies or to employees to whom no award (State or Federal) applies,
(d) to dispense with the requirement that the minimum term for which an enterprise agreement can be made to apply is 12 months,
(e) to extend to casual employees who work on a regular and systematic basis the entitlement to 12 months' unpaid maternity, paternity or adoption leave,
(f) to enable some employees covered by a Federal award to bring unfair dismissal claims before the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales,
(g) to extend the period of 6 months during which an injured worker cannot be dismissed because he or she is unfit for work to any longer period of accident pay to which the injured employee is entitled under an industrial instrument,
(h) to enable an employee, for whom the employer is required to make superannuation contributions to a fund designated by an industrial instrument, to revoke any nomination of the employee under section 124 of a different fund to which the contributions are to be paid,
(i) to dispense with the requirement that an employer must obtain the permission of the Industrial Registrar to keep employee records at a place other than the workplace,
(j) to confer a right of appeal to the Full Bench of the Commission against a decision of an Industrial Magistrate to dismiss proceedings for a civil penalty for a breach of an industrial instrument in addition to the existing right of appeal against a decision to impose such a penalty,
(k) to provide that in proceedings to enforce rights against victimisation there is to be a rebuttable presumption that any detrimental action taken against an employee was victimisation,
(l) to reduce the notice required to be given by an authorised industrial officer who wishes to enter premises to investigate industrial law breaches from 48 hours to 24 hours, but to allow a further period of 24 hours for a person to produce any records not kept on the premises,
(m) to provide that a non-judicial member of the Commission may only be removed from office in the same way as a judicial member, that is, by the Governor on the address of both Houses of Parliament.
I refer to feedback that the Opposition has received in the past 24 hours and indicate that concerns have been expressed to us by Australian Business, the Housing Industry Association and the Housing Industry Group. These views underscore the absence of wide community consultation on these changes and will increase concern, particularly amongst employers, both large and small. There is a need for thorough debate, with opportunity for stakeholders in the wider community to contribute, and for crossbench members in the other place to make amendments in the interests of both employers and employees, rather than solely the union movement in New South Wales. The Australian Industry Group indicated by way of a media release on 7 June, over the name of Mark Goodsell: 6986 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000
The NSW Government has bowed to the Trade Union agenda by introducing legislation into Parliament last night that will needlessly limit the use of genuine contract arrangements in NSW.
The Industrial Relations Amendment Bill 2000 will give the Industrial Relations Commission the power to declare independent contractors to be employees, thus attracting a whole raft of inappropriate and anti-growth regulation.
Companies and individuals who are currently operating under genuine contract arrangements will be sucked back into the award system and greater union influence.
Awards are designed to regulate the employment relationship, but some individuals and enterprises now legitimately rely on alternate arrangements that suit their changing needs.
Instead of changing to suit these realities, the NSW award system will now be stretched to cover new areas and limit the flexibility needed in the modern workplace.
It is ironic that the major effects of this will be more strongly felt in those industries that the Government sees as the future of growth in NSW.
The legislation also includes a number of other worrying provisions, including an unjustified extension to union rights to enter workplaces and unworkable paternity leave arrangements for casuals.
AI Group strongly opposes key aspects of the Bill and calls for it to be withdrawn until there is proper consultation with industry.
The Opposition agrees with that last point. There has not been proper consultation. We demand that the Government withdraws this bill or lets it sit on the table in this place and in another place to allow stakeholders such as the Australian Industry Group to have a legitimate opportunity to put their case not just to the Government but also to Opposition members of Parliament so there can be thorough consideration of all concerns. Several points raised in a press release need to be emphasised. They underscore the point I made earlier about attempts to introduce greater union influence in arrangements between companies and individuals who do not want or need that union influence. Over the past decade or two changes have been occurring in the industrial relations environment in this State and in Australia.
The bill is seeking to wind things back, trying to entrench the 1950s style union role that the Labor Council aspires to. Let us not forget that the Labor Council and many unions in New South Wales are not only involved directly and indirectly with the Labor Party but also fund the Labor Party very substantially. There is a need for greater flexibility rather than less in the modern workplace. The bill seeks to take away some of the flexibility that is available for employees and employers. The press release refers to the unjustified extension of union rights to enter workplaces. A union that has a minimal number of members or no members at all has no legitimate role entering a workplace. The current legislation contains a 48-hour provision that I think many members of the wider community would regard as unreasonable.
By reducing this time the legislation effectively will give unions an open door, and employers, large and small, will have no opportunity to refuse or delay entry, particularly when the purpose of that union access is solely industrial and intended to put pressure on employees to support union membership or compulsory unionism. That sort of intent, which is the province of many unions in the building industry, we cannot and will not support. I turn to concerns raised by the Housing Industry Association [HIA], which has not been consulted in any respect in relation to this bill. The HIA expressed surprise and concern to learn that the bill was introduced without notice in the lower House earlier this week. In a letter to the shadow minister the association referred to the speech on the second reading made by the honourable member for Newcastle:
… "each matter in the bill was discussed with the stakeholders, who again were invited to provide written comments outlining their views".
Then the letter went on:
HIA has never been consulted on the Bill or its subject matter. As an organisation representing the overwhelming majority of employers and independent contractors in the building industry it would be incredulous to suggest HIA is not a major stakeholder.
It is unbelievable that the HIA, a major stakeholder that represents many thousands of contractors and independent operators in the State, was never consulted on a bill that will directly undermine its rights. For the Government to assert that there has been consultation on this matter is absolute nonsense and blatantly untrue. There has not been widespread consultation with the stakeholders in New South Wales. There has been selective consultation with those stakeholders from whom the Government knows it will get support. Foremost amongst those stakeholders are the unions and the union movement in New South Wales. The letter from the HIA further stated: 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6987
…the community has the right to a robust debate on the subject matter of this Bill as it strikes at the heart of every hardworking Australian's right to run their own businesses. There is no doubt that a direct consequence of this Bill if enacted, will be an attack on the subcontract system in the housing industry and an associated diminution in housing affordability.
I concur with both of those points, which deserve reinforcement. Australians have the right to choose and they have the right to run their own businesses independent of unnecessary legislative control. With this bill the Government intends to take away many of their rights. The bill will have the effect, which has been completely ignored and which we intend to reinforce, of diminishing housing affordability because it will impose unreasonable costs on employers and independent operators and contractors. Those costs will then be passed on to home builders and people who build not only homes but other structures and developments throughout the State.
Housing costs have increased over the past 12 months, largely as a consequence of developments related to the Olympic Games. This bill provides for another impost to be foisted on home owners and prospective home owners across New South Wales. That is untenable. If independent operators and contractors in the building industry, as elsewhere, want to belong to a union, if they want the union to play a role in their relationship with employers and the terms and conditions under which they should operate—I assert that those terms and conditions should be flexible—they can choose to do so. However, the fact of the matter is that they do not want to belong to a union or have the union play a role in their relationship with employers. They have not chosen to do so in the past and they will not choose to do so in the future. The only way they will belong to a union is if it is imposed on them by the Government in this bill. The letter from HIA further stated:
It is also worth noting that there is an existing capacity for the Industrial Relations Commission to deal with these issues. Part 9 of the existing legislation Sections 106-116 gives the Commission in Court Session the power to declare contracts void and award compensation if the Commission finds that the Contract is an unfair contract. Sections 110-116 give the Commission the power to set minimum rates of remuneration for building workers and other types of workers consequent upon a finding that a contract is an unfair contract.
I concur with the concerns expressed by the HIA. Clearly, those concerns deserve to be emphasised because of the lack of consultation. The impact of this bill will be much greater than what the Government is prepared to admit, and it will be much more widespread than I suspect the Government even appreciates. At this point it is appropriate to question the lack of consultation with the wider community and the Opposition on this industrial relations bill. One must ask what the motive is. What has forced the Government to introduce this legislation in an inappropriate rush at this stage of the legislative session?
Earlier this week in the Legislative Council a letter from the National Union of Workers under the signature of the State secretary, Frank Belan, was referred to. Many honourable members would be aware of him. No doubt members opposite have a stronger relationship with Frank Belan than Coalition members. The letter was addressed to Eric Roozendaal, the Secretary of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party. Effectively, the letter seeks to blackmail the Government into making a move on industrial relations— witness this particular bill. Basically, he threatens that the National Union of Workers will withdraw its support, its affiliation with the Australian Labor Party and its financial contributions to the Labor Party unless the Government toes the line. There is no greater example of how this Labor Government is owned and controlled holus-bolus by the labour movement in this State. The first paragraph of the letter states:
Dear Eric
It is with regret that I have to inform you that the National Union of Workers, New South Wales Branch Committee of Management held a meeting on Monday 3rd April 2000 and directed me to inform you that our organisation is not re-affiliating with the ALP NSW Branch..
The letter further stated:
Also, before the last election, we requested that the Government introduce legislation regarding labor-hire agencies. They have refused to do this without the employer's agreement (none of whom vote ALP) and now want to have an inquiry into possible abuses of workers by labour hire agencies. The abuse of workers by agencies is a problem that needs to be fixed—not to have an enquiry about it.
In conclusion, at this stage it seems to me that what we are doing is paying hundreds and thousands of dollars per year for nothing. Accordingly, I am also resigning my position from the NSW Administrative Committee.
That final paragraph says it all. The National Union of Workers pays hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to the Labor Party to buy influence and legislative change. That threat was made in April. Two months later the Government bowed and introduced a bill that delivers precisely what was sought by Frank Belan. This mob is completely owned by labour unions in New South Wales. It depends on their support, resources, manpower and 6988 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000 financial support to operate. The unions own the Labor Party; when they said jump the Labor Party jumped. This bill delivers exactly what Frank Belan and many of his union mates want in New South Wales. I will now address a number of issues raised by the honourable member for Newcastle in the second reading speech. First, the honourable member talked about the Government's consultative approach to industrial relations matters. Mr THOMPSON (Rockdale) [10.27 a.m.]: I move:
That the question be now put. Mr Humpherson: There was an agreement that we would be allowed to debate this matter. We have had only one speaker. Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Beamer): Order! The question is: That the question be now put. I will now put the question. Mr Humpherson: We are entitled to debate this issue. Madam ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Davidson heard the honourable member for Rockdale move the motion. The question is: That the question be now put. All those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it; the ayes have it. Mr Humpherson: These are just Rafferty's rules. There was an agreement whereby we would debate this matter. The Government is gagging proper debate on the bill. Madam ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The Clerk will read the order of the day. Mr R. H. L. Smith: The question has not been put. Madam ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I put the question. If the Opposition Whip cannot hear me over the interjections— Mr R. H. L. Smith: We can't hear you. Madam ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! If the Opposition Whip could not hear me over the ramblings of the honourable member for Davidson, I will put the question again. The question is: That the question be now put. The House divided. Ayes, 34 Ms Allan Mr Greene Ms Saliba Mr Amery Mr Hickey Mr Scully Ms Andrews Mr Lynch Mr W. D. Smith Mr Ashton Mr McBride Mr Stewart Mr Bartlett Mr McManus Mr Tripodi Ms Beamer Mr Martin Mr Whelan Mr Black Ms Megarrity Mr Woods Mr Brown Mr Moss Mr Yeadon Mr Campbell Mr Nagle Mr Collier Ms Nori Tellers, Mr Crittenden Mr Orkopoulos Mr Anderson Mr Gaudry Mr E. T. Page Mr Thompson
Noes, 29 Mr Armstrong Mr McGrane Mr Souris Mr Brogden Mr Merton Mr Stoner Mr Collins Mr O'Doherty Mr Tink Mr Debnam Mr O'Farrell Mr Torbay Mr George Mr D. L. Page Mr R. W. Turner Mr Glachan Mr Piccoli Mr Webb Mr Humpherson Mr Richardson Mr Windsor Dr Kernohan Ms Seaton Tellers, Mr Kerr Mrs Skinner Mr Fraser Mr Maguire Mr Slack-Smith Mr R. H. L. Smith 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6989
Pairs
Mr Debus Mrs Chikarovski Mr Iemma Mr Hartcher Mr Knight Ms Hodgkinson Mr Mills Mr Rozzoli Mr Price Mr J. H. Turner
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Mr WHELAN: I seek leave to move the third reading forthwith.
Leave not granted.
In Committee
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee without amendment and report adopted.
Third Reading
Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Minister for Police) [10.40 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [10.41 a.m.]: Mr Speaker—
Mr THOMPSON (Rockdale) [10.41 a.m.]: I move:
That the question be now put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 34
Ms Allan Mr Greene Ms Saliba Mr Amery Mr Hickey Mr Scully Ms Andrews Mr Lynch Mr W. D. Smith Mr Ashton Mr McBride Mr Stewart Mr Bartlett Mr McManus Mr Tripodi Ms Beamer Mr Martin Mr Whelan Mr Black Ms Megarrity Mr Woods Mr Brown Mr Moss Mr Yeadon Mr Campbell Mr Nagle Tellers, Mr Collier Ms Nori Mr Crittenden Mr Orkopoulos Mr Anderson Mr Gaudry Mr E. T. Page Mr Thompson 6990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000
Noes, 31
Mr Armstrong Mr Maguire Mr Souris Mr Brogden Mr Merton Mr Stoner Mr Collins Mr Oakeshott Mr Tink Mr Debnam Mr O'Doherty Mr Torbay Mr George Mr O'Farrell Mr R. W. Turner Mr Glachan Mr D. L. Page Mr Webb Mr Hazzard Mr Piccoli Mr Windsor Mr Humpherson Mr Richardson Tellers, Dr Kernohan Ms Seaton Mr Kerr Mrs Skinner Mr Fraser Mr McGrane Mr Slack-Smith Mr R. H. L. Smith
Pairs
Mr Debus Mrs Chikarovski Mr Iemma Mr Hartcher Mr Knight Ms Hodgkinson Mr Mills Mr Rozzoli Mr Price Mr J. H. Turner
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Question—That this bill be now read a third time—put.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
BILL RETURNED
The following bill was returned from the Legislative Council without amendment:
Intoxicated Persons Amendment Bill
REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF Mr AND Mrs DOWNIE
Privilege
Mr KERR (Cronulla) [10.50 a.m.]: On a matter of privilege. It affects my duties as a member of Parliament to have questions answered. I draw the attention of the House to question upon notice No. 664, which has not been answered despite the fact that the time allowed has expired.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will draw that matter to the attention of the relevant Minister. WORKPLACE INJURY MANAGEMENT AND WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT (PRIVATE INSURANCE) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 7 June. Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [10.52 a.m.]: I lead on behalf of the Opposition on the bill. The object of the bill is to amend the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 in two primary ways:
(a) to defer, to a date to be appointed by the Governor by order published in the Gazette, the coming into operation of arrangements for the private underwriting of workers compensation insurance, and
(b) to authorise the making of regulations to modify the operation of the insurance provisions of the Act, with any such regulations to be automatically revoked 12 months after the coming into operation of the private insurance underwriting arrangements … 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6991
The Opposition will not introduce amendments in this place, and will not oppose the bill passing through this House. However, as a result of consultation with stakeholders, it reserves the right to move, in the Legislative Council, amendments which are at present the subject of consultation and consideration. The amendments would freeze existing workers compensation premium levels and/or place a cap on workers compensation premiums in New South Wales for a period of time yet to be determined. The Opposition is concerned because despite the promise during the past five years in relation to workers compensation, and the debt that is approaching $2 billion that is the responsibility of the Carr Government, little has been done to bring that debt under control. Therefore, the taxpayers of New South Wales will be seriously exposed to the tune of approximately $1,000 per family or employers of New South Wales will be saddled with a potential debt which at this point is not on their balance sheets. The Government has proceeded incompetently, to say the least, in relation to private underwriting. The Minister for Industrial Relations has been unable to bring it under control. He has foisted it on to the Hon. J. J. Della Bosca, who has said that because of his massive legislative workload and portfolio responsibilities—two or three—he has also been unable to do anything, apart from play for time. The Auditor-General said that the $2 billion ought to be on the books of the Government, and that is an appropriate interpretation. If that were the case perhaps the Government would take it a little more seriously and look at innovative ways to bring the debt under control. Private underwriting is not necessarily the sole panacea; the Government should consider other initiatives. In the limited time available the Opposition has received indications from stakeholders in the State in relation to the delay. The Insurance Council of Australia Ltd [ICA] wrote: Insurers were extremely disappointed at the Government's decision to further delay the introduction of competitive underwriting to the NSW workers' compensation scheme …
ICA General Manager, Statutory Classes, Dallas Booth, said insurers had invested millions of dollars and considerable resources and were ready to underwrite the scheme from October 1. The Government has given the impression to industry employers, particularly the major stakeholder, the Insurance Council, that it would be progressive from October. The Insurance Council and its membership has obviously paid a lot of money preparing for this transition and now it has been let down by the Government. The Minister for Emergency Services made a number of suggestions and said "competitive underwriting would have meant sharp increases in premiums". The ICA strongly rejected those suggestions, and wrote: Insurers (who currently manage claims on behalf of WorkCover) have had in place for the last two years innovative injury management and return to work procedures, which were already showing tangible benefits and scheme costs were continuing to come down.
Insurers would have taken over the future risk from the State Government. This scheme is expected to be $2 billion in debt by June 30, and is losing $1 million a day. Deferral means the debt will continue to accumulate and hang over employers' heads. The Opposition is concerned about the Government's inability to address and rectify the workers compensation problem and the debt. Deferring the debt will inevitably mean that it will accrue to taxpayers or employers in one form or another. It could be brought down in the long term by increased premiums being passed on to employers which will affect unemployment and the viability of businesses in this State. Mr Booth continued: The insurance industry believes competitive underwriting has to be part of the solution and we will continue to talk with Minister Della Bosca and the Government to achieve this outcome. I commend the ICA for its patience and its preparedness to work with the Government and the Minister, although it had little choice, and it is obviously trying to take a positive approach to a very frustrating set of circumstances. I have also received feedback from Australian Business Ltd that does not have such a deep concern about deferral of private underwriting of workers compensation, but it indicated:
On balance we still believe private underwriting, including the introduction of limited price competition, provides the best opportunity for sustaining lower premium levels and for providing financial rewards for employers with better OH&S practices. Clearly, until the Government is prepared to take the necessary step, many employers, big and small, who are doing the right thing in trying to bring their exposure down and improve their practices in relation to employees will be disadvantaged. Many other employees are not doing the right thing. One result of a degree of competition is to ensure that those who have poor practices and are not doing the right thing by their employees, or who do not implement better practices than they have in the past, will face tough financial disincentives. I conclude at this point because, partly, of the request of the Leader of the House that the Opposition facilitate a number of bills through this House. However, I reiterate that this bill may well be the subject of thorough debate in the upper House so that the Opposition may deal with the views of stakeholders throughout the industry— both employees and employers. In the other place the Opposition may well consider moving amendments and seek the support of crossbenchers for them. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages. 6992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION (GST) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 7 June.
Mr DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [11.02 a.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose the bill, but, because of the very short time we have to consider and debate it this morning, we will continue our review of it and may raise further concerns in the other place at a later time. The objects of the bill are fairly straightforward. They are designed to give effect to the intergovernmental agreement on the reform of Commonwealth-State financial relations, and to amend a number of Acts and statutory instruments as a consequence of the imposition of the goods and services tax [GST]. The bill details the changes. I received a briefing on the bill by Treasury staff, and I note that no unexpected tax changes are proposed by the bill—that is the advice I have received—and that the bill makes a number of detailed amendments to various items, including stamp duty.
One point I wish to make is that the various amendments to other Acts do not change the position with stamp duty on properties. Effectively, in New South Wales the Carr Government will still be applying stamp duties on properties post GST, effectively a tax on a tax. The Opposition has raised that matter a number of times, because that tax impacts home buyers across all areas of the State. It is clearly an inappropriate tax, considering that this Government is reaping record revenue from taxes in New South Wales. This was an opportunity for the Government to insert in the bill a provision to remove that atrocious tax on a tax aspect of stamp duty that is to apply from 1 July.
I will make a couple of other points extremely quickly. This bill is instructive in that it incorporates the intergovernmental agreement put in place last year. I have made the point in this House a number of times that the signature page of that agreement notes that the agreement was signed by Premier Bob Carr on 24 June 1999. This is the GST bill. Bob Carr raced down to Canberra in June last year and became the first Premier in Australia to sign the GST agreement. This bill sets out the signing dates, showing that in the week from 24 June 1999 all other Premiers followed Bob Carr's lead. So "Beep Beep" Bob rushed down the highway to get his signature on the GST agreement as quickly as possible, because he knows it delivers considerable revenues and a growth tax to New South Wales.
I make the point again that when GST comes to New South Wales there is only one perception of the debate: that is that Bob Carr really is the biggest hypocrite in New South Wales on this tax. He was the first to sign for it, he benefits from it, and he has taken every opportunity to abuse it. I think it is fair to say that we have a very clear picture of what he and to some extent the Labor Party across Australia are doing with the GST. The community has spoken on this tax reform issue, and the Coalition put up a tax reform proposal that the community accepted. There is a very clear message in Australia: the community and the Coalition are for tax reform. Clearly, the Labor Party is simply for tax cheats. Under the current system, the Labor Party is only interested in making sure that all those who do not pay tax today continue to get away with it. That is a point that we need to remember. On one hand, the Carr Government is out there signing the agreement at the first available opportunity; on the other hand, it is trying to attack tax reform. The Carr Government is hypocritical. I would like to comment on the implementation of the tax reform arrangements from 1 July. For the past few days there has been some debate about another matter that would be close to the hearts of many honourable members of this House and many members of our community, and that is low-alcohol beer. It is outrageous that at the moment New South Wales is the only State that has decided to rip off light beer drinkers. Tasmania was obviously thinking about doing that, but yesterday announced it would not. That leaves New South Wales out on a limb. In that respect I quote a press release issued by the Federal Treasurer yesterday. It makes the point that New South Wales is ripping off the New South Wales community and states, in part:
NSW is now isolated in its attempt to gain a financial windfall at the expense of public health by pocketing the revenue it receives to fund low alcohol beer subsidies.
NSW is now the only State acting in bad faith by attempting to withdraw the subsidy and pocket the money at the expense of public health. NSW should now fall into line with all the other States and maintain its [low alcohol beer] subsidies. This is not just a matter of ripping off people in New South Wales with effectively another tax to give the Carr Government more revenue; it is also a public health matter. For more than 20 years governments in New South Wales have been fighting hard to get the road toll down. But what does the Carr Government do? It will remove the subsidy on low-alcohol beer, thereby removing the incentive of drinkers to buy that beer. I hope we do not see the effects of that in the road toll in future years. I call on the Government to change its attitude on that 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6993 subsidy on low-alcohol beer, and maintain it post 1st July. This Government is not serving the community of New South Wales if it removes that subsidy. With those few points, as I said at the outset, the Opposition will not oppose the bill. We will, however, continue to review it and we will raise any further concerns in the other place.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES (FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 7 June.
Mr DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [11.10 a.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Public Authorities (Financial Arrangements) Amendment Bill but, because of the short time scale that is available to review it, the Opposition will continue to review it and raise in the other place any concerns it has. The Opposition might have a number of further questions. The overview of the bill is as follows:
The object of this Bill is to amend the Public Authorities (Financial Arrangements) Act 1987 ... to establish a comprehensive system of arrangements for the control of authorities of the State in entering into and maintaining certain financial and other arrangements.
The Bill:
(a) extends the coverage of the Act to entities that are covered by the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, Ministers and State owned corporations, as well as to entities prescribed by regulations, and
(b) provides that generally all such entities are "authorities" for the purposes of the whole Act, and
(c) provides that the Act generally overrides provisions in other Acts that would authorise authorities to enter into such arrangements ...
The bill will also make a number of other amendments which I will not go through in detail as they are set out in the overview of the bill. The bill will clean up a number of administrative arrangements that, clearly, we all agree should have been cleaned up some time ago. In his second reading speech the Minister made a number of further points. He said:
The intention of the PAFA Act is to be the sole source of legal authority in respect of authorities covered by it.
The Minister then made this important point:
Some authorities have power to enter into joint ventures without the need for approval of the Treasurer, because the particular arrangements do not come within the PAFA Act, or the agencies' own enabling legislation provides for the arrangements. By entering into joint ventures with the private sector, an agency can expose the State to contingent liabilities. It is appropriate that such arrangements only be entered into when the Treasurer is satisfied as to the allocation of risks in relation to the transaction. These amendments expand the types of financial arrangements covered by the PAFA Act to provide that all agencies must obtain the Treasurer's approval to enter into joint ventures.
I understand that the Government is considering a number of different ways of moving into joint ventures. That is a critical issue in this House, considering the Government's record on financial management and exposure to contingent liabilities. This Government probably has the worst record in recent decades of any government in managing public sector businesses and financial exposure. Recently questions were asked in this House and in the other place about Integral Energy, and there has been limited debate on that issue. That is an example of this Government, through its maladministration, having exposed New South Wales taxpayers to a loss of $200 million. Integral Energy does not stand alone in New South Wales.
There are numerous examples of how this Government, through its lack of attention to government businesses and its refusal to put in place proper financial management legislation, is exposing taxpayers to further contingent liabilities. On a number of occasions I have told Treasury officials in briefings that the Opposition is extremely concerned about the statement made by the Secretary of the Treasury to an upper House review committee that the financial management legislation for New South Wales will not be overhauled and presented to the Parliament for three to four years. That is simply unacceptable. Every year for the past three or 6994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000 four years the Parliament has grappled with a number of technical difficulties relating to the Appropriation Bill and cognate bills and the expenditure of moneys year to year, and the Government has enacted retrospective legislation. They are technical issues.
Financial management legislation in New South Wales is clearly a couple of decades out of date. That has been acknowledged in several reports and in the Treasury report, and it is currently the subject of an upper House inquiry. Treasury simply needs to act. All we have had from this Government is further procrastination. I say again that this Government must totally update the financial management legislation in New South Wales. What we are seeing today is simply part of a clean-up; it does not address the whole issue. I understand that Treasury is in a position to put forward that legislation, and it should do it. It should be presented to this Parliament so that this Parliament can properly assess the financial exposure of taxpayers before we see more examples of Integral Energy and other entities racking up losses of hundreds of millions of dollars.
It will be easy for the Carr Government over the remaining two years and nine months of its life to expose this State's taxpayers to contingent liabilities of close to $1 billion, and that is before we look at what the Carr Government has done with $830 million of taxpayers' funds. It put $830 million of taxpayers' funds into a re-election slush fund—one of the most outrageous acts ever perpetrated in this State. With a sleight of hand the Treasurer established a Labor Party re-election fund using $830 million of taxpayers' money. That is clearly wrong. That money must to be removed from that account and used to retire debt.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
DAIRY INDUSTRY BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 8 June. Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [11.18 a.m.]: This extremely important piece of legislation will obviously have an enormous impact on a major and historical industry in this State and it will affect many towns across New South Wales. Scarcely a household does not come into contact with the dairy industry—the producer of a major foodstuff. Let me refer briefly to the history of the dairy industry—an issue that has been raised by a number of honourable members in heated debate on this legislation. The Government must be aware of its involvement in this issue from a political point of view. In 1976, when the Wran Government came to power and the then Minister for Agriculture was Mr Don Day, there were over 7,000 dairy producers in New South Wales. In 2000, when once again the Labor Party is in government, there are 1,800 milk producers in New South Wales. The Labor Party is now intent on finishing off the job. It has already reduced the number of dairy farmers from 7,000 to 1,800 but it wants to reduce that number to about 900. The irony is that the dairy industry has responded magnificently by improving its production capacity, technological investment and management practices. Many revolutions have occurred in the industry in those interceding years. Much of the credit for production in earlier years should be given to a former Liberal Party member of the Legislative Council, the late Joe Calcraft, who brought the first Canadian blood friesians into Australia, which gave Australian cattle an enormous surge. Feeding techniques have improved and a new dairy is being built in the western suburbs of Sydney at a cost of more than $12 million. It will milk 2,000 cows up to three times a day, 365 days a year. That is an enormous production figure. Heifers are giving up to 28 or 30 litres every milking, and these production figures are unheard of. I am going through this, one, to get the history straight and, two, to point out that the industry has been extraordinarily efficient despite the fact that under successive Labor governments there has been a continual erosion of the number of people in the industry. The current process of deregulation commenced as a result of an intrusion of Victorian milk into New South Wales in the early 1980s. In about 1982 there were physical blockades of Victorian milk in the western suburbs of Sydney, and dairy farmers and many people in the industry went out there to prevent that milk from coming into Sydney. That was a very difficult time. It was frightening, with farmer pitted against farmer and decent person pitted against decent person. Out of that evolved what was known as the Kerin plan. John Kerin was a Labor Minister in the Federal Government and he established the Kerin plan to deregulate the Australian dairy industry. That was the start. 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6995
It must be recognised that there is a big difference between the Victorian and New South Wales industries. The Victorian industry is primarily a producer of manufacturing milk. That is, milk for the manufacture of cheese, yoghurt and dairy desserts—that myriad of wonderful dairy products. About 70 per cent of the Victorian industry's production is for manufacturing and, consequently, the Victorian industry is a holistic seasonal industry. It is not a 12-months-of-the-year industry. The industry in New South Wales is just about the reverse. More than 70 per cent of the milk produced in New South Wales is for fresh drinking and immediate use. It is not manufacturing milk.
A differentiation in price has been established for two reasons. One is that milk in New South Wales has to achieve certain qualities to be used as drinking milk, and a price has been established for that. The second reason is that the New South Wales industry milks 365 days a year. It is a constant industry, as opposed to the seasonality of Victoria's industry. That gives honourable members an indication of the differences in the industries, and they will have some appreciation of the conflict that occurred in the late 1970s and through the 1980s that led to the so-called Kerin plan.
What happened to the Kerin plan? It was adopted by the Australian dairy industry. The Australian Dairy Industry Council was headed by Mr Pat Rowley at that time, and it still is. He is a wonderful gentleman. Various State bodies—Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania—were all adhering, and still are, to the Australian Dairy Industry Conference. Over the years the process of deregulation has been requested by the dairy industry itself and successive governments have gone down this path. But—and I emphasise this—it is important to understand that no previous New South Wales Government has ever contemplated deregulating the dairy industry behind the farm gate. What does "behind the farm gate" mean? It means that a price would be guaranteed to farmers when the bottle, can or truck of milk left their farm gates; the price was guaranteed when milk left the farmers' possession and went into the possession of the processors. No other government has ever attacked that except this Labor Government.
There are two questions before us today, but the primary one is deregulation of what? To take away the guaranteed price for farmers at the farm gate. It is simple. All the debate that has gone on for days is rhetorical. It is a simple question: Why has this Government seen fit to attack that safety net that has led to an industry being so efficient? More than two-thirds of the producers in the industry left between 1976 and 1990. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of technology has been brought in. The world's best bloodlines of milking cows have been brought in. We have some of the highest-producing cows in the world. Last night the honourable member for Southern Highlands went through the names of some of the old dairy producers—people like the Chitticks and others. Those people have been the backbone of the dairy industry for years. Those people have cows with the best bloodlines in the world. Yet, the safety net that has made this industry so successful is about to be taken away.
Let us get the facts on the record. It is Friday and I suspect this bill will go through because of the numbers; so, we are going to have a deregulated industry and I come now to the second question. Accepting that there is a certain inevitability about the process, there is also an inevitable outcome, and that is an extraordinary social dislocation and financial stress on many dairy farmers and their families. This has been enunciated by the Minister in his second reading speech, and several times in Parliament he has projected horrific figures, of the price being cut by one half, or certainly by one-third, and 1,800 farmers will find themselves disenfranchised from their businesses because of the lack of government regulation.
What has not been addressed properly is the accepted fact that every permanent job supports another three or four jobs. Let us say that the dairy industry will lose 600 dairy farmers. Using the multiplier factor of four, 2,500 people will be put out of jobs in the State. That is another reason why I chose to speak this morning. I was staggered last night during the estimates committee when the Minister for Regional Development was asked what plans did he, as Minister for Regional Development, have to address the social dislocation and lack of jobs and the lack of productivity in many of our traditional dairying towns—towns such as Dorrigo, Kempsey and Bega, to name a few. He said that has nothing to do with regional development and he would defer the question to the Minister for Agriculture. There are no plans at all. He dumped it back on his colleague the Minister for Agriculture.
Regional development is all about, one, protecting existing jobs; two, growing those industries; and, three, bringing further infrastructure in to support those regions. Last night the Minister for Regional Development said the dairy industry would diminish considerably but he had no plans at all to assist the dislocated dairy farmers or the towns that will be dramatically affected. The Minister for Agriculture has recently announced a couple of million dollars to assist in some retraining for dairy farmers. We should all 6996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000 realise there is virtually no assistance at all to help dairy farmers or those who are dependent on them. There is the Federal Government package, which is being underwritten by the Federal Government. That money, essentially, is extracted from the broader public and from the dairy farmers themselves to provide some assistance to dairy farmers. However, it is the support communities that I am so concerned about this morning.
Why is there so much pressure on dairy farmers and therefore the people who depend on them? Because of the predatory actions of wholesalers and retailers, who are taking advantage of the situation. Questions have been asked in Parliament this week about this matter and nobody has the answer, because in many ways our wholesalers and retailers are out of control when it comes to dividing the primary producers in general, and in this case the dairy farmers in particular, and striking at their weakest point. They know that they have no collective muscle at all. They know that when this legislation passes through the Parliament, probably today, individual dairy farmers will have no muscle at all.
Predators are circling like hawks on a sunny morning over the dead, decomposing carcass of the New South Wales dairy industry. They are waiting to strike, and they are striking. What do they do when they strike? They use milk and its products, often in retailing, as lost litres. As I said earlier, they know that every household in New South Wales, give or take, uses dairy products. What a wonderful way to get people into shops and supermarkets—dairy products, eggs, bread and milk! They are the essential staffs of life, and every house has them. Yet we are seeing Australian versus Australian; big business is flogging individual dairy farmers because it can see an opportunity to take advantage of a situation brought about by successive Labor governments and a process that has been continuing for 20-odd years.
What I am saying is simply this. First, we recognise that the bill is a major attack on the dairy industry and that it will probably be passed by this House. I believe the Government is totally unprepared for the social and economic consequences of the passage of this bill. I believe also that the Government is being derelict in its duty in not addressing the predatory action of wholesalers and retailers, who are taking advantage of a situation—a situation that was completely unintended when the deregulation process started back in 1986—to avoid bloodshed between New South Wales and Victoria, and bloodshed was threatened in those days. If the Government were a responsible government it would provide some answers. First, how will the Government support towns and the jobs in those towns that depend on the dairy industry? Second, how does it propose to get the greedy predators off the back of the New South Wales dairy industry?
Mr SLACK-SMITH (Barwon) [11.31 a.m.]: I oppose the Dairy Industry Bill. The bill will have a dramatic effect on the fifth largest agricultural industry in Australia and, indeed, in New South Wales. I suppose the big question is: If it ain't broke why fix it? The Victorian decision to deregulate the milk industry has dragged all the other States into the same situation. The desire of the Victorian dairy industry to capture a greater share of the Australian domestic market, the sunset clause in the Victorian domestic market support scheme, which expires at the end of this month, and World Trade Organization agreements have resulted in a push for deregulation of the farm gate price for market milk. The genesis of the dairy industry deregulation process, which began in 1986, was the Kerin plan, to which the industry agreed. One could say that the seeds were sown in 1986 by John Kerin. John Kerin was the worst Federal agriculture Minister on any side of politics. He totally destroyed the Australian wool industry.
The Kerin plan will now have a dramatic effect on an efficient, world-leading dairy industry. The Kerin plan gave the industry 14 years to become internationally competitive in producing bulk commodity dairy products. Dairy Farmers in Victoria embraced the challenge and increased production from 3.5 billion litres to more than seven billion litres in that time. In recent years the Victorian industry has made it clear that it is no longer prepared to tolerate the commercial disadvantage inflicted on it by continued market milk regulation. At the 1998 United Dairy Farmers conference in Victoria delegates voted to deregulate the dairy industry. I think the Victorian dairy farmers were conned by the processors and the retailers; they were promised lucrative markets in New South Wales. I believe they were told that if the industry was not deregulated they would be sent down the gurgler because the processors refused to pay a decent price per litre of milk.
As a consequence, the States and the Dairy Industry Council approached the Federal Government for assistance with deregulation. The Federal Government has provided a $1.7 billion adjustment package to assist the dairy industry throughout Australia with the deregulation process. In New South Wales that equates to $193,000 per average farm over eight years. It is interesting to note that the assistance package is not being funded by the Federal Government; it is being funded by the producers. So to call the package a Federal compensation package is a furphy. It is a compensation package funded by the producers; the Federal Government is simply acting as the broker or banker. Over the next eight years 11¢ of the farm gate price will 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6997 go towards the compensation package. Effectively, dairy farmers are paying for their own adjustment package. A ballot of dairy farmers in Victoria and in New South Wales was held. I still believe the dairy farmers were conned, simply because the question stated, "If you vote no, you will not get the deregulation package so you must vote yes; and if you don't vote yes you will not get any adjustment assistance and deregulation will go ahead anyway." I still believe that the dairy farmers were pushed into this situation.
The current State regulatory arrangements for the dairy industry include the vesting of milk in the New South Wales Dairy Corporation, farm gate price setting for market milk and supply management arrangements, including health and quality control issues. All States have deregulated post the farm gate successively over the past few years. The New South Wales dairy industry comprises two sectors: first, the market milk, which is the fresh drinking milk we have every day; and, secondly, manufactured products such as cheese, powdered milk, yoghurt, UHT and ice-cream. Market milk is supported by a quota system, whereby farmers receive a guaranteed 53¢ per litre. Post 1 July that will fall to as low as 27¢ to 30¢ a litre. This will cut in half the incomes of many farmers.
New South Wales produces about 603 million litres of market milk annually and 639 million litres of manufacturing milk, cheese and other dairy products. It is estimated that deregulation will result in 600 of the 1,800 dairy farmers in New South Wales being put out of business and going to the wall. However, with expected lower prices, which seem more likely every day, deregulation could result in 50 per cent of New South Wales dairy farmers walking off their farms. Deregulation will affect not only the local dairy industry. My electorate of Barwon is one of the main grain growing areas in Australia. Many farmers in my area have contracts with the dairy industry to supply grain all year round at a certain price. Suddenly farmers in my electorate have found that they no longer have markets, and they are lumbered with a product they cannot sell.
The Opposition is pursuing a State-based structural adjustment support scheme for the dairy industry— it is virtually a let-down adjustment scheme—which would enable dairy farmers to adjust their businesses and survive in the future. The Minister has said that he does not agree with the introduction of such a scheme and that it is definitely not on. However, the Government provided a package valued at $90 million in relation to the deregulation of the egg industry. It provided a package valued at $80 million to the timber industry.
Mr Amery: But there was only one package in the egg industry, not two.
Mr SLACK-SMITH: That is all we are looking at.
Mr Amery: Now you are looking at two packages?
Mr SLACK-SMITH: No. One is for the farmers. That is the Federal package. People claim that it is a Federal package, but the farmers are paying for it. All the Coalition wants the Government to do is to give the farmers a bit of a hand, to let them down gently. In a press release issued on 8 June Reg Smith of the New South Wales Dairy Farmers Association said he recognised the Opposition's worthy efforts to get extra State help to New South Wales dairy farmers.
Mr Amery: That is a selective quote.
Mr SLACK-SMITH: I have heard the Minister make selective quotes as well, so I am simply copying him. The Minister said that he has approached the Federal Government in relation to a national re-regulated floor price for Australian dairy farmers. That is a joke. The Hon. Warren Truss, the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has referred to "Labor's cruel hoax on dairy farmers". In his press release Mr Reg Smith went on to say that a Federal step-down floor price for milk will not get the support of the Victorian industry and therefore it is flat. There is no way in the world the Victorians would accept that. What is wrong with giving farmers a hand? What is wrong with giving farmers the same assistance that the Minister gave the timber industry and the egg industry? They will not need help forever. It is let-down assistance. It is not earth- shattering stuff; it has been done before. The ball is in the Minister's court. It is time the Government gave at least one sector of the rural and regional industries in New South Wales a fair go.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [11.42 a.m.]: I am pleased to have the opportunity to express my concerns about this bill. I strongly support the proposed Federal package. With the support of the State Minister, I hope the State Government will provide compensation and support in an adjustment package. These are dark days for an industry which has been very successful over the last decade, particularly on the North Coast. Over the past 10 years the dairy farming industry has been both successful and popular not only for farmers but for 6998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000 local communities in towns such as Wingham and Wauchope. The bill will lead to yet another significant change for the farming industry on the North Coast. The traditional industries—timber, commercial fishing, dairy farming and, to a lesser degree, beef—have all gone through a major revolution over the last five years, and that is taking its toll on many local farmers and local communities. These are dark and difficult days for farming and industry on the mid North Coast. Like it or not, we are moving into an era of market forces and market control. This is the brave new world of farming in New South Wales and, indeed, in Australia.
The fate of the dairy industry, and the North Coast dairy industry in particular, is now fairly and squarely in the consumers' hands; the consumer will decide. Bearing in mind what has been said in this debate, I urge everyone—not only those on the North Coast but the people of New South Wales generally—to drink more milk, and to drink more local milk. Those on the mid North Coast desperately need to promote the consumption of locally produced milk. Regardless of the broader debates about packages, having regard to the changes that are taking place I urge the State Government, through the Minister, to support the provision of proper labelling. Consumers need to be given the opportunity to decide at retail level whether they will support local dairy farmers. For example, over the past six to 12 months the Hastings co-operative has successfully marketed itself as the producer of the product with the green top. The company has enjoyed increased sales, because local people are willing to pay the 15¢ to 20¢ more per litre to back local farmers in a local industry.
Notwithstanding that, how will the processors and companies supplied by local dairy farmers survive? How will consumers know whether they are still supporting local dairy farmers? Through the Minister and the State Government, local consumers should be given the opportunity to decide, if necessary, whether to pay 15¢ or 20¢ a litre more for their milk. They should be made aware that they are backing a local industry, their local community, local jobs and local farmers. That is the problem we are facing with government at all levels in this era of competition. I question whether we are entering an era of true competition. If we are not, everything starts to fall apart at the edges. There is vertical and horizontal integration. In the past the Minister himself has been critical of the relationship between supermarkets and the dairy industry. I hope that if we are to enter an era of true competition, people in the middle will not take over and create market monopolies for themselves.
As I have said, consumers should be given the opportunity to decide. There is a real fear in the community that generic products will dominate the marketplace. I can see it already at the retail level. The generic brands are undercutting others and are doing their darnedest to grab control of the market. They will dominate the future of the industry. That is not true competition. At the moment consumers are not worried so much about the price of products. It is not price driven; it is market driven. The Minister has identified that problem on other occasions. I hope that he would allow consumers to decide whether to support local industry over generic brands. Several years ago there was debate about rural impact statements and social impact statements being attached to Cabinet briefs. I hope that the Minister in his reply will provide an outline of the social impact assessment of this bill on the dairy industry. The broad criticism of the era of full competition is that the public interest and social impacts are not being taken into consideration. In my view Fred Hilmer, who produced the Hilmer review nearly a decade ago, is a somewhat misunderstood man.
In one sentence Fred Hilmer made the point that competition is good but only if it is in the public interest. Governments at all levels have adopted the first part of that sentence but have completely forgotten the second part. Hilmer was right in saying that competition is good but only if it is in the public interest. Over the past 10 years since the review was undertaken, has any government at any level provided a definition of the public interest? Why is there a National Competition Council when there should be a national public interest council? We seem to adopt competition imperatives regardless of the public interest, and the New South Wales dairy industry is just another example of that. Community and social impacts have not been taken into consideration.
Whereas on a broad national scale there is future potential for the production of more milk and big milk suppliers in a brave new world, where in that process have the impacts of deregulation on communities such as Wingham or Wauchope been defined? When has it been decided by a government at any level that having a few larger producers of milk is better than having many smaller producers who are contributing to a local community? I would be very interested to hear the Minister respond to those issues. More important, I hope that consideration of those issues formed part of the social impact assessment of the brief he submitted to Cabinet.
If the industry is entering into a market-driven future, I hope that the Government and the Minister do everything possible to create a level playing field and sort out market monopolies of which so much criticism has been made, such as major retail chains fighting hard for market control. I hope that through the legislative process, the budget process or through bureaucratic administration, complete fairness can be achieved by 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6999 creating vertical and horizontal equality in the industry. If New South Wales is going down a market-driven dairy industry path, then the process must be done properly so that there is a fair and level playing field for those who participate in the industry. I have grave concerns about the politics underlying the national floor price proposal. I believe this is an unfortunate political move by the Government which is more about politics than it is about reality. All honourable members know that the Commonwealth Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to control the dairy industry.
Mr Amery: But it will from 1 July. There is a new bill.
Mr OAKESHOTT: No. The Federal Government will not control it; the Federal Government is co- ordinating it with the States.
Mr Amery: By legislation.
Mr OAKESHOTT: The Minister is taking me on. I understand that the Minister has written to the Federal Government about a national floor price. Fantastic! Has he written a letter to the Victorian Minister?
Mr Amery: We have contacted them, yes, and Queensland.
Mr OAKESHOTT: And what is the response?
Mr Amery: We have not received any letter from them yet.
Mr OAKESHOTT: Why not?
Mr Amery: Why are you apologising for your Federal Minister?
Mr OAKESHOTT: I am not apologising. I am saying that if the Minister is serious about dairy industry restructuring, he will co-ordinate it. Why does the Minister not organise a meeting in New South Wales and invite the Victorian Minister to attend? I believe that Victoria will not support the Minister's proposal for a national floor price. Because the Federal Government cannot pull the States together, it cannot, therefore, co- ordinate deregulation of the dairy industry.
Mr Amery: Yes, it can.
Mr OAKESHOTT: The Federal Government is merely drawing together all the States.
Mr Amery: Go down to the library and study the Constitution.
Mr OAKESHOTT: This is what the Constitution Act of 1901 is all about. The Federal Government does not control industries such as the dairy industry. The Minister knows that and he is playing politics.
Mr Amery: The honourable member is misleading the House.
Mr OAKESHOTT: If Victoria is supportive of this proposal and if the Minister knows that, then it might be possible to discuss a national floor price. But the Minister knows very well that Victoria will not support it.
Mr Amery: Of course they won't support it.
Mr OAKESHOTT: The Minister says, "Of course they won't", so why is he playing politics? This is not about the Federal Government at all. This is about States rights and the roles of the States in controlling their industries. Mr Amery: I will speak more slowly for you. Mr OAKESHOTT: The Minister has just admitted that the Victorian Government will not support his proposal for a national floor price. How on earth then can the Federal Government co-ordinate it? The Federal Government cannot act unless it has the agreement of all the States. The Minister knows that very well. The Minister is playing politics with this issue, yet he says that the negotiations for deregulation should be bipartisan and truthful. 7000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000
Mr Amery: Go and read the Federal Government's bill.
Mr OAKESHOTT: I hope that the Minister reads the Commonwealth Constitution and realises that the Federal Government will not be co-ordinating the floor price. The Victorian Government's decision will make or break any national floor price proposal that the Minister is considering. I will be very interested to know the response the Minister receives from the Victorian Government. I will be very interested to see how far the Minister will push this proposal and how far the Minister will go in his attempts to co-ordinate it. If the Minister is serious, if he is sincere and if he is thinking about the industry, by all means he should hold a summit in New South Wales, invite the Victorians and negotiate as hard as he can. Let us see the Minister perform his ministerial duties properly. If he does not do that, he may choose one of two alternatives.
The main one alternative is a State compensation package. The Minister has said that he does not support deregulation. He has stated in this House and on the front steps of Parliament in the presence of a rally of dairy industry representatives that he must undertake deregulation to protect the receipt of a Federal Government financial support package. If that is the case, there is a strong argument for a demonstration of support for the industry by the Minister delivering a State-based compensation package. I and other honourable members who have preceded me in this debate do not care whether it is a Dairy Farmers Association [DFA] package, a National Party package, a package by the convenor of Country Labor, the Hon. A. B. Kelly, or a package by the Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation, Richard Amery—
Mr Windsor: I might have one.
Mr OAKESHOTT: —or a package from the honourable member for Tamworth. The Coalition will support it. The point I make is that, in view of the limited options asserted by the Minister, there is a very good argument to suggest that he should deliver some type of State-based compensation package. In all sincerity, I ask the State Minister to examine some of the labelling laws to ensure that, when purchasing, consumers are in a position to make a decision to support their local dairy industry, even if doing so will cost them 15¢ or 20¢ a litre more for milk. The Minister has power to address that issue. I hope he does so because consumers do not necessarily make a choice on purchases based solely on price. Dick Smith is proving that there are issues other than price that buyers are interested in. In the case of the dairy industry, one of them would be consumer support for local jobs and for local industries.
Before I conclude my remarks, I congratulate some of the local people in my electorate who have become involved in this issue. I mention Adrian Drury, who is the DFA representative and who has had an enormous challenge on his hands. Over the past couple of years, negotiations have been extremely difficult. He has copped a mixed reaction at the grassroots level from dairy farmers but I know that he has the best interests of the dairy industry at heart. I congratulate him on all that he has done. As well, Lindsay Wilson, Robert Walsh and Tim Bale were critical in organising the rally that took place outside Parliament House several weeks ago. The decision to march on Parliament House began over a beer at the Wingham RSL Club. They decided to do something about their concerns. They decided to fight, and I congratulate them on standing up for the industry. If any type of compensation package is offered by the Minister or the Government, Lindsay Wilson, Robert Walsh and Tim Bale should be given a great deal of credit for it.
Mr GLACHAN (Albury) [11.57 a.m.]: This is not the first occasion on which the economic viability and future of dairy farmers has depended on decisions made by governments. Governments have regulated and controlled the dairy industry in various ways over many years. Although I am not exactly sure when, I can recall approximately 30 or 40 years ago that a great furore erupted over the lack of opportunity being experienced by people who live on the North Coast and South Coast of New South Wales to sell milk in the Sydney metropolitan area. At that time there was a very strong dairy industry in areas such as Penrith, Camden and other areas of Sydney, as well as areas in the Hunter Valley. Those producers had exclusive rights to sell milk in the Sydney metropolitan area: the big market. As I recall it, the County of Cumberland was the approximate border and people who lived within that designated area had the 100 per cent right to sell milk on the Sydney market. In more outlying areas towards the Hunter Valley, the quota was 70 per cent and the remaining quotas decreased gradually from that point.
I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, but I think there were three levels of milk quotas. However, producers on the North Coast and South Coast were shut out. Following changes to the allocation of quotas, the opportunities to sell milk on the Sydney market were extended to producers throughout the whole State. The question of deregulation has been difficult for dairy farmers given the diversity of opinion in the ranks. It has been difficult for governments and for individual members of Parliament. It will have a marked and profound 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7001 effect on the lives of farming families, many of whom have been in the industry for generations. It will not result in cheaper milk for consumers, nor will it bring higher prices for farmers, but I should imagine it will bring increased profits for processing companies and supermarkets.
That may explain to some extent the changes that have occurred in processing companies in recent times. I remember the former Haberfield company in Albury, a very successful processing company that began in 1920 when Jock Haberfield and his wife delivered milk on the streets of Albury in a horse and cart. That company grew and became well established and profitable. In recent times it was taken over by the huge Italian company Parmalat Foods Australia which has subsequently merged with, or been taken over by, Paul's from Queensland. There have been major changes in the processing companies. For many years, dairying was the backbone of primary production in many parts of New South Wales.
Many families depended on it—not just the people involved directly in dairying but those at the processing companies and many others—especially on the North Coast and South Coast and in the Hunter Valley where dairying has been of major importance to communities and has provided a living for thousands of people directly and indirectly involved in the industry. I cannot help but think of the time when I began my apprenticeship on the waterfront at Darling Harbour. Near to where I was apprenticed were the North Coast Steamship Company wharves. That company had a number of coasters, mainly twin screw steamships, coal- fired with high thin funnels that belched out thick black smoke. Those coasters ran up the North Coast with general cargo trade but on their return a large percentage of their cargo was dairy products, butter, et cetera, that had been manufactured up there.
We had a strong industry that supported many people in many parts of New South Wales. The dairy industry has been altered, changed and chopped about by governments over the years and now once again we are facing deregulation. Victoria has fairly large dairy enterprises which are very efficient in their average returns generally of manufactured milk. Their returns have been much lower than the returns in New South Wales. Victoria produces about 60 per cent of all milk in Australia. The Victorians have been looking across the border at what to them is a large and lucrative market in New South Wales and they simply want a part of it. For many dairy farmers in New South Wales deregulation will, to say the least, make life very difficult. The farm gate price will drop as predicted from 53¢ a litre to 38¢ a litre, with processed milk dropping as much as 27¢ a litre.
The suggested Federal package of $1.74 billion over eight years will provide $337 million for New South Wales, or an average of $193,000 per farm. That money will come from 11¢ of the 15¢-26¢ per litre reduction in the farm gate price. In reality farmers will pay for the package themselves. As predicted, something like one-third of the 1,800 dairy farmers left in New South Wales will most probably go out of business because of the price reduction, so the package will be of little assistance to them and will not solve all their problems. With Victorians producing 60 per cent of Australia's milk, certainly 90 per cent of them will vote for deregulation because they believe it will provide better opportunities for them. Because of that, I cannot see any real way of preventing deregulation going ahead. But I do believe, as my colleagues have said, that New South Wales can and should do more for dairy farmers. I support the Opposition's foreshadowed amendments to this bill. I hope that the Minister will change his mind and accept the amendments so that the farmers can benefit from some support from this State as well as from the suggested Commonwealth package.
Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes—Deputy Leader of the National Party) [12.05 p.m.]: I am not sure whether Daniel Wilson, Hayley Carr, Chris Hodgkeson and Trish Johnson—students from Taree Christian Community School—are in the gallery. If they are, I apologise to them for not seeing them earlier as I have had other duties. I hope they enjoy their visit to the House. Honourable members have heard a great deal of varied debate, the consistent theme of which from the members of the Opposition is that we must have a State-based compensation package. The Government has consistently tried to muddy the waters by saying that the responsibility for introducing such a package, over and above the one that the Federal Government is underwriting, should also be assumed by Federal Government. Clearly it has not been. This is State-based legislation and State-based compensation that is being sought for the industry. To say otherwise is unfortunate and a cruel hoax on dairy farmers in this area.
I am the grandson of a dairy farmer. In fact, my uncle still lives on the farm—although he does not dairy any more—in Dorrigo in the electorate of Coffs Harbour. When I was a child I had the privilege of spending a lot of time, every weekend, on a dairy farm at Murrays Run out the back of Wollombi. In fact, Mr Speaker has a painting on his wall of the actual farm on which I used to spend my time when I was eight or nine until I went away to boarding school. I saw first-hand the enormously hard work done by dairy farmers, day in 7002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000 day out, without any let up whatsoever in the routine of milking cows morning and night. Unfortunately, Mrs Nichols has died, but I remember when she had her daughter, Diane, on her hip whilst she was riding a horse and bringing in the cows of a morning. It was a tough life and that tough life has continued in relation to the dairy industry. The least that can be done for those who will be affected by this legislation is to ensure that those who wish to leave the industry are treated with dignity and equity, that those who wish to continue farming are able to do so, and that maximum compensation is provided.
About three weeks ago I went to a meeting of concerned dairy farmers at Taree in my electorate. Out of that meeting arose the protest meeting that occurred in Macquarie Street last week. It was an agonising decision for many of those dairy farmers to come to Sydney not only because of their lifestyle—they have to tend to their herds—but because they are not prone to such public displays in the street. Though that action was alien to them, the protest was a statement by them that they are worried people. One dairy farmer whom I know very well, the son of a dairy farmer, is devastated because, under the rules, his farm is classed as unviable. The moment the bank heard about that, it moved in on his small farm and there is nowhere for him to go.
With the present subdivision restrictions imposed by councils making decisions about agricultural land, he cannot even subdivide his land into hobby farms and thus increase its value. What was once a good dairy farm may end up as one hobby farm. That concern was expressed by other farmers who are facing the reality that they will not be able to continue in business and they will need to make changes. Enormous social consequences will flow from the decision to deregulate the dairy industry without provision of adequate compensation. Those impacts will be felt right throughout the New South Wales community, will affect regional and rural towns in particular, and will persist for a considerable time. The Manning Valley Dairy Task Force wrote to me, my colleagues and perhaps all other members and highlighted a number of issues. Those are issues that we already know about. The task force said in its letter of 28 March:
Losses of income by farmers ... will impinge on the whole community by losses in such diverse areas as farm implements, chemicals and other supplies, motor vehicles and fuel, and reduced spending power throughout the entire community.
The rural adjustment package to be offered, and incidentally funded by farmers themselves, will only assist those intending to leave or being forced from the industry,
The Manning Valley Dairy Task Force also sent information on Britain's dairy industry per medium of the International Express of 21 March 2000. What was said in the article is rather prophetic. I will read just a few paragraphs from that article:
Britain may soon be unable to produce enough milk to meet national demand because the dairy industry is "facing meltdown", a new report has warned.
16 per cent of all dairy farmers have closed down in the past four years and in 1998-99 more than 5,000 dairy farmers and labourers lost their jobs, according to the findings.
Farm gate prices have plummeted by 33 per cent in the past three years, dropping to their lowest since records began 30 years ago.
The article made further reference to the report:
It says that British farmers get the lowest prices in Europe -- about 9.9 pence per pint (ppp), which fails to cover the average 11 ppp cost of production. But the report accuses supermarkets and processors of failing to pass the price cuts on to consumers.
That one paragraph probably encapsulates the problems that New South Wales is facing with deregulation of its dairy industry. I have never been an advocate of deregulation and competition policy. I did study those concepts when I was doing a university course a few years ago, and I thought they did not rise to any great heights of success. The test of competition policy is that the consumer in the end will be better off. I am yet to know how any deregulation, or the competition policy that we hear so much hype about, has left any consumers better off. I can assure the House that the people in my electorate are certainly not better off in regard to electricity supply costs. I do not believe that the consumers of milk will be any better off.
Though we will go down this hurly-burly road of deregulation and further implementation of competition policy, the consumers will not be better off. But the dairy farming industry as we know it will face ruin. Many proud people who have invested in their livelihoods over many years will be locked out of the industry. Their dreams will go the way of the prospects of the farmer who is being chased by the bank. He said at the meeting, "I just want to be a dairy farmer—nothing else, just a dairy farmer." To him, deregulation means not just the loss of quota and so on, but the loss of a significant asset. One farmer at the meeting told me that his potential loss as a result of this deregulation proposal will be $300,000. 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7003
This man, who has not enjoyed good health with increasing years, is a very good farmer, and has just handed over the farm to his son. Apart from the worries of ill health and increasing age, he also has the worry of his son's financial predicaments. I do not support deregulation. I never have. Nevertheless, it is a reality. So we come back to the Opposition amendment, the issue we have been discussing from day one: a State-based assistance package to help the industry. That is a matter of vital concern. I urge the Minister—who, I have no doubt, is trying to find a way out of the conundrum—to do whatever is possible to bring in a State-based assistance package for these affected people.
There is no point in saying that this is a Federal Government matter, because it is firmly within the province of the State. There is no point saying that if we get out of tune the whole arrangement will be put at risk. With great respect—and I do have respect for the Minister—it is one minute to midnight. This should have been foreseen and planned for 12 months ago. With perhaps one day of this parliamentary sitting left, we should not be trying to wind our way through these issues. In the broader sense, we are seeing more and more uniform legislation. Later today the House will debate a uniform legislation bill in which I am involved through my shadow portfolio. That legislation will come into effect on 1 July. Why do we have to deal with this log jam at this late stage of this parliamentary sitting? People are desperate to know what is going on. This should have been sorted out long ago. But, having said that, it is vital that the Opposition amendment is carried so that these proud dairy farmers may maintain their dignity and equity into the future.
Mr WEBB (Monaro) [12.15 p.m.]: The pathway that we travel with the Dairy Industry Bill is a very unfortunate one for the dairy industry. This major industry and major generator of national and international product will be decimated. I cannot claim to have any direct involvement in the dairy industry, but I certainly learnt to milk cows by hand as a teenager, and I carried on that role for some years on the family property. I recall vividly the dairy part of studies at agricultural college, having to milk cows in a herringbone dairy at 4 o'clock in the morning. I certainly am aware of the major workplace reforms that have occurred in the dairy industry over the years. I know of the commitment of dairy farmers to their families and their work, as well as their love of the land, and their investment in the industry through the implementation of new technology and breeding techniques. I am aware of the contribution by farmers to agricultural shows and product improvement, their commitment to the industry and to community work, as well as their investment in quotas that they have bought and traded in order to remain in the industry.
I do not have adequate time in this debate to bring all of those threads together, but I would like to refer to the remarks of some of my colleagues who have spoken about the dairy industry reforms that are currently before us. In particular I refer to the remarks of my colleague the honourable member for Lismore, who yesterday quoted to the House from an article by Sandra Patch on behalf of Women for Dairying. Sandra Patch is the secretary of that organisation. I will not quote from that article; rather, I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the very important points that she raised in it regarding the dairy industry deregulation and its impacts.
Many people in country towns and communities—men, women, children, families—rely on the dairy industry to ensure their future. The path that we are heading down will create serious impacts on regional and rural communities. That is certainly so for the electorate of Monaro. Many may ask, "What dairy industry do you have in Monaro, in the Snowy Mountains?" The Monaro electorate extends to Eden and encompasses part of the beautiful Bega Valley. Dairy farmers from the Bemboka area and the Towamba River have come to me, saying, "We have 70 or 80 cows, we employ two or three people, and our families have been committed to the dairy industry for some time, often many generations. But we will have to leave the industry. Even if we had twice as many cows to milk, we would be severely affected by this kind of deregulation."
I refer honourable members again to the contributions of the honourable members for Oxley, Coffs Harbour, Upper Hunter, Ballina and Bega. They were all representing participants in the dairy industry when they made their statements to the House. I would commend also the thoughts of other honourable members, particularly the honourable members for Southern Highlands and Albury. I make particular reference to the contributions of the honourable members who preceded me this morning in this debate, the honourable member for Port Macquarie and the honourable member for Myall Lakes, who spoke about the type of action that this Government could take and about the productive input of the Opposition to this debate, in the face of what is really a wrong approach by Labor. The ball is in the Government's court. Deregulation is inevitable. People have voted for it. There is a lot of misinformation about the Federal Government's ability to regulate the dairy industry. I refer to a media release issued by the Hon. Warren Truss, Federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, which states: 7004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000
The Federal Government has not passed any legislation to deregulate the dairy industry, nor do we intend to do so. There are no Federal laws regulating the dairy industry which are about to be repealed.
So far these calls for the 11th hour schemes are just political smoke screens to cover the lack of action by the NSW and Queensland Governments in addressing the concerns of dairy farmers whose quotas will be valueless following deregulation by the States.
Earlier in debate the honourable member for Myall Lakes referred to a dairy farmer's quota which is worth $300,000. However, that asset will be worthless if the industry is deregulated, and that farmer will have nothing to hand over to his son. Dairy farmers in my electorate of Monaro have said to me, "We have quotas which are worth in excess of $200,000." Their assets and the commitment that they have made to dairy production in this State and nation have been made worthless. The Opposition calls upon the State Government to implement a package of structural reforms similar to the package implemented by the Queensland Government, and similar to the forestry industry structural reform package implemented by the Federal Government. The media release of the Hon. Warren Truss also states:
Only the Coalition Government in Western Australia has stepped up the mark of responsibility and provided an additional package to cover its farmers.
The New South Wales Opposition urges the State Government to provide a similar package. It might not go all the way towards helping dairy farmers, but it is something that this Government should take on board. If the State Government is not prepared to implement a $80 million restructure package to assist dairy farmers, I urge it to withdraw the bill. The legislation should lie on the table until the Government has had round table discussions and consulted widely in the community. If consideration of this legislation is deferred it will forestall an otherwise inevitable consequence. Opposition members have been accused of not being proactive in this debate, but many suggestions have been made by them in relation to amending the bill.
If consideration of this legislation is not deferred and the bill is not withdrawn, I will support the amendments to be moved in Committee by the Opposition, which will require the Government to provide an $80 million compensation package. Labor governments in both Queensland and New South Wales have continued to run from their responsibility of looking after dairy farmers. Labor has disregarded the problems being experienced by dairy farmers and this cruel hoax has been perpetuated in this legislation. Dairy farmers could be compensated in a number of ways. They could be paid on a per litre basis for all milk production, which would provide a cushion for farmers, their families and the community and assist them greatly if the Government does not provide a compensation package.
The Dairy Farmers Association has pushed the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission into pursuing negotiating powers for farmers. Large producers and retailers appear to control the retail price of milk, which has a flow-on effect for farmers. Dairy farmers in this State should not be expected to provide fresh milk at a price that is less than the cost of production. At present I believe they are paid about 28¢ a litre. They must be supported by the full market price. Cost price margins should be put in place to ensure that they receive an adequate price for their hard-won product. Agricultural production is a long-term industry. Members of the Labor Party and its newest subfaction, Country Labor, have little knowledge of agricultural production.
It takes many years for farmers to implement production schedules, breed the necessary livestock required for milk production, upgrade livestock, nurture young offspring, bring them into lactation and ensure they continue to lactate, and manipulate the industry to return a profit for this valuable product. That, in turn, enables farmers in this $2 billion industry to spend and invest in their community. However, the value of that subsequent investment in Australia is worth much more than that. This Government does not realise that the dairy industry in Australia is a solar industry. Farmers manipulate their environment to produce an excellent product and, through investment, those profits are returned to the community. The dairy industry is a sustainable industry.
I applaud the Minister for Agriculture for allowing lengthy debate on this issue. Those honourable members who have dairy farmers in their electorates have had an opportunity to express the views of those farmers. The Opposition foreshadowed that it will move amendments in Committee to assist the dairy industry and to help it to deal with this difficult legislative package. It is difficult enough for dairy farmers to deal with changes on a day-to-day basis. What are the implications for dairy farmers of the position taken by economic rationalists in relation to the national competition policy? I am not happy about the way in which that impacts on agricultural industries. Some 11 or 12 years ago I was involved with the wool industry, which went through a major change, brought about because of the inept dealings of John Kerin who, at that time, implemented a floor price scheme which made the product unmarketable. 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7005
The wool industry, which came through that crisis, was supported by wool producers who paid levies and taxes. The massive wool stockpile resulted from the Federal Government's mismanagement of the floor price. The wool industry is still a major contributor to Australia's gross domestic product and to the wellbeing of this State. Agricultural industries in New South are sustainable. Governments must facilitate change by implementing structural reform and aiding investment in the dairy and other agricultural industries. Only in that way will farmers be able to diversify and accept change. I urge the Minister for Agriculture and the Government to further this debate. At the very least, the Minister should contact the Ministers in Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and other States so that dairy farmers and other people with a vested interest in the outcome of the scheme can come together to talk about adjustment packages and the changes that confront them and reach resolutions that will not result in the decimation of rural communities, the dairy industry and the support base they provide.
Mr R. W. TURNER (Orange) [12.30 p.m.]: I speak on the Dairy Industry Bill as a former family farmer involved in egg production. The egg industry had been regulated since 1934 but in 1988 was deregulated with a $69 million support package introduced by the former Greiner-Murray Government based on quotas held on the date of deregulation. Dairy farmers in New South Wales, along with farmers in other States, have reluctantly accepted the deregulation of their industry. The Federal Government has legislated a $1.8 billion adjustment package to be spread over eight years. Farmers who choose to remain in the industry and those who choose to exit the industry will be eligible to participate.
Dairy farming has been a traditional part of the New South Wales farming scene virtually since first settlement, and there has been growth and retraction in the size of farms ever since. My grandmother was involved in dairy farming in the Dorrigo district. As a result of her walking off the family farm some 70 years ago, I am here today. So some benefits come out of the retraction of dairy farms from time to time. There has been a retraction of dairying in the Sydney basin, although there is still some growth in the Sydney basin as well. Some of the retraction has resulted in an increase in the number of cows in the Central West. A number of farms in that area are multimillion-dollar family farms running as many as 2,000 cows. Some of the dairy farmers in the Central West have gone and the rest have upgraded, spending a lot of money to become more efficient.
A number of speakers have referred to the efficiency gains in the industry and the enormous increase in milk produced per cow. As new techniques and better bloodlines are developed over the years, that trend will continue. Sometimes one wonders how far it can continue. It has been acknowledged that family farms are very efficient and the people running them work very hard. But they love what they are doing and want to pass their farms down from one generation to the next. In the next couple of years this will not be possible for many family farms as unprecedented and enormous changes are introduced with deregulation. It has been predicted that there could be a 50 per cent reduction in the 1,800 dairy farms presently in New South Wales.
In the local media I expressed disappointment that the Dairy Farmers Co-operative based in Orange, with a receival plant, a bottling plant and distribution centre, will no longer bottle and package milk in Orange. There is now only a distribution centre in Orange. Dairy Farmers Co-operative boasts that it is a co-operative owned by dairy farmers and operated in the interests of dairy farmers but I do not think that it was in the best interest of dairy farmers in the Central West for the production facilities to be contracted to Sydney with the resulting loss of jobs in Orange. I suggested that production in Orange should have been increased because of the surplus production in the Central West. The packaged milk could then have been transported to the Sydney basin rather than what is happening now. It makes no economic sense to me to cart raw milk to Sydney and to bring packaged milk back over the mountains.
Many farms in the Central West have upgraded and they are running very efficiently. They have invested a lot of money and the banks have backed them. It was expected that somewhere down the track deregulation would occur. But no-one expected prices to fall as much as they already have or as much as they are predicted to fall over the next few months as the adjustment takes place. I can only hope that the bulk of farmers will survive and will continue to produce the first-quality milk that they are producing at the moment and that the consumer wants. The Labor Party's call for a national floor price scheme is just a hoax. It has given farmers an unsustainable hope that something can be done. The Federal agriculture Minister, Warren Truss, said:
NSW Labor knows the Federal Government has no general power to fix prices. Attempts to give the Commonwealth such powers have failed at referendum. A national floor price for dairy products could only be implemented if all States transferred their pricing powers to the Commonwealth. 7006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000
Labor must therefore get the agreement of all the States including the Victoria, Tasmania and Queensland Labor Governments to implement such a scheme. … Country Labor must get on the phone to Premiers Bracks and Beattie and get their agreement to such a scheme before suggesting it to NSW farmers.
The dairy regulations are State regulations, not Federal. And these arrangements are different in every State. Country Labor has called on New South Wales shoppers to buy New South Wales milk. That is a bit of a joke. A lot of milk is not labelled as to where it is produced. Generic packaging for milk, baked beans or whatever has the address of the wholesaler's registered office. The packaging does not necessarily show the place of origin of the product. It might have "Product of Australia" and that is about all. Most people going into supermarkets are looking at the best price for a reasonable quality product rather than where the product came from. Whilst many shoppers might have a casual glance to see whether the product was made in Australia, apart from that they could not care less. The Labor Party has given dairy farmers an unrealistic expectation of support. It is certainly not supporting them with a statement like that with no foundation. For just on three years the National Party has been calling for a New South Wales based structural adjustment package support scheme to enable producers to weather the impacts of deregulation and to be able to restructure into long-term viability. National Party member for Oxley, Andrew Stoner, called on this House to note:
1) … the latest estimates that up to 50 per cent of NSW dairy farmers could be forced to leave the industry following deregulation;
2) Condemn the NSW Minister for Agriculture, Richard Amery's nonsensical suggestion that the Federal Government should re-regulate the NSW dairy industry after he deregulates it; and
3) Call on the NSW Government to provide a structural adjustment package for NSW dairy farmers, utilising federal National Competition Policy payments, and similar to the assistance provided to other industries by the State. I have already noted the egg industry support of $69 million and a recent $80 million package for forestry. All we are calling for is a package from this Government to support the dairy industry through this very difficult time, to help soften the blow to producers and ride out the high prices they will experience, in the hope that the majority of them will be able to continue with what they know best and what they love to do. Dairying has been a traditional industry in New South Wales. Dairy producers have become part of an industry—although not to the same extent as Victorian producers—that is exporting in excess of $1 billion worth of products annually. They have answered the call to increase exports to help the country's balance of trade and they will continue to do so, but they need some support at this critical time. Retailers do not really care, and most consumers do not care, where their product is coming from. Over the past couple of weeks honourable members have seen the dramatic effect of low prices on apple growers and other fruit and vegetable growers and the mark-ups that supermarkets and other major fruit and vegetable outlets are making. That is only a dream to the farmers who are producing the product in the first place. I again call on the Government and the Minister to show that they care, that they support our dairy farmers, as they pretend to from time to time with the release of various press releases. They should come up with a package that will definitely and genuinely assist dairy farmers. I am sure that Country Labor, if it is fair dinkum about supporting regional New South Wales, will put pressure on the Minister to come up with the best package he can. The Government says it does not have any money. I am reminded that there is always money to be used in the city, and one needs only look at the enormous blow-out in costs for the Conservatorium of Music. Dairy farmers would love even part of that blow-out in costs. There must be some money in the piggy bank. I ask the Minister to find some money for the dairy farmers in their time of need, to show that he supports them and regional New South Wales. Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [12.43 p.m.]: I welcome the opportunity to make a brief but, hopefully, constructive contribution to this debate. The deregulation of the dairy industry is a complex issue. The dairy industry has always been an important contributor to the North Coast community and its economy. It is nothing like it was in the old days but is still a significant industry on the North Coast. Those involved in the dairy industry are facing a very serious set of circumstances. Honourable members on both sides of the House agree on a number of things in relation to this issue. The first is that we cannot stop the flow of Victorian milk into New South Wales. In answer to a recent question the Minister, correctly I believe, stated: This means there is no way the New South Wales Government could prevent Victorian producers from selling their milk in New South Wales in a fully deregulated environment, and vice versa. He is correct in that regard and, as a result we are now debating this bill. The other thing that needs to be said is that nobody in their right mind wants to jeopardise the $1.7 billion restructure package. Again, to be fair to all who have taken a constructive approach to this debate, no-one has suggested that. In the same answer to Parliament the Minister also said: To be fair, if we take the politics out of the debate, no-one is suggesting that course of action. 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7007
He was referring to the possibility of the package being jeopardised. They are things that we can certainly agree on. The reality is that as a result of the deregulation, which I believe is inevitable, we have to recognise that New South Wales producers in particular, and possibly Queensland producers as well, will feel the impact more than those in the other States, particularly Victoria. The milk market price will drop from 53¢ a litre to something like 27¢, and it has been estimated that up to 900 farmers in New South Wales alone could lose their source of income. That would have a further impact on some 6,000 jobs. We need to put a lot more emphasis on the social impact of the decisions that involve competition policy and deregulation. Even now, as we debate this bill, no-one really knows what the impact of deregulation is likely to be. All governments, irrespective of their political complexions, whether Federal or State, need to do more work in relation to the likely social impact. They seem to know the likely economic impact but they do not seem to be keen on pursuing what the social impact will be. There is no disagreement with the fact that deregulation will happen, and we understand the constitutional issues attached to it with regard to section 92. We also know that the Victorian Parliament has already passed legislation to enable deregulation to occur. So with Victoria going ahead as it has done, it is not as if we can turn back the tide. The question is what is the State Government going to do—and I will come to the Federal Government in a moment—to assist those affected by the situation that confronts us? It is important to recognise that a number of people, other than people in this Parliament, have indicated that the State Government has a responsibility in this area. For example, recommendation 3 of the Senate inquiry states:
That the states of Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia consider the issue of quota entitlement and any form of compensation that may be appropriate for the resumption of quota entitlement, including the possibility of using NCP payments as compensation. It is quite clear that the Senate is putting the responsibility on Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia to do something about compensation. The Western Australian Parliament has put up a package of $38 million for its industry. That is the first source of support for the New South Wales Government making some special contribution. The second source is from Winston Watts, who is on the Executive of the Dairy Farmers Association [DFA]. He said in a fax to the honourable member for Lachlan:
That the Association should use its best endeavours to ascertain and if possible secure from the NSW Government what additional financial assistance it is prepared to make available to the NSW dairy industry … The DFA is looking to the New South Wales Government for support. In addition, the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry said, in a press release dated 14 March, that he believes it is now time for the States to talk to their industries about what assistance they can also provide. Reg Smith, President of the Dairy Farmers Association—who is in the gallery—has served the dairy industry with great distinction over the past 20 years. He is also a former rugby colleague of mine, and a much better player than I was. He served Australia with great distinction on the rugby field. I know that Mr Smith is working hard in an effort to achieve the best outcome for dairy farmers. In his press release of 8 June he acknowledged the Opposition's worthy efforts to get extra State help to New South Wales dairy farmers, and accepted the offer by the Minister for Agriculture to discuss further State financial assistance. The New South Wales Government has an opportunity to help assist the adjustment process of deregulation. I am disappointed with the Minister's response because instead of accepting the challenge that these difficult decisions create, he has, unfortunately, decided to float the idea of a floor price for milk—which is a sham, a cruel hoax—and is playing politics with farmers' lives. For that to happen the States would have to concede their powers to the Commonwealth, which will never happen. Victoria in particular will not do that as it has already passed deregulation legislation. In the same press release Mr Smith stated:
The Government's proposal for a national step down floor price for milk would not get the support of the Victorian industry— —and he is right.
It is just revisiting regulation which is the very thing 65% of the Australian industry no longer wants to support and which has led us down this deregulation path in the first place. Consequently it is not a proposal that will help NSW farmers. That is a definitive comment. Pat Rowley, Chairman of the Australian Dairy Industry Council, said, in relation to the floor price proposal: The peak body representing Australia's dairy producers says a proposal to introduce a floor price for the dairy industry is a cruel hoax.
The proposal by New South Wales Country Labor has built up false expectations among some producers … at this eleventh hour, to put in place a floor price for milk is absolutely false expectations built up to people that they might believe that that's an outcome. 7008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000
It is not an outcome, and that is the problem. Ian Langdon, Chairman of Dairy Farmers, in a memorandum to his district chairmen, stated that the floor price is perpetuating a fairy tale and is therefore unfair to farmers, who need facts on which to base their decisions. I refer also to the comments of the Hon. Warren Truss, in which he said that the Federal Government did not have the power to do that. He said:
The Federal Government has not passed any legislation to deregulate the dairy industry, nor do we intend to do so. There are no Federal laws regulating the dairy industry which are to be repealed.
These calls for 11th hour schemes are just political smoke screens to cover the lack of action by the NSW and Queensland Governments in addressing the concerns of dairy farmers whose quotas will be valueless following deregulation.
There is plenty of evidence to indicate that the Minister is putting up something which cannot happen, and he should rethink his position. Clause 14 of the bill provides that no compensation will be payable for deregulation. That is a heartless provision, particularly when we know that deregulation will have a major social and economic impact on the dairy industry, yet the Government will not be liable for compensation. The New South Wales Government could pay compensation from the national competition policy payments, which this year will be $156.5 million, and we all know about the Treasurer's slush fund which he announced.
Mr Amery: Water, roads, transport, electricity; we will give to them all.
Mr D. L. PAGE: There is money coming through and the Government seems pretty keen to drive agendas that will give it money. I am suggesting that the Government use some of that money to offset the negative impact of some of these structural reforms. In addition, there is the $830 million put away in the Treasurer's slush fund. Western Australia has taken the lead and set a precedent by introducing a $38 million package. Government and Independent members have said that the Opposition's amendments will limit the amount to $80 million. That is not the case. The Opposition proposes not a ceiling but an amount per litre, yet to be determined, of quota formula over three years. That quantum of money ought to be determined by the industry in consultation with the Government. The Opposition is not seeking to place a limit; it is merely seeking ways to ease the pain.
The cost of not funding an adjustment package is significant. Jobs will be lost, people will be unemployed and families will break down. The bush already has a lot of mental health problems, high suicide rates and many social problems with the drift in population from country to the cities, so the cost will be considerable. I implore the Minister on social and economic grounds not to play games; to forget about the floor price and embrace the concept of a financial package to assist farmers, who will suffer a negative impact. I also ask him to adopt, in a bipartisan way, the essence of the Opposition's amendments, which seek to support people in the dairy industry in much the same way that the Western Australian Government has supported its dairy farmers during the process of deregulation.
Mr PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [12.56 p.m.]: It is another sad day in this Parliament. It is of great concern to me that over the past few years the State Government has been involved in taking away things that farmers have essentially paid for. Those who have paid for their milk quota will have the value of that asset removed. Something similar occurred with the native vegetation legislation, when land was taken away from farmers who had paid for it on a bona fide basis with the intention of cultivating it in order to earn an income. For many farmers that right has now been removed. I understand that later this year something similar will take place with regard to water, and it is unfortunate that today we are debating such a problem. My electorate is on the border of Victoria and New South Wales. Many dairy farmers in the Murray Valley are members of Victorian dairy associations and supply milk to Victoria. They have often said they believe that the Victorian dairy farmers were deceived in the ballot process, particularly by the nature of the question asked of them:
Should Victorian dairy farmers accept the $1.7 billion dairy industry adjustment package proposed by the Commonwealth Government and agree to the repeal of the Victorian legislation controlling the farm gate price in the supply of milk?
According to dairy farmers in my electorate, and some Victorian dairy farmers, that very loaded question very much influenced the outcome of that vote, and that is unfortunate because it has caused this crisis and resulted in this bill. I fully support the comments made by the Leader of the National Party in his opening address. I would like to canvass other issues briefly. One of the most important issues is the blame that has been apportioned to the Federal Government for the crisis the dairy industry is facing at present.
I do not think there is any doubt that the Federal Government acted with good intent over this issue and that the package that it put in place to support the dairy industry—the largest ever for any agricultural industry in Australia—was put together in response to deregulation and not in order to forward deregulation, as a number 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7009 of Government members have alleged in this House, in particular the Minister and a number of Independents. It is dishonest for them to advance such arguments because the facts speak for themselves. For the Minister to claim that a new regime will commence on 1 July is a little foolish, although he may have fooled some Government members. To say that a levy of 11¢ on the price of milk is regulated is a bit rich.
On 1 July there will be a new regime for dairy farmers. One important matter is the way the supermarkets will deal with this issue. Recently in question time Minister said that an attempt would be made to begin dialogue with the supermarkets so that they provide producers with a reasonable, real return. As the Minister said in question time, there has been a marked decline in the return to growers relative to the price that consumers pay at the retail level. As my electorate is a large fruit and vegetable growing area in New South Wales and, indeed, Australia, I wrote to the Minister requesting that I be included in the dialogue. I have spoken previously in this House about my family's experience with vegetable growing and the resultant problems of domination by the supermarkets. One important issue will be how the supermarkets handle the situation after 1 July. We are debating this bill in sad circumstances. The Federal Government has acted properly in putting together a rescue package. At this late stage I ask again that the New South Wales Government support a further State package to assist dairy farmers who will be in crisis after July.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Whelan.
[Mr Speaker left the chair at 1.02 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]
ROAD TRANSPORT (HEAVY VEHICLES REGISTRATION CHARGES) AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 30 May.
Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes—Deputy Leader of the National Party) [2.15 p.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose this bill other than in relation to indexation of the proposed registration charges, which I will discuss more fully later. At the present time the trucking industry in New South Wales, and indeed possibly Australia, is in dire financial straits particularly for the owner-drivers. At this very time truck protests are being held in various parts of the State. Whilst there are many reasons for the blockades and protests, the bottom line is financial hardship. The registration fees that are anticipated to rise as a consequence of this bill are significant, even if they allegedly do not apply to the majority of vehicles. For instance the charge for B-double combinations will rise by $1,000, the six-axel truck-trailer combinations will rise by $1,850, and a new charge for cherry-pickers, mobile cranes, concrete pumps and the like has been levied and will see owners of such equipment now pay a fee of $200.
My advice from industry sources is that there is some common ground in relation to the acceptance of registration charges and increases as being part of the total question of recovery of costs imposed on the road system by the trucking industry—and that is necessary to ensure that Australian industries can compete with global competitors in an equitable manner. Offsetting this, of course, is the need to achieve a fine balance to ensure that cost pressures do not outweigh any gains that may accrue from the increased registration charges in creating that equitable climate. The present method of road charges lies in a Government agreement signed in 1991. It is believed that that process was open and clear, and was available to industry and public scrutiny. Whilst I acknowledge, as indeed the Minister acknowledged in his second reading speech, the benefit of the Commonwealth Government’s goods and services tax in relation to the diesel fuel credit scheme, I do not think that should be used as a reason to increase the registration charges. The Minister needs to spell out clearly the reasons for the charges and expand on the productivity savings to the industry of $59 million that will allegedly occur in relation to increased charges. I note the Minister acknowledged that the introduction of the new type P category may affect primary producers. It is unfair to introduce that form of tax on what are basically tools of trade for farmers. Whilst it might be argued that farmers can derive some form of income from those items, the farming industry is vastly different from the trucking industry in carrying business generally and it is trite for the Minister to say "Farmers pay no more in national charges than they would under previous New South Wales motor vehicle tax”. Presently, special purpose vehicles that do not use the road do not pay a road user charge. That must continue. I note, however, that the type T special purpose vehicle mentioned in the legislation is designed for road use. There may be some grey areas in regard to type T vehicles with regard to the requirement to register. I 7010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000 hope commonsense and discretion will prevail in that regard. Consider a situation in which a farmer uses a cherry picker mounted on a truck chassis primarily for off road use: he or she will pay $200 in national charges when registering the vehicle. However, if the same farmer used a cherry picker mounted on a tractor and designed for orchard use, there would be no national charge. I turn now to indexation. In an attempt to justify indexation, the Minister said in the last part of his second reading speech:
The indexation of the NRTC’s revised heavy vehicle charges would have the following benefits: it would ensure that the purchasing power of revenue raised from charges is preserved between recalculation reviews; the national charges would remain comparable with charges for light vehicles in New South Wales; and indexation would ensure the size of any adjustment made to the national charges when the rates are recalculated would be smaller.
I regret to say that those comments totally reflect the concerns of the industry: that there will be no open and clear scrutiny of the charges. Those comments of the Minister are shear gobbledegook, which, according to the Collins Dictionary, means pretentious or unintelligible language or jargon. That definition fairly well sums up most of the Minister’s statements, particularly his statements on this legislation. The Minister's attempt to justify the implementation of indexation fits firmly into that interpretation. Indexation of charges will mean automatic increases each year without consultation or justification. As with any other tax or government charge, any increase in registration charges should not be automatic; any decision in that regard should be arrived at after a transparent process, subject to public scrutiny. Whilst the Road Transport (Heavy Vehicles Registration Charges) Amendment Bill spells out the annual registration charges and the types of vehicles to which the charges will apply, the charges will be current for one year only and then the open, public scrutiny—which this legislation purports to provide—will be obfuscated by the fact that indexation will occur. One presumes that details of that indexation will be buried in a regulation that will be promulgated annually and, unless a disallowance is moved and accepted by the Parliament, inevitably the charges will continue to roll on with little or no public scrutiny, with little or no industry input. I am reliably informed that the trucking industry petitioned the Minister earlier this year to reject indexation. It believes that it would be a giant step backwards. The main thrust of the industry's rejection of indexation is, as I have said before, the lack of assurance of open, objective and credible scrutiny in the determination of truck registration charges. The Australian Trucking Association noted in correspondence that there are three fundamental reasons why indexation should not proceed. They are:
1. It will take the pressure off the Federal Government and other levels of government to properly address the allocation of funds already collected from the trucking industry for road infrastructure.
2. It would be contrary to the way global business operates today which rather than seeing costs increase through an indexation element, efficiencies are actually being sought on an annual basis to reduce the net costs for the provision of services.
3. It would ultimately lead to unjustified costs being imposed on the trucking sector, which in turn would have a negative affect on the industries, that they serve. Further, in relation to our opposition to indexation, indexation based on the CPI will not necessarily reflect changes in road maintenance costs and would cause registration charges to increase faster than the increase in road maintenance costs. Additionally, indexation takes no account of the changes in vehicle use either in total or by vehicle class, leading eventually to some vehicle groups paying a road user charge that is not reflective of the amount of wear they cause on the road. The news section of the June 2000 edition of the magazine Truck and Bus quoted the following remarks of the President of the Australian Land Transport Association:
"The proposal to index truck registration charge variations in line with the CPI is being opposed by the Australian Land Transport Association (ALTA) on the grounds it will seriously affect regional Australia."
The ALTA has written to all Transport Ministers seeking commitments to vote against the proposed measure.
"People and industries in regional Australia will be hit very hard by a proposal to index truck registration charges if it is given the green light by federal, state and territory ministers at the ATC on May 19 in Cairns," ALTA president Ross Fraser said.
"Regional Australia depends on road transport and it will bear the full brunt of city-orientated ministers looking to slug the road transport industry." Later the same article stated: "Fraser said the three ministers who had so far opposed the move, Western Australia’s Murray Criddle, the Northern Territory’s Michael Palmer and federal minister John Anderson were regarded as being keys to the success of the anti indexation campaign."
"Regional and rural Australia needs solid help," he said.
"The vote that ministers take at the ATC will show whether they are really interested in keeping people in the country or whether they are just interested in a tax slug which looks after some special interest groups." 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7011
Well, we know it was a foregone conclusion with this Minister and this Government. He and this Government, which is the highest taxing government in the country, would grasp the tax slug option with both hands. The Minister should have put his hand up for New South Wales. He should have put his hand up for the truck operators of this State, who are doing it tough every day. But no, this insensitive arrogant Minister simply took the easy and leadershipless option of the additional tax slug. It is in that context that we will move in Committee to delete any reference in the bill to indexation charges. I can already hear the Minister in his reply thumping his chest and saying that I and the Coalition will be responsible for halting the uniform charges in accordance with the desires of the National Transport Council, that it will be on my head, and that all other calamities that might happen in the Western World will pale into insignificance if the Opposition does not accede to the Minister’s request for this matter to go forward in its entirety, without amendment. The Minister, of course, will highlight the fact that uniform legislation is due to come in on 1 July I will have no truck—pardon the pun—with the Minister in this regard. The incompetence of this Minister is evident in his handling of the Transport and Road portfolios. That was made clear recently during debate on a motion of no confidence in the Minister. Here we are with very few days left in the parliamentary sittings before 1 July and the Minister introduces a bill that the industry and the New South Wales farmers are not satisfied with, a bill that has some real problems for them. It is not as though that information was given to the Minister in the last week or so. He has been in possession of it for nearly a year. Despite all that, he has chosen to bring forward this bill in the twilight of the parliamentary sittings for this session, during the logjam of legislation that traditionally occurs under the Carr Labor Government. The Opposition is sick and tired of the threats that uniform legislation will fail if this bill is not agreed to within a certain time frame. If Ministers are not sufficiently competent to introduce their legislation through the Cabinet process in adequate time to allow the concerns of the community and the industry to be properly ventilated, they deserve to have their legislative deadlines fail. To attempt to almost blackmail the Opposition into passing legislation because it is claimed to be a part of other uniform legislation is a signal of the ineptitude and weakness of this Governments Ministers. A case in point is recent legislation relating to the dairy industry. Although the Minister for Agriculture professes to have opposed deregulation, he nevertheless feels duty bound to proceed to destroy the lives of dairy farmers with so-called "national" legislation. There is an attribute known as leadership, but that is sadly lacking in the Carr Labor Government and this Minister when it comes to dealing with other States on uniform legislation. When the amendment that I have foreshadowed is moved in Committee to delete any references to indexation, I would prefer that the Minister address the concerns of the industry that he has been aware of for some considerable time now rather than attempt to suggest that the Coalition will destroy the Western World as we know it if it does not pass the indexation provisions of his hasty bill. Knowing the Minister as I do, he will merely try to lay the blame at my feet. He is no longer the Minister for good times; he became known as the Minister for re-announcements, but is now called the Minister for blame. Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Minister for Police) [2.27 p.m.], in reply: I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to. Schedule 1 Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes—Deputy Leader of the National Party) [2.28 p.m.]: I move:
Pages 3 to 6, schedule 1 [1] and [2], line 5 on page 3 to line 11 on page 6. Omit all words on those lines. I outlined clearly in my second reading speech why the Opposition opposes the indexation. We oppose it on very good grounds, on behalf of the Australian transport forum and New South Wales farmers, and we note the deafening silence from Country Labor in relation to support for those organisations.
Question—That the words stand—put.
The Committee divided. 7012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000
Ayes, 41
Ms Allan Mrs Grusovin Mr Orkopoulos Mr Amery Ms Harrison Mr E. T. Page Ms Andrews Mr Hickey Ms Saliba Mr Ashton Mr Hunter Mr Scully Mr Barr Mr Knowles Mr W. D. Smith Mr Bartlett Mr Lynch Mr Stewart Mr Black Mr Martin Mr Tripodi Mr Brown Mr McBride Mr Watkins Miss Burton Mr McManus Mr Whelan Mr Campbell Ms Megarrity Mr Woods Mr Collier Ms Moore Mr Yeadon Mr Crittenden Mr Moss Tellers, Mr Gaudry Mr Nagle Mr Anderson Mr Greene Ms Nori Mr Thompson
Noes, 30
Mr Brogden Mr O'Farrell Mr Tink Mr Collins Mr Oakeshott Mr Torbay Mr Debnam Mr D. L. Page Mr J. H. Turner Mr George Mr Piccoli Mr R. W. Turner Mr Glachan Mr Richardson Mr Webb Mr Hazzard Mr Rozzoli Mr Windsor Mr Humpherson Ms Seaton Mr Kerr Mrs Skinner Mr Maguire Mr Slack-Smith Tellers, Mr McGrane Mr Souris Mr Fraser Mr Merton Mr Stoner Mr R. H. L. Smith
Pairs
Mr Debus Mr Armstrong Mr Iemma Mrs Chikarovksi Mr Knight Mr Hartcher Mr Markham Ms Hodgkinson Mr Mills Dr Kernohan Mr Price Mr O'Doherty Question resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Schedule 1 agreed to. Schedule 2 agreed to. Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages. TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT (PARRAMATTA RAIL LINK) BILL In Committee Consideration of the Legislative Council's amendments. Schedule of amendments referred to in message of 30 May
No. 1 Page 4, schedule 1 [3], proposed section 124. Insert after line 33:
(6) A rail authority may not acquire as provided by this section any part of the Project park land that forms part of Lane Cove National Park unless and until the land described below is reserved as part of Lane Cove National Park in accordance with Part 4 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974: 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7013
Land situated at Marsfield, in the Local Government Area of Ryde, Parish of Hunters Hill and Field of Mars, County of Cumberland and State of New South Wales being Lot 2 in Deposited Plan 841477 (being land in part of Crown Reserve in R89885 for Public Recreation, Gazette No. 99 dated 6 August 1976 Folio 3380) and Lot 4 in Deposited Plan 881923 (being land in Certificate of Title Folio Identifier 4/881923).
(7) A rail authority may acquire the land described in subsection (6) by agreement or by compulsory process in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 for the purpose of facilitating that land’s reservation as part of Lane Cove National Park.
No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1 [3], proposed section 124. Insert after line 33:
A rail authority may not acquire as provided by this section any part of the Project park land unless and until approval for the construction of the Parramatta Rail Link has been obtained under Division 4 of Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Beamer): Order! Hansard is having difficulty hearing because of the amount of noise in the Chamber. Members who wish to converse should do so outside the Chamber. Legislative Council's amendments agreed to on motion by Mr Scully.
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported from Committee and report adopted. Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution. DAIRY INDUSTRY BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from an earlier hour. Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt—Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [2.43 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to debate on the Dairy Industry Bill. It was obvious from most of the contributions that members are trying to come to grips with a situation that is difficult not only for the governments involved but also for the dairy industry and for all members of this House in their role as legislators. It has been difficult for members to debate this issue. Normally they would debate issues that Government can do something about and about which the Opposition may have a counterview. In this case this State and this House has little, if any, control over the subject matter of the debate. I hope I can pick up most of the points made by honourable members, but time will not allow me to refer to all of them. I will spend as little time as possible on the contribution of the Leader of the National Party. His speech started off with a great deal of promise—a plea for no more politics—but he then launched into a litany of dishonest political point-scoring, deliberate misrepresentation of facts and circumstances, and the use of misquotes or selective quotes from various people around the country. Apart from a few accurate comments about the problems facing individual farmers, for the most part the speech should be ignored and not taken seriously. I sat through all the speeches and I have reread some of them. I acknowledge first the realistic and well thought out contributions by three members of Country Labor, namely, the honourable member for South Coast, the honourable member for Bathurst and the honourable member for Tweed. I will not have time to refer to all of their contributions. People studying this process of dairy deregulation should read those three speeches. I will make no comment other than that. Their speeches confronted the reality of the situation. I was disappointed to hear that some members on the crossbench will oppose the bill, although for different reasons—and I think more honourable reasons—than those suggested by the Coalition. My assessment of the opposition from the members on the crossbench was that they believe that if the bill fails, the Government will be able to stop the deregulation process. I suppose that is a cry of frustration, annoyance or anger, and the expression of a hope that this bill in some way might be able to dictate the terms of the deregulation. My only comment is, "If only that were so!" Let me refer to some of the points made by those who spoke in the debate. The first is the issue for which the Opposition campaigned: the addition of another assistance package to top up the $1.7 billion scheme facilitated by Federal legislation. Many speakers in the debate argued for that alternative scheme, and many were against it. They referred to the egg industry, which received State funding for a restructuring scheme, and the timber industry restructuring package, which is where the Opposition got its ideas about the dairy industry. It was also suggested 7014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000 that money from the Consolidated Fund money should be put into this process. I ask honourable members to note the comparisons with the egg industry made by the honourable member for Bathurst, who quoted the President of the Dairy Farmers Association, Reg Smith, and the honourable member for Tweed. Honourable members should look at their contributions in Hansard.
Let me give the House the reasons why the Opposition package should be rejected and why the amendments to be moved in Committee by the Leader of the National Party should be defeated. First, I repeat what I said in question time earlier this week. What is behind the idea of this package? The package is designed only to give the Coalition, particularly the Nationals, some input into the dairy deregulation process, a process that has been going on for years in meetings of Agricultural Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand [ARMCANZ], which has been talking about the available options, in debates at meetings of the Dairy Farmers Association, in community forums around the country, and in this House. Only after people realised that dairy deregulation was coming that the idea popped up out of the blue of a $80 million package, well after the discussions between the dairy industry and the Government took place and well after the resolution of ARMCANZ. As I said, coincidentally it was a figure similar to the forestry restructuring package figure.
The arguments put forward by honourable members in terms of a precedent for restructuring assistance—and this is an important point—have one thing in common: there has only ever been one type of restructuring scheme for different industries. Let me go through them. I thought Coalition members would be the last people to talk about the egg industry deregulation and to tout it in this House as a prime example of how governments should respond to deregulation. For the benefit of those who know about the dairy deregulation process, I shall outline the difference between that process and the process for the egg industry. Debate over the past couple of weeks has shown that pressure has been placed on the New South Wales dairy industry by Victoria, the competition policy, the end of the demand market strategy and the restructuring of dairy industries in other States. What was the situation with the egg industry? First, there was no pressure to deregulate the egg industry from the national competition policy, the Federal Government or any other government, let alone the New South Wales Government. I have had a great deal to do with the egg industry in my electorate. Certainly, there was no pressure on the quota system.
I was in the House when the then Minister for Agriculture announced without any fanfare that the New South Wales egg industry would be deregulated. I should add that there was no pressure from Victoria or the industry for deregulation. Egg producers, processors and others involved in the industry had not asked the Government to deregulate the industry. However, there were a few dry economic rationalist comments around the place that it would be a good idea. The egg industry was deregulated only to fulfil Greiner Government ideology. The honourable member for Tweed hit it right on the head. The State government of the day, of its own volition, initiated deregulation of the egg industry. It made a political decision to buy out the quota as a way of pacifying the producers. It then reduced the price of eggs by 30¢ a dozen to keep the consumers on side, which led to a dramatic reduction. It was a State Government funded buy-out, because the industry would not wear any sort of industry package. Of course, the Government forgot the carriers. The carriers took it to court, and it lost another $10 million or $20 million of taxpayers' funds paying for that botch-up.
I shall respond to honourable members who raised the egg industry as an example. Deregulation of the egg industry is a good example of how not to restructure an agricultural industry in this country, let alone in New South Wales. Opposition members failed to mention one element of the restructuring, that is, the post farm gate deregulation of the milk industry. What happened in that case? I shall bring some consistency to this matter. The New South Wales Government initiated the post farm gate deregulation of the dairy industry. When that was first announced in 1992 there was no competition policy, no pressure from the industry, no pressure from Canberra and no threat of being penalised financially in terms of a tranche payment to New South Wales. The New South Wales Government then initiated deregulation from the farm gate right through to price control or maximum prices in the retail sector. Did the then Coalition Government provide any financial assistance in the form of a restructuring package? Honourable members should bear in mind that there was no pressure from Victoria and no competition policy. What did the then State Government do? What happened to the milk vendors? Was there a State-funded $80 million package for people like the honourable member for Cessnock? There was none at all.
The State Government set up a system in the industry, funded by the industry, of a buy-out of regulated milk runs and then sold them back at an unregulated price. There was a high market price for the regulated runs, which were then sold back to those who wanted to stay in the industry. Milk vendors had the choice of leaving the industry, as nearly all of them did. Subsequently, the retailers offered contracts. However, many vendors 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7015 who thought they would never go out of business did go out of business. But the principle remains: We removed the zones to protect milk vendors. We removed the guaranteed margins and an industry restructuring package paid out the regulated side of the milk vendor system. There was no State-funded package on top of that. Why was there no such package? There was no package because there was an industry restructuring package. In other words, it was either an industry restructuring package or a State-funded package.
I shall give two examples. The first is the pork industry. Federal funds were allocated mainly to processors, and there was only one scheme. Obviously, there was no levy. There is no facility to impose a levy on pork chops, sausages or other pork products, although there is a simple way of imposing a levy on milk. Historically, milk has been regulated, and it is easy to impose a levy. The Federal Government provided an assistance package for the pork industry, although Country Labor members argued in this place that it was insufficient. The Federal Government's assistance package favoured the processing sector to make it more export competitive. There was no industry package on top of the Federal package; it was one package or the other. The second example is the forestry industry. As I explained in question time recently, the scheme for the forestry restructuring was not duplicated; there was only a State-funded package. As I said in the House recently, the substantial $80 million package was for a number of small mills and so on. The Kerin plan was funded by a consumer levy; it was not funded by the State Government or the Federal Government.
[Interruption] I am saying this as slowly as I can so that it will sink in with National members. They are like old computers: one must virtually punch in all the information. I reiterate my point: Different industries have different systems. Some are State Government systems and some are industry systems. One simply does not say, "That's a good industry. We'll duplicate it one way or another." The provisions in this bill will complement the Federal Government's assistance package. In effect, with this debate and, hopefully, the passage of this bill, the Government is facilitating the $1.7 billion package, which is facilitated by Federal legislation. The only way the State Government can tap into that—this is our part of the deal— is to pass this bill deregulating the dairy industry. The dairy industry package that I have referred to in this House is virtually a three-tiered package of advice and counselling relating to business, financial matters and personal matters. The Government will work with the industry in the post deregulation period. I have not seen the Dairy Farmers Association proposal. It was not on the table in March when association representatives said to the Government in the days before ARMCANZ, "This is a $1.7 billion package. Will you support the legislation?" Although the proposal was not on the table, as I have said in a few forums, I am quite happy to talk to association representatives. However, the Government will not provide a cash top-up or duplicate the scheme it is facilitating in this bill. It will look at access to the various Federal and State Government assistance packages through the Rural Assistance Authority, the triple-A package and so on. Let us look at the schemes that are available. I refer to a point that was raised by a deputation recently. We are talking about the Federal Government's $1.7 billion package and the advisory packages. Many people in the dairy industry will be hurt by this legislation. I understand that no-one gave two hoots about the milk vendors when the milk industry was deregulated. A dairy processing plant in Orange closed with the loss of 15 jobs, and a processing plant on the mid North Coast closed with the loss of another 15 jobs. No-one is talking about the processors in the dairy industry who will lose their jobs. Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lynch): Order! Opposition members will cease interjecting. Mr AMERY: The honourable member for Port Macquarie asked what can be done about identifying the New South Wales product. The Government will look at labelling issues. However, there will be a few problems with that. At the moment it would probably be easy to identify New South Wales product by the addresses on labels and so on. However, I believe that in the next couple of months or in the next couple of years there will be a number of mergers between dairy processing companies. Parmalat Foods Australia has signalled in the press that it is making offers to dairy farmers. There have been discussions between Victorian, Queensland and New South Wales processors. Competition will not improve as a result of deregulation. Processing companies will amalgamate, probably across borders. Given New Zealand's interests in Australia, a number of trans-Tasman companies will probably set up in the years ahead. In the future—not this month or the next month—it might be difficult to identify the farm that milk comes from, particularly if the farm is owned by cross-State organisations or cross-country organisations. However, we will look at that matter. During the debate I heard interjections from members opposite about the Federal Government attacking the State Government about the floor price. There is no doubt that when a National Party Minister in Canberra 7016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000 comes under attack, the Federal National Party's counterparts in New South Wales can be expected to fight tooth and nail to the last drop of their blood. Members would have noted in the contributions of National Party members that little apology was made for the comments of Warren Truss. Let me provide the House with some more historical facts. The floor price was not considered at all by any people in the industry or by any State Government until the ARMCANZ meeting in March. It came about as a result of Country Labor lobbying the Government when the first offers went out to farmers from processors of as little as 27¢ a litre for their fresh milk. They were previously getting 53¢ a litre.
Farmers argued to members of both the Government and the Opposition that when they went to Dairy Farmers Association meetings and Victorian farmers were talking about deregulation, the figures being bandied about, with no guarantees, were figures like 40¢, 39¢, 38¢ and as low as 35¢ a litre. Many farmers felt ambushed by processors who offered them 27¢ a litre. Obviously they then asked what could be done about it. When a delegation from the rally outside the Parliament came and spoke to me, every suggestion from that delegation was met with a response involving regulation. They asked, "How do you, as a government, stop this process? How do you do something about it?" I explained to the delegation, as I have just explained to the House, that the New South Wales Government regulations will be redundant on 1 July because Victoria—
Mr Oakeshott: By choice.
Mr AMERY: That is a very intelligent interjection. After days, weeks, months and years of the debate, the honourable member for Port Macquarie makes an interjection such as that.
Mr Oakeshott: You signed off on it.
Mr AMERY: Are you listening?
Mr Oakeshott: I am.
Mr AMERY: The delegation came to us and asked, "What is a regulated response to this deregulation?" I put this to them. On 1 July the dairy industry will be federally regulated. The honourable member for Tamworth is holding up the Federal bill. Members opposite should have a look at it; they will know what we are talking about. I told the delegation that on 1 July regulations will be put in place to capture the 11¢ and that will fund the $1.7 billion package. As I have argued time and again, Victoria has a commercial advantage over the other States. I told the delegation that if there is to be a regulated response to the 27¢ offer that has been made to farmers in this State, there must be regulation. That does not apply in New South Wales. I could make the farm gate price 87¢. Mr George: I wish you would. Mr AMERY: Do you really think that would be all right? On 1 July we will make it 53¢. Dairy Farmers, Perfection and the national dairies will go to their farmers and say, "By law, they have to pay you, the dairy farmer, 53¢." The processor will say, "No thanks, I will get it off Murray Goulburn in Victoria for 26¢, add about 5¢ for transport, and that will be around 31¢ or 32¢." The processor has been lost. What happens to your farmer then? That is how irrelevant our regulations will be on 1 July. I could make the farm gate price 53¢, 63¢, 73¢, or even $2 a litre, but the processors and the supermarkets will not buy it. Is it sinking in yet? We are slowly getting there. The delegation accepted that point and said, "Well, how do you do something with the Victorians?" I put the proposal of Country Labor to them: if we are to have regulation in place that will have an impact on Victorian prices, where is it going to come from? As I said the other day, only two governments can put that regulation in place. The first is the Victorian Government—and that Government is going to deregulate, package or not—and the other is the Federal Government. That is the only way it could happen. I will say this slowly. If we are to answer the question asked by the deputation of dairy farmers we have to say that only two governments can regulate: the Victorian Government and the Federal Government. I believe that probably explains the matter. The Federal Government opposes that either because it is unconstitutional or because it cannot be done. The Federal Minister for Agriculture needs to be briefed on a few matters. He issued a press release. Members opposite quoted it to me in the House. Let me read what Warren Truss, the Federal Minister for Agriculture, said:
The Federal Government has not passed any legislation to deregulate the dairy industry… That is false. The legislation that swept through the Parliament deregulates the dairy maintenance scheme, which has now been in place for almost 20 years. The new Federal Minister for Agriculture does not even know 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7017 that when he put through this legislation he was deregulating a dairy maintenance scheme, which operates under Federal legislation. The scheme ends on 30 June. If you do not know, shut up; if you want to show people that you are stupid, put it in writing—and the Federal Minister for Agriculture obviously has. The Federal Government is now winding up the domestic market scheme which has regulated the industry for about 20 years. The Federal Minister also argues that there is no way that the Federal Government will regulate.
On 1 July the bill the honourable member for Tamworth is holding up will permit the collection of 11¢ per litre on market milk and set up the Dairy Adjustment Authority. Is that regulation, or are all these people in the dairy industry paying the 11¢ a litre voluntarily? Members opposite cannot think of an original quote. Pat Rowley, a man I have a lot of respect for, said something about a cruel hoax and things such as that. Warren Truss could not think of anything new to say either, so he said, "It's a cruel hoax." Then the honourable member for Port Macquarie said, "It's a cruel hoax." One of the other members opposite then said it was a cruel hoax. Surely members opposite could think of something more original. Why is Pat Rowley saying it is a cruel hoax? Why is Reg Smith, the President of the Dairy Farmers Association, who is in the gallery at the moment, saying he would not support that aspect?
The reason is quite obvious, and it is not a bad reason for opposing a floor price. Let me give honourable members their reason, not mine, namely, that any changes made at this stage to an agreement— which was achieved only after fighting for it for two or three years and which the Agricultural Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand meeting has ratified—may mean that the $1.7 billion package for dairy farmers may be blown out the door. That is what they are concerned about. However, that particular package does not have the support of people who were demonstrating outside Parliament House. Members of the Coalition are speaking with forked tongues. They speak selectively on behalf of farmers who were demonstrating outside the gates of Parliament House, but they represent another sector of the industry when they come into this House.
I point out that when I was referring to members of the crossbench, I was probably critical of them for opposing the bill, but I recognise that they are doing so for honourable reasons. If this Government could stop the deregulation process and the flood of Victorian milk throughout this State, I would be voting against this bill. I would not have it in the House. Let us face it—who wants to do what has been proposed for the dairy industry? Let me examine some of the options. If this Government does nothing and if all States do not deregulate, the Federal Government has said that it will not pay the $1.7 billion package to dairy farmers. That was the original arrangement. I can only assume, not having heard anything to the contrary, that that is still the case. It should be remembered that dairy farmers in all States, not only those in New South Wales, would lose the package.
Irrespective of deregulation, Victorian milk would become available in New South Wales at 31¢ per litre. Clearly, that would undercut the New South Wales dairy farmers' margin on milk priced at 53¢ a litre. Some legal advice suggests that if the State Government tried to stop Victorian milk from being sold in New South Wales—although this was tried in the 1980s and failed—that would attract a challenge under section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution. Legal advice to past and present Governments indicates that a challenge under section 92 would be successful. The other option is to pass the legislation as it is. In that event, the Federal Government's assistance package would be available to dairy farmers.
Varying figures have been bandied about on how much will be paid to New South Wales. I think that with the adjustments that are being made to the Dairy Farmers co-operative there would be a number of variations, but I estimate that $330 million or $430 million would be paid to dairy farmers in this State, and that $506 million would be paid by consumers. For the next eight years, 11¢ a litre would be added to the retail price of milk. Victorian milk, priced at 31¢ a litre, would be available in Sydney. Farm gate prices for New South Wales dairy farmers would fall by approximately 20¢ per litre. That would be the situation if this Government's legislation is passed by this Parliament. Dairy farmer associations and industry representatives are advocating that the Government's proposal should be adopted.
I turn now to address the Opposition amendments. At the outset, I draw attention to all agricultural industries that are consistently and continually making arrangements, doing deals, setting down agreements and sitting around tables throughout this country to engage in negotiations with Federal Governments, State Governments, Labor Governments and Coalition Governments. This type of activity happens all the time, but what I want to know is: How will governments respond to future approaches from any industry to negotiate? How will industry representatives feel comfortable about negotiating with governments? How will governments receive those negotiations and come to an arrangement if, after agreements have been reached and ratified by 7018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000
ARMCANZ, suddenly, because some demonstrations have generated some heat and some hot air, one party to the agreement wants to change the proposal? How will industry and governments negotiate in the future if they come to an agreement and at a late stage in the process someone decides that the issue is getting too hot and proposes an alternative course of action? Surely that type of approach will not work, and this Government will certainly resist any such proposal.
The honourable member for Tamworth suggested that the bill should be withdrawn. To my mind, such a proposal is the equivalent of doing nothing and attracts the same consequences. It is not an option that is open to honourable members, the Government or the Parliament. I have already outlined to the Parliament what the State Government has been doing and how it will go about implementing the provisions of the bill. The Government has facilitated the whole process of negotiation by encouraging debate and producing this legislation. Hopefully, most of the issues that have been raised have been addressed. I thank the honourable member for the Northern Tablelands and the honourable member for Dubbo who made some points about the floor price issue and the advice given by Dr Scott of the University of New England, Armidale. Those matters comprise the ball that is bouncing in the Federal Government's court. It appears that the Federal Government will not go down the path suggested by the honourable member for Northern Tablelands, so we are stuck with the proposal that State Ministers agreed upon at the ARMCANZ meeting in March.
In conclusion, I indicate to the House that when this bill is considered in Committee I will not repeat the debate or the reasons why the Government will be opposing those amendments. I have engaged in considerable arguments in this Parliament, including during question time and during this debate, and have responded to the amendments of which I am aware and which I anticipate will be presented. The Government will be opposing the amendments because it does not believe that there is any way now that it can interfere with this legislation. I ask all honourable members—reluctant as they all are—not only to work with the industry in the difficult weeks prior to implementation of the Federal Government's bill but also to bite the bullet and pass this legislation so that the New South Wales Government can get on with doing what the dairy industry has asked it to do, namely, obtain the $1.7 billion industry package. I urge all honourable members to pass this bill through the Parliament, albeit reluctantly.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.
Division called for. Standing Order 191 applied.
Noes, 5 Mr Barr Mr McGrane Ms Moore Mr Torbay Mr Windsor Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee Clauses 1 to 13 agreed to. Clauses 14 to 26 and Schedules 1 and 2 Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter—Leader of the National Party) [3.22 p.m.], by leave: I move amendments Nos 1 to 7 in globo:
No. 1 Page 8, part 4. Insert after line 2:
Division 1 Compensation generally
No. 2 Page 8, clause 14, line 5. Insert ", except as provided by Division 2" after "Crown".
No. 3 Page 8, clause 14, line 19. Insert ", except as provided by Division 2" after "Crown".
No. 4 Page 9, part 4. Insert after line 6: 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7019
Division 2 Dairy Farmers Price Support Scheme
15 Definitions
In this Division:
Committee means the Milk Quota Committee constituted under this Division.
dairy farmer means the occupier of premises used for or in connection with the stalling, grazing, feeding or milking of cattle for the purpose of producing milk that is supplied or to be supplied for profit or sale.
milk quota means a quota held by a dairy farmer under a scheme in force under section 9 (1) (g) of the Dairy Industry Act 1979 immediately before 1 July 2000.
the Scheme means the Dairy Farmers Price Support Scheme constituted under this Division.
16 Milk Quota Committee
(1) There is constituted by this Act a body corporate with the corporate name of the Milk Quota Committee.
(2) The Committee is dissolved on 1 July 2003. On dissolution of the Committee:
(a) a person who, immediately before the dissolution held office as a member, ceases to hold office as a member, and
(b) the person is not entitled to any remuneration or compensation because of the loss of that office.
17 Members of Committee
(1) The Committee is to consist of 6 members appointed by the Minister, one of whom is to be appointed by the Minister as the Chairperson of the Committee.
(2) Of the members:
(a) one is to be a person nominated by the NSW Dairy Farmers’ Association to represent Far- North Coast dairy farmers, and
(b) one is to be a person nominated by the NSW Dairy Farmers’ Association to represent Mid- North Coast dairy farmers, and
(c) one is to be a person nominated by the NSW Dairy Farmers’ Association to represent South Coast dairy farmers, and
(d) one is to be a person nominated by the NSW Dairy Farmers’ Association to represent inland dairy farmers.
(3) If the NSW Dairy Farmers’ Association ceases to exist, the members referred to in subsection (2) are to be nominated by an organisation appointed by the Minister. The Minister must appoint an organisation that, in the Minister’s opinion, is the principal organisation representing New South Wales dairy farmers.
(4) Schedule 1 has effect with respect to the constitution and procedure of the Committee.
18 Functions of Committee
The Committee has the following functions:
(a) to administer the Dairy Farmers Price Support Scheme established under this Division,
(b) such other functions as are conferred or imposed on the Committee by or under this or any other Act.
19 Staff of Committee
The Committee may arrange for the use of the services of any staff or facilities of Safe Food, a government department or a public or local authority.
20 Dairy Farmers Price Support Scheme
(1) There is established a Scheme called the Dairy Farmers Price Support Scheme under which the Committee is to arrange for payments to be made to claimants who are eligible for financial assistance under the Scheme. 7020 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000
(2) A person is eligible for financial assistance under the Scheme if the person was the holder of a milk quota in force immediately before 1 June 2000 and had not ceased to be a holder of a quota immediately before 1 July 2000 and satisfies any other criteria for eligibility prescribed by the regulations.
(3) A payment may be made to an eligible person only if the person has made a claim in accordance with this Act and the other provisions of this Act regarding payment have been satisfied.
(4) It does not matter that an eligible person is receiving a subsidy or other benefit under Commonwealth legislation in respect of the deregulation of the dairy industry.
21 Claims
(1) A claim under the Scheme may be made by any person who is eligible for financial assistance under the Scheme.
(2) A claim is to be made in the manner and form approved by the Committee.
(3) The Committee may, in writing, request a claimant to provide additional information in relation to a claim and may, if that information is not provided within a reasonable time after the Committee’s request, refuse the claim.
(4) The Committee may determine a date, being not earlier than 1 July 2002, by which all claims for payment under the Scheme must be made. The Committee must give notice of any date determined under this subsection by publishing it in a newspaper circulating generally throughout New South Wales.
22 Determination of claims
(1) The Committee is to determine a claim made to it by refusing or allowing the claim. In allowing the claim the Committee is to determine the amount of the payment to which a claimant is entitled.
(2) The Committee may refuse a claim:
(a) if in its opinion, the claimant is not eligible for financial assistance under the Scheme, or
(b) if there is insufficient documentary or other evidence to support the claim, or
(c) if a person other than the claimant is, in the opinion of the Committee, eligible for payment in respect of the milk quota concerned.
(3) The Committee must give a claimant written notice of its determination of the claim and, in the case of a refusal, must set out the reasons for its refusal.
23 Review of Committee determinations
(1) A claimant who is dissatisfied with a determination of the Committee may request the Committee to review its determination.
(2) The Committee must review a determination if requested to do so not later than 21 days after notice of the determination was given.
(3) A review is to be carried out by reconsideration of the evidence on which the determination was based.
(4) If the Committee considers it necessary to do so following reconsideration of the evidence, it may conduct a hearing into any determination it is requested to review.
(5) New evidence (including fresh evidence) in addition to or in substitution for the evidence considered by the Committee on its review may be given at a hearing.
(6) A claimant may appear personally at a hearing or may be represented by a legal practitioner or, with the leave of the Committee, by any other person.
(7) The Committee is to give written notice of its decision on review to the claimant and the Minister.
24 Procedure at hearings
(1) In proceedings before it, the Committee is not bound to observe the rules of law governing the admission of evidence, but may inform itself of any matter in such manner as it thinks fit.
(2) Unless the Committee otherwise directs, a hearing is to be held in the absence of the public.
25 Power to summon witnesses and take evidence
(1) A member of the Committee may summon a person to appear at a hearing to give evidence and to produce such documents (if any) as are referred to in the summons. 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7021
(2) The member of the Committee presiding at a hearing may require a person appearing at the hearing to produce a document.
(3) The Committee may, at a hearing, take evidence on oath or affirmation and, for that purpose:
(a) a member may require a person appearing at the hearing to give evidence, to take an oath or to make an affirmation in a form approved by the member presiding at the hearing, and
(b) a member may administer an oath or affirmation to a person so appearing.
(4) A person served with a summons to appear at a hearing to give evidence must not, without reasonable excuse:
(a) fail to attend as required by the summons, or
(b) fail to attend from day to day unless excused, or released from further attendance, by a member of the Committee.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
(5) A person appearing at a hearing to give evidence must not, without reasonable excuse:
(a) when required to take an oath or make an affirmation, refuse or fail to comply with the requirement, or
(b) refuse or fail to answer a question that the person is required to answer by the member of the Committee presiding at the hearing, or
(c) refuse or fail to produce a document that the person is required to produce by a summons served under this section.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
26 Power to obtain documents
(1) A member of the Committee may, by notice in writing served on a person, require the person:
(a) to attend, at a time and place specified in the notice, before a person specified in the notice, being a member of the Committee or a person authorised by the Committee in that behalf, and
(b) to produce, at that time and place, to the person so specified a document specified in the notice.
(2) A person must not, without reasonable excuse, refuse or fail to comply with a notice served on the person under this section.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
27 Appeals on questions of law
(1) A claimant who is or has been a party to a hearing may, in accordance with rules of court, appeal to the Supreme Court against any decision of the Committee on a question of law.
(2) On the hearing of an appeal under this section, the Supreme Court may:
(a) by order remit the matter to the Committee for determination by the Committee in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court, or
(b) make such other order in relation to the appeal as it thinks fit.
(3) Any appeal against a decision of the Committee must be made within 21 days after the date on which notice of the decision was given.
28 No appeals
A determination of the Committee is not liable to be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called into question by any court or tribunal or administrative body.
29 Payments
(1) The Committee may determine and, with the approval of the Minister, may arrange for payments to be made under the Scheme.
(2) Payments under the Scheme are to be made out of money to be provided by Parliament or that is otherwise legally available. 7022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000
(3) Without limiting subsection (1), the rate of payments under the Scheme is to be calculated on the basis of an amount, determined by the Committee, of cents per litre of milk that was subject to the milk quota immediately before 1 June 2000.
(4) Payments under the Scheme may be made progressively as each claim is determined or only after all claims have been determined.
30 Personal liability
No matter or thing done or omitted to be done by the Committee, a member of the Committee or any person acting under the direction of the Committee, is, if the matter or thing is done or omitted to be done in good faith for the purposes of executing this Division, to subject the member or person so acting personally to any action, liability, claim or demand.
No. 5 Page 12, clause 25, line 25. Omit "Schedule 1". Insert instead "Schedule 2".
No. 6 Page 12, clause 26, line 28. Omit "Schedule 2". Insert instead "Schedule 3".
No. 7 Page 13. Insert before line 1:
Schedule 1 Provisions relating to members and procedure of Milk Quota Committee (Section 17 (3))
1 Definitions
In this Schedule:
Chairperson means the Chairperson of the Committee.
member means any member of the Committee.
2 Terms of office of members
Subject to this Schedule, a member holds office for such period (not exceeding 3 years) as is specified in the member’s instrument of appointment, but is eligible (if otherwise qualified) for re-appointment.
3 Remuneration
A member is entitled to be paid such remuneration (including travelling and subsistence allowances) as the Minister may from time to time determine in respect of the member.
4 Deputies
(1) The Minister may, from time to time, appoint a person to be the deputy of a member, and the Minister may revoke any such appointment.
(2) In the absence of a member, the member’s deputy may, if available, act in the place of the member.
(3) While acting in the place of a member, a person:
(a) has all the functions of the member and is taken to be a member, and
(b) is entitled to be paid such remuneration (including travelling and subsistence allowances) as the Minister may from time to time determine in respect of the person.
(4) For the purposes of this clause, a vacancy in the office of a member is taken to be an absence of the member.
5 Vacancy in office of member
(1) The office of a member becomes vacant if the member:
(a) dies, or
(b) completes a term of office and is not re-appointed, or
(c) resigns the office by instrument in writing addressed to the Minister, or
(d) is removed from office by the Minister under this clause, or
(e) is absent from 4 consecutive meetings of the Committee of which reasonable notice has been given to the member personally or by post, except on leave granted by the Minister or unless the member is excused by the Minister for having been absent from those meetings, or
(f) becomes bankrupt, applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors, compounds with his or her creditors or makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for their benefit, or 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7023
(g) becomes a mentally incapacitated person, or
(h) is convicted in New South Wales of an offence that is punishable by imprisonment for 12 months or more or is convicted elsewhere than in New South Wales of an offence that, if committed in New South Wales, would be an offence so punishable.
(2) The Minister may at any time remove a member from office.
6 Filling of vacancy in office of member
If the office of any member becomes vacant, a person is, subject to this Act, to be appointed to fill the vacancy.
7 Chairperson
(1) In the absence of the Chairperson, the deputy of the Chairperson may, if available, act in the place of the Chairperson.
(2) While acting in the place of the Chairperson, the deputy of the Chairperson has all the functions of the Chairperson and is taken to be the Chairperson.
(3) The Chairperson vacates office as Chairperson if the person:
(a) is removed from office by the Minister under this clause, or
(b) ceases to be a member.
(4) The Minister may at any time remove the Chairperson from office as Chairperson.
8 Disclosure of pecuniary interests
(1) If:
(a) a member has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter being considered or about to be considered at a meeting of the Committee, and
(b) the interest appears to raise a conflict with the proper performance of the member’s duties in relation to the consideration of the matter,
the member must, as soon as possible after the relevant facts have come to the member’s knowledge, disclose the nature of the interest at a meeting of the Committee.
(2) A disclosure by a member at a meeting of the Committee that the member:
(a) is a member, or is in the employment, of a specified company or other body, or
(b) is a partner, or is in the employment, of a specified person, or
(c) has some other specified interest relating to a specified company or other body or to a specified person,
is a sufficient disclosure of the nature of the interest in any matter relating to that company or other body or to that person which may arise after the date of the disclosure and which is required to be disclosed under subclause (1).
(3) Particulars of any disclosure made under this clause must be recorded by the Committee in a book kept for the purpose and that book must be open at all reasonable hours to inspection by any person on payment of the fee determined by the Committee.
(4) After a member has disclosed the nature of an interest in any matter, the member must not, unless the Minister or the Committee otherwise determines:
(a) be present during any deliberation of the Committee with respect to the matter, or
(b) take part in any decision of the Committee with respect to the matter.
(5) For the purposes of the making of a determination by the Committee under subclause (4), a member who has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter to which the disclosure relates must not:
(a) be present during any deliberation of the Committee for the purpose of making the determination, or
(b) take part in the making by the Committee of the determination.
(6) A contravention of this clause does not invalidate any decision of the Committee. 7024 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000
9 Effect of other Acts
(1) Part 2 of the Public Sector Management Act 1988 does not apply to or in respect of the appointment of a member.
(2) If by or under any Act provision is made:
(a) requiring a person who is the holder of a specified office to devote the whole of his or her time to the duties of that office, or
(b) prohibiting the person from engaging in employment outside the duties of that office,
the provision does not operate to disqualify the person from holding that office and also the office of a member or from accepting and retaining any remuneration payable to the person under this Act as a member.
10 General procedure
The procedure for the calling of meetings of the Committee and for the conduct of business at those meetings is, subject to this Act and the regulations, to be as determined by the Committee.
11 Quorum
The quorum for a meeting of the Committee is a majority of its members, of whom one must be the Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson.
12 Presiding member
(1) The Chairperson (or, in the absence of the Chairperson, the Deputy Chairperson) is to preside at a meeting of the Committee.
(2) The presiding member has a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, has a second or casting vote.
13 Voting
A decision supported by a majority of the votes cast at a meeting of the Committee at which a quorum is present is the decision of the Committee.
14 First meeting
The Minister may call the first meeting of the Committee in such manner as the Minister thinks fit.
It is with pleasure that I move these amendments. As the Minister said a moment ago, if he had a choice he would not vote for this bill either. In reply, I say that if this were the best bill possible, offering good outcomes for the industry and hope for a better future for the industry, who knows how many people would be clamouring to vote for it? Up until a short time ago the predominant premise upon which this bill and the entire debate about the dairy industry was based was the expectation that the price reduction would be 38¢ or 40¢ or some other certain amount, and that, after allowing for freight, the package that the Federal Government has been asked to co-ordinate at 11¢ would go a long way towards not so much equalizing but providing a workable opportunity for viability. However, that assumption changed dramatically when the price that processors were prepared to pay was found to be dramatically lower.
I am prepared to acknowledge that the Minister for Agriculture and the Carr Government had not approached the Federal Government as they are doing now, and had not contemplated a State package as the Opposition is contemplating one now, because up until recently the 38¢ at least provided some scope, notwithstanding a significant exit of participants from the industry, for the remainder of the industry to survive. However, in the predominant quota states—New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia—the prices which the processors are prepared to pay would mean far greater and more significant change in the industry, especially in this State, than anticipated. In the end, as proposed in the bill without amendment, after deregulation the industry in New South Wales will face decimation. That cannot be ignored by the Government or the Opposition. Criticism of the Dairy Farmers Association for its past involvement and for not having raised a State-based package until recently really masks the fact that much of the current debate is predicated upon the latest price confronting producers. Nonetheless, the New South Wales Dairy Farmers Association is proposing a State-based price support scheme. The president of the association is calling on both the Government and the Opposition to offer something other than the present bill, which will clearly result in the decimation of the industry. The Opposition stands ready to talk to the Government. The Government has not approached the Opposition with any 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7025 notification whatsoever in relation to a State-based scheme of support similar to, related to or unrelated to the Western Australian scheme. At least Western Australia has deemed it imperative to provide a State-based additional assistance package, but that is the only State to see virtue in that step. Queensland and New South Wales are quota-dependent States but have not seen value in such a scheme. The other States are not quite as critical to the State-based package debate. Following all the rhetoric and press release warfare, the New South Wales Dairy Farmers Association has presented a proposition which ought to be considered. As the Minister said, The Government has listened to, worked with, and co-ordinated activities with the association for several years. The association has not come to this position lightly and has not just joined the press release war.
The situation is so critical and grave that the association asks both the Government and Opposition to see what can be done. They want to start discussions afresh. The Opposition is more than interested to discuss the matter with the Government, to forget the politics of scoring points, and to offer a scheme that would be of assistance to the industry. The Government cannot seriously say that the industry does not need further assistance. I am sure the Government would not say that. I can understand why the Government has looked at the feasibility of a national price support scheme. I am sure if the Coalition were in government we would also have looked at the feasibility of a Federal Government arrangement or scheme. We would have considered whether such a scheme were in the realms of possibility. The Minister is still sporting with the topic when he says that the Federal Government's legislation is a regulation of the industry. It is not a regulation of the industry in a quota sense. It does not regulate the supply of milk.
As far as the Government is concerned, we are still in the gymnastics part of the debate. There is no way a Federal quota scheme can be introduced. It would need all the States to agree. If Victoria were agreeable to anything—which I am sure the Minister implied in his remarks—we would not be debating this matter. Any thought that all States, including Victoria, would agree to the implementation of some kind of national quota scheme is unrealistic. One wonders what would be the universal floor price that would apply. It is pointless to say to New South Wales farmers that if we had a national floor price they would get 53¢ per litre, or some step- down arrangement from 53¢ per litre. Would Victorian farmers agree to New South Wales farmers retaining a quota arrangement for supermarket milk at 53¢, stepping down, while they continued with their price? Would they accept a restraint across the border? They would not do that. We would not be here debating the matter if that were a possibility.
I particularly note that a number of dairy producers are co-owners of the main processor, Dairy Farmers Co-operative. The chairman of the co-operative's board issued a memorandum, which has been quoted in this House, to all of its district chairpeople to explain that any proposal for a national quote scheme, a national floor price, a re-regulation, is a myth. The memorandum, headed "Mythical floor price for milk", refers to the chairman having written to the New South Wales Minister for Agriculture. It also states:
He (Mr Tooth) expressed grave concern over the New South Wales Government providing credence to the idea that there may be a possibility of a floor price for milk being introduced.
The memorandum continues:
Mr Tooth pointed out to the Minister that talk of a regulated floor price may give false hope to people and prevent them from making decisions based on reality. I could read a great deal more of the Dairy Farmers document. Here is a principal player whose logo gives the message: We are going to go out there pushing as hard as we can to help our producers. On a couple of occasions I have raised the prospect of encouraging consumers to buy New South Wales product. The Minister has subsequently raised this issue. We should buy locally and look after our dairy farmers as best we can in our consumer choices. That should be at the forefront of all our purchasing considerations. Irrespective of how this matter ends up, we will need to do at least that. However, it is difficult for those who do the grocery shopping. For example, they have to search for obscure labels, and look for Australian logos and information on fat content. It is a lot to expect of supermarket shoppers, who perhaps already take three-quarters of an hour to do their shopping. They will have to take considerably longer to scrutinise labels and make choices. Even though they may want to do it, it is a difficult task. I do supermarket shopping and I think I scrutinise the labels better than other members of my family. I am perpetually distraught at the prospect of buying fruit juices which say "Australian" and "imported" in the one sentence. I want to know whether it is Australian or imported. I go to great efforts when I do the supermarket shopping. Those of us who are tuned into this issue will do that, and we will advocate it as best we can. This legislation and our amendment do not necessarily relate to that issue. At the moment, we are faced with the questions of this legislation and our amendment. As the Minister has noted, the package for New South Wales 7026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000 farmers is in the order of $337 million, which is sourced essentially out of the producers' proceeds. Although technically the money is to come from the consumer, in reality it will not. The price dive for producers will be well beyond 11¢. One could say that the farmers will be funding their own compensation package.
The fact that the price the producers will receive will fall far more than 11¢ means that the price will not change at the supermarket. The price will change at the producers' end. Although I had not intended to talk about this additional point, perhaps there is a gap in the terms of reference of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC]. The terms of reference focus on the consumers' perspective. I have spoken to Professor Fels, as have many other honourable members in this Chamber. Professor Fels' view is couched on the basis that his terms of reference are based on the consumers' perspective. If the consumer is being exploited because the producers' price has been drastically reduced, that is an avenue of interest to the ACCC. It is of interest to the ACCC at the point of the consumers' exploitation, not at the point of the producers' exploitation. We should consider in due course whether the ACCC's terms of reference are sufficient, or whether we should have a commission that looks after the producer—such as a Producers Justification Tribunal or a Producers Fair Competition Commission. That is another issue for many agricultural products. In many respects this is a difficult issue for those members who call themselves Country Labor. Some of them, from the electorates of Tweed, Clarence and South Coast, have a significant dairy industry in their area. I know that they will be judged by their actions in this debate. I say to those members, and I increase the pressure on them, that before they throw out the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition, or some other possible version of statewide assistance, to pause and try again. I say to Country Labor members: Try again. They should think about this matter even more than they already have. Try again to influence your Minister. Try again to influence your Treasurer. Try again. I know the bind that the Minister is in. The budgetary negotiations, which occurred in the early part of the year, have passed. He obviously did not make a bid, and the budget is now formulated. He feels it is now too late. It is not too late. This is an emerging circumstance, a different set of circumstances. Things have changed dramatically. This is a critical issue for one of our leading industries, and in the last month it is more critical than ever. This is a critical community issue. It has social implications. In the past, the Government has referred to country impacts and country impact statements. I seek an extension of time. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Beamer): Order! There is no provision in the standing orders for an extension of time when a member is speaking in Committee. Motion, by leave, by Mr Amery agreed to:
That the Leader of the National Party be permitted to conclude his speech. Mr SOURIS: I express my appreciation to the Minister for affording me this luxury. Perhaps this budget was formulated on the expectation of better prices for the producers. I do not know whether the Minister made any bid at the appropriate time. If he did, it was unsuccessful, because there is no supplementation in the budget. These emergent circumstances are so critical to the industry that they call for a supplementation to be made. This is how the system works: a supplementary bid is made to the Treasurer, and no doubt that Cabinet would consider the bid. There is ample scope and avenues still available to seek financial redress on this matter. Personally, I do not know whether the Premier, Treasurer or other Ministers are tuned in to this issue as finely as are honourable members from both sides who represent country electorates, particularly those with dairies. It seems that the Premier, the Treasurer or other Ministers are not tuned in. Yes, press releases have been issued by members from both sides of the House, but I suspect that the Premier sees the word "dairy" and puts the document aside. Very soon this will become a critical issue for the Executive Government and for the central agencies. If the Government uses its numbers in this Chamber, I do not know what outcome it anticipates in the other place, but it may well be faced with an impasse and have to decide the future of the industry. So the Executive Government needs to start listening to what is being said about deregulation of the industry and consider the options that are available. There need to be representations, not just through press releases but to the Executive Government and the central agencies. Things have changed recently in the dairy industry. The Government cannot just hold the line on its initial position. I do not know what our position was when this issue first arose. Who knows what the positions were at any given time? This debate has been going on for years, but it has intensified in the past year. The Minister has conceded that there have been a number of meetings of the Agricultural Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand [ARMCANZ]. Almost certainly, the Minister did not at those meetings put forward the prospect of each State providing State-based assistance packages. I am sure he has not presented to any of the ARMCANZ meetings the prospect of a national quota scheme. 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7027
Perhaps the Minister feels that this bill is the salvation of the industry; I do not know. We can only take expert opinion, particularly from those who are directly involved in the industry, such as the association and the leading co-operative. Both have said that this proposal is unworkable. This proposal needs to be put aside. While ever it is at the front of the debate we will get nowhere. It must be put aside to clear the way for something that we can do. If we cannot stop the flood of Victorian milk into New South Wales, what will we to? We cannot pass this bill knowing what its outcome will be and how grave that will be for our industry. There are people from both sides of the debate who have genuine hearts when it comes to this issue. They are genuine as well as emotional about the plight that is facing this industry.
Many of the dairy farmers are my friends. I was their accountant in various forms, and they are my constituents now. I know many of them personally. Many of my colleagues as well as members on the Government side know many farmers personally and the tragedy that lies ahead for some of them, their families and employees, as well as the businesses and communities which over the years have come to depend on them. Deregulation of the dairy industry will have serious social impacts. My heart is not in voting for a bill that does that to my people. I am not interested in myths either.
Some outside this Chamber and the other place have put forward that section 92 is some sort of hope for salvation. They suggest that all we need to do is have a Victorian own a New South Wales quota and section 92 can reapply. What do they mean when they say "reapply"? It does not apply. It will not stop the flood of milk from Victoria. I am prepared to accept that argument, which has been put forward by the Minister. Any suggestion that this interpretation of section 92 and the High Court battle that lies ahead will somehow undo the damage that will occur in the initial years of deregulation ignore the fact that High Court actions take a long time. Put colloquially, there may well be a whole series of aircraft carriers on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean before this battle is over.
We will lose a lot of good people while some dream about a High Court solution. There will not be an industry left by the time all that happens. There will not be an industry after the initial assault—even after the first part of the first year of deregulation. Let us not give more false hope than already has been given. Let us forget about all of that and see whether or not this Chamber, after this debate is over and before the bill returns to this place, can produce a workable position that will be of some assistance to the dairy farmers, the industry and our communities. Let us look for a solution that will help our farmers, who have up to the present day worked very hard. The dairy industry is very hard-working. I do not think I could be a dairy farmer. It is intensive work morning and afternoon, every day, 365 days a year. Our farmers have produced the best product imaginable. We have never had a problem with milk. We owe them a little bit more than what is proposed by this bill. We are told that it is too late to do anything to try to fix the problem. It is not too late. It is never too late. There is still time and scope. Again I call on the Government to reconsider its proposal and other proposals that have been put to it, including the proposals that the Opposition is putting to government. It should reconsider those proposals, rather than hold the line with all its strength and determination. Rather than use its numbers to crunch this legislation through, the Government should step back and reconsider the proposals. I do not know how the Government could claim victory if it forces this legislation through using its superior numbers. It will be a false victory. This proposal will be very cold comfort to the dairy farmers. Honourable members on both sides should be fair dinkum, because they know in their hearts that this bill will destroy the New South Wales dairy industry. Mr STONER (Oxley) [3.49 p.m.]: I support the Opposition's amendment to the Dairy Industry Bill, which represents the only realistic and constructive measure taken by any political party in this debate. The Government's bill not only repealed the regulations that have enabled the New South Wales dairy industry to prosper, but its clause 14 also makes any compensation for lost quota entitlement impossible and illegal. Thus far the Minister has wrung his hands about the inevitability of dairy industry deregulation and bemoaned his Government's inability to stop the flow of cheap Victorian milk into New South Wales. He has acknowledged that, even with the Federal restructure package, half of New South Wales dairy farmers could go belly up, and that 6,000 jobs in country areas could be lost. The critical question is whether the Minister will allow that to happen. He seems to be doing a Pontius Pilate on this question. First he says that there is already a national restructure package, but this stance ignores the fact that New South Wales dairy farmers, in contrast to Victorian dairy farmers, are nowhere near adequately compensated for the losses they will suffer. It also ignores the fact that the Senate inquiry, the New South Wales Dairy Farmers Association and the Federal Government have all agreed on the need for a New South Wales structural adjustment package for New South Wales dairy farmers. The Western Australian Government has accepted this principle. 7028 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000
Second, the Minister has fallen for Country Labor's farcical suggestion of a national floor price for milk. We have already heard a number of honourable members comment upon the misleading nature of this call. The Australian Dairy Industry Council, the Dairy Farmers Association, the Dairy Farmers Company and the Federal Minister for Agriculture have all exposed this call as a cruel hoax. This amendment will allow the Government to offer a fair and realistic package as a lifeline to New South Wales dairy farmers in consultation with New South Wales dairy industry representatives. It will enable New South Wales dairy farmers to receive the total price per litre of market milk, which will enable them to survive the first few years of deregulation.
During that period farmers will be in a position to either reduce their unit cost of production and survive in a deregulated marketplace, or decide to explore other fields of agriculture. Certainly, without this sort of assistance they will not be in a position to increase their production or reduce their costs for the simple reason that the removal of quota will result in a red line through an asset on their balance sheets and a drastic drop in their income. Financial institutions are already refusing to lend dairy farmers the money they need to increase their production or, perhaps, go into some other field of agriculture.
This package is an attempt to get them through those first few years so that they can survive in the deregulated marketplace, or move on to something else. If the amendment is opposed by the Labor Party and its so-called Country Labor faction, they will turn their backs on desperate New South Wales dairy farmers and country communities. If this genuine and sensible amendment is defeated by the Carr Labor Government the great city-country divide will be perpetuated. The 6,000 jobs lost in country New South Wales will never be regained, no matter how many millions of dollars are poured into phoney job creation schemes, counselling programs, and social workers to try to pick up the pieces of devastated rural communities and families.
We will never be able to restore the way of life that has been enjoyed by generations of country families. It truly is a part of our culture that is worth preserving. I am bitterly disappointed that the Government could not, on this one occasion, put aside party politics and support the opportunity for a lifeline to New South Wales dairy farmers and their communities. Only recently the Treasurer was crowing about a $393 million surplus, and has a $830 million hollow-log fund.
Mr Fraser: What about the $156.5 million national competition policy?
Mr STONER: The honourable member is exactly right, there is the $156.5 million from the Federal Government for the national competition policy payment. What better use of the money held in trust by the New South Wales Government on behalf of the taxpayers of New South Wales? The Western Australian Government has certainly seen it that way. This is a day for all honourable members to put politics aside and join together to provide bipartisan support for this amendment, which will keep the door open for a humane outcome for New South Wales dairy farmers and the committees.
Mr WINDSOR (Tamworth) [3.55 p.m.]: I do not propose to relive my contribution to the second reading debate, but as I made quite clear at that time I will oppose the amendment and the bill for a number of reasons. A moment ago a member of the National Party made a valid point: things have changed, and some of us may have been tardy in recognising the problems within the industry. That comment is not to demean the leadership of the industry. The rally held outside this Chamber and the mail that many of us have received indicate that there has been a change in the farming community in particular. The communities that will be affected by the legislation recognise the impact of deregulation upon them. I do not support deregulation of the industry.
The industry has not been consulted nor has it been asked whether it wants deregulation. Not enough consideration has been given to what could be put in place. I do not know whether a floor price scheme would work. The Leader of the National Party does not know whether some other scheme will work. He suggests that in the next few weeks we should get together to try to sort out something that might work. We do not know. But we have not even asked the players. The questions asked of New South Wales and Victoria were about the acceptance of a national scheme. They were not about whether the industry wanted to be deregulated. I encourage the Minister to take the time during the next few weeks to consider whether other proposals could be put in place, and follow up what was mentioned by honourable members in their contributions to the second reading debate.
There is need for breathing space, to put the gun down for a while and look at this matter more objectively to determine whether there are ways and means to come to grips with it. The impact of deregulation has not been demonstrated in any contributions I have heard from Government members. We do not really know 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7029 what the cost of the impact will be. I have taken a little time today to look at the Federal legislation, which is a fairly wide document. It sets out how the levy will be raised, which is contained in the regulations of the bill. I know it is a little bit of a play on words, but the levy, as described in the Federal legislation, will be paid by consumers. I have not heard one consumer whinge about the price of milk. The cost of 600 milliliters of milk is $1; the cost of 600 millilitres of water is $1.50. That says something about the consumers. No-one has said, "Milk is too dear. We cannot afford it. Deregulate the industry so that it will become cheaper." Everyone is saying that the processors and the supermarkets will grab hold of this and run with it, and the consumer will be confronted with increased prices. Fred Hilmer, who has been denigrated in this place today, lied to us, in a sense, because he said that the national competition policy would lead to cheaper prices. But history tells us that that is not the case. We should wake up to what is going on. The consumer levy is 11¢, and raises $1.7 billion. There has been a lot of discussion in this place about how the Government should find $80 million to do something; or that it should go to the Treasurer and do something else, because that is what the amendment is about. As I said, I oppose the amendment. If Opposition and Government members agree that deregulation will occur, a handbrake must be put on this legislation. That might involve the Federal Government extending its legislation for a few more months, but so be it. The legislation, which was introduced on 8 March, contains no provisions requiring the States to implement enabling legislation within six months. I am sure that this Government will have additional time within which to comply with the requirements of the Federal Government. The Federal Government's legislation requires a levy to be raised. Some people have said that the Minister for Agriculture will not agree to an $80 million compensation package because he does not believe that it will make much difference. However, if all honourable members agree that something should be done, we are able to do that now through the legislation introduced by the Commonwealth. Members of the National Party said in debate on this bill that a compensation package of $80 million will fix the problem. I do not know where they got that figure from, but I do not believe that to be true. However, if the Federal legislation was amended to increase the levy by half a cent, that would raise $80 million over the same period.
[Interruption] The Leader of the National Party made an important point. As I understand it—and I stand to be corrected—New South Wales is contributing about $500 million to the $1.7 billion levy, but it is only getting back $337 million. Victoria is receiving a subsidy because it negotiated with the Federal Government on the adjustment process and demanded a bigger piece of the pie—the normal argy-bargy in any negotiation. Victoria, which has been well-catered for, is a major beneficiary of the adjustment scheme and it will benefit from its deregulated environment. However, there is a legitimate argument for New South Wales and Queensland, with or without Victoria, to go back to the Federal Government and ask it to increase its levy by half a cent. That might cure the problem. Those honourable members who contributed in this great political debate today said that an $80 million compensation package will cure the problems being experienced by dairy farmers. That is hogwash. It will not cure their problems. If I am wrong, I suggest we request the Federal Government to increase its 11¢ levy by half a cent. Consumers would not scream about another cent being added to the price of milk. The Government should take such things into account. The levy could be increased by 2¢, which will raise approximately $320 million. As the Leader of the National Party said, we should investigate these things rather than attempt to resolve these problems in the pitiful way in which we have done in this debate. We are dealing with legislation which will make major adjustments to the dairy industry and we cannot think of solutions other than those that are proposed. The Federal Government is attempting, through its legislation, to raise more money from the State Government. The Government must take all these issues on board. Independent members voted against deregulation of the dairy industry. There has been a lot of talk about the effects of the national competition policy on feed producers in Australia. If we follow this path blindly, which is what we seem to be doing, we will rationalise food production out of this nation and end up with a feedlot society based on the most efficient delivery of services to the least number of people. If those honourable members who represent country electorates vote for this legislation before they consult with their communities they will rationalise those communities out of existence. Do country communities want deregulation? If the Government thinks hard enough about these issues, other legislative measures could be enacted. If we vote for this legislation today it will lead to the demise of a lot of people in regional communities—people 7030 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000 in the dairy industry, husbands and wives—communities that all honourable members have said should be built up. This is an opportunity for all members to take a stand for country people. The Government should put the brakes on this legislation and consult with the people who are responsible for determining its future. The Government should consult with other governments and try to implement better legislation. If that is not able to be achieved, I suggest that the Federal Government's levy should be increased in an attempt to compensate those poor people who will be forced out of this industry.
Dr KERNOHAN (Camden) [4.06 p.m.]: The Opposition moved this amendment not just to save dairy farmers; it moved it in an attempt to save country towns and large areas of regional New South Wales. We want to try to keep people on their farms. If they keep dairying in those areas it will ensure the continued operation of country towns. There has been a lot of talk about quotas and the Victorian dairy industry, but nobody has concisely explained—and I hope that I can—the value of milk quotas and what they have cost dairy farmers in the past. Dairy farmers did not acquire milk quotas for nothing. They are a real asset which have a value. This Government's legislation specifies that dairy farmers will not be compensated for their quotas. Victorian dairy farmers got rid of quotas in the mid-1980s. They had nothing to lose. However, dairy farmers in New South Wales still have their quotas.
Milk quotas determine the price that dairy farmers receive for their milk, which is generally 53¢ a litre. How did these quotas come about? What are quotas? There are 13 four-week quota periods each year and a farmer has to produce the amount of milk specified in his quota for each of those periods. If he does not do so he loses his quota and, therefore, he loses that extra value on every litre of milk for every day of the next year. It has cost the dairy industry thousands—I would say millions—to maintain those quotas during periods of drought and floods. Even if dairy farmers originally paid nothing for those quotas it has cost them money to keep them. Those quotas mean that Sydney gets its constant supply of good quality milk.
How did these quotas come about? Let me try to put some genuine cost figures on quotas. When I first became involved with the dairy industry in 1960, the milk zone was the controlling area. The milk quotas that were allocated to a farm were based on what a farmer was capable of producing. The only way a farmer could increase his quota was to buy another farm. In 1970 the Dairy Corporation, which was then called the Dairy Industry Authority of New South Wales, extended the milk zone and extended its control to all of New South Wales. With the change of government in 1975 there was a directive from the Minister for Agriculture that all farmers in New South Wales should have equitable access to all markets. In order to achieve that, the quotas of some people in the main zone had to be reduced.
There was a lot of angst in the industry and there were court cases, et cetera. The Government subsequently decided to offer farmers an opportunity to voluntarily surrender their quotas. That became a regular thing in 1978 and the Act and regulations were changed to set the surrender-reallocation price which, initially, was $4.50 a litre. This continued successfully for quite a while. In 1980 the State market concept was introduced. It was decided that it would be better to have a quota exchange. There was an annual pool. The surrender value was increased from $10 per litre in 1985 to $15 in 1988. That served its purpose very well but a proposal was later put to the New South Wales Dairy Industry Conference to replace the surrender and reallocation step with a much more flexible and commercial market scheme. The conference approved the introduction of quota exchanges following the approval of the Minister for Agriculture, and they commenced operation in 1990.
The exchange was like a stock exchange for milk. The farmer could buy or sell quota for any one of the 13 four-week periods of the year. He could choose to be like the Victorian farmers and produce milk for only nine months of the year or he could continue milking all year round. He could buy quota when he wanted to or sell it when he did not want it. In 1990 the average price on the quota exchange was 19.11¢ per litre. The best price for one month over the year's average was for November, 25.66¢ per litre. That was in the year the quota exchange started. In 1996-97, the heyday of the New South Wales dairy industry, the quota exchange price averaged 56.29¢ per litre, the best month having a figure of 77.27¢ per litre.
With talk of deregulation the price dropped. But even last year, in 1998-99, the best figure for the year was 33.99¢ per litre for September and the average for the whole year was 23.61¢ per litre. I do not use the figures for this year because somewhere in the middle of them there is a figure of 200¢ per litre. I cannot understand how that figure, for the month of January, came about. A quota is a costly item. It is an asset of real value. Every farmer that has bought a farm walk-in walk-out has paid not only for the land, the cows and machinery but also for the quota that goes with the farm. Every farmer has paid again and again for his quota— during droughts, floods and fires. Farmers are still paying for their quotas. They borrowed money to buy quota 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7031 under the recent scheme and still owe the banks for it. Compensation based on their quota will at least allow them not to think about suicide. They at least may be able to keep their heads above water, and they may well be able to continue in the industry that they love. They may well be able to pass their farms on to their children and they may well be able to keep producing the highest quality milk in Australia. I support the amendment.
Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt—Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [4.14 p.m.]: I will try to be as brief as I can. In relation to the generic debate about the Opposition's proposal for an assistance package I refer honourable members to my second reading speech. I will limit myself to making a couple of comments on some of the new matters raised by members. The Leader of the National Party queried whether the Premier, senior members of the Government and the Cabinet really know about the impact of this proposal on rural areas. I can confidently reply. Before this matter went before Cabinet the Government undertook a competition policy review into the dairy industry.
The dairy industry was represented on that review along with people from Cabinet, Treasury and New South Wales Agriculture. There were also representatives of dairy farmers and the dairy industry. Their submission was very significant. It was so significant that nearly all the figures referred to in this debate in this Parliament in relation to loss of dairy farms, loss of money for regional communities and loss of jobs came from the submission of the Dairy Farmers Association [DFA] to the competition policy review. That document was in no way challenged by the bureaucrats and the various other people involved in the competition policy review. Whilst it is certainly not my role to table Cabinet minutes—Ministers cannot if they want to stay in this game— or to talk about Cabinet decisions, I can assure the Chamber that the statistics in the rural impact statement that went with the Cabinet minute included virtually without amendment—there were other words as well—the submission by the Dairy Farmers Association.
When the decision was made by the Government prior to this proposal coming before the Parliament— that was to keep the regulations in place until 2003, I think—the negotiations that went on before the decision was made were put fairly and squarely on the desk of the Premier. He looked at that issue as he looked some time before at the Government's decision to maintain regulation in the rice industry. I give an assurance in two areas. One is that the rural impact statement included not only what the department put in but also what the DFA people included in their submission. It was very strongly put. The Premier's role in securing the decision to keep rice industry regulations and dairy industry regulations was critical, to state the obvious. Had there been any hesitation on his part we would not have made those strong decisions. He toured the rice industry area and spoke to many people in relation to the dairy industry to assess the impact. The Government took account of the rural impact assessment.
The Leader of the National Party and the honourable member for Oxley referred to transpayments. I do not want to get into a big debate about transpayments; we might do that another day. Different figures have been floated around about transpayments—$150 million is one. They are payments to the State Government in relation to water reform. I do not think that we can get transpayments on the dairy industry yet, but they will probably come about. There are transpayments for road restructuring, road transport, gas, electricity reform and so on. If everyone in those industries applied for money from the transpayments grants they would get no more than $1.20. At the same time as National Party members are letting the hare loose about where the money could come from, the Deputy Prime Minister is also saying that the money should go to irrigators for water reform.
If I were to do as I am asked people in those industries would be lucky to get a dollar. That is how thinly the money would be spread. It is only to make up for gained revenues by the Federal Government and lost revenues by the State. It is just one of those agreement issues. It is not a solution to the problem with the dairy industry. The question of regional development was raised. That is probably what the Leader of the National Party was talking about in relation to working with the industry in the future. There is another not-determined amount of money of about $45 million to $48 million in the $1.74 billion package. We are considering that at the moment. There is no committee to tell us how that money will be spent. That is another consideration.
Mr Souris: Don't make it sound like it is New South Wales' contribution.
Mr AMERY: I clearly said as part of that industry levy.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Beamer): Order! The honourable member for Coffs Harbour and the Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. 7032 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000
Mr AMERY: I am trying to relate to the facts to the House. The rural impact statement was a new component in the debate, and I am trying to comment on those matters. By the way, section 92 is no myth; it is a major problem for us. The honourable member for Tamworth made an interesting contribution. He intends to oppose the amendments because he regards them as being consistent with opposing the legislation. One cannot oppose the legislation and then agree to an amendment about compensation. He said things have changed. I highlighted that in my second reading speech. The 27¢ offers changed the thinking and expectations of many people.
One thing has not changed, though, and that will probably put a brake on the desire of the honourable member for Tamworth to put a hold on things or slow things down. Even if the Hon. Warren Truss decided to rethink this matter and put it off for another six months, the one thing that will not change is the determination by the Victorian Government to deregulate its industry and start an Australia-wide push on behalf of its industry. The honourable member for Tamworth asked whether $1.7 billion was enough. I do not believe anything is enough. He went through that process. He said we could add so many hundred million if we added 0.5¢ to the levy, and so on. That figure of $1.7 billion did not come from politicians sitting around a table; it came from those in the dairy industry. I give them credit for pushing a proposal that most people thought did not have a snowflake's chance in hell of getting up. They started with a proposal for $1.3 billion and after negotiation it came in to $1.7 billion.
Mr R. H. L. Smith: They didn't realise it was going to be taxable, though.
Mr AMERY: Issues of taxation were brought into it. That is what increased the amount. The honourable member for Camden talked about the real value of quotas and the fact that they are dealt with in the legislation. She said the amendment is not only about farmers, it is about communities. I agree with that. A decision was made by the dairy industry after the Victorian industry decided that it intended to have an export focus and look at a bigger market share in the other States. Pat Rowley is a Queenslander, and he probably has similar quota problems to ours. The industry then made a decision. What does it intend to do when Victoria starts its deregulation process? There were a couple of options on the table and they were relayed to me in different forms. The dairy industry outside Victoria has to make a decision: it can pursue State governments for quota compensation or it can accept the $1.7 billion package. Legal advice to all State governments around Australia is that State governments are not liable for compensation on quotas. I believe one of the lawyers will argue that is because State governments or the taxpayers never receive the benefit of them. When farmers buy a quota they do not buy it from the Government and give the Government money for it.
Mr Fraser: It is a State regulation.
Mr AMERY: Yes, a State regulation. Pat Rowley and a number of others who are now very worried about the changes made the decision then. Do they go through the long political battles with each State government, and perhaps legal challenges in the courts, or do they go to the Federal Government and ask it to bring in the State governments and get this $1.7 million package? That underpins all the comments of the industry people in recent weeks about opposing a national floor price. The Dairy Farmers Association released a statement yesterday opposing the Opposition's proposal. The reason it opposes all these schemes is that it believes they may jeopardise the industry's number one priority—and the number one priority is the $1.7 billion package. That is why Pat Rowley opposes a national floor price and that is why the DFA does not support the National Party's proposition.
The Dairy Farmers Association believe that any deferral, as suggested by the honourable member for Tamworth, may throw out the package and perhaps two years down the track it will have to go through a deregulation process without a package. That is what is behind what is going on at the moment. With those few comments I oppose the amendments of the National Party on this matter. There will, of course, be further negotiations. The Leader of the National Party mentioned going back to Canberra. The Federal Minister cannot do anything about deferring deregulation unless the Victorians withdraw their proposal.
Question—That the amendments be agreed to—put.
The Committee divided. 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7033
Ayes, 27
Mr Brogden Mr Merton Mr Stoner Mrs Chikarovski Mr Oakeshott Mr Tink Mr Debnam Mr O'Farrell Mr J. H. Turner Mr George Mr D. L. Page Mr R. W. Turner Mr Glachan Mr Piccoli Mr Webb Mr Hazzard Mr Richardson Mr Humpherson Mr Rozzoli Dr Kernohan Ms Seaton Tellers, Mr Kerr Mrs Skinner Mr Fraser Mr Maguire Mr Souris Mr R. H. L. Smith
Noes, 43
Ms Allan Ms Harrison Ms Saliba Mr Amery Mr Hickey Mr Scully Ms Andrews Mr Hunter Mr W. D. Smith Mr Ashton Mr Knowles Mr Stewart Mr Barr Mr Lynch Mr Torbay Mr Bartlett Mr Martin Mr Tripodi Mr Black Mr McGrane Mr Watkins Mr Brown Mr McManus Mr Whelan Miss Burton Ms Megarrity Mr Windsor Mr Campbell Ms Moore Mr Woods Mr Collier Mr Moss Mr Yeadon Mr Crittenden Mr Nagle Mr Gaudry Ms Nori Tellers, Mr Greene Mr Orkopoulos Mr Anderson Mrs Grusovin Mr E. T. Page Mr Thompson
Pairs
Mr Armstrong Mr Debus Mr Collins Mr Iemma Mr Hartcher Mr Knight Ms Hodgkinson Mr Markham Mr O'Doherty Mr Mills Mr Slack-Smith Mr Price
Question resolved in the negative.
Amendments negatived.
Clauses 14 to 26 agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee without amendment and report adopted.
Third Reading
Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt—Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [4.36 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
The House divided. 7034 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000
Ayes, 39
Ms Allan Mrs Grusovin Ms Saliba Mr Amery Ms Harrison Mr Scully Ms Andrews Mr Hickey Mr W. D. Smith Mr Ashton Mr Hunter Mr Stewart Mr Bartlett Mr Knowles Mr Tripodi Ms Beamer Mr Lynch Mr Watkins Mr Black Mr McManus Mr Whelan Mr Brown Mr Martin Mr Woods Miss Burton Ms Megarrity Mr Yeadon Mr Campbell Mr Moss Mr Collier Mr Nagle Mr Crittenden Ms Nori Tellers, Mr Gaudry Mr Orkopoulos Mr Anderson Mr Greene Mr E. T. Page Mr Thompson
Noes, 32
Mr Barr Mr McGrane Mr Souris Mr Brogden Mr Merton Mr Stoner Mrs Chikarovski Ms Moore Mr Tink Mr Debnam Mr O'Farrell Mr Torbay Mr George Mr Oakeshott Mr J. H. Turner Mr Glachan Mr D. L. Page Mr R. W. Turner Mr Hazzard Mr Piccoli Mr Webb Mr Humpherson Mr Richardson Mr Windsor Dr Kernohan Mr Rozzoli Tellers, Mr Kerr Ms Seaton Mr Fraser Mr Maguire Mrs Skinner Mr R. H. L. Smith
Pairs
Mr Debus Mr Armstrong Mr Iemma Mr Collins Mr Knight Mr Hartcher Mr Markham Ms Hodgkinson Mr Mills Mr O'Doherty Mr Price Mr Slack-Smith
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
ASSENT TO BILL Assent to the following bill reported:
Constitution Amendment Bill MEDICAL PRACTICE AMENDMENT BILL Bill introduced and read a first time. Second Reading Mr McMANUS (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary), on behalf of Mr Knowles [4.47 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7035
Leave granted.
The underlying purpose of the Medical Practice Amendment Bill is to better protect the health and safety of the people of New South Wales. This will be achieved through a combination of new initiatives and the updating of the procedures for managing medical practitioners who engage in misconduct or are impaired, and improving the requirements for registration and the way they are administered.
The Medical Practice Act has been the subject of an extensive review process which has involved wide-ranging consultation. To ensure that the welfare of patients is the paramount consideration in administering the Medical Practice Act, the bill will state that its objective is to protect the health and safety of the public. The bill seeks to achieve this objective through a number of initiatives that are designed to ensure that practitioners are fit to practise. Firstly, by the introduction of a new part 5A into the Medical Practice Act to enable performance assessment to occur. In the course of handling complaints about practitioners the New South Wales Medical Board has noted a category of doctors who, whilst not fitting readily within either the current disciplinary or impairment streams, would benefit from a program of professional assessment and retraining. These doctors often have broadly based problems whose overall level of professional performance is below the standard reasonably expected of a doctor with an equivalent level of training or experience.
The Medical Board has devised and extensively consulted on a detailed proposal for managing practitioners who have failed to perform to a sufficient standard. Among stakeholders there is widespread support for the broad thrust of the program’s objectives and its general direction. In the interests of better protecting the public from the risks that this group of practitioners may pose, for the first time in Australia this bill will give a statutory basis to a comprehensive and pro-active program for assessing and retraining doctors who have been under-performing. The performance program under proposed part 5A has the following objectives: to protect the public from a practitioner whose practice is deficient; to assess a practitioner’s overall professional performance rather than investigate specific incidents; to be educational and co-operative rather than adversarial; to be fair, thorough, objective and transparent, and ensure consistent standards of assessment and adjudication; to complement the existing disciplinary and impairment streams and the work of the Health Care Complaints Commission.
Safeguards have been developed to ensure that more serious matters continue to be dealt with using the existing disciplinary structure. Consistent with this, Performance Review Panels will not have the power to suspend a practitioner’s registration. The focus of orders made will be on practitioners undergoing retraining in those areas in which they are deficient. There will also be scope for a practitioner’s practice to be re-assessed at the end of the re-training phase. The existence of a right of appeal to the Medical Tribunal will ensure that the Performance Review Panels operate fairly and are held accountable. In the interests of transparency, the Medical Board will be required to publicly report on outcomes of the program. In addition, to ensure that the performance assessment program delivers on its stated objectives, new section 22 of the bill requires the Medical Board to review and report to the Minister on both the effectiveness of the legislation that underpins the program and the Medical Board’s processes for implementing it three years after its commencement.
The second initiative introduced by the bill is the regulation of corporations in the business of providing medical services. The bill implements a number of important new measures that will address the potential for the public to be harmed by unethical or improper practices by corporations providing medical services. Currently, whilst doctors are bound by a comprehensive disciplinary framework, non-doctors who are involved in the provision of medical services are not bound by such controls. These new initiatives will operate in tandem with the disciplinary system.
Today doctors are no longer confined to providing medical services as sole practitioners or in partnerships or through private and public hospitals. In recent years there has been a proliferation of medical centres and specialised clinics where doctors are often retained by a corporation that owns and operates the medical practice. Unlike doctors who are directly regulated under the Medical Practice Act and corporations that operate institutional based care which is subject to comprehensive regulatory controls, corporations providing medical services that operate outside these frameworks are not subject to comprehensive regulatory controls. There may be circumstances where an employer places pressure on a doctor to provide medical services that are excessive, unnecessary or not reasonably required for a patient’s well being. The Ministerial Committee of Inquiry into Impotency Treatment Services in New South Wales raised serious issues of concern about a number of clinic practices. The Committee was told of cases of a doctor’s continued remuneration being contingent on the doctor following particular prescribing or treatment practices. At one clinic, patients were routinely advised they required 30 treatment doses provided in multi-dose vials as this was the “treatment program”. These patients were charged over 10 times the estimated wholesale costs for injections and syringes. Clinic operators closely monitored the "conversion rates" for sales to patients with the directors of clinics taking those doctors to task who failed to sell the injectable medication to a set percentage of their patients. In circumstances where the employer is not a medical practitioner, the employer is outside the scope of the comprehensive disciplinary system of the Medical Practice Act which is concerned with the conduct of medical practitioners. It is clearly inequitable for an employer, who influences or attempts to influence a doctor to engage in unprofessional conduct, to be beyond the reach of the law whilst the doctor him or herself can be disciplined. The bill contains a number of measures to address this uneven playing field and the potential for corporate policies and practices to compromise patient care. Disciplinary action may be taken against doctors who provide patients with medical services that are excessive, unnecessary or not reasonably required for their well being. Corporations and others who employ doctors or otherwise contract with doctors to provide medical services will be prohibited from directing or inciting overservicing or other unsatisfactory professional conduct by their employees. Penalties will be set at an appropriate level to discourage this conduct from occurring. Subject to a right of appeal, there will be a power to prohibit a person or corporation from carrying on or being involved in the business of providing medical services if a breach of the offence has occurred and the Director-General of the Department of Health is satisfied that the person or corporation is no longer fit and proper to carry on or be involved in carrying on the business of providing medical services. In addition, the bill contains measures that will ensure that where a corporation commits an offence under the Medical Practice Act, the directors and persons concerned in its management can be held accountable. The third initiative introduced by this bill comprises measures to minimise the risk of commercial considerations compromising patient care and choice. The potential for commercial considerations to adversely affect patient choice and the quality of care 7036 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000
provided was considered by the Ministerial Committee of Inquiry into Cosmetic Surgery. Specific areas of concern identified by the Committee were the practice of doctors paying for referrals and doctors failing to disclose to patients financial arrangements which were material to a patient’s choice of service. The receptionists and nursing staff in some cosmetic surgery clinics engaged in ‘hard sell tactics’ and were paid financial rewards for securing patients. A concern with these arrangements is that unnecessary services will be ordered by the primary service providers in return for benefits from the secondary service provider.
To address these concerns, the bill will: amend section 36 of the Medical Practice Act by requiring practitioners to disclose certain pecuniary interests to their patients when making referrals and recommendations or face disciplinary action; further amend section 36 of the Act by prohibiting practitioners from offering or accepting benefits for the purpose of securing patient referrals and recommendations with such unsatisfactory professional conduct providing the basis for disciplinary action; insert new sections 112A and 112B to prohibit persons and corporations from engaging in similar conduct with medical practitioners with substantial penalties for breaching this prohibition. A number of amendments to the Act are also proposed in the bill that will enhance the capacity of the disciplinary system to maintain professional standards and protect patients from harm. Courts are already required to notify the Medical Board of practitioners who are convicted of offences unless they are an offence of a type that is prescribed by regulation. Currently, the offences that are prescribed are a range of more minor traffic offences.
The bill will assist the Medical Board to protect the public by ensuring that it is notified of matters being dealt with by the criminal justice system that may be directly relevant to a practitioner’s fitness to practise. Courts will now be required to notify the board of practitioners who have been the subject of a criminal finding in respect of a "sex or violence offence". Essentially, a criminal finding is one where an offence has been proven but a conviction has not been recorded. A "sex or violence offence" is an offence involving sexual activity, acts of indecency, child pornography, physical violence or the threat of physical violence. Practitioners will be required to notify the Medical Board within seven days: if they have been convicted of an offence of a type that courts are required to report, and if they have received a criminal finding in relation to a "sex or violence offence", or if they are facing criminal proceedings for a "sex or violence offence" where the allegations relate to conduct occurring in the course of practice. Currently, the grounds specified in the Medical Practice Act for making a complaint about a practitioner include convictions for an offence. There have been instances where practitioners have been found guilty of offences such as indecent assaults upon patients but no convictions have been recorded. The bill will amend section 39 of the Act to provide that the grounds for making a complaint about a doctor are to include those cases where findings of guilt have been made against a practitioner but no conviction has been recorded.
The bill provides for a more robust process for renewing registration which occurs annually and enabling the Medical Board to take action to protect the public on the information received. Accordingly, the bill will require each doctor when renewing his or her registration to make a declaration in respect of the previous 12 months that addresses: any convictions unless they are prescribed by regulation; any criminal findings in respect of "sex or violence offences"; any criminal findings by a court in respect of conduct occurring in the course of practice; any criminal proceedings pending against the doctor for a "sex or violence offence" alleged to have been committed in the course of practice; any significant illnesses that may adversely impact on his or her capacity to practise medicine; any refusal of registration, suspension, cancellation of registration or the imposition of conditions in any jurisdiction; and any continuing medical education activities.
Additional amendments to the definition of “unsatisfactory professional conduct” in section 36 of the Act which provides the basis for disciplinary action include failing to respond to a Medical Board request for information within a reasonable period of time without a reasonable excuse. This will facilitate issues of concern with a doctor’s practice that are raised with the Medical Board being dealt with promptly. Under section 66 of the Act the Medical Board has the power to take immediate action in respect of a practitioner if it considers it necessary to protect the life or the physical or mental health of any person. The bill before the House will enhance those powers to act urgently to protect the public in a number of respects. The bill will clarify that if the Medical Board is satisfied that action is necessary for the purpose of protecting the life or the physical or mental health of any person it must take action under section 66.
The maximum period the Medical Board may suspend a person’s registration will be increased from 30 days to eight weeks. Such periods of suspension may be renewed by the Medical Board for further periods of not more than eight weeks provided that the Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson of the Medical Tribunal has agreed to the extension. The bill provides a mechanism by which conditions imposed on practitioners pursuant to section 66 of the Act may be reviewed by the Medical Board. In addition, in circumstances where conditions are urgently imposed on account of a doctor’s impairment, there will be scope for the doctor to be referred to an Impaired Registrants Panel under new section 66C. The existence of rights of appeal to the Medical Tribunal will ensure that doctors who are aggrieved by decisions of the Medical Board under section 66 have a right of review.
The Medical Practice Act contains comprehensive avenues of appeal and review. The Medical Tribunal, the Chairperson and Deputy Chairpersons of which are District Court judges is primarily responsible for reviewing disciplinary orders. As a result of several court cases, review applications now permit the original findings that resulted in disciplinary orders being made to be revisited and the original matter essentially re-heard. Clearly, the onus in these types of proceedings should be on the applicant demonstrating that his or her circumstances have changed and that registration with or without particular conditions is appropriate in the circumstances. Accordingly, the bill provides at clause 94A of schedule 1 that the review is not to revisit the correctness of the original decision unless significant fresh evidence is produced that was not previously available and the review body is of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case the original decision should be reconsidered.
The Impaired Registrants Program was introduced in 1992 by part 5 of the Act to identify and manage at an early stage issues of concern with a medical practitioner’s health that may adversely impact on his or her capacity to practise medicine. Although it has generally operated well, a number of shortcomings have been identified that will be addressed in the bill. It is proposed that the Medical Board be given the power to direct a practitioner who is the subject of a matter referred or proposed to be referred to an Impaired Registrants Panel to undergo a medical examination. The Medical Board already has a similar power in relation to medical students over whom the Medical Board has jurisdiction in relation to issues of impairment. This jurisdiction will continue. The definition of “medical student” is to be amended to better target medical students who are directly involved in patient care. 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7037
Currently, practitioners who have consented to conditions being placed on their registration or to being suspended as a result of the impairment process are entitled to have their protective orders lifted at their own request. However, not all doctors put through the impairment program have insight into their impairment. This has the potential to put the public at risk. Accordingly, the bill will provide that requests for the lifting of conditions on registration or suspension orders will not be actioned unless the Medical Board agrees. The interests of doctors will be protected through the introduction of a right of appeal against the Medical Board’s decision to the Medical Tribunal. The bill will clarify that where a Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of the Medical Tribunal has ordered that a doctor’s registration be suspended or deregistered on the ground of lack of sufficient physical or mental capacity to practise medicine, an appeal will lie to the Medical Tribunal and from there to the Supreme Court.
The review of the Act has also provided a useful opportunity to improve the legislative framework under which doctors are registered. In 1998 the Department of Health established a Committee to review practices for the employment of medical practitioners in the New South Wales health system in response to concerns about the registration process expressed by overseas trained practitioners who could not be registered in New South Wales. An issue of concern to that Committee was accessibility to avenues of appeal under the Medical Practice Act for those persons who have been refused registration. As a matter of principle, I support all persons refused registration having a right of appeal. Currently, persons who have been refused registration have a right of appeal to the Medical Tribunal which deals with the appeal by way of re-hearing. To ensure the integrity of that process, it is proposed to place an express requirement on the Medical Board to give persons who have been refused registration written reasons for the decision and information on the existence of appeal rights.
Under the Medical Practice Act, the Medical Board can hold inquiries into the eligibility of applicants for registration. The bill will clarify the circumstances in which the Medical Board may conduct such inquiries. To assist the process, the Medical Board may permit the Health Care Complaints Commission to appear before an inquiry and for the first time inquiries may be constituted with persons other than board members. The Medical Board has the power to refuse an application for registration if the applicant’s name has been removed from any register for the registration of doctors in any country as a result of a finding of professional misconduct or on any basis relating to the person’s physical or mental capacity to practise medicine. The bill will expand this power to cover those cases where non-mutual recognition applicants have been suspended for professional misconduct or any basis relating to the person’s physical or mental capacity to practise medicine. In the interests of consistency, the bill will also confer on the Medical Board a parallel power to de-register a person who has been suspended under a foreign law for professional misconduct or any basis relating to physical or mental capacity to practise medicine. Persons who have been refused registration or deregistered will have a right of appeal to the Medical Tribunal.
Currently, the Medical Board has the power to refuse to register a person where he or she has been convicted of an offence and the Medical Board is of the view that the person has been rendered unfit in the public interest to practise medicine. Criminal convictions may be relevant to whether an applicant is of good character or impaired. The bill will better protect the public by: requiring applicants for registration to inform the Medical Board of convictions for other than minor offences, any criminal findings against them, or any criminal proceedings for “sex or violence offences”, and giving the Medical Board the power to refuse registration where a person has been the subject of a criminal finding provided that the Medical Board is satisfied that the person has been rendered unfit in the public interest to practise medicine. This safeguard will ensure that trivial offences will not result in a person’s registration being refused. This is consistent with the provision in the bill that both a conviction and a criminal finding can provide the basis for disciplinary action. The Medical Practice Act contains provisions that enabled the board to audit the Register in 1993 to remove the names of certain overseas trained doctors who had not shown a commitment to live and practise in Australia for particular periods ending in 1992. As the audit has been completed the bill will remove these provisions.
The bill will also enhance the Medical Board’s role in achieving the objective of the Medical Practice Act to protect the health and safety of the public. There will be an express obligation placed upon the Medical Board to exercise its statutory functions in accordance with this statutory objective. Codes of professional conduct can play an important role in protecting the public from harm by establishing standards to be observed by doctors in the course of their professional practice. The bill will provide that codes of conduct may be developed by the Medical Board and approved by the Minister. In addition, the Minister will have the power to direct that particular matters be dealt with in the code to ensure that serious issues of consumer or professional concern are promptly and adequately addressed.
To enable the Medical Board to benefit from a broader range of experience, it is proposed to add two new members who are persons conversant with the interests of patients as consumers of medical services. It is also proposed to remove the current restriction that the nominee of the Ethnic Affairs Commission must be a medical practitioner.
The bill contains some other important consumer protection measures. The Medical Practice Act currently prohibits persons who are not registered with the Medical Board from holding themselves out to be medical practitioners. In addition, the Act also creates criminal offences that prohibit unregistered practitioners from holding themselves out as qualified, willing or able to cure a range of specified diseases and providing cancer treatments for specified purposes. These latter restrictions have proved difficult to enforce, and represent a piecemeal approach to the regulation of unregistered practitioners.
The potential for sensational advertising to mislead members of the public was identified as an issue of concern by the Ministerial Committee of Inquiry into Impotency Treatment Services. Similar concerns about the potential for the public to be harmed by the advertising or promotion of health services that are false, misleading or deceptive was also acknowledged by the Ministerial Committee of Inquiry into Cosmetic Surgery. The potential for harm exists irrespective of whether the claim is made by a doctor or an unregistered practitioner.
In the interests of better informing and protecting the public, the current offences which prohibit unregistered practitioners from holding themselves out as qualified, willing or able to cure a narrow range of specified diseases and providing cancer treatments for specified purposes will be replaced by a new more comprehensive offence in the Public Health Act. This new provision proposed in schedule 2 of the bill will prohibit the advertising or any other type of promotion of health services by any health service provider in a way that is false, misleading or deceptive or in a way that creates an unjustified expectation of beneficial treatment. Penalties will be set at an appropriate level to discourage this type of conduct from occurring.
Finally, the bill will improve public access to information about the registration status of medical practitioners. Currently, persons wishing to obtain registration information about practitioners may inspect the Register. The bill will clarify that where 7038 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000
conditions are imposed on a doctor’s registration or any orders are made in respect of a doctor, those orders will be available to the public on request unless the orders made are primarily impairment related. By imposing limits on the availability of impairment related orders, confidential information about a doctor’s health status that should not be of relevance to the public and may impinge on the doctor’s privacy may be protected.
The bill before the House represents a significant advance in the promotion of high standards within the medical profession in this State and in ensuring the health and safety of the people of New South Wales are properly protected. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Humpherson.
FAIR TRADING AMENDMENT (ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE POWERS) BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr WATKINS (Ryde—Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Sport and Recreation) [4.50 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Last week I announced the introduction of this legislation to stem the activities of those unscrupulous and dishonest traders who represent a serious risk to the public. These new powers will give the Department of Fair Trading the ability to act swiftly to stop the shonks and rogues from operating. They demonstrate the Carr Government’s commitment to greater protection for New South Wales consumers. It follows other new legislation introduced last session which requires traders to substantiate claims made in advertisements. This bill is further evidence of the Government’s intention to crack down on shonky operators and rip-off merchants.
Under the bill, the Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading will be able to immediately suspend a trader’s licence for 60 days where there is evidence that consumers will be likely to suffer significant loss. Those traders who continue to operate while their licence is suspended will face swift action by the department including injunctions and prosecution. I emphasise that the vast majority of traders licensed by the Department of Fair Trading are honest, reputable persons who conduct their business fairly and make a significant contribution to the New South Wales economy. These people have nothing to fear from these new laws. In fact, I am sure they will support the Government’s actions in moving to weed out those unscrupulous traders who use the system to their benefit. The public expect swift action against these operators and this bill will give the department the legal power to do so.
The Department of Fair Trading is responsible for the administration of licensing schemes covering conveyancers; employment agents; home building contractors; motor dealers; pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers; property, stock and business agents and valuers. Each of the Acts establishing these licensing schemes contains provisions which enable some form of disciplinary action to be taken against a licence holder. Due to historical reasons, the relevant provisions of these Acts vary considerably. That has resulted in inconsistency in the ability of the department to act promptly to protect consumers and in some cases the only action available is to seek an injunction in the Supreme Court to stop the licensee trading. Show cause actions can be cumbersome and may take many months to finalise. As a result the public can be put at risk. Some operators use stalling tactics to delay disciplinary action taken by the department as well as legal proceedings initiated by their customers. By these means they are successfully able to continue to trade and cause financial or other loss to other persons. This new power will apply to traders in every industry licensed by the Department of Fair Trading. Consumers who ring the department to check whether a trader has a licence will be told that the licence has been suspended under the Fair Trading Act. This will alert consumers to stay well away from that trader. As a safeguard, the power to impose a suspension will only be exercisable by the director-general and cannot be delegated. It will also only be used where it is considered that the other measures available to the department, such as obtaining from the trader an enforceable undertaking not to further engage in the improper conduct, will not protect consumers from significant loss or damage. I turn now to outline the detail of the bill. The bill provides that where the director-general is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a licensee has engaged in conduct that, under the legislation under which the licence was granted or issued, constitutes grounds for suspension or cancellation of the licence; that it is likely that the licensee will continue to engage in that conduct; and that there is a danger 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7039 that a person or persons may suffer significant harm, or significant loss or damage, as a result of that conduct unless action is taken urgently, the director-general may suspend the licence for up to 60 days. The period of the suspension will be specified in a notice served on the licensee.
Where a licence is suspended, the licensee must within seven days lodge the licence with the department. If, during the period of suspension, the director-general is satisfied that the circumstances that gave rise to the suspension have altered and no longer justify any suspension, the director-general shall by notice terminate the suspension and restore the licence. It will be open to the director-general to impose, by way of notice served on the licensee, a further period of suspension. This notice may be served during the period of an earlier suspension. The licensee will be entitled to apply to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for a review of a decision of the director-general.
The imposition of a period of suspension under this new provision to the Fair Trading Act will not prevent or in any way limit disciplinary action being taken against the licensee under any other Act. This bill also includes an amendment to extend the existing powers given to fair trading investigators to investigate illegal conduct. The Fair Trading Act currently provides that where the director-general believes on reasonable grounds that there are on premises documents evidencing conduct in contravention of the Act the director- general may authorise an investigator to enter premises, inspect documents and make or take extracts from them. The bill extends this provision so that it may be exercised in relation to contraventions of any Act administered by the Minister for Fair Trading. The reforms which I have outlined will give the Department of Fair Trading greater power to protect consumers against unfair and illegal practices and will help to weed out those traders who pose a significant risk to the public. I commend the Bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Humpherson.
APPROPRIATION BILL
APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL APPROPRIATION (SPECIAL OFFICES) BILL APPROPRIATION (FURTHER BUDGET VARIATIONS) BILL STATE REVENUE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL UNCLAIMED MONEY AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 6 June. Ms ALLAN (Wentworthville) [4.55 p.m.]: At the outset, I refer to the tragedy that occurred yesterday in the Ku-ring-gai National Park which resulted in the deaths of three National Parks and Wildlife Service officers and critical injuries suffered by other officers. It is important to comment on this incident not only because of the currency of the issue but also because the National Parks and Wildlife Service, as a result of support from successive governments, has ensured during the last decade that a significant part of its that budgetary allocation has been applied to pest and fire management. My predecessors and those of the present Minister, particularly Tim Moore, who was a Minister for the Environment in the previous Coalition Government led by Nick Greiner, felt it was obvious that the work undertaken by the National Parks and Wildlife Service in relation to fire management had to be improved. Under successive Labor Governments, that work has been continued. The very tragic event yesterday resulted in the deaths of three National Parks and Wildlife Service officers. A great deal of media attention has been paid to the event and that has impacted on the local communities of Hornsby and Mount Kuring-Gai particularly. The Parliament should be aware that there is a very strong community within the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Many of the officers who died or were injured in yesterday's tragic event are widely known within the service for their expertise in fire management. This tragic event will be deeply felt by all members of the National Parks and Wildlife Service community, and all officers within the service have been shaken by this tragedy. The media has focused on the apparently routine nature of the activity in which those officers were engaged, which led to the deaths of three officers and critical injuries suffered by others. This tragic incident demonstrates profoundly that there is no such thing as a routine backburn or burn-off operation, and that anyone 7040 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000 who engages in that type of activity for the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the State Emergency Service, State Forests, the Rural Fire Service and fire brigades generally puts his or her life at risk by the very nature of the work. The National Parks and Wildlife Service regards fire management as an absolute core responsibility within the service. As a result of the service carrying out that core responsibility, yesterday three people died and others may also die. On a personal level, I convey my condolences and those of my partner, Philip Marjason, to the families of the officers who died, and I certainly pray that those who are injured will recover and return in the future to serve again with the National Parks and Wildlife Service.
I turn now to address the impact of the budget on my constituency in the electorate of Wentworthville. On a positive note, I acknowledge that major road and transport improvements for the electorate have been provided in the budget. Wentworthville electorate, in the heart of western Sydney, received a budget allocation of nearly $3 million for transport and roads. The budget delivered fully on the commitments made by the Government before the most recent State election in relation to major roads and transport projects for western Sydney. In particular, $355,000 has been provided for upgrade work at the intersection of Cumberland Highway and the Great Western Highway. Those who travel in Western Sydney along the Great Western Highway are well aware of that traffic hotspot, and any improvement will assist the whole transport network across Sydney. An allocation of $150,000 has been provided for resurfacing and other improvements at the intersection of Brian's Road and the Cumberland Highway, a difficult intersection within the electorate.
Substantial grants were also allocated to the four local councils within my electorate. Baulkham Hills received $457,000, Blacktown City Council $872,000, Holroyd City Council $302,000 and Parramatta City Council $483,000. The State Government's record annual spending on Western Sydney roads continues to be more than double the annual average spending by the previous Coalition Government—only $72 million—from the early 1990s right through to the mid-1990s. Apart from expenditure on roads and traffic management—the largest component of the budget allocation in my electorate—I express gratitude to the Minister for Education and Training for relatively small but nevertheless significant grants. Toongabbie West Public School received $4,000 to fund a telephone replacement. Wentworthville Public School received $12,590 for joint funding for a shade in the school grounds. A vast amount of money needs to be spent at Wentworthville Public School on maintenance problems, as a major part of the school was built in the 1940s.
I am delighted that the Minister for Public Works and Services is currently addressing those problems. Within the next 12 months a specific strategy is needed to make sure that those issues are addressed. The overbridge at Toongabbie has received limited funding in the budget. That bridge is of major concern to both Parramatta City Council and Holroyd City Council as it straddles both Holroyd and Parramatta local government areas at Toongabbie central business district. The bridge is a little like the Granville overbridge that collapsed approximately 25 years ago. Deep anxiety is felt amongst the local community and within the respective councils that the bridge is not safe. During the past few years I have negotiated with the Minister for Transport about improvements to that overbridge. I am pleased that the Government has provided money towards an independent feasibility study on the safety of the bridge.
In the past, CityRail and the Roads and Traffic Authority argued that the bridge was perfectly safe. Whatever was used to substantiate that argument has not been sufficient to reassure the community. I am delighted that the Government has provided $10,000, Parramatta City Council $5,000 and Holroyd City Council $5,000 to enable a $20,000 study conducted by an independent consultant. We will seriously consider the results of that study when it is complete. I am personally delighted by and congratulate the Government on allocations for capital works improvements to a significant range of public lands, regional parks, national parks and nature reserves in all electorates in Western Sydney. Within my own electorate the Government has allocated $1.3 million for landscaping and the construction of footpaths and a cycleway at the Lower Prospect Canal. The land was originally owned by Sydney Water and was intended under the former Coalition Government to be developed for housing.
Fortunately, as a result of community pressure and strong action by the former Labor Government a decision was made to protect that area. Initially it was placed in the hands of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and now it has been handed over for management by Holroyd City Council. Many maintenance, upkeep, development and other ongoing issues still have to be addressed but the $1.3 million allocation will enable the area to be protected further. Adjacent to my electorate is Parramatta Regional Park, a very important recreational activity resource for my constituents. I am delighted that this evening the honourable member for Parramatta, in whose electorate Parramatta Regional Park is located, will also contribute to this debate. The Government has provided $800,000 in the budget allocation for landscaping and road and cycleway improvements. 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7041
At the risk of being controversial, I emphasise that $800,000 is not adequate for Parramatta Regional Park. Many more times than that amount is needed to adequately finance the various works that need to be undertaken in Parramatta Regional Park. I know the strong view of the trust that currently sends advice to the Minister for the Environment, who works through the National Parks and Wildlife Service to maintain Parramatta Regional Park. Many years ago it cost $400,000 to mow the grass in Parramatta Park when it was managed by a trust and the Parramatta City Council, but now a decade later only twice that amount is being provided. That is not good enough. I know that the Minister for the Environment has a personal commitment to increase that budget allocation, and I am sure he will do so.
To judge to what extent that allocation should be increased, honourable members only have to compare it with the amount of money allocated for Centennial Park. Centennial Park is getting at least $11 million from the current budget—more than 12 times the amount for Parramatta Regional Park, which probably services a much larger population than Centennial Park. On Sunday afternoon many people go to Parramatta Regional Park and to the brand new children's play area. A couple of weeks ago I took my three-year-old daughter there and it was literally crawling with children. It has only been open about two months and already it is showing the wear and tear from use by large numbers of children. It is delightful that the park is in so much demand and that the people are using it. However, money needs to be spent on the park to make sure that it is credible and that people can use it with a sense of satisfaction. Surely that is what parks are about.
Finally, I wish to address the future of other land, unfortunately not in public ownership but nevertheless contiguous with areas such as Parramatta Park. I am referring to Old Toongabbie Forest, on Hammers Road and Old Toongabbie Road at Northmead. The land backs onto Toongabbie Creek, a tributary of the Parramatta River and an important part of the Parramatta River catchment. The land has Cumberland Plain woodlands and is a habitat for endangered birds and animals, yet it is in private ownership. Unfortunately, the cost of buying the land is estimated at about $8 million, but it is not on the market. It is certainly not a cheap piece of land. The Grand United Order of Odd Fellows owns the land and is planning to redevelop it for housing. That is an intensely controversial issue within the Wentworthville electorate and the adjacent electorates of Parramatta and Baulkham Hills. The issue is controversial because the land is an important area of public space with endangered habitat. People frankly do not need any more houses in that area.
I note that since the budget was handed down the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning has released draft Sydney regional environmental plan 31, which covers regional parklands in western Sydney, and in particular Western Sydney Regional Park, Fairfield City Farm, Nurragingy Reserve, Eastern Creek Raceway and Prospect Reservoir, which is also in the Wentworthville electorate. Even though the Government has a huge commitment to public lands in western Sydney—as evidenced by the Minister's announcement of draft Sydney regional environmental plan 31—it is very important that a tract of land such as that at Old Toongabbie Forest should be included in its parkland.
Whilst I am delighted with the amounts of money that have been provided by this budget for the various regional parks, reserves and other areas, it is important not only to increase expenditure for Parramatta Regional Park but to add other important areas of land, like Old Toongabbie Forest, to our parklands. That land is available if the Government is prepared to make an offer to the Grand United Order of Oddfellows based on its market value. The land, if it were to become available, would substantially enhance the protection of nature and nature conservation within western Sydney. I have a vision that that area of Old Toongabbie Forest will become part of the Parramatta Regional Park. For that to occur, obviously a budget of more than $800,000 would have to be made available.
The Wentworthville electorate has done very well in this budget. The priority areas of roads, transport and rail have been addressed, as have nature conservation issues. The Government continues its heritage funding for restoration of the former St Bartholomew's Anglican Church at Prospect, a project that is of great importance for my local community and particularly for the Prospect trust that has a watching brief on the church. A $50,000 allocation has been made in this budget for the continuation of major works on the church. These are the important decisions that communities like Wentworthville very much appreciate, and they will appreciate further improvements as well. I look forward to working very closely with a number of Ministers to ensure that areas that need to be addressed are attended to in the future.
Mr R. H. L. SMITH (Bega) [5.11 p.m.]: I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the Appropriation Bill and cognate bills for 2000-01. It certainly is a great time to be in government: the economy is booming. Much, if not all, of the credit for this obviously goes to the Federal Government. We have certainly weathered the Asian crisis. We have probably the lowest interest rates that we have had in our lifetimes. We 7042 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000 have very low inflation. Consequently, we have lower unemployment and a booming economy. This has great benefits for any State government. Clearly, the State government is not a tax collector in the true sense of the term in relation to income tax; it spends money on services. A State government gets many benefits from a booming economy. The Howard Government must be given a lot of credit for the very good conditions we have enjoyed in New South Wales over the last few years.
New South Wales has benefited also from the Olympic Games. Obviously a lot of building has been going on. One does not have to venture far from the inner-city area to become aware of the amount of money that is being spent to make this city a showpiece for the Olympic Games. Being a country person, I am sure that the Olympic Games will be a very successful event. All country people join in the hope that it will be a real showcase not only for Sydney and New South Wales but for the whole of Australia. However, it must be mentioned that country New South Wales will not benefit greatly from the Olympic Games. After the Olympics are over, most country people would expect more capital works activities in country areas, with those works flowing at a rate fast enough to provide at least some compensation.
There is great division developing in country areas. The benefits of the Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong boom of the past four or five years have not ventured far into country areas. Country people resent the fact that their areas have not seen the benefits of the boom. This House has just discussed deregulation of the dairy industry and the many negative impacts of that for country communities. Many country industries have been under extreme pressure. There does not seem to be any realisation of the problem by the city-based Carr Government.
This certainly is a Labor budget, as the Treasurer said last Tuesday week. True, it is a Labor budget: it is high taxing and high spending. Only a few days ago the Carr Government put through this House the car parking levy legislation, which doubled from $400 to $800 the cost of a car space in the central business district of Sydney, and extended the levy to some urban areas. Of course, that is just another tax grab. New South Wales is the highest taxing State in Australia. It now collects from each individual $2,150, which in anybody's terms is a great deal of money, but that is even more so for a family on a reasonably average wage that is trying to bring up children, particularly a family in a country area where wages generally are not as high as they are in city areas.
Over recent months great expectation has built up since the Labor Party has gone on the rampage saying that it represents country areas, particularly brandishing its Country Labor logo. Unfortunately, generally speaking, people in country areas are sick of the rhetoric. They would like to see real things happen in country areas. I am sure that honourable members who represent country electorates would recognise that things must be done in the country. Regional and country New South Wales are not getting the benefits of the city boom of the past few years. It is time that the Carr Government spent money on capital works to effect in country areas an equalisation of the benefits, certainly in inland areas. If it does not, as I have said on a number of occasions in this House, we will end up having to resettle inland New South Wales because people are leaving the area at a rapid rate to come to the cities and coastal towns. People from inland areas are disillusioned. People cannot find work, and no money is being spent there. Because people are leaving inland towns, the need for services is reducing and as a result many services are disappearing. Something must be done. There really is only one thing that a State government can do to assist inland and country centres, and that is to spend more on capital works in those centres and move more of the infrastructure of departments or sections of departments to inland and country centres in an effort to stimulate their economies. If Country Labor really wants to do something, it ought to get stuck into advocating on behalf of country areas and stop the city-based ALP from overruling them. I am sure that Country Labor members realise that we have heard nothing but rhetoric from them at this stage, and that they must get a few runs on the board fairly quickly. I now turn to a few matters of concern to the Bega electorate. First, I would like to say that we were pleased to get a start on the Bega High School. That school originally was built for 700 students. It now has more than 1,200. A major upgrade has been on the drawing board for a number of years. I am very pleased that the Government has seen fit to start the process with an allocation of $500,000 in this year's budget. That will get the works out to tender and under way. That will be a good project not only for the students of the school— that is, when it is finished—but it will boost the prosperity of Bega through building contracts, benefiting contractors and subcontractors while that project is in its construction stage.
A number of schools which did not receive budgetary allocations are desperate for building programs. One of them is Merimbula Public School, which is located on a valuable site. That school is overcrowded, more 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7043 than half its classes are demountable buildings and it has small playground areas. The library and other facilities are all located in demountable buildings. There has been a lot of controversy about a development called Tura Beach, which is located just outside Merimbula. A block of land at Tura Beach has been set aside as a new site for a primary school, but a site located between Tura and Merimbula would be my choice of site for the building of a new school as it is centrally located between Tura and Merimbula. It would be worthwhile selling the site at Merimbula and building a bigger school halfway between those two sites. The primary school located in Bega west requires upgrading. It should have been upgraded many years ago. That school, which has to be moved from its present site, certainly requires a budgetary allocation, which it did not receive in this budget. I refer now to hospitals. The Milton-Ulladulla hospital, which provides services for a population of about 15,000 to 20,000 people and has 22 beds, has been left in limbo because of major upgrades to the Shoalhaven, Eurobodalla, Moruya and Batemans Bay hospitals. It has been left out. Its emergency and obstetrics departments need upgrading and it requires more beds to cater for the growing population in that area. I am hoping that the provision of emergency and obstetrics services at Pambula hospital will be reinstated. After an incident six months ago those services were removed to facilitate the training of staff. The Southern Area Health Service assured staff at that hospital that those services would be reinstated. I am taking it at its word. I hope it will not be too much longer before those services are reinstated at Pambula hospital. Bega hospital has undergone internal renovations and there are plans for additional, quite controversial, renovations. At this stage negotiations are taking place between the Southern Area Health Service and the community. I hope that the Southern Area Health Service continues to negotiate with the community and, in particular, the nursing and medical staff at that hospital, to try to achieve a resolution in the best interests of the whole community. I deal now with the police budget. It is of great concern in most country areas that police resources, which are stretched to the limit at present, will come under more severe scrutiny with the advent of the Olympic Games and the secondment of police officers to help out at the Olympic Games. Most people in country areas accept that some police have to be seconded, but they want to ensure their own safety with the provision of sufficient police officers to look after their requirements during the period of the Olympics. More police resources must be allocated to most of these towns, but at present there are not sufficient resources. The Government promised that the duties of escort police would be taken over by Department of Corrective Services personnel, in particular, in the Bateman's Bay area. That will free up many police officers who are now required to perform those duties. Bega is being subjected to a great deal of antisocial behaviour, which seems to be flowing to other towns. Only the provision of additional police resources will correct that problem and ensure that people comply with the law. I pay tribute to the many volunteers in my electorate who assist in the provision of welfare services. A lot of people do a great deal of work behind the scenes, for example, Meals on Wheels, the Volunteer Rescue Association, the State Emergency Service, the Volunteer Coastal Patrol, the Rural Fire Service and the hospital auxiliaries, who raise many thousands of dollars every year to buy specialist equipment and other luxuries that would not otherwise be possible. My electorate has wonderful home and community care facilities. The volunteers who provide services in country areas do a wonderful job keeping people in their own homes close to their families, thus avoiding the necessity for institutionalisation. Those caring people, who love their job, are welcomed by those to whom they provide these services. I deal now with roads. My electorate received an amount of money for one project which I can only describe as the missing link, between Merimbula bypass and Yellow Pinch. Only eight or nine months ago there was a fatal accident on that stretch of road. Roads on either side of this missing link have been upgraded and are now high standard country highways. The missing link, which is quite a winding and dangerous section of road, has received a budgetary allocation of $4 million. I believe that that will make a great difference to the road between Merimbula and Bega and will remove that dangerous black spot. Many stretches along the Princes Highway could benefit from a budgetary allocation. Not so long ago reference was made in debate on an urgency motion to the fact that the State Government would be allocating $338 million over 10 years for the upgrading of the Princes Highway. Taking into account the fact that that road is 600 or 700 kilometres long, that is not a large amount of money in today's terms. Only $30 million or $40 million a year will being spent on that important highway. I refer again to Main Road 92 which runs through the top end of my electorate—the Ulladulla area—and into the electorate of the member for South Coast. The Federal Government has allocated money to fix the road between Nowra and Canberra. However, we are having trouble getting the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads to match the Federal Government's contribution. 7044 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000
I deal now with some of the industries in my electorate. As we have just debated legislation dealing with the deregulation of the dairy industry, most people would be aware of the desperate problems that will be faced by dairy farmers as a result of the deregulation of that industry. It is not only dairy farmers who will be affected; deregulation will affect their families and the entire community. It is hard to estimate what effect the reduction in the price of milk will have on the Bega Valley area if deregulation occurs on 1 July. Studies have been conducted which indicate that small communities could lose as much as $10 million.
It has been said that the largest part of the dairy industry is in my electorate. The people in the dairy industry in my electorate are very efficient. They produce roughly one million litres of milk per dairy farm. However, surprisingly, only 143 dairy farmers produce all that milk. They will struggle with deregulation. They are close to the Victorian border and a long way from Sydney and Melbourne, the two major cities, so they have a long way to transport their milk. They also have a very unreliable rainfall as they are in a rain shadow. It will be very difficult for them to overcome this great disruption of dairy deregulation, which could take place on 1 July. In the Bega Valley it costs on average 36¢ to produce a litre of milk. The Bega Co-operative came out with the price of 28¢ or 29¢, and today I heard that it has been lowered to 26¢. That is the lowest it has been. I hope what I heard is not true.
The budget is a very average budget. The people in my electorate thought that this year they might get a payback as most of the Olympic venues have been constructed. We did get some benefits—Bega High School and some road funding—but we are really looking for that massive injection of capital works into the Bega electorate to give us what we see as our fair share. Eurobodalla shire has the highest unemployment rate in the State. It was 22 per cent but has dropped back, according to latest figures, to 17 per cent. The Bega Valley council area has an extremely high rate of unemployment, about 17 per cent, and that will be reduced only if money is spent on capital works in the area.
Ms HARRISON (Parramatta) [5.31 p.m.]: The budget is consistent with the priorities of the previous five budgets. The budget builds on five years of hard work and sound management of the State's finances. In 1997 the Treasurer pledged to taxpayers that the Olympic Games would be completely paid for up-front, with not a single cent of debt for this or future generations to pay. Therefore, I was delighted on 23 May to hear the Treasurer state that with this budget all of the Olympic and Paralympic costs are covered and that the Games are now paid for.
Moreover, almost every first home buyer in the State of New South Wales will benefit greatly from the new stamp duty exemptions and grants, up to $12,000—a boon to both home buyers and the housing industry in general. Of great importance to families in the electorate of Parramatta, and indeed further afield, are the items in the budget specifically targeted to help Westmead Hospital remain one of the best hospitals in the country. The allocation in the budget of further funding for the $3.7 million neonatal emergency transport service on the Westmead Hospital campus is very good news. The project provides for the co-location of the newborn and paediatric emergency transport service and the Child Flight helicopter service on the Westmead site.
I had the pleasure of announcing last year the $5 million Westmead procedural centre, which will provide an integrated one-stop facility for surgery, combining pre-admission, peri-operative and post-operative care. This project continues to be a priority for the Government, with a further $1.5 million being allocated in this budget to progress the centre, which is planned for completion in 2002. A further $1.5 million this financial year will go towards the construction of the $3.3 million New South Wales Breast Cancer Institute on the Westmead campus. The new institute will provide a statewide service, including research, education programs, breast screening programs and analysis of data supplied by breast clinics across New South Wales.
I note that these projects are in addition to the increase in recurrent funding for health services. In this budget, recurrent funding for health services in the Western Sydney Area Health Service will increase by $26.2 million or 5.3 per cent. This year's increase is the first instalment of the Government's commitment to increase recurrent funding for the region by $63 million, or 12.8 per cent, by 2002-03. In addition, I note that an extra $3.5 million will be spent on mental health services in the western Sydney region this year. By 2002-03 mental health expenditure for the region will increase by $11 million. That is an increase of more than 18 per cent.
This year the Government will spend $80 million on important capital works in Parramatta, supporting more than a 1,100 jobs. In addition to the works at Westmead Hospital, other projects include $32,000 for new communications equipment for local State Emergency Service units, $3 million for ongoing improvements to Parramatta station, and $1.3 million for various road safety initiatives in the Parramatta area, including 9 June 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 7045 upgrading the intersection of Marsden, Victoria and Wharf roads, Ermington. An amount of $22,000 of the allocation to the Parramatta State Emergency Service will be spent on the acquisition of new communication equipment, with the rest being provided for the purchase of new computers. Once again, the Government is meeting its commitment to ensuring that New South Wales emergency services have resources and equipment of world-class standard.
Also of particular pleasure to me is the budget boost for funding for Parramatta Regional Park. Visitor facilities, walking tracks and roads will be upgraded following the allocation of $846,000 to Parramatta Regional Park. This budget allocation is a continuation of capital improvements totalling $2.35 million over three years. With more than one million people visiting and enjoying Parramatta Regional Park's many amenities, this funding allocation will further improve existing facilities and provide new facilities for the enjoyment of visitors. Approximately $50,000 is allocated to improve and provide roads and walking tracks as well as new bridges over the Domain Creek. The majority of the funds allocated will be spent on the Burramatta visitors centre and the landscaping of the surrounding area.
We will also look at restoring to their natural environment a few areas that have been affected over many years. One of the areas marked for restoration will be Little Coogee, on the Parramatta River. Little Coogee was a popular swimming and picnicking area that was extensively modified following the Second World War. I would like to comment on what the honourable member for Wentworthville said earlier this evening, but because of the lateness of the hour I will keep the comment short. I agree 100 per cent with her comment about the chronic underfunding of Parramatta Park. I also confirm her comment on how busy the park is. Being a regular user of the park I understand what she said about the new children's area being packed. Mid- morning on any Saturday or Sunday it is not uncommon to count up to 200 people exercising and walking their dogs.
When one compares the catchment area for usage of Parramatta Park to the catchment area of Centennial Park, one sees that it is severely underfunded. I might add that the funding Parramatta Park has received from the Carr Government during both terms is the best funding the park has ever received, particularly when one compares it to funding under the Coalition Government. I commend both the current Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Bob Debus, and the former Minister, Pam Allan, for ensuring that Parramatta Park is receiving substantial funding. I do not think it is enough, but it has improved remarkably under the successive environment Ministers. I also commend the current Minister for the Environment Minister for his understanding of the problems we face and his undertakings to address the inequalities over the next few years.
Major spending on road and rail infrastructure has been boosted in this budget, with more than $30 million being allocated to transport and roads in the Parramatta area. The budget delivers on the Government's commitment to fully fund a range of major transport and road projects for western Sydney as outlined in Action for Transport 2010. The Government's record annual spending on western Sydney roads continues to be more than double the annual average spending by the Coalition Government of only $72 million from 1991-92 to 1994-95. With this Government working hard for the whole of New South Wales, the budget spreads the benefits of the booming economy right around the State. Transport in the Parramatta electorate has received a massive boost in this budget. That advance is even greater when looked at in the context of the Government's actions which have enhanced Parramatta's infrastructure, such as the purchase of the North and Western Bus Service. State Transit will introduce its modern bus fleet along this important route. In addition, government buses are now a regular feature of western Sydney for the first time in the city's history. This has been brought about by the direct Parramatta to city bus link. That new service is expected to attract about 25,000 passengers in the first year, with an annual growth rate of about 10 per cent. The purchase of the bus companies and the commencement of the 520 bus service underlines the Government's commitment to public transport remaining in public ownership. The two private bus companies, complete with their bus fleets and staff, were acquired by State Transit to provide a single bus service in the Ryde-Parramatta area that is capable of delivering direct bus services from the city to Parramatta, the heart of the western suburbs. It will mean faster and more direct travel to the central business district and Parramatta. It will link these centres with key destinations such as Top Ryde shopping centre and the University of Western Sydney's Rydalmere campus, providing a service along the northern side of the Parramatta River to complement the existing city rail service south of the river. This is also good news for pensioners, bringing as it does a wide range of concessions, including the $1 pensioner excursion ticket and multiride tickets such as the 10-trip Metro-Ten. The direct service will run 315 times each week over the 26 kilometre route along Victoria Road from the bus terminal in Darcy Street at 7046 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 June 2000
Parramatta station through Ryde, following the existing 500 route across the Anzac Bridge to Circular Quay. The return service will terminate in Argyle Street, Parramatta. Seen in the overall context of these services and allied to the many other projects stemming from this year's budget allocation, these major projects recognise Parramatta's role as the gateway to Western Sydney—a region that is set for significant economic growth in the coming decades. Western Sydney will also benefit from better road links and transport facilities. I am delighted that the Government has ensured a fair share for this area. Funding of $700,000 has been made available to ensure completion of landscaping works beneath the M4 viaduct. This budget includes more than $2 million for essential maintenance work to improve road safety and travel conditions for all road users. Substantial grants have also been allocated to local councils for road improvements as follows: Holroyd, $302,000; and Parramatta, $483,000. This budget continues all rail services by CityRail to Western Sydney at existing levels while accommodating further possible expansions to meet increasing patronage. With State Transit buses and ferries now servicing parts of Parramatta, local residents will benefit from State Transit's capital works program in 2000-01, which includes nearly $39 million for 93 new compressed natural gas buses featuring low floors, air-conditioning and wheelchair access, and $2.3 million for the installation of security cameras on wharves.
This budget has also delivered to Parramatta almost $12.5 million for the Roads and Traffic Authority works program. Included in this program are major works such as planning for the Great Western Highway upgrade, M4 viaduct noise walls, and James Ruse Drive offramp and landscaping. A new cycleway leading from Parramatta to Granville is planned, with $35,000 going towards the planning of this project as it affects the Parramatta section. Additionally, well over $1 million has been allocated towards planning the new transitway centred on Parramatta. Some $380,000 will go towards minor works such as noise treatment at James Ruse Drive and miscellaneous acquisitions, planning, investigations and finalisations. State roads infrastructure maintenance was not neglected, with $2,127,000 allocated for my electorate of Parramatta. This is in addition to the total amount of $1,342,000 that will be well spent on a multitude of road safety programs and infrastructures that will continue to enhance road safety throughout Parramatta. These include the Parramatta local government area road safety program, a large number of roadworks, upgrading the Great Western Highway, Pitt Street traffic control signals, construction of mast arm posts for Victoria Road and the installation or modification of roundabouts at Alfred, Buller and Wigram streets. Some $100,000 will see the resurfacing of Marsden Road, as well as the Victoria Road-Wharf Road approaches and intersection at Ermington. The amount allocated for traffic and transport programs in the Parramatta electorate totals $6,582,640, $5 million of which will go towards the Parramatta to Liverpool transitway. Other areas that will benefit from this budget are funding for school crossing supervisors, $74,000; Parramatta's regional roads block grant of $99,000; the installation of bus priority lanes in Church Street using the budget's allocation of $75,000; a regional bicycle linkage from Parramatta to Liverpool using $135,000; and a roadside processor for the M4 motorway. A further $75.392 million has been allocated for further development of the Chatswood to Parramatta rail link, with construction expected to start in the new year. That project is a centrepiece of this budget, demonstrating the Government's commitment to fully implementing its Action Plan for Transport 2010. This budget is about better planning, and projects such as the rail link typify the whole-of-government approach that will ensure job opportunities and a better living environment along a key transport corridor for Western Sydney. This is a balanced and affordable allocation which will deliver better and safer roads to the Parramatta area and Sydney's west. In addition, the Parramatta Stadium Trust capital expenditure budget for 2000 is $450,000, which will be directed towards improving and refurbishing Parramatta Stadium's current catering outlets. These proposed improvements will create a positive impact by increasing per capita spending in the public areas, thereby increasing the revenue return to the Parramatta Stadium Trust. I thank the Government which, with this budget, has put in place sound and much-needed basic infrastructure with plans and works that will go a long way to remedy the neglect suffered by Parramatta, the geographic centre of Sydney, under former Coalition governments. Sound management and sound planning has borne fruit for Parramatta with these funding allocations. They will see Parramatta continue to flourish. Therefore, I commend this budget. Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Whelan. SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:
That the House at its rising this day do adjourn until Tuesday 20 June 2000 at 2.15 p.m. House adjourned at 5.45 p.m. until Tuesday 20 June 2000 at 2.15 p.m. ______