LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Friday, 2 December 1994
______
Mr Speaker (The Hon. Kevin Richard Rozzoli) took the chair at 9.00 a.m.
Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.
ABORIGINAL RECONCILIATION
Mr FAHEY (Southern Highlands - Premier, and Minister for Economic Development) [9.00]: I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that in 1991 the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia unanimously enacted the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act 1991 to promote a process of reconciliation between the indigenous and wider Australian communities;
(2) supports the concept of constructive reconciliation between indigenous and wider Australian communities; and
(3) in acknowledgment of this support, adopts, as a vision shared by this House, the vision of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, namely, "A united Australia which respects this land of ours; values the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage, and provides justice and equity for all".
This motion will, I trust, be accepted unanimously here today and its sentiments added to those of the nation's other legislative changes where similar motions have been adopted as resolutions. The success of the reconciliation process depends upon the goodwill and good faith of everyone involved. The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation was established by a unanimous vote of the Commonwealth Parliament in 1991. It is working to achieve reconciliation by engendering respect in the community for the culture and achievements of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and an understanding of their unique position in our society. The people of New South Wales are represented on this council by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, MLC, who is chairperson of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Aboriginal affairs.
On the road to reconciliation between the Aboriginal people and the wider community, recent years have seen a number of magnificent milestones, one of which was the declaration by the United Nations of 1993 as the International Year of the World's Indigenous Peoples. As a government, we have already committed ourselves and the people of New South Wales to overcoming the disadvantage faced by so many indigenous Australians. And I am sure that our parliamentary colleagues will agree that it is our responsibility, as representatives of the people of New South Wales, to continue with such policies.
My Government's decision in 1993 to raise Aboriginal affairs in this State to full departmental status - with our colleague the Hon. Jim Longley as Minister responsible for this portfolio - provides further evidence of this sense of commitment. The restructuring of the Office of Aboriginal Affairs to enable it to improve its community development technique, as well as its communication with, and its delivery of services to, Aboriginal people throughout this State has followed as a natural consequence. In recent years, the five-volume report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody has been significant in enabling the wider community to come to understand the unique place of Aboriginal people in our national life, and their special needs.
The royal commission was established by the Commonwealth Government in 1987 in response to public concern at continuing reports of the deaths of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in custody in prison, police or juvenile institutions. It completed its work in 1991, finding that, although the deaths it investigated may have been premature, there was no common thread in them of abuse or racism: Aboriginal people in custody were not dying at a greater rate than non-Aboriginal people in similar circumstances; but an underlying pattern of social, cultural and legal factors had resulted in their gross overrepresentation in custodial care itself. In effect, too many Aboriginal people were being held in custody too often.
The royal commission examined the causes for this imbalance in painstaking detail and found that the only solution was for Aboriginal people to take control of their own lives and to be empowered to act for their own betterment. The New South Wales Government supported the overwhelming majority of the royal commission's 339 recommendations, many of which directly involved State and Territory responsibilities. Since 1992, government agencies in this State have been implementing policy and program responses to the royal commission's recommendations to eliminate disadvantage for Aboriginal people and to return to them control of their own lives. A report outlining implementation actions on all the relevant recommendations was tabled recently in this Parliament. This motion is very much in keeping with the final recommendation contained in the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody:
That all political leaders and parties recognise that reconciliation between the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities in Australia must be achieved if community division, discord and injustice to Aboriginal people are to be avoided.
To this end, the Commission recommends that political leaders use their best endeavours to ensure bi-partisan support for the progress of reconciliation and that the urgency and necessity of that process be acknowledged.
The New South Wales Government has also taken action in a number of other areas to address Aboriginal disadvantage, such as the passage earlier this year of the Native Title (New South Wales) Act. This Act will allow New South Wales to participate, Page 6228 to the extent necessary, in the national scheme established by the Commonwealth Government in the light of the High Court's Mabo decision. The New South Wales Government is also committed to the process of reconciliation through its endorsement at the Council of Australian Governments in Perth in December 1992 of the National Commitment to Improved Outcomes in the Delivery of Programs and Services for Aboriginal People and Torres Strait Islanders. The national commitment recognised empowerment, self-determination and self-management as guiding principles for Aboriginal communities; and confirmed that the planning, funding and provision of programs and services is a legitimate interest of all spheres of government.
For the past year, a New South Wales coordinating committee, chaired by the Director-General of the Office of Aboriginal Affairs, has been in operation. Its brief is to report on the efficiency, effectiveness and appropriateness of State policies and programs in the framework of the national commitment, and to advise on strategies which will improve outcomes in the delivery of services. The lines of communication forged under the national commitment have been of benefit to Aboriginal people throughout the State in areas from health services to policing and community welfare. The primary function of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation is to heal the historic rift between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. The members of the council are predominantly Aborigines and they represent a variety of regions throughout Australia. I am sure that all honourable members will endorse the values and aspirations embodied in this motion, which I commend to the House.
Mr CARR (Maroubra - Leader of the Opposition) [9.07]: The Opposition joins wholeheartedly with the Premier in support of this motion. By its imminent resolution we will attempt something more than an act of reconciliation with one section of the Australian people. In the deepest sense we seek a reconciliation with ourselves before history. We seek to reconcile the values we profess as a nation with the darker reality not only of the past but of the present and the future. In adopting this motion we should not be inhibited by the assertion that it implies a special attitude to one section of the Australian people only. It does, and so it should, and must, if the process of reconciliation is to have any chance of success.
The recognition of uniqueness is the reverse side of the clause of the Australian Constitution of 1901 which placed the Aboriginal people outside the protection of the Australian national Parliament. It is the logical conclusion of the process which began with the removal of that clause by the overwhelming majority of the Australian people at the referendum of 1967. It is fitting on this bipartisan occasion to recall that that noble initiative came from a fine Australian, the late Harold Holt. When we consider that the referendum was 27 years ago and that during that period a whole generation has passed, we may regret how slowly the cause of justice, honour and humanity advances. Nevertheless, it moves. In this Parliament, in speaking to this motion, we should acknowledge the disproportionately high number of Aboriginal people in this State's prisons. It is a sad reflection on our justice system that that is so. The figures condemn the way we approach justice and draw attention to the social condition of Aboriginal people in this State. Patrick Dodson, the chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, said:
Two events have provided significant opportunities to move ahead with the process of reconciliation. The first was the historical High Court decision of June 1992 which recognised native title and rejected the concept of terra nullius. The decision provides an opportunity to resolve long-standing issues about the best way of recognising the rights of indigenous people . . . The second event has been the celebration of 1993 as International Year of the World's Indigenous Peoples.
Mr LONGLEY (Pittwater - Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister for the Ageing) [9.10]: As Minister for Aboriginal Affairs I am honoured to support the motion moved by the Premier; that is, that this House shares the vision statement of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation proclaimed as follows:
A united Australia which represents this land of ours; values the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage, and provides justice and equity for all.
The road to reconciliation - to this historic motion today - has been difficult. Since colonisation the conflicts between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians have been many, although our history books have not always reflected these facts. In 1994 as we in this House decide whether to support this motion, I should like to reflect on some of the historical milestones along the road to reconciliation. The dispossession of our indigenous people was often brutal. There are many recorded instances of massacres and violent conflict throughout this period. It is something we cannot ignore. For the most part, until the 1960s, policy was centred on the sheer survival of indigenous Australians. But despite the violence of contact, many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island individuals and groups developed amicable relationships with explorers, missionaries, squatters and farmers.
As the Premier noted in his address, our indigenous people have been involved in the development of this nation throughout history. Many indigenous women filled domestic roles while indigenous men became the backbone of the pastoral industry, working as stockmen, bush trackers, labourers and police. In 1994 we can look back and mark the progression of reconciliation in its many and varied forms and, hopefully, learn from our mistakes. In the 1930s Aboriginal leaders - for example, J. T. Patten - and the Aborigines Progressive Association, appealed to the Parliament of New South Wales to show a lead to other Australian governments and to take up policies initiated by the APA.
The APA was asking for full citizen rights, for land settlement, for access to education, and for Aboriginal reserves to become sanctuaries for the Page 6229 aged or infirmed or a place where Aborigines who were unwilling or unable to suddenly adapt themselves to opportunities to citizenship rights could remain. It also asked for the constitution of an Aboriginal administration board comprising three persons appointed by the Government with expertise in health, education and land settlement, and three Aborigines appointed by the APA. The association asked that all inspectors be Aborigines. It was Aboriginal leaders, exemplified by Mr Patten, who pioneered the achievements of today.
This motion encapsulates an all-important and praiseworthy national goal, the attainment of which will rely on the good will and good faith of everyone involved. To this end, the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation - on which the people and the State of New South Wales are represented with distinction by Helen Sham Ho MLC, who is also the chairman of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Aboriginal Affairs - is doing much to inspire respect in the wider Australian community for the culture and achievements of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. All too often these achievements have been ignored. Despite misguided and ill-informed official policies of protection, enforced assimilation, and integration which followed their initial decimation, dispossession and dispersal, many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have risen to positions of pre-eminence in contemporary Australian society.
Cathy Freeman's recent achievements at the Olympic Games in Canada quite rightly inspired a great sense of national pride in us all. However, we sometimes forget that her successes are in keeping with a long tradition of achievement, despite all the odds, amongst the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Honourable members probably will find it enlightening for me to expand further on some of these achievements. Many might be surprised to learn that all the members of the very first Australian cricket side to tour England in the 1800s were Aboriginal. They have, of course, been followed by numerous other Aboriginal cricket legends, of whom the late Eddie Gilbert was but one.
In 1935, when the standard of women's test cricket was pretty much on a par with that of men's test cricket today, two Aboriginal cousins, Mabel Campbell and Edna Crouch, played for the Australian women's side against England. The late Mabel Campbell headed the batting average for Australia, while her cousin, Edna Crouch - now Mrs Archibald Newfong - a mollydook spin bowler, headed the bowling average for Australia. Edna Crouch's niece, Thelma Crouch, was also later to play on an Australian women's cricket side, as were other Aboriginal women, such as Faith Thomas.
Indeed, every generation of indigenous Australians has produced people of calibre: Evonne Goolagong Cawley; Lionel Rose; the Ella brothers; Jack Hassan; Harry Williams, who played soccer 19 times for Australia; and the late Sir Douglas Nicholls, an accomplished footballer and runner who won the Stawell Gift and went on to be a prominent pastor of the Church of Christ before becoming Governor of South Australia. I refer also to the widely acclaimed Harold Blair, who sang under permanent contract at the Paris Opera, Royal Covent Garden and the Metropolitan Opera in New York.
I refer to Aboriginal writers, such as David Unaipon, who first published in the last century; Hilas Maras, who wrote the highly successful Women of the Sun; and the late Oodjeroo Noonuccal, otherwise known as Kath Walker, who won many national and international awards, including the highly acclaimed New York critics' award. I refer also to the late Aboriginal actor and theatre director Brian Syron, who was the first Australian to act on Broadway, the first Australian to be a director on Broadway and in Hollywood, and several times the director of the Louisville Shakespeare Festival, and is the only Australian to have won the coveted international Grotowski Theatre award, for his direction of Fortune and Men's Eyes at the Ensemble Theatre in Sydney. He established Australia's national playwrights conference. These are all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who have achieved great success against enormous odds. If we as decision-makers and legislators continue to do all we can to shorten and to improve those odds, many more indigenous Australians will undoubtedly be able to revive dormant talents and abilities to the greater benefit of our nation as a whole. This motion will advance these very high and important goals.
Those same high goals have resulted also in my busy activity as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Recently I chaired the Aboriginal affairs ministerial council which was held in Sydney and attended by all the Ministers around Australia responsible for Aboriginal affairs. That conference demonstrated a unique cooperation between the States and the Commonwealth which is very much in keeping with this motion. I have travelled extensively throughout New South Wales - north, south, and west - to Wilcannia, Menindie and the north coast. Such travels have put me in touch with the Aboriginal communities. I place a high priority on consultation. Aboriginal people should have the opportunity to become the drivers in policy reform. I see that as a key and essential role.
I take this opportunity to commend very highly the work of Michael Stewart, the Director-General of the Office of Aboriginal Affairs. Michael is the first Aboriginal person to head the New South Wales Office of Aboriginal Affairs. He is doing an excellent job and deserves the highest commendation from this House, the Aboriginal community and the wider community. Under his good leadership and very much in keeping with the directions the Government has set, and which I have personally driven, we have worked to restructure the Office of Aboriginal Affairs to ensure that it is more responsive, that it is more policy driven and that there is a high level of contact with Aboriginal communities around New South Wales.
Page 6230
It is all about the empowerment of locals; it is about empowerment of the Aboriginal people so that they are driving the policy and general reform. The role of coordination is a key element. The role of the Office of Aboriginal Affairs has been to strengthen and highlight that coordination so that better outcomes are achieved for Aboriginal people. This is a whole-of-government approach in which all the elements are important. This debate is salutary and significant; it underscores the importance that this House and the people of New South Wales and, indeed, of our nation place upon reconciliation, and also the important and vital role that we play in the final empowerment of Aboriginal people for self-determination. I support the motion.
Mr MARKHAM (Keira) [9.21]: It gives me great pleasure to support the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in this motion of recognition of the process of reconciliation. The acknowledgment of this support adopts the vision of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, namely, a united Australia that will respect this land of ours, a valued Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage, and justice and equity for all. I support that vision and I believe this House also will support it. We ought not walk away today and forget what we voted on or what was said. In future years we must not forget what the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister and I have said. Words are cheap. Action is needed to achieve reconciliation.
The effect on Aborigines of events during the past 206 years since British settlement has caused many Aboriginal people to view reconciliation as a very hollow word. I do not want it to be a hollow word. I want it to be a word that we all respect. For more than 200 years Aboriginal people have suffered at the hands of those who have come from overseas. The number of Aboriginal people in the Australian prison system today is an indictment against our society. It should not have been allowed to happen. Worse than that: the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody was established before society even acknowledged that there was such a problem. The fact that the royal commission handed down 339 recommendations on how we should address the issue of Aboriginal deaths in custody shows the significance of the Aboriginal incarceration problem for this country and State.
Since the conclusion of the commission's inquiry and recommendations, another 13 Aboriginal people have died in New South Wales, as outlined in the document entitled, "Implementation of the Government's Response to the Recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, New South Wales Government Report 1992-93" tabled in this House a few weeks ago. This continuation of Aboriginal deaths in custody is of great concern and is the first point to be addressed before going down the path of reconciliation. Reconciliation must be a two-way street. Some Aboriginal people are concerned that reconciliation is just a word. The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation is doing a great job. I support what they are doing. But, although they will continue that great job, the task will also require total commitment from the Australian people, not just from Federal, State or local government. Australian people have to be educated that racism is not what this country needs and is not something that we will tolerate. In fact, we will do everything in our power to stamp it out. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs spoke of great sports people.
Mr Longley: Not only sports people.
Mr MARKHAM: I am focusing on Aboriginal sports people. Australians love to identify with great sports people. I agree with the Minister's comments about Cathy Freeman and with the way she carried the two flags while celebrating her great athletic victory. To me that signifies a real commitment to reconciliation: the Aboriginal flag and the Australian flag side by side in the international arena. The Minister named many great sports people, and I shall not repeat them, but we must also acknowledge the battlers within the Aboriginal community - the people who are trying to get a better deal for their people. A number of such people come to mind: Bill Rutter from West Wyalong Local Land Council, Danny Chapman from Mogo, Ken Copeland from Moree, Maureen O'Donnell from Broken Hill and numerous others. They are trying to improve the lifestyle of their people and their families.
To properly understand what reconciliation is about - the motion recognises the value of land and culture - non-Aboriginal Australians must learn more about the Aboriginal culture and association with the land. This is one of the harshest lands in the world. Prior to British settlement the Aboriginal people lived in this land for 40,000 years or more. We have been here for just over 200 years. Without doubt, the Aboriginal people experienced great variations in the climate over their period - floods, droughts, bushfires - and were fully aware of their environment. The path of reconciliation will ultimately recognise, as we must also, that the culture of Australian Aboriginal people, the indigenous people, the Torres Strait Islanders and Aboriginal people of this country, is changing.
In discussions relating to Aboriginal hunting and gathering I have heard ridiculous statements: that it is all right for Aboriginal people to hunt and gather in traditional ways, using boomerangs and spears, but not by using modern methods. Do we also tell Aboriginal people that when they want to pass a message from one tribe to another they should use message sticks and should not use mobile phones because they will destroy the traditional Aboriginal lifestyle? Is that what we are saying? Of course not! It would be absolutely stupid to even suggest that the hunting and gathering rights of Aboriginal people should be granted only if they do it in the ways of the past. Aboriginal culture and history is contemporary, and changing. I have attended many art exhibitions. A few weeks ago I was invited to open an Aboriginal art exhibition in Port Macquarie and there it was easy Page 6231 to see that many modern painting techniques were used. The vision and message of those pieces of Aboriginal art are distinctive.
So far as I am concerned, I am an Australian. My history did not start 206 years ago; it started 40,000 years ago, because the moulding of this country started 40,000 years ago. We are all part of this country. The Aboriginal people are worse off than other members of Australian society. If reconciliation can, in some small way, make the lot of Aboriginal people better, that will be good. I can remember - and the honourable member for Murray and the honourable member for Strathfield will also remember - being part of a Legislative Assembly committee inquiring into Aboriginal ownership of national parks. We were at Broken Hill taking public submissions on a Sunday.
Mr Cochran: Did you see Bill?
Mr MARKHAM: He shouted us dinner. We were taking public submissions on that great piece of legislation when a woman, Maureen O'Donnell, asked us, "Why are we having this hearing in this intimidating room?" We were in the council chambers. She said, "It is intimidating us. Why aren't we on the banks of the creek, talking about our land? It is all right for you parliamentary mob to sit up there in judgment, but what we are about is getting our land back". I assure honourable members that many Aboriginal people feel that way when we invite them into rooms which are intimidating. The only way to get to the truth of the concerns of Aboriginal people is to be out there on their land, by their invitation, listening to what they have to say.
I have mentioned that a bill relating to Aboriginal ownership of national parks is still on the table of this House. I know that the Minister for the Environment is a great supporter of that legislation. The Government introduced it after it promised the Aboriginal people of Mootwingee in 1991 that it would do so. After Tim Moore left, the legislation was supported by the current Minister for the Environment. In 1992 he indicated that it should be expedited. Honourable members talk about reconciliation, yet a promise made to the Aboriginal people in 1991 still has not been fulfilled. The Aboriginal people see us as saying one thing but meaning another. I think this House should support the resolution today and send a very strong message to the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation - and, more importantly, to the Aboriginal people of this State - that we will do whatever we can do to make sure that this process is successful and that we will listen more closely to what the Aboriginal people are saying.
My colleagues the honourable members for the electorates of Lakemba, Bankstown and Rockdale, who are in the Chamber, have travelled quite extensively with me to many parts of New South Wales as part of my Aboriginal Affairs caucus committee. They now have an entirely different point of view to what they had three or four years ago, because they have been out there, have seen and have listened to what the Aboriginal people have to say, and what their problems are. That is very important. I have been to every corner of the State and have visited more than 80 per cent of Aboriginal communities in New South Wales in the past five years, and the Aboriginal people have raised many important issues - including Boobera Lagoon in the Moree region, and Lake Victoria in the far south-west in the electorate of Murray.
As recently as Saturday of last weekend I attended a Yurin elders conference at Mystery Bay in the electorate of Bega. A three-day conference was held to consider a range of issues affecting Aboriginal people - native title, reconciliation, fishing and hunting rights, and many other issues that affect Aboriginal people on a daily basis. On the Sunday, thanks to the assistance of the Minister for the Environment, I was able to visit Montague Island, which has a significant spiritual association for tribes in that area. In fact, it is a geographical fault and part of the Gulaga Mountain range. My committee visited that very significant Aboriginal site a couple of years ago. It is on top of the mountain and is actually a women's birthing site. It was an incredible experience.
There are many sites throughout this great State of ours and I have often said, and will continue to say, that all we hear about are the Aboriginal art sites and spiritual sites in the Northern Territory or in the Flinders Ranges in South Australia, but there are many significant sites throughout New South Wales. We should be promoting these sites in conjunction with the Aboriginal people, so that they can get their message across to the tourists who are coming into the area and to the local people who live in the area. There is nothing better than to have an Aboriginal elder interpret the Aboriginal views on the dreaming about a particular geographical feature.
Earlier this year I visited Broken Hill, where there was a problem in regard to the Pinnacles, a significant Aboriginal site of spiritual understanding and a dreaming trail which is linked with the Flinders Ranges and through to Mount Isa, where the bronze wing pigeon dreaming has been explained in detail. That is why the ore deposits are where they are. There are many stories and I think they are significant to reconciliation. We, as members of Parliament, should listen to those dreaming stories because there is a lot of truth in them and a lot of enlightenment. So far as I am concerned, the Aboriginal people have every right to express themselves in any way they wish, whether it be visually or by the spoken word.
The recording of the languages of the Aboriginal people in New South Wales should be considered in the context of reconciliation, and I hope the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will give that serious consideration. A number of tribal languages are still spoken in New South Wales. Honourable members might be surprised that that is the case, because in the 1930s and 1940s it was illegal for Aboriginal people to speak their tribal tongue. Yet, some of the elders have held on to their language and have been able to maintain and resurrect it. I believe it is incumbent on Page 6232 parliaments of this country to make sure that a record is kept of those great languages for future generations and passed on to younger generations of Aboriginal people. Language was the great communicator, naturally enough, of human endeavour. So far as the Aboriginal people of this country were concerned, the stories being passed from the elders to the young were about how the language, culture and the spirit were reinforced - how the spiritual part of Aboriginal culture was reinforced.
We must ensure that all those aspects of Aboriginal culture are fully understood. Education is what it is all about. I believe that the programs that are already offered at schools should be extended. On Tuesday this week, during private members' statements, I said that Tranby Aboriginal Co-operative College would be holding its graduation ceremony at 4.30 p.m. today. That ceremony is significant because it recognises young Aboriginal people who have chosen to complete their education at Tranby college. The college educates Aboriginal people not only in western ways but also in Aboriginal spiritual and cultural ways. It accommodates young Aboriginal people from the country while they undertake their studies, and provides assistance for those young people on a number of issues, such as family breakdown. Every honourable member should fully support this important motion, and I commend the Premier for having moved it.
Motion agreed to.
Message forwarded to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution and requesting it to agree to a similar resolution.
CHILDREN (PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY) BILL
SUMMARY OFFENCES AND OTHER LEGISLATION (GRAFFITI) AMENDMENT BILL
Bills read a third time.
PEDERAST ALLEGATIONS
Ministerial Statement
Mr FAHEY (Southern Highlands - Premier, and Minister for Economic Development) [9.42], by leave: I wish to make a brief ministerial statement about matters raised in this House yesterday. During debate the honourable member for Heffron read into Hansard a statutory declaration which made a vile accusation against Mr John Marsden, a close personal friend of mine for the last 25 years. Mr Marsden and I have agreed to differ on many issues over those many years. He is currently arranging a public demonstration against my Government's law and order policies, but that makes no difference. John Marsden has been my friend for over 25 years. During that time he has been part of my family circle and has cared for my children. He has been a baby-sitter, a concerned friend and a personal adviser to my three children. I have no doubt that the vile and grubby allegations of the honourable member for Heffron are without a grain of truth.
Mr Marsden has served the community as President of the Law Society. He is the current President of the Council for Civil Liberties and a member of the Police Board. He has my full confidence as a member of the Police Board. The allegations of the honourable member for Heffron were the lowest and grubbiest abuse of this Parliament that I have ever seen. Even the Leader of the Opposition, to his credit, directed that, without any supporting evidence, the honourable member for Heffron should not make such a foul allegation in this House. To do so would be a gross abuse of the privileges of this House. The honourable member for Heffron defied the Leader of the Opposition.
I have been advised today that all the documents, including the original interviews with this criminal Fisk, have been thoroughly investigated by the police and all details subsequently placed in the hands of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, until recently when they were sent to the royal commission. Unless the honourable member for Heffron can provide more evidence than the flimsy declaration of a convicted criminal, she must resign from her position on the Labor Party front bench forthwith, lest she pollute this whole Parliament.
Mr CARR (Maroubra - Leader of the Opposition) [9.44]: The Opposition repudiates the allegations read into the record yesterday by the honourable member for Heffron. The statement made in this House was made without any authorisation by me or my colleagues. It should not have been made. Two men were accused of an odious offence. It must be said that there was no evidence presented beyond a statutory declaration, which itself contained no evidence. I understand that the person who signed his name to the statutory declaration has no credibility. Last Thursday the honourable member for Heffron and the honourable member for Ashfield brought these matters to my attention.
I told the honourable member for Heffron that there was no way she could go to the Parliament and say these things; she had to have evidence and, in any case, the matter belonged with the royal commission. I picked up the telephone, contacted the royal commissioner and put the phone in her hand so she could raise the matter with him. I understand that the honourable member for Ashfield accompanied her to the police royal commissioner later that day. The honourable member has said that her political future will depend on her substantiating the allegations. She made the statement in this House yesterday. I believe that all honourable members have an obligation to weigh very carefully the allegations put before them. It would be hard to conceive a more odious allegation than this for anyone to wear. I apologise to the people about whom the allegation was made. The honourable member for Heffron has to justify that allegation.
Page 6233
PARLIAMENTARY MANAGEMENT BOARD
Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services) [9.46]: I move:
(1) That there be established a Joint Standing Committee known as "The Parliamentary Management Board".
(2) That the Board consist of 14 Members; being 7 Members of the Legislative Assembly and 7 Members of the Legislative Council.
(3) That the quorum for a meeting of the Board shall be 8 Members.
(4) That the following office-holders shall be ex-officio Members of the Board:
(a) The Speaker
(b) The President
(c) Leader of the House, Legislative Assembly
(d) Manager of Opposition Business, Legislative Assembly
(e) Leader of the Government, Legislative Council
(f) Leader of the Opposition, Legislative Council
(5) That ex-officio Members be entitled to nominate alternates for the purpose of attending meetings of the Board.
(6) That the Speaker and President be joint Chairmen of the Board.
(7) That the Legislative Assembly appoint 4 Members being 2 Members supporting the Government; and 2 Members not supporting the Government 1 of whom shall be an independent minor party representative.
(8) That the Legislative Council appoint 4 Members being 2 Members supporting the Government; and 2 Members not supporting the Government 1 of whom shall be an independent or minor party representative.
(9) That subject to the control and direction of both Houses, as embodied in a similar resolution agreed to separately in each House, the Board shall be responsible for, but not limited to:
(a) determining details of operation of the Board in areas such as the conduct of meetings, appointment of sub-committees and voting procedures;
(b) general control of the management and administration of the Parliament;
(c) setting the overall policies within which the three Parliamentary Divisions shall function in their day to day operations;
(d) overseeing the Joint Services Division, including final authority over the establishment of positions in that Division and the appointment of staff, with the Director, Joint Services exercising day to day management and control of the Division;
(e) preparing the Parliamentary forward estimates bids for consideration by the Executive Government;
(f) determining, consistent with the principles of global budgeting, the utilisation and allocation of the funds provided to the Parliament in the Parliamentary Appropriation Bill;
(g) for producing annual reports, to include information pertaining to each of the three Parliamentary Divisions and containing as far as possible the information required in annual reports of Government Departments;
(h) arranging for independent consultants to undertake efficiency audits of the three Divisions for report to the Chairmen of the Board, who shall table such reports in each House within 15 sitting days of receipt, with the first audit to commence within 18 months of the Board being established and then at least every four years;
(i) the Auditor General continuing to audit, by invitation, the Parliamentary accounts.
(10) That for the purposes of administration the staff of the Parliament be divided into three Divisions as follows:
(a) an Office of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, comprising the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, the Assembly table officers, and other staff responsible for assisting the Clerk to provide services to the Assembly and its Members in relation to the official proceedings of the House and its procedure and practices;
(b) an Office of the Clerk of the Legislative Council, comprising the Clerk of the Parliaments, the Council table officers, and other staff responsible for assisting the Clerk to provide services to the Council and its Members in relation to the official proceedings of the Council and its procedures and practices;
(c) a Joint Services Division, headed by a Director responsible for facilities and services which are provided jointly to both Houses, including the Parliamentary Library, Accounts Services, Building Services, Food and Beverage Services, Printing, Information Technology, Security, Hansard, Parliamentary Education and Community Relations, and Archives.
(11) That a message be sent to the Legislative Council requesting that the Council adopt a similar resolution.
This matter - a new direction for the management of the Parliament - has been the subject of considerable discussion by all honourable members. A report has dealt with many of these aspects and there have been discussions between me, members of the Opposition and the three non-aligned Independents, who have clearly indicated their support for these changes. I believe that these changes will lead to honourable members having a more direct involvement in the management of the affairs of this Parliament. I believe this is an appropriate course of action. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [9.49]: This motion seeks to establish a joint standing committee to be known as the Parliamentary Management Board, which will comprise 14 members, seven from the Legislative Assembly and seven from the Legislative Council. The need for such a board was established some time ago. I was one of a group of members who discussed this issue with members of the New Zealand Parliament, which has had a board of management for some time. We saw Government members, Opposition members and Independent members - the equivalent of members of the Liberal-National Party and the Labor Party - who had all given their approval for the establishment of the board.
The implementation of this proposal by Parliament will break new ground. The board will prepare forward estimates for consideration by Executive Government. It will determine a variety of matters, including how the legislative budget is spent. Clearly that will lead to complex problems about the roles of each House of Parliament. Those problems Page 6234 will not be easy to resolve. A change in the numbers in the Legislative Council will have a dramatic impact on this Chamber, as well as on the Legislative Council. The motion has some strange features. The board will have an equal number of members from the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council. However, the 99 members of the Legislative Assembly are elected to represent individual electorates. The 42 members of the Legislative Council represent the whole of New South Wales. It seems a little odd to me that the proposal treats the Legislative Assembly as inferior to the Legislative Council, which has been proscribed from dealing with money bills. I am concerned about several other features of the proposal. I am not concerned about the Auditor-General being invited to audit the parliamentary accounts or about the production of annual reports. Those matters are important, but I have misgivings about what will happen in the future. I am a little perplexed by paragraph 10, which provides for an Office of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, an Office of the Clerk of the Legislative Council and a Joint Services Division.
The Office of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly will comprise the Clerk, the Assembly table officers and other staff responsible for assisting the Clerk to provide services. The Office of the Clerk of the Legislative Council will comprise the Clerk of the Parliaments and others. What is the constitutional authority for the Clerk of the Legislative Council to be known as the Clerk of the Parliaments? I do not care what his name or his title is. Does anyone know whether the Clerk of the Legislative Council will be the clerk of the board? This is a serious issue. Under this proposal the lower House will immediately grant power to the New South Wales Legislative Council. That has enormous ramifications in relation to timing and finance. Legislative programs can be frustrated because of the improper allocation of finance. There is no guarantee as to the manner in which the legislative budget will be allocated. Is anyone able to give me advice on that?
I generally support the thrust of the proposal, but these questions must be answered. It is imperative that we know how funding is to be allocated by the Parliament? The honourable member for South Coast has been active in formulating the proposal, which must be regarded as transitional. He may be able to answer the questions I have asked. The proposal has some good features. The Parliament will be more financially accountable than it has been in the past. I support that, because the only time the parliamentary accounting system comes into purview is for an hour or so at the estimates committee hearing. From an Opposition view point the estimates committees do not operate successfully, although from the Government view point they do. The proposal gives the Auditor-General an opportunity for input. Being a politician makes one aware of where real power lies. I am a little concerned about the overall financing of the proposal. I ask the Leader of the House to consider an additional paragraph 12. That paragraph will provide that a review of the operations of the board takes place after 12 months and the report be made available to all members of Parliament. So far as I am aware the motion does not contain any such provision. I formally move that the motion be amended by adding the following paragraph:
(12) That the operation of the Board of Management be reviewed after 12 months and that the results of the review be made public.
The Opposition supports the motion, as sought to be amended.
Mr HATTON (South Coast) [9.59]: The amendment moved by the honourable member for Ashfield is a good idea and I support the motion. I hope the amendment is intended to mean that the review will take place after the board has been operating for 12 months. In any event, the amendment proposes that the parliamentary board reports to Parliament. That is right and proper; the operations of the board should be reviewed. The proposal is a move into uncharted waters. I visited Wellington in New Zealand with Tim Moore and Mr Speaker. We had discussions with the Clerks, the Speaker and the Whips of the New Zealand Parliament about the possible implementation of a parliamentary board. As always, I want to get down to fundamentals. As a person who likes to think in the same terms as a lay person, it has always intrigued me that Parliament determines appropriations and forwards them to Treasury via Executive Government - that is a tradition of the parliamentary system - but the Parliament, through the Presiding Officers, then has to make a bid to Treasury to get some of the money back. From the point of view of the person in the street, that is a quaint way of doing things. Under this model that will not change. The parliamentary board will make the bids to Treasury, through Executive Government, to get the money back to spend in the Parliament. Theoretically it is possible that should Executive Government want to strangle the operation of Parliament, and should it have sufficient numbers, it would be back in the Parliament's hands to amend the budget bill and appropriate more to the Parliament.
I was one who supported the idea of a separate appropriation bill as determined by parliamentarians, rather than being determined by Executive Government, to ensure that Parliament stands separate from Executive Government. The Parliament would then be accountable to the people directly through the parliamentary board for the amount of money it spent and for what the money was spent on. There is nothing wrong with that concept. Theoretically, Executive Government could starve the Parliament of funds should it choose to do so - an intriguing situation. There was no way that Executive Government was going to be allowed to do that; the idea met with fierce resistance. Under the model now before the House the parliamentary board would make bids and Treasury would advise, through the Executive Government, how much would be provided.
Page 6235
The system would be more open under the new proposal. The parliamentary appropriation bill would be discussed line by line when debated in the upper and lower Houses. I am not suggesting that it would not be debated as part of the budget bill, but even so it would be a separate appropriation bill for Parliament. That bill would be subjected to intense debate, and all members would be able to contribute. The press gallery and those in the public gallery would know why the Parliament was seeking funds, why it felt that existing funds were inadequate, and so on. The staff of the Parliament have some fears that a parliamentary board would put them in a less adequate position than that held at the moment. Those fears will prove to be unjustified. Once members of Parliament sitting on the parliamentary board take responsibility for expenditure made and have to reveal that expenditure publicly, mindful of opprobrium they will be open to bids made by staff representatives and bids made by institutions such as the Parliamentary Library.
The preparation of the parliamentary forward estimates bids for consideration by Executive Government will be undertaken by the board in an open and accountable process. The board will also have the responsibility of determining, consistent with the principles of global budgeting, the utilisation and allocation of funds provided to the Parliament in the parliamentary appropriation bill. Everybody understands exactly what that means. The board will also be responsible for producing annual reports. The first annual report will be a progress report, as indicated in the amendment moved by the honourable member for Ashfield, and will report on the performance of the new structure and whether it was necessary to change that structure. The annual reports will contain information pertaining to the three parliamentary divisions. As far as possible, they will include the information required in the annual reports of government departments.
There is one point I should like to emphasise because of staff concerns. As is made clear in the motion, the oversight of the Joint Services Division will not mean that the parliamentary board will be involved in the day-to-day functions of the Parliament. The motion before the House clearly spells out that the Director of the Joint Services Division will exercise day-to-day management and control of the division. It should be underlined that the Clerks will be able to exercise their authority; that authority will not be impinged upon. I strongly support that concept. In none of the discussions in which I have been involved has there been any indication of a wish to interfere with the sanctity of the role of the Clerks of the Parliament. They have a reputation of not being involved in the political process other than in a strictly bipartisan and clinically detached role. Nobody would want to change that in any way, shape or form. The offices of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly and the Clerk of the Legislative Council in a Joint Services Division are clearly spelled out.
I want to lay to rest the question of whether the upper House or the lower House is in control. There is a fair amount of feeling about that issue around this place. The idea is that the Presiding Officers will take it in turn to chair the parliamentary board, which will have equal representation from both Houses. If a casting vote were necessary because of a tied vote, that would be possible only if the two Presiding Officers agreed. That concept would put pressure on the Presiding Officers and on the board. If there were trouble with the appropriation bill in one of the Houses, the matter would have to go back to the board for determination. For example, the Legislative Council might want to amend the appropriation bill in a way that would advantage the Legislative Council but was not intended by the parliamentary board. In that instance the determination of the board would be required. Neither House of Parliament could upset the process.
If there were a frustration of the process, and there has been discussion about the inability of the upper House to amend money bills, that would be removed by determination of the parliamentary board. Such frustration would certainly be resolved if it involved upsetting the services available to the House and to members. I feel that the model is a good one. I am certainly of the opinion that it would be necessary to review the model in 12 months. I look forward to members of Parliament taking their place on a parliamentary board and taking direct responsibility for the expenditure of the Parliament. I look forward to the day when the Parliament has the courage and the sense of identity as a parliament to vote its own appropriation for its own purposes for the institution of Parliament.
Mr PRICE (Waratah) [10.08]: I support the proposal. In particular, I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Ashfield for a 12-month review. I have concerns about the composition of the committee. The topic was the subject of an extensive report to the House by former Minister Moore and was subsequently dealt with by a select committee which rejected the proposed legislation and called for further consideration. The motion proposes the formation of a joint standing committee. Whilst the politicisation remains more or less the same in relation to the ex-officio officers who will be included on the board, I am concerned on two fronts. First, I am concerned that both Houses will have equal representation on the board. The representation should be proportional.
I have some difficulty with the concept of four members of the Legislative Council equating to four members of the Legislative Assembly - not that I believe their talents are any different but because of the numerical strength of this House. It would reflect badly on this House if we did not endeavour to provide for reasonable proportional representation for the membership of this Chamber. The Australian Labor Party has 47 members in this House and is the largest single group within the Parliament. Representation for that group of 47 members, being almost half the House, is limited to one person. It is not reasonable to have that number prevail.
Page 6236
I have some concerns also about the method of nomination or election. The paper is somewhat vague on that aspect. I assume the leaders of parties and groups will nominate the representatives of their particular parties or groups. I do not have any great difficulty with that; in the original discussions of the select committee, great weight was placed on members having the opportunity to elect representatives. I wonder why that element has been removed. I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on whether he feels that a better representation of the constituency of this House would be achieved by increasing the number of Legislative Assembly members who will make up the total composition of the board.
The function of the board as set out more or less follows the finding of the select committee, but the ability of the House to control its own finances through its own appropriation bill without the interference of Executive Government still has to be resolved. The honourable member for South Coast also raised that matter in his comments. The continuing surveillance by the Auditor-General of the operation of the House by invitation is certainly a valid segment of this proposal. Though I have some personal concerns about the composition of the committee, the amendment to require a review after 12 months will allow a satisfactory period of operation so that these deficiencies that I believe exist can be highlighted and, if necessary, appropriate amendments moved to ensure that they will be corrected. Should a fresh board be elected after that 12-month period it will be truly representative of the total membership of this Chamber, and I look forward to that occurring.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.
PEDERAST ALLEGATIONS
Personal Explanation
Mrs Grusovin: I seek the leave of the House to make a personal statement.
Leave granted.
Mrs Grusovin: It is the right of every member of Parliament to place matters before the House under privilege at any time. Members must accept responsibility for their use of that privilege. I accept responsibility for my action. It was not taken without a great deal of thought and anguish. It is clear that the people who were named will be hurt, but my concern is for the proper investigation of matters so serious as this and the protection of children. While I serve in public office I will continue to accept the responsibilities that that office imposes.
CRIMES (HOMES INVASION) AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 1 December.
Mr ANDERSON (Liverpool) [10.13]: I lead for the Opposition on this matter and I regret having misled the House last night when I said that, other than on felicitations, that would be my last speech. While the Opposition welcomes legislative attempts to confront this most heinous of crimes, home invasion, it should be pointed out that over a lengthy period of time members of the Opposition, in particular our late colleague John Newman, had consistently brought to the attention of the House and the public the problem of this dreadful crime of home invasion, but little had been done to effectively confront it.
It was only in the light of continual pressure from John Newman and others, and subsequently the Opposition's continued discussion in the media of its policy to confront this issue, that the Government finally responded with this package. What has to be understood in the first place about home invasion is that it is a particularly difficult crime to deal with, not only in terms of legislation but more particularly because of the nature of the crime and the consequences of it. I firmly believe, as do many others, that the level of reporting of home invasions is minor compared with the actual magnitude of the crime in the community. This happens for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of which is fear on the part of victims that if they report the matter, action will be taken against them by the perpetrators. Also, many victims of home invasion are uncertain of the response they will receive from authorities because of their cultural background.
That is not a criticism; it is a reality that many victims of home invasion come from countries where their perception of the authorities - and particularly law enforcement authorities - is that of a brutal and/or corrupt system. Therefore, they are reluctant to bring these matters to the attention of the authorities. Unless we as a community can encourage people who are the victims of home invasion to come forward and report, the opportunities to detect the offenders and to create a deterrent aspect to this crime will continue to be limited. I have often argued, as have many other people, that apart from preventing a crime in the first place the greatest deterrent to any crime is not the level of penalty that can be or is imposed, but rather the certainty of conviction.
To take as an example break enter, and steal, which is a component of home invasion - or indeed car stealing - the clear-up rate is and has been for some considerable time in the single digit range: less than 10 per cent. The great difficulty has been that under section 112 of the Crimes Act the penalty provided for break, enter and steal is 14 years and for car stealing something slightly less, I think seven years. However, even those heavy penalties do not act as a deterrent to those who engage in these crimes. We must create a situation whereby the community has confidence, both by perception and reality, in its law enforcement bodies, particularly the New South Wales Police Service, and we have to improve the opportunities for reporting and detecting this type of crime.
In answer to a question on 27 October the Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services announced a significant measure. He said Page 6237 that a specific task force had finally been established. I am delighted that the task force is to be headed by Detective Inspector Tom Sharp. I have known Tom Sharp for 20 years, first as a divisional detective at Penrith when I was the police prosecutor, and ultimately as he moved on through other phases of investigative duty, and in his most recent appointment prior to the setting up of the task force as detective inspector in charge of the Mount Druitt patrol. Though I welcome and applaud his appointment, one must ask what now happens with regard to the very heavy workload of detectives at Mount Druitt, in particular, and generally.
I wish to digress to point out that as home invasion and break, enter and steal offences are prevalent, they take up a great deal of detectives' time in investigating, detecting and apprehending offenders. I do not think many honourable members appreciate that the average case load of a patrol detective now is anything from 20 to 40 active cases. And we wonder why they are not able to apprehend and bring more people before the courts! I welcome the establishment of the task force, long overdue though it is, and I particularly welcome the appointment of Tom Sharp as its head.
It is difficult to define and capture all the aspects of home invasion. I have been the victim of the offence of break, enter and steal in my home. My wife, my children and I were out at the time the offence was committed. Victims of this offence feel strangely different after it has been committed, knowing their homes have been invaded - although not in the same sense as in a home invasion. Their perception of their homes changes, and it takes them a long time to get over it. Locks have to be changed and homes turn into fortresses. Victims of home invasion of the type covered by this legislation must feel even worse if they or their loved ones have been assaulted or threatened during the course of an invasion.
During recent home invasions one victim was murdered and others suffered horrific injuries. Bearing that in mind, it is important that this Parliament, in considering its legislative and administrative response to such crime, tries to achieve the best result possible. The Opposition does not propose to move a series of amendments. Rather, the Opposition looks forward to the opportunity in a few months to be able to amend the package in government and to implement in its totality the policy of which it is so proud. One of the many mistakes this Government made in law enforcement was to dismantle in part an initiative I took in 1983-84 to establish anti-theft squads in every district. In recent years those squads have been swallowed up into SOGs - special operation groups. Those groups deal not only with thefts but with a range of other crimes. Because of the large number of crimes that are committed, they are unable to provide the attention they could otherwise have provided, and did provide. Anti-theft squads would help to deal with home invasions. When there were anti-theft squads in every district - country and city - the core of experienced trained police knew which criminals operated in their areas. They established a network of informers and knew the pawnshop operators and the receivers.
The receiving aspect is very important, because without receivers there would be no home invasions and no offences of break, enter and steal. The old maxim is: if there were no receivers there would be no thieves. Even drug-addicted thieves steal to obtain money for their drug addiction by selling the stolen goods to a receiver. People often say that something has to be done about the high incidence of theft and break, enter and steal. However, some of those people are only too willing to buy a cheap video cassette recorder or television that fell off the back of a truck. They are criminals; they are receivers. They are no better - indeed I believe they are worse - than the thieves themselves. People should understand that the penalties for receiving are heavy, as are the penalties for larceny in its many manifestations. The task force is long overdue. Anti-theft squads should be re-established in each district. I do not accept any suggestion that the reorganisation into special operation groups in each district provides the same level of law enforcement in this field of endeavour as that which existed and was having positive results when I established it a decade ago.
I refer now to the specific provisions. It is difficult for the general public to understand the definitions. People believe that the term "burglary" covers all thefts that occur in a dwelling house. Of course it does not - or it did not. The offence of break, enter and steal covers the majority of cases. Many people mistakenly refer to a robbery as something that occurs in the home when they are not there. That is wrong. Clear definitions are needed not only in New South Wales but Australiawide, so that accurate criminal statistics can be prepared which enable judgments to be made. For example, if the system introduced in this legislation is followed, home invasions will be unable to be easily identified, because the Government seeks to utilise those sections of the Crimes Act - section 95 et al - dealing with assault and robbery, which is colloquially known as armed robbery. Sections of the Act which are based around section 112 deal with break, enter and steal. One may ask: so what? The problem is that assault and robbery in section 95 covers a range of acts. Thumping someone and stealing a handbag in the street is assault and robbery. Presenting a weapon to a person in a bank and stealing the bank's money is assault and robbery - it is also armed robbery.
Breaking into someone's house and stealing property is break, enter and steal. The problem arises if there is no breaking, because such an offence is not one of break, enter and steal under section 112; it is probably a charge of stealing from a dwelling house under section 148, or some other offence. Charges are scattered across different sections of the Act because of procedural difficulties in proving an offence. They are unable to be put together to cover all these offences. Offences must be specified to confront a dilemma such as home invasion. They may be duplicated but they need to be identified to Page 6238 prove to the public that something effective is being done and to overcome the perception that it is all too hard and that there is no point in reporting the offences. We have to engender public confidence in the system generally, and police in particular, if we are to win the war. To return to the charge of break, enter and steal, it is important that people understand that if a burglar turns the handle of a closed, but not locked, door of a dwelling house, and walks into the house, that is a breaking.
If the door is open and the burglar can walk in, it is not a breaking. If a window is left partially open and the burglar enters, that is a constructive breaking. If a window is left open only two feet and a burglar, even of my dimensions, climbs through, that is not a breaking. However, if the window is open six inches and the burglar moves it up another few inches to gain access, that is a constructive breaking. If honourable members are having trouble following what I am saying, imagine what it must mean to the victims. They do not know the meaning of break, enter and steal or steal from a dwelling. They want the offenders charged with robbery or burglary, because they see this happen on television.
Traditional offences of break, enter and steal or burglary should be separated from home invasions, which are different in character. Following a visit to the United States of America my late colleague John Newman supplied me with printed material and a video he obtained during his discussions with the unit of the Los Angeles Police Department that deals with home invasions. I passed them on to my then patrol commander, who thanked me for them. One can only assume that the New South Wales Police Service has availed itself of some of the information contained therein. It must be understood that Australia is not the only country confronted with this crime. It has been argued that it is not a new crime. But it is a new crime in the sense that it is being genuinely targeted - if one believes the anecdotal evidence - towards particular groups in our community that may be perceived to be more vulnerable than others. That is the difficulty in understanding these various offences. It is necessary to focus attention to produce statistical information quickly so that offences in this category we are seeking to address can be isolated.
For example, one aspect of the legislation deals with places of worship. I recall, as a prosecutor some years ago, being confronted with a difficulty because a number of young people had done dreadful damage to a cemetery, which was not a place of worship. We racked our brains as to what we would charge the offenders with. Had they been charged with malicious damage or malicious injury, as those offences then existed under the Crimes Act, the penalty was minor. We were then able to charge them with the common law misdemeanour of sacrilege. I hope that common law misdemeanour is still around because it is pretty handy in certain situations.
Honourable members might say, so what? Why make specific mention of places of worship? I suggest that honourable members read the adjournment contribution of my long-time colleague, the Hon. John Johnson in the Legislative Council Hansard of 30 November. He dealt with what has been going on and what continues to happen to the places of worship of the Jewish members of our New South Wales community. If members have not read it, please do so. It is a horrific story and explains why we sometimes become complacent. I welcome measures that deal with places of worship.
Earlier, I mentioned the issue of burglary. I welcome the change that will be effected by the legislation to remove the distinction between night and day for certain offences. Basically, a burglary used to be considered to be a break, enter and steal committed between the hours of dusk and dawn. If one was prosecuting someone for a burglary, one had to call evidence as to what time the sun went down and what time it came up. It was all a bit too hard so prosecutors did not bother; they charged people with break, enter and steal. That meant that when one looked at break, enter and steal statistics, one could not tell which were committed in the daytime and which were committed at night.
Here we are considering offences carried out when a dwelling house was occupied. It may be that the victims of the break, enter and steal at night were asleep and did not know that they had been robbed until they got up the next morning. The fact remains that it is a more serious offence to break, enter and steal when premises are occupied - and the occupants may be asleep or awake - as against committing the same offence when premises are unoccupied. It comes back to being able to analyse the crime statistics. One aspect of the legislation that will be confusing for some people is that some offences refer to grievous bodily harm and others refer to actual bodily harm. Put simply, it could best be described in this way: grievous bodily harm entails an injury of an extremely serious nature with long-term effects, for example, substantial scarring, the loss of a limb, and things of that nature, whereas a broken nose might constitute actual bodily harm. Of course, there is nothing minor about having a broken nose. However, that shows the difference between the two offences.
Mr Thompson: It brings tears to one's eyes.
Mr ANDERSON: As the honourable member for Rockdale points out, a broken nose brings tears to one's eyes. It is interesting to see the look on the face of the perpetrator if one retaliates and gives it back to them. One aspect of the legislation that concerns me is that of being armed with an offensive weapon or instrument. I understand that the bill amends the definition of a "dangerous weapon" in section 4 of the Crimes Act to include a firearm, a prohibited weapon or a spear gun. The bill also amends the definition of "armed" to include bearing a weapon or instrument. One of the things that concerns me about this change - and it is one of the reasons that the Opposition, in its policy, has gone to the trouble to point this out - is that the implement utilised does not need to have been carried into the premises.
Page 6239
I believe that prosecutors will have difficulties with proof of an offence if an offender or offenders enter premises unarmed but use something in the premises as a weapon. It may not be a dangerous weapon within the meaning of the bill, but almost any item could be considered to be an offensive weapon, depending on the circumstances of its use. There is a reason that I draw the distinction and that Opposition policy deals with aggravated burglary. In 1991 I was privileged to be a guest of the British Government during a couple of weeks that I spent in the United Kingdom. On that visit, I went to the Hendon Police College, which honourable members will undoubtedly be surprised to learn is at Hendon.
Mr Jeffery: It is very good too.
Mr ANDERSON: It is very good, too. Some years previously, I was privileged to visit Bramshill, the National Police College, when I visited the United Kingdom as Minister for Police. At Hendon on that day a detectives class was being held. I was invited to sit in and, ultimately, to participate. They were discussing the issue of burglary. The British Government had gone to the trouble of amending its law to introduce a category of aggravated burglary as distinct from burglary. What the British Government was seeking to overcome was the issue of threat. The Opposition has included that issue in its policy, but it is not covered by this bill we are debating.
How often do we hear of burglaries committed when the victims are at home. The thief or thieves enter the premises without a weapon. They do not produce a weapon, they do not pick one up, and they do not go near one, but they use the most awesome weapon of all. They say to the victim, "If you do not cooperate, we will harm your baby. If you do not do such and such, we will come back and do this". Nothing is done; it is purely a threat. But what greater threat can a person make? Forget a threat to one's physical wellbeing, but a threat to one's child or children is a different matter. That is what so many of these grubs - that is the only word to use - do.
I am sure that my colleagues the honourable members for Charlestown and Mount Druitt, as former members of the New South Wales Police Force, as it was known, will support me when I say that it is significant that the people who commit these offences in company - by that, I mean two or more persons - are generally of the pea-hearted variety, but they do not do so well on their own. However, they are very good at threatening or injuring people in their homes when the numbers are in their favour. I make this point because I do not believe it is covered by the bill.
Finally, I reinforce that the Opposition is not opposed to the legislation. We do not believe that it will achieve all that it could or should achieve. We believe that, rather than hold it up and try to fix it, as we have had to do so often over the past seven years with the Government's legislation, and given the calendar situation, we might as well wait only a few months when my colleagues, from whom I shall shortly take leave -
Mrs Chikarovski: We will miss you, Peter.
Mr ANDERSON: - will be able to handle it. The Minister will miss me?
Mrs Chikarovski: We will miss you, we will miss smiling at you across the table.
Mr ANDERSON: I am grateful to the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, and Minister for the Status of Women for indicating that she will miss me. I must tell her that a few months ago a couple of people did not miss me. Two-thirds of reported crime is dishonesty in one form or another - break, enter and steal, fraud, stealing, any of the various forms of larceny. We are talking about 250,000 to 300,000 such offences. If offences such as these, in their various manifestations, can be dealt with, the impact on the community will be significant. A substantial impact in dealing with crimes of this type results in increased community confidence. As I said recently in the debate on the recruitment of ethnic police, that is the way to go. But we cannot leave it to the police alone to solve the problem, we need the whole community. We need to engender public confidence in the police and improve the perception of police.
The changes the Opposition have announced will improve the legislation both legislatively and administratively and will have an impact on the problem. I wish Detective Inspector Tom Sharp all the best in his endeavours, but all too often the community, parliaments and others think they can leave the responsibly for these problems to the police. As I have said, the Police Service is not a private army. They are our police and are empowered by us to do a job. We have a responsibility as members of the community to support them, to encourage people to report crime, and to ensure that, having reported the crime, people receive the response they deserve from the authorities. The Opposition supports the legislation, despite its shortcomings, and looks forward to having the opportunity to finetune and correct it in the not too distant future.
Mr THOMPSON (Rockdale) [10.41]: I acknowledge the fine contribution by my colleague the honourable member for Liverpool. It is a tragedy that in future Parliament will not have the benefit of his experience and wisdom on matters relating to crime control and police.
Mrs Chikarovski: The Labor Party should have preselected him.
Mr THOMPSON: I agree with the Minister. He is almost larger than life. I have known him for almost 30 years, since my days in the Australian Labor Party Youth Council. He is the expert in Parliament on matters relating to police and policing. I am honoured to follow him in this debate. I could not match his broad exposition of aspects of the bill, so I will limit my remarks to a few pertinent points. I acknowledge the assistance of the Parliamentary Library in basic research and particularly in the production and distribution of the Bills Digest, which Page 6240 I find helpful. In June the Leader of the Opposition made a commitment to introduce a new law, on election to Government, covering an offence of aggravated burglary, and other measures. To a large extent the bill we are debating has picked up on that initiative - a wise move on the part of the Government.
An article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 5 November stated that Sydney newspapers had reported 113 incidences of home invasion in the last three years. An article in the Sun Herald of 13 November stated that there had been six violent burglaries in the previous few weeks. A related item in the same newspaper reported that Dr Don Weatherburn, Director of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, said that statistics showed there were 271 home raids in New South Wales in 1991, 203 of which were in Sydney; 249 in 1992, 195 of which were in Sydney; and 276 in 1993, 220 of which were in Sydney. Regardless of the public perception to the contrary, a police study by the State intelligence group showed no pattern as to where home invasions occur. Neither offenders nor victims belong to any specific ethnic group. Despite those public perceptions, only 10 per cent of invasions were against Asian victims.
The bill will amend the Crimes Act in relation to home breaking, including burglary, robbery and associated crimes. The bill also creates additional offences and increased penalties when crimes of this kind involve invasive or violent activities. A basic offence of break and enter will be enacted, and the bill provides for two levels of aggravating circumstances. The first level, aggravation, will apply when the offender is armed with an offensive weapon, is in the company of another person or other persons, uses violence on any person, maliciously inflicts bodily harm on any person, or deprives a person of his or her liberty. The second level, special aggravation, will apply when the offender wounds or inflicts grievous bodily harm on a person, is armed with a firearm or other prohibited weapon or spear gun. The maximum penalty for the basic offence is 10 years, however the maximum penalty will be increased to 14 years in certain circumstances of aggravation, and to 25 years when special aggravation is proved.
If the jury does not find aggravation or special aggravation proved, it can still convict for a lessor offence, for example, the basic offence of break and enter. Given the statistics I quoted earlier, it is obvious that the present legislation is inadequate to deal with the terrifying crime of home invasion. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate to strengthen the provisions of the law and to increase the level of maximum penalties. In a private member's statement to this House on 30 March 1993 our esteemed colleague the late John Newman spoke of a death threat he had received, which he attributed to a person or persons trying to silence him in his campaign to heighten awareness about home invasions and the need for measures to be taken to combat them. I, and many of my colleagues - as the honourable member for Liverpool alluded to - had a number of discussions on this matter with John Newman. He saw this sort of crime in the serious light that it deserved. He knew of the terror instilled in victims, but was concerned that the judiciary did not fully appreciate it. He referred to "mindless sentences" being handed down to persons being convicted. John Newman concluded that private member's statement by saying:
Recently a fellow who committed an armed home invasion robbery received two year's imprisonment, and the three youths who accompanied him - they all carried guns and terrorised a family - received a three-year control order. Worst still, the offenders were back on the streets before the family recovered their valuables and money. What a sad indictment of our justice system!
Only a few weeks after John Newman's murder I was visited by a constituent who informed me of his experiences as the victim of a home invasion robbery. He was motivated to talk to me by all the outrageous and often racist talk after John's murder about Asian crime and Asian gangs. My constituent's name is Ross Stell. He and his 84-year-old mother were the victims of a crime of terror carried out by one John Patrick Beattie and an accomplice. As I learned more about the case the more appalled I became, and remain, about the sentence imposed by the judge. His case is germane to the bill and I wish to go over some of the details so that honourable members might have a better appreciation of how this sort of crime affects its victims. On Saturday, 12 December 1992, Mrs Stell was sitting at her kitchen - she was 84 years old at that time. She had just made a cup of tea. What followed was an episode of sheer terrorism for her and her 56-year-old son Ross. I quote an extract from her sworn statement to police:
I didn't see anyone walk past the window when all of a sudden I knew someone was behind me and they put their hand over my mouth and pulled me to my feet and steered me into the lounge room. I got the feeling he was a big chap. He dumped me down on the floor still with his hand over my mouth and still behind me and he said, "Don't call Ross or he will get shot." I never actually saw this person at all or any other person during the whole ordeal. He then put something over my mouth and taped it right around my head so I couldn't say anything. During this my lower dentures came loose and got caught side-ways in my mouth and I nearly swallowed them. I think he may have grabbed them and threw them on the floor because that's where we found them later. He said to me, "Put your hands behind your back." I did that and he tied them together. He said to me, "Put your legs backwards." I couldn't say anything because of the stuff over my mouth but I think he realised I couldn't bend my knees to put them up. He then tied my feet together and rolled me onto my stomach. He had put a cushion on the floor and that's where my head was.
. . .
As a result of this robbery I have suffered bruising to both of my arms where I was tied up. My left arm was actually bleeding as my skin had been broken.
Keep in mind that it was an 84-year-old woman who made that statement. The sworn statement of her son Ross Stell is even more informative. I quote extracts from that statement:
About 1.25 pm this afternoon, Saturday, the 12th of December 1992, I was laying on bed in my room watching the television. At this time the door of my room burst open and I saw a male person enter my room I know this man is John BEATTIE who had been contacted by my mother to do work in the backyard.
Page 6241
As John entered the room I saw he was holding a gun which he was pointing at my chest. He came to the foot of the bed, still holding the gun at me and said, "open the safe". I said, "What do you want". He said, "Just open the safe". I said, "What do you mean?" He said, "We've got your mother tied up outside I just want you to open the safe". I said, "Is this a joke?" He said, "Open the safe or I'll shoot you". John was still pointing the gun at me through this conversation and I was still laying on the bed . . . During this time john kept repeating, "There must be more money, where is the rest?" . . . "We've got your mother, we'll hurt her if we don't get all the money".
Later in his statement he said:
Whilst he was tying me up, he said, "Don't tell the police about this, or I will come back and kill you, I've got [to] to have this money to give them otherwise they will kill me.
I got the impression he was desperate for money and to get it in a hurry. When he finished tying me, he said, "I'm going in to see your mother now, if I come back and you [have] moved I will shoot you".
He also said in his statement:
I would describe the gun that John threatened me with as possibly being a shotgun, it was not a full length shotgun, it appeared about two feet long. I could see the barrel when it was pointed at me, I saw that it was a large bore . . . I was extremely scared during this incident and in fear of my life, and the life of my mother the whole time.
Those were the words of the victims within an hour or two of the actual incident. John Beattie was apprehended by the police in March 1993. It was then found that he was on parole. He had been convicted in November 1988 for the armed hold-up of a bank. He had used a replica pistol in that crime and was charged and convicted for demanding money with menaces. Beattie was released on parole in August 1992, having served three years, eight months and 20 days of his sentence. After being arrested in March 1993 for the crime against my constituents, he was found to be in breach of his parole. At that stage he had a remaining period of three years, three months and 10 days of his old sentence to serve. [Extension of time agreed to.]
In the home invasion matter Beattie was charged with robbery being armed. In September 1993, three months before Beattie appeared before the court, Ross Stell wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I will quote sections of that letter, dated 13 September 1993:
You might not be yet aware from the brief that this offence was not a normal armed robbery on public premises. Instead, it was a case of home invasion, that is a breaking and entering of a dwelling house followed by a armed robbery.
This is a crime which is on the increase at present, as we all know from the increasingly frequent reports in the press. It must be a matter of great concern to the police, in their role of crime prevention, to know that more copy-cat criminals will be turning to this crime when they perceive it to be a way to steal money with greater ease than, say, a bank robbery, when the penalty if captured is going to be the same in each case.
The Law must give more protection to citizens in their homes by providing a greater deterrent to criminals tempted to move into this area of crime.
Mr Stell went on in his letter to talk about the accused's previous record. The Director of Public Prosecutions responded to that letter by letter dated 26 October 1993. I shall quote the relevant sections of that letter:
In reference to your letter of 19 September 1993, I have spoken to the Crown Prosecutor who found a bill of indictment in this matter.
The penalty for armed robbery is twenty years.
It is the Crown Prosecutor's view that the addition of a further charge of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, whilst armed, would not result in the imposition of any higher sentence.
The sentencing judge will be provided with a complete set of facts and no doubt will take into account inter alia the circumstances that the offence occurred in occupied premises.
The upshot of all this is that Beattie was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of six years. But when the balance of his previous sentence is taken into account Beattie will serve only two years, eight months and 19 days for his crime against the Stells. On 22 December 1993 Mr Stell again wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions concerning the conviction and sentence. He stated:
This was a particularly vicious crime, involving the breaking and entering of a dwelling house in company and with threats of the taking of life with a shortened shotgun.
Mr Stell's letter went on to query the sentence handed down. He thought the judge overlooked the fact that Beattie had broken parole and had the balance of a previous sentence to complete. He also said the judge was mistaken in indicating Beattie would now be eligible for parole on 28 March 1999. My constituent continued:
If this error is allowed to remain he will only serve a sentence of two years eight months 19 days for his recent crime.
Remember, this was for assaulting, tying up and gagging, threatening with death while armed with a shotgun a completely defenceless Mr Stell and his 84-year-old mother. The effective sentence on top of that, which he still had to serve from a previous crime, was two years eight months and 19 days. The letter which he wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions continued:
This is entirely too lenient a sentence for a very serious crime which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment.
The letter concluded with Mr Stell making this plea on behalf of himself and his mother:
I urge you, in the interests of justice and for the protection of the public from this habitual criminal, to ensure the circumstances surrounding the sentencing of John Patrick Beattie be reviewed.
The Director of Public Prosecutions responded to Mr Stell by letter of 18 January 1994. It was a very brief reply:
I refer to your letter of 22 December and I advise the court was well aware of the criminal history and custody status of the accused at the time of sentencing. The judge imposed a minimum term for the armed robbery which will Page 6242 expire on 28 March 1999 which represents an extension of 4 years 3 months on the sentence the prisoner was serving in respect of the balance of parole.
That is all the letter said. Regardless of whose calculations are accepted, this man received an effective sentence of either two years, eight months or, in the eyes of the Director of Public Prosecutions, four years, three months for terrorising and threatening to kill a 56-year-old man and his 84-year-old mother after breaking into their suburban home, tying them up and gagging them. These people were terrified by their ordeal, and it is no wonder they are mystified by how the law works when the criminal is given a sentence of a little over four years at best for the crime. This trifling sentence was levied at a time when the maximum sentence was 20 years. That is, in the case I have raised, where home invasion occurred, where death threats were made, where law-abiding householders were menaced with a sawn-off shotgun, where one of the victims was an 84-year-old lady - bound and gagged - an effective sentence of just over four years was imposed. That is at a time when the judge could have imposed a sentence of up to 20 years.
With the passage of the bill before the House a trial judge will have, in similar circumstances, the option of a sentence of up to 25 years. I support the bill. The redefinition of the offences and the increasing penalties send a signal to the community that the Parliament treats the crime of house invasion very seriously. The judiciary should take note of the concerns of the Parliament and the views of the community. Realistic sentences should be imposed for these crimes of urban terrorism. The case raised by John Newman in March 1993 and the one I have raised today provide ample evidence that in passing sentence some judges may be out of touch and may not understand the extent of terror that these criminals instil in their victims. With great delight I support the bill.
Mr SCULLY (Smithfield) [10.59]: I support the Crimes (Home Invasion) Amendment Bill. A man's home is his castle. Maybe that is now not politically correct. The Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment and Minister for the Status of Women might prefer the phrase to be: home is a family's castle or home is a person's castle. Warnings have been given that we should not go out at night, we should not walk the streets at night and we should not catch trains or buses at night because it is dangerous; we should stay at home because it is much safer. Home invasions have presented a new problem. No longer is it safe to stay at home watching television or reading a book in the lounge room because the front door might burst open and assailants might enter and engage in acts of violence, robbery, torture and/or kidnapping. I am not sure what can be done to prevent this type of crime. It is bad enough to have your home broken into when you are not there let alone when you are present.
Some years ago while I was away on holidays my home was broken into, and my wife's belongings were rifled and stolen. It was a very upsetting experience. My wife lost personal jewellery that had been given to her as a child. In the 15-odd years that I have known her, it was the most distressing experience I have encountered. I have met people who have actually been home at the time that someone broke into their home. The feeling of safety within the home is lost. After the burglary at our home, we moved house quite quickly. But physical and psychological abuse leaves people with emotional scars for life. It seems that as it becomes more difficult for criminals to rob banks, they look for easier targets. Statistics reveal that the rate of home invasions is increasing.
I welcome the provisions in the bill for aggravated offence and special aggravated offence. The penalty for committing an aggravated offence, home invasion with violence, is 14 years imprisonment. For committing an especially aggravated offence, home invasion with grievous bodily harm, the penalty is 25 years. Another serious issue relates to women being raped during a home invasion. In my view the bill should contain a provision for sexual assault constituting special aggravation. I assume courts would regard rape as grievous bodily harm - but with some judges one would never know. If I were a judge, I would interpret sexual assault as grievous bodily harm. Some judges consider some incidents of rape as acts of violence but not necessarily acts constituting grievous bodily harm. If someone is prepared to bash down a door, tie up victims and sexually assault the occupants of a home, even in a minor way, they should be liable to a 25-year gaol term for an especially aggravated offence.
Another important issue is the psychological damage that victims of these incidents suffer. In many cases people are sitting at home watching television with their children when the assailants barge in. It is one thing to break, enter and steal, but if the occupants of the home are present at the time of the home invasion, the offenders should be sent for a holiday at Her Majesty's pleasure. Therefore, an offender automatically commits the aggravated offence of home invasion if he breaks into the home when the occupiers are present. If an act of violence is committed, there should be a second level of aggravation; and grievous bodily harm and/or sexual assault would be a third category. The bill does not provide for different levels of offences, therefore, consideration should be given to my suggestion.
My colleague the honourable member for Rockdale spoke about inadequate sentences. You, Mr Deputy-Speaker, the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment and I as lawyers are loathe to legislate for minimum sentences. Whenever this suggestion is made, I am reluctant to accept it as it takes away judicial discretion. However, if the rate of home invasion increases, what will we do? Home invasion is a vile act, particularly if violence is involved. People must feel secure in their homes. I Page 6243 am not certain if the bill contains a review provision - it certainly should be reviewed down the track - but if the bill does not work, maybe we should give the community the message that minimum sentences will be imposed. Tough legislation dealing with graffiti and parental responsibility has been passed by this Parliament in recent days and debate will soon take place on legislative provisions for stalking offences. The message to the community that we are going to get tough must come from both sides of the House.
The Labor Party and the coalition have agreed on many of these provisions. The message must be sent to the community that the Parliament will not stand idle while these offences take place. My electorate is within the Fairfield city area. I was concerned to see recent statistics on home invasions. Last year approximately 14 per cent of home invasions occurred in the Fairfield area, which has only 5 per cent of Sydney's population. Will more police help or should it be made known that people taking part in these crimes will be imprisoned for a very long time? It is a pleasure to speak to this particular piece of legislation; it concerns a matter that was dear to the heart of the former honourable member for Cabramatta, Mr John Newman. I discussed this matter with him from time to time. He would be pleased that in some way his great work has come to fruition in this piece of legislation. I congratulate the Government for bringing the bill forward and I fully support it.
Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt) [11.08]: I join my Labor colleagues in supporting the bill. Why would we not? I congratulate the Government for running with the ball passed to him by the Leader of the Opposition a short time ago. In its dying months in government, the Fahey Government is trying to bring in some law and order policies. It is actually adopting Labor policy by picking up initiatives announced by the Leader of the Opposition. Tragically, the day before the honourable member for Cabramatta was gunned down the Leader of the Opposition was reported in the press as pledging to introduce gaol terms of up to 20 years for the new crime of aggravated burglary. Of course, these are now provisions in this bill.
The Government, in introducing the Crimes (Home Invasion) Amendment Bill, has recognised, probably for the first time, this new crime that is sweeping our State. One would not have to read the speeches of the late John Newman concerning crime in the Cabramatta electorate to be aware that this is the area where this crime originated. I join my colleagues the honourable member for Smithfield and the honourable member for Rockdale in paying tribute to the late John Newman, the former member for Cabramatta, who was an advocate for the introduction of laws to address this crime. When the late John Newman first raised this matter, the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research kept no statistics of home invasions. Insurance companies could not supply relevant statistics because the statistics they kept incorporated all other crimes.
This bill is the product of a strong campaign by the late John Newman, who tried to find a solution to this problem. This crime of home invasion came to his attention because it was occurring in his electorate. Home invasion offences are committed mostly by people from non-English speaking backgrounds against mature-age persons. The late John Newman had a number of meetings with his Labor colleagues about these incidents. I can recall him inviting members of Parliament to a briefing within the precincts of the Parliament. Honourable members viewed an American police training videotape which depicted this crime of home invasion and the modus operandi of offenders. It also showed how victims were chosen and how they were treated. The name of John Newman should be written into the history books of this country as a person who attempted to seek a solution to this problem. The explanatory note to the bill states:
The object of this Bill is to amend the Crimes Act 1900 in relation to house breaking (including burglary), robbery and associated crimes. The Bill creates additional offences (and increased penalties) . . .
The Bill creates a series of aggravated offences . . . these circumstances involve any of the following:
(a) being armed with an offensive weapon or instrument;
(b) being in the company of another person or persons;
(c) using corporal violence;
(d) inflicting actual bodily harm;
(e) depriving a person of liberty.
The Opposition welcomes the provision of a maximum penalty of 14 years penal servitude if the basic offence attracts a maximum penalty of 10 years. If a person is charged with a burglary, a breaking and entering or any other offence, the maximum penalty under the Crimes Act is 10 years. However, under this bill, the maximum penalty for a home invasion is 14 years. A maximum penalty of 20 years penal servitude will be imposed if a basic offence attracts a maximum penalty of 14 years - a matter that has been pursued by the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party over the last 12 months.
I am in favour of these increased penalties. Courts have a discretion to impose lighter penalties or no gaol terms at all. The honourable member for Smithfield referred to the fact that we should be looking at minimum penalties. The honourable member for Rockdale said that sentencing magistrates and judges should be made aware that the Parliament and the community require the imposition of stronger penalties for home invasion offences. No-one would disagree with that. We have all addressed this issue by saying that maximum penalties should be increased. At some time a government, of whatever persuasion, will need to look at the discretion which is given to judges to impose sentences for serious crimes. I do not propose to give any examples, but a number of cases have been brought to our attention where a maximum penalty of 10 years, 14 years or 20 years has been imposed. Sentences of one, two, three or five years, with parole periods of two years, can be imposed, which gives an indication of the discretion exercised by judges.
Page 6244
The community will be watching very carefully to see how judges treat the perpetrators of this crime. The crime of home violence is a new crime to be added to property violence offences. The Opposition is concerned about the fear of reprisals where organised crime is involved. That is one of the reasons home invasion offences are not reported. Often home invasion offenders threaten reprisal at the time they are committing an offence. Many crimes go unreported. This is particularly so in communities with people from non-English speaking backgrounds. People are threatened with reprisal if they report the crime to the police. This fear of reprisal was highlighted in 1993 by the late member for Cabramatta, who argued about the granting of bail to persons who had committed such a crime.
The late John Newman made the point that offenders are often granted bail after having threatened the victims with reprisal. The granting of bail enables offenders to take revenge. Remanding magistrates and judges have to determine the ultimate penalty and the fate of persons charged with this type of offence, particularly when police have said that victims have been threatened with reprisal if they report the crime. No sympathy or leniency should be given to the thugs who commit these types of offences. They attack in packs - at the very least two people, but in many cases certainly more - and assault elderly people and young people alike. They put firearms to the faces of victims, and in some cases, such as the case of Bernadette Walsh of North Rocks, they kill an occupant of the home they have invaded. Bernadette Walsh was knifed to death.
No leniency or sympathy should be given to these offenders. We should not entertain any bleeding heart suggestion that society is at fault because the offences are drug related. The incidents reported by the late John Newman have been identified as being perpetrated by members of the Asian community. We have to accept that these crimes are not perpetrated exclusively by members of the Asian community. The tragic circumstances of Mrs Walsh from North Rocks show that this type of crime is spreading to other communities. It is no longer being perpetrated exclusively by members of the Asian community. We need to educate people from non-English speaking backgrounds, who are sometimes the victims of this type of crime. It is tragic for any community to be the victim of this type of crime, but communities with people from a non-English speaking background are particularly vulnerable to home invasion thugs.
People who distrust financial institutions keep money at home, either in a safe or hidden on their properties. People should be made aware that no safe will prevent their property from being stolen. The perpetrators of these crimes place firearms against the faces of home owners and demand money. Security precautions and locks are useless in the face of such threats. As has been reported, people are bound up with ropes and blindfolded, and family members are threatened when someone does not come good with property or advice about the combination numbers to a safe, and so on. No home security system can prevent such an offence. The message to many people from non-English speaking backgrounds, particularly those who have arrived in Australia in more recent years, is that in their own interests they should have faith in our banks and financial institutions.
Many people have jewellery, family heirlooms, money, bonds and other valuables, which should not be kept in the home under flimsy security. The old-fashioned home safety-box or safe are no deterrent to criminals who invade the home. The onus is on the Government to implement tough policy. The Parliament needs to send a strong message to the courts that the community has to know that it is important that homes are made less attractive to those looking for an easy hit for a home invasion crime. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 7 November explained the ways in which governments, insurance companies and others are wrestling with the problem of home invasion. The article stated:
Sometimes the victims are followed home from business, and until last year the attacks appeared to concentrate on Asian families.
According to the marketing manager for personal lines insurance for GIO, Mr Peter Hilan, Cabramatta has the third highest rate for burglaries by Sydney postcode areas.
While burglaries in the Cabramatta area count for merely "above average" burglary figures among NRMA home insurance policy holders, GIO rates Cabramatta among its second highest home insurance rating districts - and this is despite it requiring double cylinder deadlocks installed on all outside access doors and key locks on all windows.
The article stated also that the crime wave is spreading throughout Sydney suburbs and the State. Whilst crime in that one region of Sydney may have been given a great deal of publicity, it is spreading into many other suburbs. Tragically, as I have highlighted, it is spreading to areas such as North Rocks. Residents of North Rocks are saying, as we saw on our televisions, that they are not used to the types of crimes that are now being committed in their suburb. The penalties provided under the bill are appropriate and give a clear message to magistrates and judges. The legislation will continue to be reviewed. The onus is on the government of the day to implement community awareness programs so that homes and families will not attract thugs who commit the crime of home invasion.
Mr GIBSON (Londonderry) [11.22]: This is one of the most important bills to come before the Fiftieth Parliament. Although the Opposition has opposed parts of bills that have been put up by the Government in the past few days and has moved amendments to some of them, the bills contain measures sought by the community as a whole. The community is looking towards the Government and this Parliament to show leadership, and that leadership has been evident in the past few days. Ever since white man settled in Australia people have not been too concerned about safety within their own homes. For a long time we all believed that our homes were our castles and we were safe in them. We brought Page 6245 our children up to believe the same thing. In the past few years the crime of home invasion has crept into our society, particularly in certain parts of Sydney. That problem must be eradicated.
Home invasion is completely foreign to the Australian way of life. A friend of mine was one night watching television with his wife after their children had gone to bed. He felt something at the back of his neck and at first thought that there was something wrong with the chair he was sitting in. As he went to turn around he was told to not to turn, and he realised that it was a shotgun he had felt at the back of his head. His home had been invaded by a group of criminals who were wearing balaclavas. His wife went into a state of panic, which is understandable. Their children became involved in the incident as well. My friend's family went through a traumatic experience. They needed guidance and specialist help to recover from their experience, and it is my opinion that the bill should go further and provide victims with compensation for specialist help. My friend's family has never got over its scary experience.
The honourable member for Mount Druitt has spoken about what happened in North Rocks. It is incredible that home invasions are taking place in a suburb as leafy and as wealthy as North Rocks. Those who commit such crimes are the scum of the earth. They work in numbers and they spring on people in their own homes, so they always have the advantage of the element of surprise. I have spoken about the experience of my friends. Today their home looks nothing like it did 10 years ago. Ten years ago it was an ordinary suburban house that had a little fence around it. Today that home is a fortress. There are bars on the windows and on the front door. My friend has a six to seven foot high security fence around his home. People cannot enter that property unless they have first received permission.
Because our laws have not been strong enough to protect the public, we have made people prisoners in their own homes. Though the family I have spoken of feels a degree of safety because of the hundreds and thousands of dollars that have been spent on security measures, in reality they have been given a life sentence in their own home. That is a terrible way to live, and it is a terrible way to bring up the next generation. Future generations will believe that they are safe only behind security walls and barred windows and doors. That in itself is frightening. I support the bill. The maximum penalty for the basic offence should be more harsh. The first part of the bill will apply to the offender who is armed with an offensive weapon, is in the company of another person or persons, uses violence on any person, maliciously inflicts actual bodily harm on any person, or deprives a person of his or her liberty.
The second part relates to special aggravation. It will apply when a person wounds or inflicts grievous bodily harm on another, or is armed with a firearm, a spear gun or any other prohibited weapon. The maximum penalty for the basic offence was 10 years imprisonment. For a long time it has been felt that the maximum penalty was not sufficient. The bill provides that the maximum penalty will be increased to 14 years imprisonment in circumstances of aggravation and to 25 years when special aggravation is proved. I strongly support the increased penalties. The legislation was inadequate and did not prove to be a deterrent. The number of home invasions has increased and will keep increasing. The changes made in the bill will be a deterrent to anybody who wants to commit the terrible crime of home invasion.
I grew up in a small country town called Young. In those days home invasion was not thought about or heard about. People would go away for a week without having to lock doors or windows. They did not even have flyscreen doors in those days because they respected each other's property. Neighbours looked after each other's homes. That has now changed because people have to barricade their homes. In Sydney suburbs and in country New South Wales there are bars on windows and doors and high fences or walls around homes. Neighbours would not know if anything was happening in these homes, because of these security measures.
It is important that this bill is passed and the perpetrators of these crimes are given a message. It is not good enough for legislation to be enacted if courts continue to impose minimum sentences. Courts have to be strong enough to back up the legislation which is passed in the Parliament. If that happens these people will be taught that Australia is not a place for home invasions. Home invasion is a hideous crime because of the cowardly way it is perpetrated. A new block of units was recently built in Lethbridge Park by the Department of Housing. The units are beautiful and would not be out of place in Vaucluse. In the last three or four weeks some aged pensioners and invalid pensioners have moved into those units.
Since the pensioners moved into the units they have been attacked by gangs. The pensioners have not come from wealthy families but have come from poorer parts of New South Wales and western Sydney. For the first time in their lives they live in new accommodation. Their lives have been torn asunder by these gangs. The members of these gangs are not 15, 20 or 25 years of age; they are as young as five, six and seven years of age. What can police officers do when they apprehend a child of five or six years of age who has invaded a person's property? They would be the worst in the world if they charged the child. These children are made aware through the media that people who commit home invasions are getting away with stealing jewellery and other possessions, and they think they can do it, even though they do so on a smaller scale. A child of five years of age today will be 15 years of age in 10 years. If children of that age are committing home invasions today on a minor scale, one can only imagine the trouble they will cause whey they are 15 years of age.
Page 6246
People feel unsafe in their own homes. They have been made prisoners in their own homes. The perpetrators of these crimes are not penalised heavily enough. If the legislation is passed, the wrath of the law will come down on these people and make the community a safer place in which to live. It is bad enough that the cowards who invade people's homes steal their property, but if they cause actual bodily harm they should be locked up and the key thrown away. That is probably an old cliche, but cowards who invade people's homes and hold them up at knifepoint or gunpoint and perpetrate crimes against their bodies should be locked up and never released.
I hope the courts of this land uphold the legislation and impose the maximum penalty of 25 years to make the perpetrators of this type of crime realise that Australia will not become like some overseas countries that face this problem daily. People should not have to put safes in their own homes, bars on the windows, bars on the doors and walls around their premises. It changes the way of life as we know it in Australia. The bill will go a long way towards solving these problems.
If people see their homes as fortresses and barricade them, keeping money and jewellery in safes, they will defend their homes as if they are fortresses. As home invasions increase people will react. It will be like Davy Crockett and the Alamo. People will fight back if someone tries to invade their castle; there will be more blood than ever. I am pleased to support the Crimes (Home Invasion) Amendment Bill. I hope the courts of this land will uphold the legislation that the Parliament has pushed through today. I hope the maximum sentence is imposed on the gutless offenders who are guilty of these home invasions.
Mr TURNER (Myall Lakes) [11.37]: I strongly support the bill. As the honourable member for Londonderry said, years ago people did not have to worry about locking the doors and windows of their homes. On one occasion when I visited Europe I left my front door open. Ten days later police contacted my brother and asked him to close the front door. Nothing was lost. When I married, the house in which I lived did not have a back door, it only had a screen door. My wife was worried when I went away and insisted that we have a door. For the 26 years prior to that there was only a screen door. Today, unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of such liberty.
Home invasions are to be deplored. One of the reasons I specifically wanted to speak to this bill is that regrettably in Forster and Taree, in my electorate, home invasions occur fairly regularly. This bill will strengthen the powers of police, who do a marvellous job in trying to curb that problem in my electorate. It will enable them to impose penalties that will hopefully stop this heinous crime of home invasion. I support the bill totally and hope it will benefit my electorate and help the police in my electorate to carry out their valuable duties.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove - Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, and Minister for the Status of Women) [11.38], in reply: I thank all honourable members who have taken part in the debate on the bill. This issue is of great concern to members of both sides of the House, as it is to the community of New South Wales. It is not often that I agree with the honourable member for Smithfield, but he was correct when he said earlier today that we are all horrified by the outrageous nature of these home invasions. We, as a society, believe we should be safe in our own homes and as a community we will not tolerate these grubs, as the honourable member for Liverpool called them. That is an appropriate description of those who perpetrate these crimes. Much debate has taken place about the Opposition's suggestion in relation to dealing with this issue. It is of some concern to the Government that while the Leader of the Opposition has made much noise, he has offered no constructive suggestions as to how we could address this issue.
The legislation introduced by the Government is part of a package which includes legal changes and police response. The new task force which has been announced by the Minister for Police and the new offences and the penalties included in this bill are a serious attempt to address the issue. It would be poor of me if, at this stage, I did not thank the honourable member for Liverpool for what I believe is probably his last contribution to substantial debate in this House. I am sure that Government members join me when I say we regret that the honourable member will not be in the House to provide us with his wisdom from the Opposition benches beyond March 1995. In relation to a number of the issues raised by the honourable member, we entirely agree that we need to make a substantial impact on the problem as it has been aired in the House today. That is what this package is all about.
The honourable member for Liverpool was concerned that there was not a particular offence of home invasion. I point out to the House that the name of the bill is the Crimes (Home Invasion) Amendment Bill. The title of the bill expresses the concern in the community, and the community has come to know the offence by that title. I do not believe that members of the public are concerned about the technicalities of charges. They are concerned to know that their fear and concern about their homes - the fact that their homes are being invaded - will be dealt with by the police in a manner that they believe is appropriate. They do not want to be held to ransom. They want people to be charged and to pay for the crimes that they commit.
The member for Smithfield also expressed some concern about the question of threatening people. The advice I have received is that situations in which someone has threatened to inflict harm on a victim during a break, enter and steal, or on a member of the family within that house, are already covered by the definition of "robbery" in section 94 of the Crimes Act. I understand that a person who intends to take property by the use of violence, or by putting fear Page 6247 into the victim, can be dealt with under that existing legislation. Indeed, I have been told that the penalty under section 94 is 14 years penal servitude.
The member for Smithfield was also concerned about sexual assault following a break, enter and steal. I can assure him that the definition of aggravation in relation to corporal violence will at least cover his concerns about sexual assault. It will always be available for a break, enter and steal and sexual assault, thereby allowing cumulative sentences for both of the offences. I am sure that the judiciary will note the concern expressed by Government and Opposition members and, as importantly, the concerns in the community about the severity of sentences and the need to ensure that those who commit these crimes receive adequate sentencing. It is not appropriate for me to tell the judiciary how they should sentence, but it is appropriate for the judiciary to listen to the concerns expressed, take note of the severity of the sentences provided for in the bill, and in due course impose appropriate sentences on those who commit these heinous crimes.
I agree with the member for Mount Druitt that that is the strong message that we need to send to the judiciary. I hope that the judiciary will take cognisance of what has been said in the House today. I thank all members of the House who have contributed to the debate. This is a crime which the Government, the Opposition and the community are not prepared to tolerate. We must send the message to all those who think that they can get away with it: they cannot.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
CRIMES (THREATS AND STALKING) AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 23 November.
Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [11.44]: The Crimes (Threats and Stalking) Amendment Bill was introduced in the Legislative Council by the Attorney General on 16 November. It seeks to amend the provisions in the Crimes Act relating to behaviour constituting a threat to members of the public under section 562AB and section 31. Section 562AB specifically relates to domestic violence. I am pleased that the Government, which opposed the definition of "stalking" in the Crimes (Domestic Violence) Amendment Bill, has changed its mind and now agreed to it.
[Interruption]
The Minister for the Environment opposed the definition in this House. When the legislation reached the upper House, sanity prevailed. This legislation now takes into consideration the real concern of the public about stalking. There is concern in the community that this provision is too narrow to deal effectively with the problem of threats and stalking. The removal of the words "with whom he or she has a domestic relationship" will have the effect of creating a more general provision, no longer putting tension on a domestic relationship between the offender and victim. The legislation also increases the maximum penalty for this offence from two years imprisonment to five years.
Section 31 provides that it is an offence to send a letter threatening to kill a person. The maximum penalty for this is 10 years imprisonment. There is a body of opinion that this provision is too narrow. Threats and intimidation can occur in a range of circumstances, such as causing harm to the victim of such behaviour without a clear expression that someone will be killed. At present, apart from Federal postal law, victims have no protection from this activity. The Government proposes to amend the section and create an offence of sending or delivering to, or causing to be received by any other person, a document threatening to kill or inflict bodily harm on any person. The receipt of such a document will not be necessary to constitute the offence; the sending of such a document will be sufficient to constitute an offence under this proposed section. The Australian Labor Party supports the bill.
Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [11.47], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Ashfield for his support for the bill. At the time of his preselection he said that, as the person who had advocated stalking legislation, he was now being stalked by the left-wing of the Labor Party. That is an the internal matter of the Australian Labor Party; far be it from me to comment on such matters, and I never do. This legislation is important. It reflects a strong Government determination to maintain law and order in this State, and to ensure that people are properly protected against intimidation by whoever it may be and in whatever form it may take. We will protect the rights of citizens to live peaceful and undisturbed lives, safe from the threats of some disaffected people in our community. The Government is pleased that it introduced the legislation. The bill is a great improvement, and the Government will ensure that it is rigorously enforced.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
PROTECTED DISCLOSURES BILL
In Committee
Consideration of Legislative Council's amendments
Schedule of amendments referred to in message of 23 November.
No. 1 Page 2, clause 4, line 35. Omit "20", insert instead "19".
No. 2 Page 3, clause 4, lines 15-17. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 3 Page 4, clause 8, line 21. Omit "or".
Page 6248
No. 4 Page 4, clause 8, line 22. Omit all words on that line.
No. 5 Page 8, clause 19. Omit the clause.
No. 6 Page 9, clause 21, lines 30 and 31. Omit ", public official, member of Parliament or journalist", insert instead "or public official".
Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [11.53], I move:
That the Legislative Council's amendments be agreed to.
Question put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 40
Mr Armstrong Mr Peacocke Mr Beck Mr Petch Mr Blackmore Mr Phillips Mr Chappell Mr Photios Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson Mr Cochran Mr Rozzoli Mr Collins Mr Schipp Mr Cruickshank Mr Schultz Mr Debnam Mrs Skinner Mr Downy Mr Small Mr Fraser Mr Smith Mr Glachan Mr Souris Mr Hartcher Mr Tink Mr Hazzard Mr Turner Dr Kernohan Mr West Mr Kinross Mr Windsor Ms Machin Mr Zammit Mr Morris Mr W. T. J. Murray Tellers, Mr O'Doherty Mr Humpherson Mr D. L. Page Mr Jeffery
Noes, 43
Ms Allan Mr Markham Mr Amery Ms Meagher Mr Anderson Mr Mills Mr A. S. Aquilina Ms Moore Mr J. J. Aquilina Mr Moss Mr Bowman Mr Nagle Mr Carr Mr Neilly Mr Clough Ms Nori Mr Face Mr E. T. Page Mr Gibson Mr Price Mrs Grusovin Dr Refshauge Mr Harrison Mr Rogan Ms Harrison Mr Rumble Mr Hatton Mr Scully Mr Hunter Mr Shedden Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan Mr Irwin Mr Thompson Mr Knight Mr Whelan Mr Knowles Mr Yeadon Mrs Lo Po' Tellers, Mr McBride Mr Beckroge Dr Macdonald Mr Davoren
Pairs
Mr Baird Mr Crittenden Mr Causley Mr Doyle Mr Cohen Mr Gaudry Mr Fahey Mr Langton Mr Kerr Mr McManus Mr Longley Mr Martin Mr Merton Mr J. H. Murray
Question so resolved in the negative.
Legislative Council's amendments disagreed with.
Resolution reported from Committee and report adopted.
BILLS RETURNED
The following bills were returned from the Legislative Council without amendment:
Coal and Oil Shale Mine Workers (Superannuation) Further Amendment Bill Local Government (Boarding and Lodging Houses) Amendment Bill
DEFAMATION (AMENDMENT) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 29 November.
Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [12.08]: This bill will alter the Defamation Act in a number of important respects: it will provide that truth alone is a defence to a defamatory imputation; the judge and not the jury is to determine whether there is any defence established by the defendant - in defamation cases these defences are usually truth and/or fair comment; the judge and not the jury is to determine the amount of damages to be award if the plaintiff is successful in the proceedings; and in assessing damages the judge should ensure an appropriate relationship between the injury to the plaintiff and the amount, and take into consideration the general range of damages awarded in personal injury cases in New South Wales.
It is unsatisfactory that such an important and complex subject is being introduced into the Parliament at this stage. In particular, it is unsatisfactory that the Parliament is dealing with such a matter before the Law Reform Commission has completed its task of dealing with its reference on this very topic. Although the notion of truth being a complete defence to a defamation case would bring New South Wales into conformity with some other States, it does open up a real risk that people's private lives could be intruded on significantly without there being any public benefit. The drastic reduction in the role of the jury in defamation cases is controversial and difficult for the Government to justify.
The advantages of a jury determining whether defences have been made out and the amount of damages may be summarised as follows: the matters to be decided are broad questions involving value Page 6249 judgments rather than technical matters; giving the judge a wider role risks making the process over-legalistic; and the jury brings ordinary community opinions and an element of democracy into the process. Similarly, there are advantages in having a jury determine damages. A plaintiff whose conduct overall would merit strong community disapproval, but who has obtained a technical verdict, might expect to fare poorly with a jury on the question of damages. But it is likely that, in these circumstances, a judge would feel obliged to award reasonably substantial damages. As with the experience of personal injury litigation, judges could well regularly award middle-of-the-range damages to avoid having their decisions challenged in the Court of Appeal. In most cases under the Act, excessive amounts are not being awarded and excessive damages can be reviewed on appeal.
The Australian Labor Party opposes the bill and believes that it should be referred to a legislation committee to report by February 1995. It is a complex area of law that needs reform, but that reform must be carefully considered and must draw from expert advice of those practising in this area and also from the Law Reform Commission whose reference on the subject is not complete. It is a telling factor that the Law Reform Commission has yet to resolve the issue. The Theophanous case will provide the litmus test for future defamation action. The bill does not take any of those matters into consideration. Any changes to defamation law should be the subject of community consultation and discussions before Parliament enacts any new scheme. Parliament will be better informed and better able to put together a package of reform after receiving the views of the Law Reform Commission. This bill is precipitous. It is inevitable that Parliament will have to reconsider and reformulate defamation law after considering the review of the Law Reform Commission.
The Theophanous and Stephens cases have yet to be decided. The House is pre-empting the High Court decision in those two matters. This issue will certainly be revisited after the decision is made in those cases and after the Law Reform Commission has resolved the issue before it. Honourable members know that those cases were based on implied freedom of speech on political or governmental matters. It is true that the bill deals with the defences to the tort of defamation and what matters a publisher can raise in answer to an allegation that defamatory imputations arise from published material. However, the bill does not deal with the implied right of free speech on political or governmental matters that the High Court crystallised in those recent cases.
The Parliament must come to grips with those problems, otherwise in a defamation trial the judge and jury will be grappling with subtle matters of constitutional implication. A judge or jury ought not have a High Court judgment to deal with but a codification of the constitutional principle in the statute law of New South Wales. It will be inevitable in 1995 that Parliament will have to reconsider the law of defamation in a fundamental and radical way in order to take on board what the High Court has laid down. The High Court has said that this is an implication not only in the Federal Constitution but also in the Constitution of the State. There is no way that the sovereign State of New South Wales can escape or flee from what the High Court has said about the implied right of political discourse.
For those two reasons, it is inevitable that Parliament will have to fundamentally reconsider the law of defamation in 1995. The Opposition believes it is better to do so as part of an integrated package, rather than dealing with it now in what seems to be a rather hastily put together, ad hoc piece of reform. The Government's bill specifically provides that truth alone shall be a defence. Thus, the bill provides that truth alone would be a defence that a publisher could raise in rebuttal of a plaintiff's claim that the published material is defamatory. The present law states that a publisher must show not only that the material is true but also that it relates to a matter of public interest. There are two elements in the current defence: truth, and that the matter relates to the public interest. These dual criteria, constituting the current defence, provide some protection against an irrelevant damaging allegation which may be true but which has absolutely nothing to do with a person's fitness for office or public life.
If truth alone is to be a defence, a newspaper could publish prominently, for example, a juvenile conviction of a member of Parliament or of some other public person; or could publish material about that member of Parliament's life or private conduct which may have literally nothing to do with the person's fitness for public office. This example emphasises the advantage of having a test that requires that the matter must relate to the public interest. In the upper House the Hon. J. W. Shaw moved a procedural amendment that the bill be referred to a select committee for consideration and report. The motion required that the committee report on whether the bill provides an appropriate role for the judge and jury in a defamation trial; whether the bill brings New South Wales law within the implied freedom of speech as determined by the High Court; and whether the defences to a defamatory imputation provide an adequate balance between freedom of speech and the right to privacy; and the general thrust of what the Parliament should be doing in that select committee. That proposal was rejected by the upper House. I foreshadow four amendments as follows:
No. 1 Page 3, Schedule 1 (5), lines 27 and 28. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 2 Page 3, Schedule 1(6), lines 29-33. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 3 Page 4, Schedule 1(7), lines 2-9. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 4 Page 1, title. Omit "the defence of truth,".
The honourable member for Bligh proposes identical amendments. I am pleased that all parties are in agreement.
Page 6250
Ms MOORE (Bligh) [12.16]: This bill has not been hastily put together and is not an ad hoc piece of reform. It is very much part of the agreement that the Government and the Opposition signed in the charter of reform of the Fiftieth Parliament. I appreciate the undertakings given by the Leader of the House that the matters agreed to in the charter of reform will be finalised today. I am pleased to support the bill and the Government for bringing it forward. It aims to limit damages awarded in defamation cases. The jury will establish the facts of the case, but the judge will decide the level of damages. I will be moving amendments to reintroduce the requirement of public interest as a defence against defamation. Without such an amendment the media would be able to publish details of people's private lives as long as those details are true; a newspaper would be able to publish facts about a person's sexuality or anything in his or her early life as long as it was true.
By making truth the only defence, the last vestige of privacy under the law is removed. Everyone agrees that the major shortcoming in Australian law is that there is no substantive law of privacy. This matter has been referred to the Law Reform Commission, but it is long overdue, as I am sure the honourable member for South Coast will point out. The Government and the Opposition agree to it and I welcome the fact that we are biting the bullet and putting this reform in place. If it can be further improved after it is returned from the Law Reform Commission, the opportunity will be available for a future attorney and future parliament to undertake that improvement. My amendments will protect against the irrelevant and damaging allegations that may be true but have absolutely nothing to do with a person's fitness for office or public life. I welcome the support of the Government and the Opposition to those amendments - they will improve the bill.
Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [12.20]: I join other speakers in congratulating the Government on the Defamation (Amendment) Bill, which provides for the reinstatement of the public interest criterion. I have spoken to a number of members of the judiciary about the amendments in this legislation. After speaking briefly to the honourable member for South Coast and the honourable member for Bligh I believe that the reinstatement of the public interest provision is important. The Greg Chappell case, which was heard in 1988, related to the important privacy issue. The Attorney General has accepted - and this is fundamental in my view - that, until privacy laws are introduced in this State, the public interest provision must be maintained.
Defamation has been used as a vehicle for unnecessary litigation. Politicians have used it to implicate others - a matter that should be deplored. The amendments in this legislation are welcomed not just by members of Parliament but by those in the limelight. I appeared as a barrister before the courts for some time, so I understand the way in which jury trials proceed in this State. In the Nick Carson and Andrew Ettingshausen trials matters proceeded to a court of appeal - and in one case to the High Court - only to be referred back to the Supreme Court. Difficulties are experienced by juries that do not have a knowledge of defamation and that do not understand what decisions must be taken, which leads to a wastage of resources.
I welcome the amendments in this legislation as they will substantially pick up on the Government's law reforms, improve access to justice, reduce costs and reduce court delays. The decision in Theophanous does not impact on this bill. That decision, which raises the whole issue of public figures and political matters, does not relate to the provisions in this bill, even with the reinstatement of the public interest provision. The Theophanous decision extended the width of freedom. Many people have spoken about the entrenched constitutional provisions for free speech, but discussion on political issues is not as wide-ranging as had been thought. Clearly, there are some restrictions on freedom.
The court established that, even if there is communication on political matters, there may be circumstances in which a plaintiff could successfully sue. It is these limitations that are of greatest interest to publishers. One of the relevant issues that needs to be discussed and deliberated upon is when it is reasonable to publish without ascertaining whether material is true or false. There is no indication of the circumstances in which a publisher will be "otherwise justified" in publishing material without checking its accuracy. The qualifiers which are used to publish matters in the public domain - they are seen as an unrestricted freedom - include such things as whether imminent deadlines justify a journalist not checking a story; whether a publisher is justified in publishing material which has only one source and cannot be checked; whether the steps taken to check an article have to be "objectively" reasonable; or whether it is only necessary for the journalist to believe them to be reasonable - that is, an objective or subjective test.
The defendant will bear the onus of proving whether his or her publication falls within constitutional protection. We must bear that in mind because frequently matters that are raised in the public domain are not necessarily matters that would fall within these public interest provisions, even though they may be true. The honourable member for Heffron spoke earlier about the paedophile investigation. Given the standing of Mr Marsden and Mr Arkell, a former member of this House, we should be concerned as their reputation has been referred to adversely. Mr Arkell and, I think, Mr Marsden have challenged the honourable member for Heffron to repeat her allegations outside this House. We are always a little more touched when someone is named adversely - as custodians of this House we should be careful about what we say about anyone, especially someone we know. However, those honourable members who make comments in this House have absolute parliamentary protection. Nevertheless, the reinstatement of the provision in the bill will go a long way towards protecting privacy interests.
Page 6251
The Government is to be commended for delaying the removal of the public interest provision until it receives the report of the Law Reform Commission. After all, this House, through a committee of the Parliament, referred this matter to the Law Reform Commission. I believe that report will be available early next year. Sometimes the Parliament is slow to implement reforms, especially in the defamation area. I know that the honourable member for South Coast would be aware of the delays involved in defamation law generally, but how much more difficult would it have been to pass legislation which removed public interest provisions before legislation was introduced that dealt appropriately with privacy? It might have taken a couple of years. Until such time as that legislation is introduced we welcome the retention of the public interest provision. The Minister for the Environment referred earlier to the memorandum of understanding - or the charter of reform, as it is more commonly known - which does not refer to the removal of the public interest provision. However, it refers to the fundamental reforms to defamation trials generally, which is encapsulated at page 4016 of Hansard of 31 October 1991.
Those principles, which have been picked up by the Government, are welcome. I thank the Government for the time given in relation to the report of the Law Reform Commission and for withholding any further amendments until that report is handed down. I have spoken to a number of judges and the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board about the importance of this matter. Given that in New South Wales we do have some responsible journalists - although I would not put the Truth newspaper in that category after the Greg Chappell case - it may be that the issue of public interest does not come to the fore. It is often said that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. One might say that the media is only as strong as those who perform poorly as journalists. The reform concerning jury trials is welcome. I commend the Government for the retention of the public interest provision. That factor will not limit media discussion substantially, nor the reporting of matters before the House.
Mr HATTON (South Coast) [12.31]: I wish to speak about absolute privilege. We in the Parliament are privileged as are no others with respect to absolute privilege except members of the bench. I was very concerned that my actions yesterday could be misunderstood. I refer to my impassioned fight for the right of a member of Parliament to address the House in the way that he or she sees fit and to read on to the record what he or she sees fit. I put it on the Hansard record, as I did in the press, that I feel that it is outrageous that that be done if it is not done with sufficient back-up material to make it warranted, and even then it would be a considerably difficult decision to take.
I have always found Mr Marsden to be a man of probity and of conscience. As President of the Law Society he was innovative and community minded. He has done excellent work over the years on the Council for Civil Liberties. He has been one of the best appointments, if not the best appointment, to the Police Board. I am concerned that there may be a conspiracy to undermine Mr Marsden. I know that there are forces in the police that would wish to undermine him, because he has opposed some important promotions. There have been at least three people whom I have asked not to come back to me again with matters that I refuse to raise. Similarly, Mr Frank Arkell, with whom I sat on the back bench, is a man of high reputation. He lives and breathes Wollongong. He is one of the city's best ambassadors and he has done much for the image, industry and business, and greening, of that city.
We must all be careful about the use of absolute privilege in this House, in the same way as a judge on the bench has to be careful. Whilst talking about defamation and Parliament, I put on the record my extreme concern that people in the Parliament and the staff of the Parliament still have to be very careful about handling Hansard proof. That is a nonsense. Yesterday I spoke about this with the Clerk and with the Leader of the House. We urgently need to do something about defamation and how that affects the operations of this Parliament. Solicitors have asked two members of Parliament for all their notes and background material to questions that they have put on notice, the names of people they have interviewed and the background to speeches they have made in the House. We cannot operate as elected representatives in a free society if we are subjected to that kind of harassment.
This is not a simple question; it is a difficult question. I am not suggesting that there are simple answers to the two matters I have raised. There is, however, one simple thing that has to be done and has to be done urgently, and I should have liked it to be done before the Christmas recess. We need to take the Federal legislation, change it where appropriate, introduce it to this Parliament and facilitate its passage in one day, as we do for many other measures. Let us make it clear what our situation is, and work from there. Defamation law reform has been close to my heart for a long time. I commend the honourable member for Bligh for her interest in this matter and for her amendments.
It is as a result of the charter of reform and of the cooperation of government that the Law Reform Commission has been working on this matter. A great deal of excellent work has been done. The Law Reform Commission is to bring down its report at the end of March. I regret that it was necessary for a defamation law reform bill to come before the House before the report was released. In the past 20 years I have heard leaders of the Opposition promise defamation reform but then not undertake that reform when they have had the opportunity. I am not prepared to take that risk, because if after 25 March there is a government with an absolute majority one could bet London to a brick onthat it will not reform defamation legislation. I reluctantly pressed for the Defamation (Amendment) Bill to come before the House, knowing that it might be amended at a later Page 6252 date because of the report of the Law Reform Commission, in which excellent recommendations will be made.
I have taken into account a number of matters that were raised with me about privacy. Privacy is best handled under a privacy bill - and that is another bill that is urgent for the people of New South Wales, and the Parliament must address that urgency. In the meantime, I am happy to go along with the suggestion that public interest continue to be a part of defamation law. I understand the real concerns. I also put it on the record that at no time did the honourable member for Manly, the honourable member for Bligh or I request, never mind insist, that the Government delete the public interest provision. I put that on the record because I know what is being said. I am alert to the question of public interest.
Defamation as it is now is not about truth and it is not about reputation; it is about money. It is about a process that has become so convoluted, complex and specialised that it is mystical. Is there any member in the Chamber who understands defamation law? Even the most highly qualified barristers in this place would not dare run their own case in defamation law. What nonsense is it that when one tries to assert one's right as a citizen, the right of free speech, one has to confront a series of decisions of the courts that makes the process so complex that it will cost one tens of thousands of dollars to clear the ground on which one can agree to fight? One does not get anywhere near the court process before expending $10,000 or $20,000. One might consider oneself lucky to come out the other end short of $120,000 or $150,000 in legal fees.
The real money is in the lawyers' pockets and in the cost to this State in hours, days, weeks and months of time of re-listing and re-listing because lawyers are not ready to proceed. It is in interrogatories, which I have been on the end of. They are written so cleverly and in such complex language that there is no way in the world one can understand them. One has to hire a barrister to sort the matter out, just so that one can tell another party what one really meant, what one wanted to say. That is what defamation law is all about. The court process is so expensive. The other place in which one will find the real money is in settlements. We never know what is involved. We know that it is a $12 million industry in this State - which is why this Parliament is being showered with paper from Queen's Counsel. I am not saying that all Queen's Counsel are mercenary. For example, I have tremendous respect for Barry Hall QC. I received his letters today and have given them careful consideration.
I am not saying all these people are mercenary; however many are. The real hurt is in the settlement of cases. People who believe in what they have said are often held over a barrel and have to settle because they cannot afford to run a case which would cost them $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000. Settlement does not restore the reputation of people. A tiny article saying, "I am sorry, we made a mistake" may appear on page 5 of a newspaper, but the original defamation would have appeared on the front page in letters two inches high. But what happens when these things are said on radio and television? What happens to a member of Parliament when he or she is asked questions by the media? After giving a long and complex answer, a 10-second version of the answer appears on television and the member is served with a writ in relation to that 10-second version. That person would be behind the eight ball trying to prove that the 10-second version of the interview was not representative of what he said. It is so complex it is a nonsense.
After the problems I have experienced I still forget to put a tape recorder on the table to record everything I say. I raised as a matter of public importance the case of Carson v Fairfax. What happened in that case was disgraceful. People abused the process of the court and threatened witnesses with defamation in an attempt to prevent them giving evidence in a court case. Defamation is a major threat. I have been through defamation cases and I now own nothing. I have tried to fight organised crime. I did not want to put my wife and family at risk because of something I may get wrong in Parliament.
Some years ago I was interviewed by Steve Leibman on the Eleven AM show. Steve Leibman said, "Mr Hatton, you say these people are corrupt?" I either had to walk away or say what was in my heart. Because I was not prepared to walk away in a cowardly fashion I said what was in my heart - and two defamation writs hit the deck. In one case the man was proved to be a crook and he went to gaol, but it still cost me $10,000 to say he was a crook. Defamation is great stuff. I have a very real concern, as I did in the cases of Mr Marsden and Mr Arkell, about those who are on the receiving end. That always worries me because I have said things in this House about what happens to the reputations of these people and their friends. That is something for which we have to take responsibility. In the Carson case it was stated:
The long-running Tectran v. Raybos case had for some time been the subject of settlement negotiations, and these negotiations have been complicated by the number of people involved. Dr Rajke and his company have claims not only against Tectran and its associate companies and individuals but also against its legal advisers, which were first Allen Allen and Hemsley and now Blake Dawson Waldron. Mr Carson is still very much in the picture. But recently in the settlement negotiations remarkable proposals have been put to Dr Rajke and his company. It is that they should join in representations to the Attorney General, the DPP and the Commissioner of Police to have their charges dropped or no-billed, or withdrawn, or not pursued, and the criminal proceedings for perjury were instituted in 1988 against two witnesses called by Tectran in proceedings before Justice Yeldham in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The witnesses were a former Tectran employee, Mr David Bruce Cowper and a former executive of Tectran, Mr Yurasami. This extraordinary proposal has been made to Dr Radjke and his company and sought to be made a condition of payment to them under the settlement, dependent upon termination of criminal proceedings.
Page 6253
When defamation reaches a stage where, as part of a secret settlement, someone is leaned on to join with the opposing party to ask police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General not to proceed with criminal charges, it is a classic example of how the court system can be abused by the complexities of defamation laws, and is a classic reason why it has to be changed.
Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [12.45]: Defamation law reform was an issue that I raised in my maiden speech. For 25 years I was on the other side of the fence from members of this House, as a defendant or potential defendant rather than a plaintiff in defamation matters. I commend the Government for introducing these reforms, which are long overdue. Sydney is known as the defamation capital of the world - and that speaks for itself in terms of the inadequacy of current defamation laws. Large awards of damages have traditionally been made by juries in this State. Defamation actions are often also used as stop writs. I have certainly had to defend such defamation actions taken against me. That practice is mentioned briefly in the Law Reform Commission's discussion paper but is inadequately dealt with. There are many other issues to be considered, and I await the report of the Law Reform Commission next year with interest.
The bill before the House addresses two of the most fundamental issues in defamation. The first is the award of damages. A Sydney Morning Herald article of 22 November stated that 12 defamation damages awards were made in 1993 and 1994, and 99 per cent of the cases were settled out of court. Of those cases, the awards ranged from $4,000 to $1.3 million and the average award was $267,142. That is a lot of money for alleged injury to reputation as opposed to physical injury. In the Andrew Ettingshausen case damages of $350,000 were awarded for the unintended display of his private parts in a photograph that appeared in HQ magazine. In the Blue Angel restaurant case damages were set at $100,000 by the jury, and I am told that after the case business improved for the Blue Angel restaurant. That shows how ridiculous some jury awards are.
In the case of Carson v Fairfax, which was referred to by the honourable member for South Coast, damages of $600,000 were awarded. The matter was referred to the High Court, which found in favour of the appellant. The matter was sent back to the Supreme Court. A jury again determined the level of damages and set them at $1.3 million, which is more than double the original damages. That suggests that juries evaluate the level of damages on the basis of the ability of the defendant to pay. In the case of Lord v Westley Smith, which I referred to in my maiden speech in this House, the level of damages was assessed on the basis of a poor man against a rich dentist. The jury assessed that the rich dentist was capable of paying $127,000 for writing the word "dishonesty" on a Department of Social Security form as to the reason why he was dismissed as an employee. I read the transcript of that case, which was heard in the Supreme Court. I believe dishonesty was made out adequately in that case.
Under the bill the role of the jury will be restricted to deciding whether the imputations alleged are conveyed by published material, and if so whether they are defamatory. That is entirely appropriate. We are talking about what appears to the man on the street to be defamatory. The jury will safeguard and reflect community standards. The other area dealt with in the bill is that the defence of truth alone will henceforth be appropriate and adequate. That was recommended by the legislation committee chaired by the member for Cronulla. Of course, this already operates in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. If the defence of truth alone is adopted by this Parliament, it will be a major step towards creating a uniform defamation law throughout Australia - something which I can say is long overdue, as a former publisher of national magazines. In New South Wales, truth previously had to be accompanied by justification that the publication had been either in the public interest or made to a limited audience in furtherance of legal, social or moral duties. I note that the Attorney General, in his second reading speech in another place, quoted the 1925 Rofe v Smiths Newspapers Limited case, in which His Honour Justice Street said at pages 21 to 22:
No wrong is done by telling the truth . . . by telling the truth . . . reputation is not lowered beyond its proper level, but is merely brought down to it.
There are instances when telling the truth may not be appropriate. It is left to the press to act responsibly in these matters. Whereas the members of the press gallery I know act responsibly, there are some instances when reporting is not entirely fair or just to the person being referred to. I understand that 80 per cent to 90 per cent of plaintiffs in defamation matters view the restoration of reputation as the major goal or reason for starting an action. It is unfortunate that there is nothing in these proposals that deals specifically with alternative dispute resolution and mediation. I hope that that matter will be addressed by the Law Reform Commission, as has been discussed, in its report next year. It will also be addressed by the Government because these reforms should be seen as an interim measure.
I am attracted to the Annenberg proposal, which provides that every potential plaintiff would have to seek a retraction or opportunity to reply before beginning a defamation action. If, as the Law Reform Commission suggests, most plaintiffs simply want to restore their reputation, any mechanism which enhances their prospects of so doing must be welcomed. It would then be for the defendant to decide whether to publish a retraction or a reply. In practice, this proposal is already being used, with many lawyers insisting on the publication of a retraction to ward off court action, or at least to mitigate damages. In the more usual cases of defamation involving the media, the retraction would be published in a prominent place in the same journal or broadcast as the alleged defamatory article appeared. In cases not involving the media, the defendant might simply circulate a letter, the wording of which would be agreed between plaintiff and defendant.
Page 6254
The benefits of this proposal are substantial. It would slash the time lag between the publication of the offending article and the retraction. That is important because, clearly, if a retraction is published five years down the track, it would carry a great deal less weight than if it were published five days after the offending article appeared. The proposal would reduce the number of cases involving the courts. It would provide a mechanism by which reputation could be instantly restored without the defendant running the risk of increasing his exposure by admitting guilt, and it would allow media defendants to make an informed choice between retraction, which could impugn their credibility, and the possibility of court action.
The Law Reform Commission indicated that, as an alternative, there could be two separate remedial regimes. That is certainly something that I favour. The major problem with general defamation actions is that the onus of proof which is applicable to civil matters - the balance of probabilities - applies. This automatically tilts the scales in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant must prove truth or substantial truth, so he is essentially guilty until proved innocent. This is the reverse side of the coin to the assertion of the Law Reform Commission that requiring defendants to prove truth gives effect to the presumption of innocence, which assumes that a person has a good reputation in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
If the plaintiff had to establish falsity, the defendant would be innocent until proved guilty. Unfortunately, this would tend to tilt the scales too far in the direction of the defendant. That is why I am attracted to the notion of two separate remedial regimes. Plaintiffs hoping to obtain damages would be required to prove falsity, while truth would be the defence if the plaintiff wished simply to obtain a declaration that the published material was defamatory. In conclusion, the proposals before the House at present are certainly a giant step in the right direction towards law reform, and I commend them to the House.
Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [12.54]: I shall begin with a quote from the Bible. It says:
A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches.
At the end of the day, all that one has left is one's good name - something that the Minister for the Environment would not know about. Shakespeare asked:
What is in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet.
When I was on the defamation committee I asked a great advocate for virtually no defence to any defamation - and who was acting for publishers in the Australian community - "Have you ever been defamed?" He replied, "No". As a person who has been defamed on a number of occasions, I know what it is like and I know the consequences. I also know what it was like for a person who was spat on and punched in a club after an article that was false in all respects was written about him. I disagree with the member for South Coast.
I do not believe that damages are a great incentive for defamation action because at the end of the day the legal costs are enormous. Often the defamers are wealthy and have unlimited resources. Of course, they also claim a tax deduction for any defamation costs. For a media outfit, all the legal costs and damages in defamation proceedings are a tax deduction at company rates. That cuts the loss substantially. Undoubtedly, however, defamation can be about money. I would not object to the legislation if there were strong privacy laws to protect people's privacy. As the honourable member for Bligh said in relation to her amendments, public interest is important.
I am in possession of a letter written by David Hill, the former managing director of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which relates to one of our late colleagues. In that letter, Mr Hill said that we could have raised the issue of our former colleague's conviction for one break, enter and steal offence when he was 17 years of age to show his connection to organised crime. Our colleague was 48 when he died. Something that happened more than 30 years ago could have been used to show that he was a bad person. That is what happens if we do not have private interest provisions; the consequences are horrific.
Free speech is the pillar and the cornerstone of our democratic society. However, we must act responsibly. The media must act responsibly with regard to what they publish. On many occasions the media act very responsibly in what they do; on other occasions, they do not. Journalists are like the rest of us. They have their own personal prejudices and likes and dislikes, and sometimes such matters cloud their better judgment. I was disappointed and saddened by the fact that the parliamentary committee did not finish the work entrusted to it by this House. We are still awaiting the report of the Law Reform Commission. It will be so important for putting together a whole package of law reforms. The community must discuss the issue also.
I shall quote from a letter written by Barry Hall QC which was forwarded to me by one of my colleagues. The honourable member for South Coast described Barry Hall as one of the better counsel. Barry Hall is one of the most decent and honest blokes around. I quote:
As you are aware I have been a life long supporter of the Jury system, and I believe that no convincing reason has been shown for the curtailment of the role played by a Jury in Defamation Actions. The right to free speech is one of the most cherished rights enjoyed by our community, and the defining of the scope of that right is primarily a matter for ordinary citizens, and it is by exercising their right to vote in relation to a proposal contained in the electoral policy speech, thereby giving a clear mandate to the Government, or by exercising their function when sitting as Jurors, that that right is exercised.
I believe it is a mistake to focus on one or two high profile verdicts which have been overturned on appeal . . . Whilst there has been concern in relation to the Ettingshausen and Carson verdicts, it should be borne in mind that each of those verdicts was obtained as a consequence of the manner in which the Trial was conducted Page 6255 by the Defendant. In each case the Judgements in the Court below were set aside on Appeal and (but for an intervening settlement) the second verdict in Carson would also have been set aside. There is no evidence that the system of regulating Jury verdicts on Appeal, is not working satisfactorily.
That is the view of an eminent Queen's Counsel, an honest, decent bloke who has done a lot of this type of work. He has acted in all bar two cases for the plaintiffs. I commend the concept of a privacy bill. I also commend the fact that the issue of public interest will be deferred until we can assess the costs of defamation and introduce further reforms. To that extent I support the bill.
Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [1.00], in reply: I commend the bill to the House. I thank all honourable members for their contributions. In Committee the Government will move the amendment circulated in my name.
Motion agreed to.
In Committee
Schedule 1
Amendment by Mr Hartcher agreed to:
Page 3, Schedule 1(2), lines 17-13. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:
(4) If the jury determines that the matter complained of was published by the defendant and carries an imputation that is defamatory of the plaintiff, the court and not the jury is:
(a) to determine whether any defence raised by the defendant (including all issues of fact and law relating to that defence) has been established; and
(b) to determine the amount of damages (if any) that should be awarded to the plaintiff and all unresolved issues of fact and law relating to the determination of that amount.
Amendments, by leave, by Ms Moore agreed to.
No. 1 Page 3, Schedule 1(5), lines 27 and 28. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 2 Page 3, Schedule 1(6), lines 29-33. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 3 Page 4, Schedule 1(7), lines 2-9. Omit all words on those lines.
Schedule as amended agreed to.
Amendment by Ms Moore agreed to:
No. 4 Page 1, title. Omit "the defence of truth,"
Bill reported from Committee with amendments and an amendment in the title, and passed through remaining stages.
[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Rixon) left the chair at 1.04 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]
PETITIONS
Newcastle Rail Services
Petitions praying that the rail line between Civic railway station and Newcastle railway station not be closed, received from Mr Hunter and Mr Mills.
Coffs Harbour and Clarence Valley Water Supply
Petition praying that a strategy be developed to supply water to the Coffs Harbour and Clarence Valley communities, and to protect local rivers, received from Ms Allan.
Forest Protection
Petition praying for an immediate and permanent moratorium on the logging of all native old growth and wilderness forests, and for legislation to change present forest management practices, received from Ms Allan.
Marijuana Prohibition
Petitions praying that legislation be enacted to give effect to the Law Society's recommendations on reform of marijuana prohibition laws relating to the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana for personal use, received from Mr Gaudry and Mr Mills.
Mount Druitt Town Centre Policing
Petition praying that in the Mount Druitt Town Centre the number of beat police be maintained and the number of general police be increased, received from Mr Amery.
Classroom Crowding
Petition praying for a program to eliminate classroom crowding, received from Ms Harrison.
Bulli, Coledale and Port Kembla District Hospitals
Petition praying that the present level of services be retained at Coledale, Bulli and Port Kembla district hospitals, received from Mr Sullivan.
PUBLIC HEALTH (SALE OF TOBACCO TO JUVENILES) AMENDMENT BILL
Bill read a third time.
LAKE MACQUARIE STATE RECREATION AREA BILL
Bill read a third time.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
______
DEFIANCE FINE FOODS PROPRIETARY LIMITED
Mr CARR: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, and Minister for the Status of Women. Did WorkCover inspectors visit the Defiance Foods factory at Auburn following Opposition allegations about occupational health and safety concerns? Had the Minister's inspectors previously visited the factory without action being taken? What have they now done to improve conditions at the plant?
Page 6256
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I have been wondering how I could get this matter on the record. I remind the House that the Leader of the Opposition raised the allegation about Defiance Foods a few weeks ago. When we got those allegations I was concerned to check with WorkCover to see whether inspectors had been out to visit Defiance Foods in the way that the Leader of the Opposition has suggested. It will not come as any surprise to this House that the Leader of the Opposition has lied again. There was no relationship between what actually happened and the allegation raised by the Leader of the Opposition. How did the Leader of the Opposition come to make those allegations? Who raised this matter with the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Drummoyne to order.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: Who is the friend of the Leader of the Opposition? Let me tell the House that the friend of the Leader of the Opposition is none other than Frank Belan!
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Londonderry to order.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: This is the same Frank Belan who is now going to disrupt Christmas.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: This is the same Frank Belan whose union has been accused of discrimination against women.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Auburn to order.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: This is the same Frank Belan whose union has been accused of using thousands of dollars to fund prostitutes.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order for the second time.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: Frank Belan is the man who now works hand in hand with the Leader of the Opposition. We have Frank, the thug and Bob, the liar. I asked WorkCover to investigate the matters that the Leader of the Opposition has raised.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Kogarah to order.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: On 23 November the inspectors visited Defiance Fine Foods and issued three prohibition notices and seven improvement notices for matters that could only be regarded as minor. Whilst the inspectors were there they decided to investigate the allegations of sexual harassment. This is not normally considered to be within the ambit of WorkCover inspectors but because the concerns were raised by the Leader of the Opposition they decided to investigate.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Hurstville to order.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: An inspector asked the women if there had been sexual harassment. The women admitted that there had been sexual harassment.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wallsend to order.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: The inspector asked: who was the perpetrator of this sexual harassment?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to order.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: The perpetrator of the sexual harassment which the Leader of the Opposition has raised in this House was the union delegate.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Davidson to order. I call the Treasurer to order.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: The women told the inspector that in the past they had raised occupational health and safety issues with the union delegate but he had refused to do anything about them. The delegate had refused to take up the question of occupational health and safety with the management. What did these women then do? They went further up the line and complained to the next supervisor. Guess what he did? Nothing. Why not? He is the union delegate's brother.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection from both sides of the House.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: The Leader of the Opposition has the gall to come into this House and accuse the Government of failing to protect the workers in this State. He accuses the Government of failing to protect women in this State, yet all he does is use his information to cover up for the failings of his own union delegates. The Leader of the Opposition should not ask me the question; he should ask the union why it failed to take up the matter.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs to order.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: I look forward to investigating any other matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition because I am sure the result will be similar.
LABOR PARTY DEBT
Mr DEBNAM: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for the Environment, representing the Attorney General, and Minister for Justice. Can the Minister advise the House whether he has received advice from the Crown Solicitor in relation to companies carrying out specific dealings with an insolvent company? Does the Minister have reason to believe that Labor Centenary House Proprietary Limited is an insolvent company that is continuing to trade?
Mr HARTCHER: What an interesting question the honourable member for Vaucluse asks.
Page 6257
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Eastwood to order.
Mr HARTCHER: I am happy to advise the House that the Attorney General has received some legal advice from the Crown Solicitor on Corporations Law, obligations of companies and individuals who deal with an insolvent company. Honourable members would be aware that the Attorney General has an obligation to ensure that the public is aware of the laws of this State. I should like to now impart to the House general advice so that honourable members and the New South Wales public may learn of the general concept and how it applies to one particular company, which was the company nominated by the honourable member for Vaucluse in his excellent question. I shall come to the issue of insolvency a little later.
There is no restriction on who individuals may trade with, provided it does not occasion a criminal or civil offence. Certainly there is no reason any individual should be precluded from trying to bail out the Labor Party. However, a director of a company that may be trading with an insolvent company should be aware that he or she has an obligation under section 232(4) of the Corporations Law to discharge his or her duties with "a degree of care and diligence that a reasonable person . . . would exercise". Whether there has been a failure to comply with this section will depend on the circumstances and the knowledge that the person has of the financial state of the insolvent company with which the person was dealing. I am advised by the Crown Solicitor as follows:
A reasonable director or officer would not normally lend money to, or enter financial arrangement with, a company which they believe to be insolvent or expect will be unable to repay its debts.
The penalty is a fine of $200,000 or five years imprisonment, or both.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Bulli to order.
Mr HARTCHER: Having given a general exposition of the law, I now come to the second part of the question, which deals with a specifically nominated company.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Davidson to order for the second time.
Mr HARTCHER: I have strong reason to believe that Labor Centenary House Proprietary Limited is indeed a technically insolvent company. Honourable members would be aware that the company has a rather colourful history. On 17 January 1990 the general secretary of the Australian Labor Party, New South Wales branch, Mr Stephen Loosley, recommended at a special meeting of the New South Wales ALP Administrative Committee that the Labor Party purchase the premises at 291 Sussex Street for $3.8 million. The property purchased by the Australian Labor Party was then a shelf company. The name of that shelf company is a gem - Goodrule Proprietary Limited. Naturally, the Australian Labor Party found that very ironic. It did not want to be associated with a company that was called Goodrule and immediately changed the company's name to Labor Centenary House Proprietary Limited. That is the sort of place where union delegates go after they have neglected their responsibilities to women. That is the sort of place they go to make a few quick decisions and slash a few throats.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai to order.
Mr HARTCHER: The directors of the ill-named company Goodrule Proprietary Limited, now renamed, were: Terry Sheahan, who is currently State President of the Australian Labor Party; John Della Bosca, who is currently General Secretary of the Australian Labor Party; and Stephen Loosley, who was secretary of the company. There is great excitement in the Opposition ranks. They are surprised to learn that Stephen Loosley was associated with this enterprise.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Kogarah to order for the second time.
Mr HARTCHER: Apparently, members of the Australian Labor Party did not know that Stephen Loosley was involved in this company.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Eastwood to order for the second time.
Mr HARTCHER: On 24 January 1990 Labor Party officials finalised the purchase of the building. This is what Mr Loosley had to say about the purchase, "We have bought well and at the right time". The deal was financed with an initial loan of $3.1 million from the Commonwealth Bank. The ALP certainly knows how to do business. It got a top interest rate - 19.75 per cent! Opposition members are the best businessmen in Australia; they cannot help themselves!
Mr Longley: It reflects the risk.
Mr HARTCHER: As the Minister for Community Services said, it reflects the risk.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs to order for the second time.
Mr HARTCHER: Since those halcyon days in 1990 when the ALP bought so well, the debt has increased. The $3.1 million loan now stands at $10.1 million. Interest is compounding at $11,000 a day. In fact, by the time I sit down, it will have gone up $500. But that does not mean in itself that Labor Centenary House Proprietary Limited is insolvent. Like any good company, Labor Centenary House Proprietary Limited would be able to afford a substantial loan if it had a good cash flow and valuable asset backing. However, this company not only had a significant financial obligation to the Commonwealth Bank; it also received a $1.04 million unsecured loan from the Labor Council, that is, trade Page 6258 unionists money - I am sure the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment will be interested to hear this - on 1 December 1991 in order to meet its obligations to the Commonwealth Bank.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai to order for the second time.
Mr HARTCHER: So the ALP was borrowing money to repay its creditors. At the time the media carried an interesting report about this transaction. It reported that the Labor Council was purchasing shares in Labor Centenary House Proprietary Limited. That was three years ago. No registration of a transfer of shares has ever taken place. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the Labor Council acquired the shares. On 3 December 1991 the Labor Council started asking some questions about the loan and about the $453,898 in back rent.
Mr Amery: You are putting the honourable member for Gladesville to sleep.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Mount Druitt to order.
Mr HARTCHER: But I am not putting the honourable member or his colleagues in the right-wing faction to sleep.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Port Stephens to order.
Mr HARTCHER: It is ironic that the person who asked the questions in the Labor Council was none other than Pat Staunton. In fact, Pat Staunton was becoming so embarrassing on the Labor Council that the ALP hastily whacked her on the ALP ticket for the upper House. That was one way of shutting up Pat Staunton's embarrassing questions. The Labor Council was not the only body that lent $1 million to the ALP; the Electrical Trades Union, a union comprised of ordinary men and women and which takes their subscriptions every month, lent the ALP a further $1.1 million and used the Newcastle radio station 2HD as collateral for the loan. The slide in the financial position of Labor Centenary House Proprietary Limited is documented in the ALP's own financial statements which, in 1993, noted the ALP as having net liabilities of $7.54 million.
Net liabilities mean that the accountants have subtracted all the assets from the liabilities. I have to explain this in simple terms for Opposition members. One has one's positives and one's negatives and one removes the negatives from the positives, which gives one the net balance. The net balance reflects that the ALP is $8 million in the red, and that was only in 1993. This reveals another serious aspect about the question asked by the honourable member for Vaucluse. We do not know what has happened since 1993 because this company, owned by the Labor Party, has failed to lodge its annual return with the Corporate Affairs Commission. It is clear that the ALP has failed to meet any interest payments on the debt since April 1991. Either that is the case, or the ALP has been accruing more debt from sources other than the Commonwealth Bank.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Bankstown to order.
Mr HARTCHER: Two attempts have been made to wind up this company.
Mr Whelan: I wish you would wind up.
Mr HARTCHER: I bet you do! I bet you are hoping right now that I will wind up. There is one thing that honourable member for Ashfield hopes even more - that the aircraft will wind up as they fly over Ashfield, Drummoyne, Port Jackson and Marrickville. We will see it all tomorrow. We will see the honourable member for Ashfield at Leichhardt oval where about 5,000 people will be gathering with one intention - to hang Labor.
Mr Whelan: Ten thousand.
Mr HARTCHER: Ten thousand people will be at that oval.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! In the knowledge that the sittings of the House this week have been long and tiring the Chair has extended to members a degree of tolerance. However, the limit of that tolerance has been reached. Though I would be reluctant to do so, if the level of interjection is not reduced I will call members to order for indiscretions that might not on other occasions attract my attention. I seek the cooperation of all members to allow question time to proceed in an orderly fashion.
Mr HARTCHER: On two separate occasions, interests associated with this company tried to wind it up, but we do not know who made those attempts. We know that section 597 forms, known as applications for deregistration action to cease, were lodged on 15 December 1992 and on 8 April 1994. For some reason the people attempting to wind up the company have had second thoughts. It is not for me to draw conclusions, but I refer to an article in the Australian Financial Review of 25 October 1994. The Australian Financial Review, in reference to the Commonwealth Bank, which is the ALP's biggest creditor, said:
The Bank, formerly 100% Government owned and still with strong links to the Labor Party, is not prepared to call in its debts or move to liquidate the New South Wales branch. Not yet anyway. But Bank heavies are getting a tad restless. The Commonwealth wants action and in a hurry.
One of the bank heavies is no less than Ms Anna Booth, who is a vice-president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. That was reported in October this year. I say in answer to the question asked by the honourable member for Vaucluse: if a company is publicly defaulting on its substantial obligations to one of the biggest banks in the country, directors of companies that may be contemplating lending money or entering into financial transactions with Labor Centenary House Proprietary Limited are clearly on notice that the company will, in all probability, be unable to meet its debts.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Mount Druitt to order for the second time.
Page 6259
Mr HARTCHER: Directors of companies affiliated with the ALP should also be on notice that their first legal obligation is to the welfare of their own companies. In particular, the directors of 2HD Newcastle should be aware of that, including the sleepy honourable member for Heffron, who may well have breached section 232(4) of the corporations law and could be liable for civil or criminal action. Directors of other companies, including Centenary Account Proprietary Limited and Australian Labor Party (New South Wales Branch) Gifts Proprietary Limited should be aware of their obligations, as should the large number of trustees of Labor Party trusts, as all of these are represented in the complex labyrinth which makes up the financial structure of the New South Wales branch of the ALP.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Kogarah to order for the third time.
Mr HARTCHER: Creditors are concerned about the party's ability to repay its debts. Two failed deregistration proceedings and the failure of SBD Proprietary Limited to put together a redevelopment proposal for the Sussex Street property mean that, with an accruing debt of $11,000 a day, Labor Centenary House Proprietary Limited is clearly in trouble.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Bulli to order for the second time.
Mr HARTCHER: That must distress the 9,000 members of the New South Wales branch of the ALP. The problems will be compounded by the significant costs that will be incurred by the shareholders in that company during the coming election campaign. The Government hopes that the Commonwealth Bank and other creditors of the ALP are as generous to the farmers suffering from the drought as they are to Labor Centenary House Proprietary Limited. In the meantime, any company doing business with Labor Centenary House Proprietary Limited must count itself as being on notice that the company must either be technically insolvent or, at the very least, unable to pay its debts. If the Labor Party cannot run a single building in Sussex Street, how could it run New South Wales?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Hurstville to order for the second time.
WATER CONTRACTS
Ms ALLAN: My question without notice is directed to the Premier, and Minister for Economic Development. Did the Government award the Prospect water contract to a consortium involving the French water company, Lyonnaisse des Eaux-Dumez, or LED? Has a Minister of the French Government, M. Alain Carignon, recently resigned and been gaoled for accepting secret donations from LED?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Davidson to order for the third time.
Ms ALLAN: Will he order an immediate inquiry into the probity of his Government's tendering process?
Mr FAHEY: If the honourable member for Blacktown were serious about getting a response to her question, she would have directed it to the Minister representing the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing.
LABOR PARTY DEBT
Mr TINK: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, and Minister for the Status of Women. Can the Minister inform the House whether union officials in New South Wales have pledged to use members' funds to bail out the State branch of the Labor Party, which is facing debts of more than $10 million? If so, are those officials acting illegally?
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: The honourable member for Eastwood is obviously concerned about workers' funds that are being held by the Labor Party and by the trade unions - obviously a matter of no concern to members opposite. It has been brought to my attention that senior union officials, led by the New South Wales Labor Council, have prepared plans to keep the Labor Party afloat, at least until the forthcoming election. I am reliably informed that discussions have taken place in the past couple of weeks between senior union officials, headed by the Secretary of the Labor Council, Mr Peter Sams, senior officials of the New South Wales Labor Party and representatives of the Leader of the Opposition. Those discussions have been held to consider the serious financial problems faced by the ALP in this State. The House has just heard from my colleague the Minister for the Environment how serious those problems are. I am sure that honourable members are well aware, as the Minister has pointed out, that the ALP now owes its creditors well over $10 million, a debt that is increasing at the rate of $11,000 a day.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Canterbury to order.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: The Labor Party - the party that talks about responsible financial management, razor gangs and balanced budgets - is insolvent. The Labor Party, which seeks to run this State, is not only morally and intellectually bankrupt, it is also financially bankrupt.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Auburn to order for the second time.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: The party's creditors are moving in, and fast. That is why Mr Sams and his mates Mr Della Bosca and the Leader of the Opposition are holding yet more of those little-publicised meetings where they cook up little plans. Honourable members may know that those are the meetings that, when raised in the House, the Leader of the Opposition says he cannot recall, but at a later stage is forced to admit took place. I was certainly surprised and definitely concerned to hear that Mr Sams and the other union officials involved in the secret discussions have apparently agreed to provide the New South Wales Labor Party with new loans believed to be worth more than $2 million. I am Page 6260 informed that the new loans would be on top of the existing loans that have been referred to by my colleague the Minister for the Environment. As we know, the first $1.04 million was meant to be a secured loan but is in fact an unsecured loan. I understand also that the Labor Council then lent the ALP a further $1 million. Again, that loan is almost certainly unsecured.
As well, the Electrical Trades Union has lent the Labor Party an extra $1 million, a loan the union regrets deeply. I am deeply concerned about the apparent decision by some union officials to approve further loans to the Labor Party and its associated companies. I am concerned because: first, I do not think any objective observer believes that either the existing loans or any future loans can ever be repaid; second, I believe that the only way the unions will find the cash is by increasing their members' fees or subscriptions; and, third, if the new loans do go ahead, the union officials involved may well be in breach of the Industrial Relations Act. Because this matter is of grave concern to me and to the Government, I have referred it to the department for advice. The advice given is conclusive. Under the Industrial Relations Act union officials have a duty to act honestly, to act with reasonable care and diligence and to disclose any conflict of interest they might have. Failure to comply with those strict requirements is an offence under the Act and can render the officials involved liable to compensate the union and its members for any loss or damage suffered.
Members of unions in New South Wales have a right to apply to their union for specific information relating to the accounts of unions, including information relating to any donation or grant made and the purpose of donations or grants. The primary source of union income is the fees or subscriptions paid by its members. Union officials have an obligation, legal and moral, to ensure that the funds raised through subscriptions or fees are used in the provision of industrial services to members. Clearly, donations or bad loans can diminish the services that unions are able to provide to their members. I should like to use this opportunity to remind union officials to think very carefully about the decisions they are about to make in relation to further loans and grants to the New South Wales Labor Party. I remind union officials that under section 433 of the Industrial Relations Act a loan, grant or donation must not be made unless it is in accordance with the rules of the union. And, in the case of a loan, the Act makes it abundantly clear that union officials must ensure that:
. . . the security proposed to be given for the repayment of the loan is adequate and the proposed arrangements for the repayment of the loan are satisfactory.
In other words, before making or approving any loans whatsoever, union officials must make sure that the loans will be repaid and that the repayment arrangements are satisfactory. We must remember that in this regard we are talking about money, the dues and subscriptions, that has been collected from ordinary men and women in this State. It is not money that belongs to Mr Sams, Mr Della Bosca, or the Leader of the Opposition. The money belongs to union members. Given that the Labor Party is now insolvent, I am amazed that any responsible union leader would even consider making a further loan to the Labor Party.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Waratah to order.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: I am amazed and disappointed that any responsible union leader would willing use members' funds to invest in an organisation that is bankrupt. I hope that those union officials who are contemplating pouring yet more money into the bottomless pit they call the New South Wales Labor Party will think again. It is time that those officials stopped playing political games and did what they are elected to do - represent their union members, and look after their funds.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Londonderry to order for the second time.
WATER CONTRACTS
Mr KNIGHT: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier, and Minister for Economic Development. Has a French judge specialising in fraud investigations recently written a book entitled The Black Book of Corruption, alleging two French companies are responsible for 80 per cent of corruption in France? Are those two companies, Lyonnaisse des Eaux-Dumez and Compagnie Generale des Eaux, known as LED and CGE, the same two companies that have been awarded New South Wales water contracts worth more than $250 million?
Mr Hartcher: On a point of order: the standing orders make it quite clear that questions may be asked of the Premier and Ministers relating to public affairs in New South Wales. The operation of companies in France and the decisions of judges in France are not matters of public affairs in this State. I therefore ask that the question be ruled out of order.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
Mr FAHEY: I cannot read French.
SYDNEY CASINO LICENCE
Mr KINROSS: My question without notice is addressed to the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services. Has the Casino Control Authority completed its public hearings into the probity of the preferred applicant for the Sydney casino licence? Can the Minister inform the House whether the Leader of the Opposition attended the hearing to substantiate his claim?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Waratah to order for the second time.
Mrs COHEN: I thank the honourable member for Gordon for his interest in a matter that has great significance for this State. It is now - the Opposition wanted to know - 78 days since I first challenged the Leader of the Opposition -
Page 6261
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Canterbury to order for the second time.
Mrs COHEN: - to explain from which publicly available sources his staff obtained a confidential Louisiana police report.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order for the third time.
Mrs COHEN: In those 78 days no satisfactory answer has been given to this important question - a question that goes to the heart of the integrity of the Leader of the Opposition on the casino issue. If the State needed an example of why casino selection processes need to be kept separate from political and commercial influences, the Leader of the Opposition is it. If he had his way, the licence would be issued on the basis of the latest smear campaign as well as the deal he could do to best advantage the Labor Party. The public hearings held by the Casino Control Authority into the preferred applicant for the Sydney casino licence were completed on Monday.
The authority has undertaken to make the report of its inquiry public. The inquiry was held as part of the authority's ongoing probity investigation in order to allow any interested party to present any relevant information concerning the suitability of the applicant. Honourable members may recall that after a great deal of politicking aimed at undermining the Casino Control Authority, the Leader of the Opposition finally decided to make a written submission to the casino inquiry. But did he appear in person before the inquiry? Despite clear requests from the Casino Control Authority, he would go nowhere near the place.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Monaro to order.
Mrs COHEN: What was his fear? His fear was that he might actually have to face some real scrutiny. Instead the Leader of the Opposition - the honourable member for Maroubra - thought it far safer to hide in Parliament, which for him has become a real coward's castle. Members of the Labor Party obviously do not believe in following the proper processes.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to order for the second time.
Mrs COHEN: The Leader of the Opposition cannot even control his own frontbench. Imagine if the Opposition were ever elected to government - every Minister would run amuck.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Kiama to order.
Mrs COHEN: When it comes to casinos the Opposition obviously yearns for the good old days of Labor when casino bids were called for before any legislation was in place.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Rockdale to order.
Mrs COHEN: Rather than front the inquiry the Leader of the Opposition has used the protection of Parliament to do his devious best to destabilise the casino processes for his own ends. Only this week in the House his increasingly desperate behaviour was further highlighted when he perpetuated his lies on the casino and then tried to pre-empt and influence the findings of a public inquiry. He also tried to smear my reputation with more outright lies. Obviously members of the Opposition do not value their reputations. I value mine. Once again the outright lies of the Leader of the Opposition were totally without substance or credibility.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Illawarra to order. I call the honourable member for Blacktown to order.
Mrs COHEN: It must be obvious to all that the Leader of the Opposition is getting desperate when his crowning comment is about the colour of my lipstick. We all know a great deal more now about his policies for women.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment to order.
Mrs COHEN: If you criticise his policies, he will criticise your cosmetics. If you call the Leader of the Opposition to order, he will call you a silly bitch. It is a damning indictment of the Leader of the Opposition that as a holder of public office he has repeatedly lied to the public -
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai to order for the third time.
Mrs COHEN: - and he did not have the courage to appear before an inquiry into such an important issue. His conduct reeks of questionable motives, vested interests and an ability to lie.
ROYAL NORTH SHORE HOSPITAL SERVICES
Dr REFSHAUGE: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Is Royal North Shore Hospital to lose 50 beds, 29 permanently, as part of a cost cutting exercise to reduce its $6.5 million budget overrun? Is the hospital to stop all elective surgery from Christmas until February 1995? Has Professor Gyory of the hospital said that these cuts would "significantly impair our capacity as a teaching hospital"?
Mr PHILLIPS: Absolutely, definitely not.
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
Mr D. L. PAGE: Can the Premier, and Minister for Economic Development advise the House how the recovery of the New South Wales economy is helping the community? Are there sections of the State's work force that are not contributing?
Mr FAHEY: There is no doubt that the New South Wales economy is moving ahead full steam. This State now accounts for more than half of the new Page 6262 jobs that have been created in this country in the last 12 months. This growth is reflected in our gross State output, which grew at the rate of 5.1 per cent in the 12 months to June 1994. Exports from New South Wales are growing at the rate of 11 per cent per year - well above the national average of 6 per cent. Thanks to the economic management of the Liberal-National Government, the State debt is now well on the way down after a disastrous 12 years. Government trading enterprises have slashed their debt by 37 per cent, passing on dividends of more than $1 million to the people of New South Wales. Those dividends are being paid in the form of 51 new schools and 33 new hospital projects in the State.
The dividends are paying off in terms of the 550 new police and 1,466 new teachers that the Government is employing. However, one part of the New South Wales work force is not performing. It is a sector of the work force which must be exposed: it is the Labor Opposition. Only today I received a full report on the output of the Opposition from my research staff. The report looks at the contributions made in question time by the Opposition frontbench since I became Premier 2½ years ago. I will go through a few of the results to give a report card on some of the Opposition's performers. One of Labor's leading lights is the honourable member for Coogee - the shadow minister for administrative services - and guess how many questions he has asked during question time since I became Premier. Two - a grand total of two!
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Consumer Affairs to order.
Mr FAHEY: If the honourable member for Coogee keeps up that work rate, he will need a holiday. On 25 March next year he will have plenty of time for a holiday. The honourable member for Keira worked much harder than the honourable member for Coogee; he asked three questions. He gets an extra point because at least the three questions were relevant to his portfolio responsibility. We then come to one of the old war horses of Parliament, the honourable member for Mount Druitt. How many questions has that experienced campaigner asked? In 2½ years, he has asked four questions.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection from both sides of the House. I hesitate to put all members on three calls to order, but I will do so if the level of interjection is not reduced.
Mr FAHEY: Mr Speaker, while you were giving your ruling, the honourable member for Mount Druitt indicated that four questions is one more than he thought he had asked, but I am happy to give him credit for four. Clearly, he is well and truly ready for a cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down. We then come to another member who asked only four questions. It is the human dynamo, the honourable member for East Hills. It must be difficult to ask questions when lying in state. I am surprised that the honourable member was able to generate the energy to ask four questions.
We then have the honourable member for Charlestown, who exerted himself. He has taken seriously his shadow portfolio, in particular the recreation part of it. He has concentrated on recreation because he has asked only five questions in 2½ years. No Opposition members on the frontbench have asked six questions, but two of them have a grand total of seven questions. The House may guess who they are as I count them down. One of them was demoted from his portfolio responsibilities recently.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for the Environment to order.
Mr FAHEY: The honourable member has noise problems; he has dreadful ringing in his ears. He keeps hearing Qantas captains saying, "Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Sydney". Yes, we are talking about the temporary member for Drummoyne. We had seven questions from the honourable member for Drummoyne, who is the shadow spokesman for being demoted.
Mr J. H. Murray: On a point of order: because of the noise, I did not hear the Premier say that he could not answer one of those questions.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved.
Mr FAHEY: The honourable member may have been demoted recently, but his friend Laurie Brereton will ensure that he is done out of a job soon. The next member on the list is a real surprise. It is the shadow spokesman on one of the most important issues in State politics: education. How can the shadow minister for education justify having asked only 10 questions in the past 2½ years? Clearly, it must be because we are doing such an incredibly good job in education that there is simply nothing for him to question. All I can suggest is that it is a sad performance on his part. What about our old mate, the shadow minister for agriculture? How many questions did he ask? He asked only 11 questions without notice during a time when we have experienced the worst drought in living memory. Clearly, he did not want to face his opposite number on this side of the Chamber.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order.
Mr FAHEY: We start moving up the list and come to the shadow minister for health, the honourable member for Marrickville. How many questions has he asked? He asked 55 questions. How many of them related to health? Only 18 of them related to health. Only one in three questions related to health. The reason for that is he has had nothing to go on. He knew that whenever he stood up to ask the Minister a question he would get a bashing. Obviously, he took the stunning option and refused to take on the best health Minister in the world. If our health Minister is not the best in the world, he is certainly the envy of all other health Ministers in the world. Who topped the list for the Opposition? Who Page 6263 asked the most questions during question time? It was none other than the honourable member for Maroubra. He asked 119 questions, carrying the weight for all the dead wood on the Opposition frontbench. I am sure that the only person to whom the Leader of the Opposition would want to talk these days is Michael Atherton, because their performances are similar. The Leader of the Opposition obviously has team mates similar to those of Michael Atherton.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection. Members who have been previously called to order are now deemed to be on three calls to order.
Mr FAHEY: The new boy on the team, the honourable member for Campbelltown, has a good record for a middle order batsman. He asked 33 questions - but he did not answer the 133 questions that the police asked him. The people of New South Wales are not impressed with the second XI over there. Indeed, the third XI sitting on the backbenches are not terribly impressed with the second XI. They are concerned about the recent performance of the Opposition.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order.
Mr FAHEY: We know that the people of New South Wales know that their only course on 25 March is to go for pace, speed, accuracy and big hitting all-rounders. The team with those attributes is on this side of the Chamber.
RUSHCUTTERS BAY MARITIME TRUST
Ms MOORE: I have been trying to ask a question for days.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair takes that to be a gross reflection on the fairness of the Chair. The honourable member for Bligh has already asked two questions this week, and that probably exceeds her quota. She should consider herself fortunate to have received the call on this occasion.
Ms MOORE: I have been -
Mr SPEAKER: The honourable member for Bligh will ask her question.
Ms MOORE: My question is to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Will he undertake immediately to exhibit publicly the plan of management prepared by the Rushcutters Bay management trust, which he has had since May, for important foreshore land at Rushcutters Bay that should have been returned to the community by a State-Commonwealth agreement 15 years ago?
Mr SOURIS: No.
ACCIDENT AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
Mr BECK: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Health. Can the Minister advise the House what steps are being taken to ensure that people receive adequate care in the State's emergency departments?
Mr PHILLIPS: That is an important question. I am disappointed that the honourable member's promotional skills did not support him on this occasion, as they have done in the past. We know that Labor's health policy in the build-up to the next election has simply been a series of press statements to coincide with the pit stops that Labor members make around the State, promising a hospital here and a hospital there. Recently, I related the litany of new hospitals that Labor promised each day in September. Wherever Labor members go, they make promise after promise. Their simple solution is not to have any health planning but to throw money at hospitals.
I remind Opposition members of the statement made on 29 November by Michael Egan in the other place, in which he said that if Labor won the next State election it would institute a razor gang to slash spending. Obviously, the Opposition has a huge credibility gap. Its health promises add up to $2 billion, yet it would have a razor gang to slash government expenditure. There is no credibility in any of the statements made by Labor members. Labor needs to tighten up in that policy area. The Opposition is constantly shroud waving about isolated problems that occurred under our administration. We do not sweep matters under the carpet. They are dealt with through the proper channels in an open and transparent manner until a solution is found. A few isolated cases are not an accurate representation of the mammoth task the Government has had to undertake to address 12 years of Labor neglect in health. Unlike Labor, we have been prepared to make the right decisions in health; to take the tough decisions in health. Labor shied away from the tough decisions.
The strategy for emergency departments that the Government has implemented is getting it right. We have set maximum waiting times for people presenting in emergency departments; adopted the Royal Australasian College of Emergency Medicine's National Triage Scale to classify people presenting at emergency departments; and adopted a State trauma plan estimated, in Labor's report, to save more than 30 lives each year. Our ambulance response times are among the lowest in the western world. We have expended $7.6 million to employ 78 additional staff for the busiest emergency departments. Extra staff is already in place at Auburn, Nepean, Royal Prince Alfred, Royal North Shore, Prince of Wales, St George and St Vincent's hospitals. We have created 110 new nursing positions to relieve pressure in emergency departments and to reduce waiting times.
This year $27 million of a $59 million, three-year program has been allocated for capital expenditure in emergency departments, including - and honourable members should know what is happening in their electorates - Liverpool, Bankstown, Albury, Wagga Wagga, Moruya, Sydney, St George, Prince of Wales, Maitland, Coffs Harbour, Lismore, Prince of Wales Children, Moree, Gosford, Westmead Children, Nepean, Inner West, Concord, Royal Prince Alfred, Baradine, and Walgett hospitals, just to name a few. Upgrading of emergency departments in the following hospitals is in progress: Royal North Shore, Page 6264 Newcastle Mater, Manly, Wagga Wagga, Gundagai, Batemans Bay, Milton-Ulladulla, Bowral, Tenterfield, Manning, Gulgong, Collarenebri, Wellington, Bourke, Canowindra, Queanbeyan, Kempsey, Dubbo, Ryde and Campbelltown hospitals, to name but a few.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wollongong to order.
Mr PHILLIPS: Computers will be installed in the 40 busiest emergency departments to monitor and manage patients and to provide a better service. Our emergency departments will have a better management system, at a cost of more than $3.5 million. The emergency department incentive scheme - at a cost of more than $8.5 million - rewards emergency departments that improve their management and customer service. Our emergency department policy is the blueprint of reform for other States: they are adopting our reform. And this is in the context of New South Wales having some of the busiest emergency departments in the world. Every year 1.7 million patients are treated in our emergency departments, 300,000 of whom are subsequently admitted. The New South Wales health system has 17 million occasions of service every year. Ever since we came to Government in 1988 the number of people admitted to our hospitals has increased at the rate of 50,000 per year. This year 300,000 extra people will receive the benefit of our health system and the top service to which they are entitled.
What did Labor leave behind that we had to undo? It left behind a report that was so damning that the then Minister, the honourable member for Liverpool, stamped it "never to be released". I have a copy of an audit conducted on emergency departments by the former Labor Government: a report card on emergency departments following 12 long years of Labor leading up to 1988. It was such an indictment of Labor's administration, such an accurate record of its policy of running emergency departments into the ground, that it was hidden away on a dusty shelf. Well, we have dusted it off. The people of New South Wales deserve to know what we inherited, so that they can compare Labor's record with ours over the past six to seven years.
In relation to St George Hospital the report states that hospital statistics indicate that the average stay of patients in the accident and emergency department - the average stay, not the worst - is 20 hours. However, some patients remained in holding areas for several days and were discharged from such areas without being admitted to the wards. No formal admission policy existed. No formal admission policy existed at the time of the visit, although a draft policy was being considered. In relation to Prince Henry hospital the report stated:
The accident and emergency department is located in old, cramped premises with several cubicles and two to three small assessment receiving rooms. Ambulance access is seriously deficient, with patients being exposed to the weather. Ambulance officers must push trolleys up a steep ramp to the receiving room.
Without labouring the point, I will go straight to the summary, which states:
The working party has been disturbed by the poor conditions of the accident and emergency departments visited. Ideally, A and E departments should have adequate natural lighting and ventilation and should be attractive and comfortable for patients and relatives. There should be adequate space to accommodate anticipated loads, without overcrowding. These criteria are not met in all respects by most of the hospitals visited. Of particular concern is the lack of privacy for patients. Patient assessment may be carried out in the view and hearing of other patients. Initial assessment frequently takes place in the waiting area, a situation which is totally unacceptable.
Other parts of the report reveal that there were only 10 senior staff specialists in all emergency departments. There are now more than 111 specialist and senior doctors in positions in emergency departments. In six years we have increased senior staff specialists from 10 to 111. There was no regular reporting of the workloads in emergency departments. Their thing was: just ignore it and hope it goes away. St George Hospital looked like a World War II field station, with 26 people on stretches waiting for attention on the day the audit team went in. And that was a good day! In comparison, the Fahey Government has a transparent approach to managing emergency departments. We do not hide from the problems, but we have actively moved to fix them. In fact, we have implemented the recommendations of the report. It is interesting, as we get to serious questions in this Parliament such as health, that the frontbench on the other side has disappeared, except for a pretender to the Crown warming up the seat. I do not know how the honourable member for Moorebank feels about his being gazumped by the lady in pink, the honourable member for Penrith.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs to order for the third time.
Mr PHILLIPS: One can actually compare the record of Labor with the record of the Government very well. The tactics of the Leader of the Opposition are callous. He shroud waves and takes advantage of some situation as he sends out death certificates with his press releases. The media and the Government were sickened by that stunt to try to grab some votes, as he paraded a patient before the television cameras. I suggest that people look carefully at the type of system that they have today and compare it with what they had under Labor. We will be judged on that system at the next election and the electorate will allow us to get on with the job of building one of the best health systems in the world.
______
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Bill: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mrs LO PO' (Penrith) [3.20]: I move:
That Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended to allow consideration forthwith of General Business Order of the Day (for Bills) No. 21 (Badgerys Creek Waste Facility Bill).
Page 6265
The Badgerys Creek Waste Facility Bill will have massive environmental consequences. I am seeking urgency so that this House can understand and debate the detrimental effects such a facility will have on the environment close to Badgerys Creek and flowing into South Creek. The concerns that need to be addressed urgently are that leachate will pass into Badgerys Creek, South Creek, and then into the ailing Nepean River; that toxic sludge may enter the waste stream; and that birds eating at the tip will interfere with aircraft at Badgerys Creek airport. Documents studied by the Opposition reveal that birds near airports are the cause of enormous concern. Badgerys Creek airport site does not have a bird problem yet, but if a putrescible waste depot is set up nearby it soon will.
The fourth concern is that landfill entombment will be entrenched as our solution to waste handling. The fifth concern is about the inadequacy of the clay liner. At present there is a non-putrescible waste dump with clean fill on site. Unless the Parliament takes steps to prevent that dump becoming a putrescible waste dump there will be a major environmental upheaval as development increases in the Badgerys Creek area and particularly near the airport. I share the Opposition's concern about this facility, following views expressed by the Environment Protection Authority about facilities surrounding the third runway at Mascot. The major concern of the EPA, apart from issues relating mainly to Botany Bay, is a generic one about the effect on bird life and seagulls. That concern cannot be ignored by this House. The honourable member for Badgerys Creek will welcome Parliament's intervention. She is well aware of the community's concerns about putrescible waste. It would also be in her interests to bring on the bill and have it passed through all stages. The Government's Landfill Depots (Moratorium) Bill will not see the light of day, so the Government should welcome this motion of urgency, which will achieve some of the objectives of that bill.
Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [3.24]: The honourable member for Penrith is clearly stating her claim for the vacant frontbench position in place of the soon to be passed over honourable member for Moorebank. The honourable member for Penrith has had three years in this House in which to move legislation. She is now claiming urgency on a private members' bill that she introduced. She has been a member of this Parliament for three years.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Blacktown to order.
Mr HARTCHER: She has been one of the most inactive members of this House. She has done nothing at all. The number of questions she has asked could be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Ms Allan: On a point of order: it is the Minister's responsibility at this stage to counter the Opposition's motion to establish urgency. Instead he has launched quite a vitriolic attack on the honourable member for Penrith. I ask that he be ruled out of order on the ground of irrelevancy.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Minister for the Environment to return to the question.
Mr HARTCHER: I submit I am being relevant because the issue of urgency is out of time. The honourable member for Penrith has had plenty of time to raise this matter. She now claims urgency for her motion. She has sat in this House and has asked very few questions and has made very few private members' statements. She has introduced no legislation apart from this bill. In the very last days of this Parliament she wants the House to set aside all its other business to compensate for her lack of activity. She would be one of the most inactive members to be found in any parliament anywhere. We heard nought from her on Mount Riverview and Amgrow. I received one letter from her. People in the Penrith electorate are screaming. She is an ineffectual and ineffective member.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Penrith to order.
Mr HARTCHER: If there is one thing we can look forward to, it is Jim Aitken taking his rightful place as the member for Penrith after 25 March.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister should return to the reasons this motion should not take precedence over other matters before this House.
Mr HARTCHER: This Parliament has a heavy legislative agenda before it. There is no reason for any particular preference to be given to the honourable member for Penrith or to any other member of the House.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Penrith to order for the second time.
Mr HARTCHER: The bill introduced by the honourable member for Penrith, poorly drafted as it is, is an inept exercise in political grandstanding and contributes nothing to the better government of New South Wales. It does not address fundamental landfill issues. For that reason the Government introduced its own landfill depots moratorium legislation, but that was not supported by the honourable member for Penrith. The honourable member does not support proper organised attempts to control landfill. She is on the record as being inactive on this particular issue. If her policies were allowed to be continued, the western areas of Sydney would be deluged with landfill areas. She and her council did nothing about the Castlereagh depot under the previous Labor Government.
Her inactivity when the previous Labor Government was in office, when Castlereagh was receiving thousands of tonnes of waste, is on the record - and that record is not to her credit. She has been inactive right across the board on landfill and odour issues, and on the whole range of environment issues that affect the people of Penrith and western Sydney. She has done nothing, but she now seeks to make political points. Her attempt this afternoon is yet another attempt by her party to make another political point. The Government strongly supports appropriate landfill control, and will make its position clear.
Page 6266
Mr Knowles: Bring your bill back.
Mr HARTCHER: The Government controls its own business. The Government does not support the urgency motion.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Moorebank to order. I call the honourable member for Blacktown to order for the second time.
Motion agreed to.
BADGERYS CREEK WASTE FACILITY BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 27 October.
Mrs COHEN (Badgerys Creek - Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services) [3.28]: I support the efforts of the people of Badgerys Creek. In supporting those efforts, I would like to refer to the history of the development of what is known as the Pacific Waste Management centre at Badgerys Creek. My concerns on this matter have been made clear. My first concern is about the environment. The Badgerys Creek site, which is very large and has had a long history, is bordered by two of the most sensitive creeks in that area. Work is being done in the South Creek valley catchment, and work is also being done by the Hawkesbury River and Nepean River trusts. The concept of putting a putrescible waste facility between two creeks that feed directly into the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment is unattractive and makes no environmental sense whatever.
Another factor that makes this development particularly outlandish is that it lies at the door of the future Badgerys Creek international airport site - just on the northern side of Elizabeth Drive. We should look at the history of the site to learn a little about the Pacific Waste Management Proprietary Limited concept at Badgerys Creek. It is a huge extension to the old Des Lake quarry - the original property in that area. The honourable member for Penrith, as mayor of Penrith City Council, approved the huge extension of the Des Lake property to the Pacific Waste Management development. Various people have informed me that after the Pacific Waste Management site was established it was put forward to various members of the council that at some stage application would be made for a putrescible licence.
Penrith City Council was extolling to Liverpool City Council and to all who would listen the virtue of fast-tracking and the desirability of having an airport at Badgerys Creek. It is somewhat staggering that it was so enthusiastic about this massive extension of the Pacific Waste Management site, particularly in an area that one would think would have been a logical place for the future commercial and industrial development of Badgerys Creek airport. I congratulate the councils for working very hard for the development of Badgerys Creek, but it is astonishing that one of those two Labor councils, while at the same time working for the development of that airport, encouraged a development which would only be detrimental for many years.
Mrs Lo Po': Not putrescible waste.
Mrs COHEN: The honourable member for Penrith says not putrescible waste, but quarrying and conducting a dry or putrescible waste operation is a very unattractive industry to find at the front door of an international airport. I would have thought it would be totally unsuitable. Equally I would have thought it could have been outlawed by the proper planning powers of the Penrith City Council. The putrescible waste tip is totally out of the question. In no way is it an acceptable use for that land or for that quarry. One would have thought that if the council was so totally opposed to this use and extension of the quarry, when Pacific Waste Management lodged its application with Penrith City Council it would have refused the application. But the case is now in the Land and Environment Court because the Penrith City Council did not act and failed to object to the putrescible waste application.
Mrs Lo Po': So why are we in court?
Mrs COHEN: The company having put in its application and not having the answer delivered by council in the time allowed took up its option to go to the Land and Environment Court, which forces the council to make a case before the court. Penrith City Council demanded a new environmental impact statement for the Pacific Waste Management development when it was extended -
Mr Scully: So you are voting for the bill?
Mrs COHEN: I shall return to the point I was at before the honourable member for wherever so rudely interrupted me.
Mr Scully: You lost your place!
Mrs COHEN: It is easy to lose one's place when you are in the Chamber. Penrith City Council demanded a new environmental impact statement for Pacific Waste Management's extension of the original quarry. When council insists on an environmental impact statement of magnificent proportions for a quarry, why does it not support a new environmental impact statement for the airport and the extension of the runway from 1,800 metres to 2,900? There seems to be an enormous conflict of interest in the attitude of Penrith City Council to putrescible waste, to airport development and to the need or otherwise for environmental impact statements. It would be a great help if one could find some consistency with the council. Perhaps then developers would know where they stood.
This site is but one of many waste stations in my electorate and in the area of Penrith City Council. One of the great mysteries of this legislation, and perhaps other legislation from the Labor Party, is why is the concentration only on this one site? Many other quarries operate, usually getting permission under the guise of extractive industries, and rapidly turn into Page 6267 dry waste dumps. It is hard to understand the focus of attention on Pacific Waste Management's waste facility at Kemps Creek. Perhaps it is the unique environmental factors of Pacific Waste Management's site at Kemps Creek. I am mystified as to why councils such as Penrith and Liverpool do not develop proper guidelines and proper criteria for the definition of extractive industries.
I am seeking meetings with Minister Causley, Minister Webster and the mining manufacturers group to try to define clearly what constitutes an extractive industry and what guidelines can be developed so that people cannot go digging up the landscape without having a proper use for the resource they are extracting. One of the first things these companies should be able to produce is an end use for the resource they are extracting. I hope in future we will have a clear definition of extractive industry based on the end use of the resource that is to be taken out of whatever hole is dug, because councils seem unable to control what happens. This legislation is reasonably simple but I shall seek to move an amendment to include the Erskine Park quarry site.
Mr Gibson: You might put Castlereagh in there too.
Mrs COHEN: That is up to the honourable member. When considering the need for putrescible waste sites we should look at the record, particularly Labor's record, on waste management. When the Leader of the Opposition, Bob Carr, was environment Minister prior to 1988 solid waste quantity increased from 2.2 million tonnes per year to 3.3 million tonnes per year - a 33 per cent increase. In contrast, the Government has reduced that figure to 2.8 million tonnes - a decrease of 17 per cent - since Labor lost government. Recycling and waste minimisation programs introduced and supported by the Government have produced a 7 per cent increase in recycling. Demand for putrescible waste facilities has slightly decreased. Two years ago we had only five years of landfill remaining; now we have approximately eight years of landfill remaining. The moratorium that is in place gives everybody breathing space. I am quite happy to support the efforts to prevent putrescible waste going into the Pacific Waste Management facility. It is a great pity that that particular facility was ever approved for such a massive extension, because I am certain that both the honourable member for Penrith and Penrith City Council must have been well aware what the next step would have been.
Mrs Lo Po': We were never going to let it happen.
Mrs COHEN: Why did you not refuse it when it came to council? Many issues are associated with putrescible waste in this electorate. One that should be addressed is not whether this bill passes through the House but implementing planning issues for the development of suitable areas for extractive industry to be refilled with dry waste later. My electorate has been badly treated and badly looked after. Many of these extractive industry sites have not been well maintained. I have looked at the Badgerys Creek Pacific Waste Management site. I am aware of the case being dealt by the Land and Environment Court, but I am not sure what stage it has reached. I am happy to support the residents in the Badgerys Creek area. I will move an amendment in Committee which will seek to exclude the Pacific Waste Management site and the quarry site at Erskine Park.
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [3.41]: When the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services was speaking earlier I heard the Minister for the Environment saying, "Hear, hear", on several occasions. I hope that translates into support when we vote on this legislation. The Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services said that she supported the bill and the proposed amendments, which are in line with the amendments moved by the Opposition to the Landfill (Depots) Moratorium Bill that was dealt with this week. The Badgerys Creek Waste Facility Bill, one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before the Parliament, will affect the environment of western Sydney. In the dying days of this Parliament it is important for all honourable members to place on record their support for or their opposition to a tip at Badgerys Creek.
The intent of the legislation is to impose a ban on the establishment of a privately owned putrescible waste dump to be owned and operated by Pacific Waste Management at Kemps Creek in the Badgerys Creek area. The Opposition has been forced to introduce this legislation because the Minister for the Environment and the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services have done nothing in this Parliament to prevent the establishment of this facility. We have been forced to try to keep the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services to her word. After all, on 24 January this year she wrote to Mr Munoz, convener of the Waste Crisis Network, and said:
Thank you for your recent letter to me concerning the proposal by Pacific Waste Management to establish a putrescible landfill at Kemps Creek.
I too share your concerns about this proposal and am opposed to it.
I have written to the Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Chris Hartcher, making him aware of my opposition to this proposal . . .
If this tip proposal is so terrible why has the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services not taken the opportunities afforded her as a member of Parliament and, more significantly, as a member of the Fahey Cabinet, to introduce legislation to stop the dump? The answer is simply because the Government supports the privatisation of waste management and the Pacific Waste Management proposal at Badgerys Creek; that is, up until the last five minutes, at least. The legislation should be passed today because the Government is determined to stop any legislation on this issue passing through the Parliament before the end of session and, in particular, before the 1995 State election. That was evident yesterday when the Minister for the Environment opposed my motion seeking leave to bring on this legislation.
Page 6268
Mr Hartcher: On a point of order: I did not oppose the honourable member's motion. She well knows that I did not oppose the granting of leave. Another honourable member in this House refused to grant leave.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved.
Ms ALLAN: I appreciate how sensitive the Minister for the Environment must be on this issue. His own legislation, the Landfill (Depot) Moratorium Bill, to which he referred so eloquently -
Mr Hartcher: On a point of order: this is a specific bill - the Badgerys Creek Waste Facility Bill. The honourable member cannot refer to other legislation. She is now referring to a speech I made to a different bill.
Ms ALLAN: On the point of order: the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services said earlier that she intends supporting this bill and that she will be moving an amendment to ban the Erskine Park tip facility. That is the specific intent of the Landfill (Depot) Moratorium Bill. I think the matter is related.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a site specific bill. Although the Chief Secretary made a passing reference to what she might do in Committee, she did not develop the matter. I direct the member for Blacktown to return to the subject matter of the bill: the Badgerys Creek site.
Ms ALLAN: The Government is holding out a carrot by saying that it will support an amendment that we propose to this legislation so that it can establish some credibility on the banning of waste dump sites in western Sydney. The Government has been forced into this situation today by the successful motion in the House this afternoon to ensure urgency for the bill introduced by the honourable member for Penrith. The Government, in an opportunistic fashion, seeks to broaden the intent of that legislation and to pick up on other proposed landfill sites in western Sydney, including Erskine Park. If this legislation is not passed today there will not be a moratorium on new tips in western Sydney. Specifically, there will be no ban on the Pacific Waste Management development. The Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services referred earlier to a current moratorium on the landfill site for putrescible waste. I am not sure what section of western Sydney she is residing in, or what section she seeks to represent, as there is no such moratorium.
If the bill is passed this afternoon the Badgerys Creek site will not be used as a new putrescible waste tip. If the Government tries to amend this legislation this afternoon, based on its own aborted legislation, we may see a moratorium in other areas. We have the ridiculous situation of the Government purporting to support a moratorium on new landfill development, but being unable to enforce it because it has not passed the requisite legislation. The main question that arises from the lack of the Government's own waste legislation is: why has it been so silent on the future of the Pacific Waste Management proposal until this afternoon? It looks like the Minister for the Environment has seen a ghost.
Mr Hartcher: I am looking at you.
Ms ALLAN: He looks like a drunken rabbit caught in the lights of an oncoming National Party four-wheel drive machine.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for the Environment will cease interjecting and the honourable member for Blacktown will address the Chair.
Ms ALLAN: It is disconcerting to see crazy rabbits when one is driving along late at night. Why did the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services, in her speech in the second reading debate, fail to mention the Pacific Waste Management tip or her opposition to it? Her silence on that critical, broad legislation reveals -
Mr Hartcher: On a point of order: the honourable member keeps referring to other legislation on a site specific bill.
Ms ALLAN: On the point of order: I am referring specifically to the Pacific Waste Management tip site at Badgerys Creek, which is what this bill is all about. It is unfortunate - and perhaps embarrassing - for the Minister that a landfill moratorium is a related but different subject, but it is definitely related to this legislation. I should have an opportunity to refer to it.
Mr Knowles: On the point of order: the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services made specific reference in her remarks in the second reading debate to the Landfill (Depot) Moratorium Bill. The honourable member for Blacktown made a specific reference to the remarks of the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services in this debate.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! It would have been perfectly in order for Opposition members to take a point of order on the Chief Secretary if they believed her remarks to be outside the leave of the bill - as they may well have been. Any reference to the operation of a waste facility at the site named in the bill is obviously within the scope of the bill. Similarly, references to the disposal of waste generally in the area around the waste facility are in order as they relate to the cessation or continuation of operations at the facility. The member for Blacktown, who is an experienced debater, should ensure that her remarks are relevant to the scope of the bill.
Ms ALLAN: As the House and the community would be aware, one of the reasons that debate on this bill is a cause célèbre in western Sydney is that it concerns the banning of a private company from the first opportunity to convert a non-putrescible waste dump into a putrescible waste dump. The Minister for the Environment might think that is amusing, but the people who live in western Sydney, the Page 6269 constituents of the Chief Secretary, who is the member for Badgerys Creek, and other residents in the Penrith local government area recognise the importance of the debate. The public relations representatives of Pacific Waste Management, who are in the public gallery at present, also recognise the importance of the debate. They know that on this legislation hangs not only the future of the putrescible waste dump but also the Government's whole privatisation policy on waste.
It was the approval given to the Pacific Waste Management tip originally, the encouragement given by the Government in line with its waste privatisation agenda, for the company to seek to extend its licence from non-putrescible waste to putrescible waste that led to the problem that confronts the House this afternoon. The Opposition has brought forward a resolution to the problem, a private member's bill to ban a putrescible waste dump at Badgerys Creek. The passage of the bill is a crucial test of the Government's waste management policy. It is a test for the Minister for the Environment in particular because he is responsible for waste management and he would be responsible for a potential tip at Badgerys Creek, in the event that the bill failed.
The Minister has two options. He could either back the Chief Secretary, who has already indicated her support, in line with an amendment she may possibly move, if she has the courage to proceed to the stage of voting, and vote with the Labor Party to ban those polluting tips, including a tip at Badgerys Creek. On the other hand, the Minister could continue to oppose the legislation and support privatisation of waste management, a policy that has been overwhelmingly rejected by the community and by local government in this State. Either way, the decision of the Minister for the Environment on the bill will have dire electoral consequences for the Government. There is no doubt that the Government's waste privatisation program will be a major issue right up to the forthcoming State election in March.
Mr Hartcher: What about aircraft noise?
Ms ALLAN: One does not have to be a genius to work out that that is an issue, just like the privatisation of waste -
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I put the Minister for the Environment on three calls to order. If he wishes to remain in the Chamber to vote on the bill, he should heed the warnings of the Chair.
Ms ALLAN: It is very interesting that the Minister for the Environment considers that only one environmental issue will be a matter of consequence in the forthcoming election. Where has the Minister been for the past three years that he does not realise to what extent the privatisation of waste management in this State is an overwhelming electoral issue?
Mr Hartcher: On a point of order: I realise that this may seem somewhat repetitious, but I submit that the subject of the debate is not the privatisation of waste. The honourable member for Blacktown has strayed well away from the leave of the bill. She is canvassing the whole issue of the privatisation of waste. I ask that you call her back to the subject of the debate.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sure that the member for Blacktown is making only a passing reference to privatisation. The leave of the bill does not allow members to canvass the whole issue of waste disposal management and the administration of waste disposal facilities. The bill relates specifically to a ban on the use of a particular site as a putrescible waste dump. The member for Blacktown should confine her remarks to that subject matter.
Ms ALLAN: The community of western Sydney should recognise that even if the Government changes its vote this afternoon, a new Pacific Waste Management proposal for a putrescible waste tip will be on the agenda for Badgerys Creek should the Fahey Government be re-elected in March 1995. The proposal would get the thumbs up. [Time expired.]
Mr GIBSON (Londonderry) [3.55]: The Opposition is opposed to the establishment of a putrescible waste dump. The Opposition opposes private ownership of landfill sites. I know a little about landfill sites, having one of the greatest monstrosities of all time in my electorate. The most recent speaker for the Government said that Penrith City Council has many tips under its control. That is a fact. It should be noted, however, that the council has a great deal of land designated for housing. It is true that some land could be used for other purposes, but most of it is crisscrossed by creeks and rivers.
Mr Hartcher: On a point of order: I hesitate to interrupt the honourable member for Londonderry but he is dealing with issues of Penrith council residential development; he is not dealing with the subject of this bill, which is whether the waste facility at Badgerys Creek should be able to obtain a licence.
Mr GIBSON: On the point of order: I have every right in the way that I debate this topic to reply to any statement made by any member of the Government. It was not me who brought Penrith council into the debate; it was the Chief Secretary. All I am doing is replying to what the Chief Secretary said. I am entitled to do that.
Mr Knowles: On the point of order. In addition to the points made by the honourable member for Londonderry, the honourable member for Penrith, in her contribution to the second reading debate, referred extensively to the Penrith City Council environmental planning management report about the proposed landfill depot. The report canvasses all of the issues such as housing impact, population impact and land use impact in the area of Penrith city - all points that the Minister for the Environment wants to stop the honourable member for Londonderry from referring to. This is certainly germane to the decision of the House as to whether or not the landfill should proceed, having a major impact on all of the other land use decisions surrounding the site.
Page 6270
Mr SPEAKER: Order! A difficult question of relevance has been raised. The subject matter of the bill is specific: whether a particular parcel of land may be used as a putrescible waste disposal site. If the object of the bill was to establish such a facility, and the bill contained provisions for its establishment, obviously debate would be wide ranging and not restricted to the issue of whether land may be used for a specific purpose. To the extent that I have permitted other members to make passing reference to matters, I shall permit the member for Londonderry also to make passing reference. However, members are not permitted to canvass all the options available to Penrith council or any other council with regard to waste management.
Mr GIBSON: The Opposition opposes the private ownership of landfill. The Government does not seem to have any solution to the problem of waste management, other than landfill. If there is a problem with waste the Government does not worry about neutralysis or distant transport. The Government flogs it to the private sector and a private tip is established, such as the proposed facility at Badgerys Creek. If this facility were established at Badgerys Creek the same thing would happen as happened with the Londonderry tip. Therefore, It should not go ahead. The Minister for the Environment need not shake his head. I can tell him why it should not go ahead. If the Minister is saying the bill is confined to a specific area, we might as well stop debating it. If he took every bill to the letter of the law there would be no debate whatsoever. I did not see any Government members shaking their heads when a tip was proposed for the other side of Penrith, but that was in a Labor-held seat. This is in a Government-held seat - a seat that the Chief Secretary is hanging on to by the threads -
Mrs Cohen: Do you want a bet?
Mr GIBSON: I will bet. The Londonderry tip, on the other side of Penrith, which the Chief Secretary supported, was going to be 12 times the size of the Sydney business district. There was no talk then about moratoriums and about not having such a tip. There was no talk about the debate being confined to cover one specific area. One truck every three minutes was going to take garbage to western Sydney. If the Badgerys Creek proposal goes ahead it will be Londonderry revisited. The Badgerys Creek area is bigger than that which was proposed for Londonderry. A tip at Badgerys Creek would cause destruction of flora and fauna. There are many creeks in the area, and if the proposal goes ahead the tip would also leach. Mr Speaker is aware of the condition of the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system. If the Government does not support this proposal, it would be the death knell for the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system. It would be more polluted than ever.
The Minister for the Environment is hypocritical when he jumps up and down during debate on landfill sites. I would like to see him jump up and down when he talks about the million tonnes of toxic waste at Castlereagh. If the Government does not support the Opposition's bill it will support another situation like Castlereagh. People in Londonderry could be dying because of the tip at Castlereagh. A recent report released by the Department of Health showed that the number of people who are dying with brain tumours within three kilometres of the dump is six times the average, yet the Government argues in favour of starting another landfill site in Sydney. Children are being born with cleft palates. No-one knows the reason, but nothing is heard from the Government.
I would like to hear the Government say it has decided on a moratorium on the issue. The Chief Secretary, the member for Badgerys Creek, spoke about a moratorium on landfill. I would like to hear her talk about a moratorium on Castlereagh. The people of this State would throw their hands up in support of such a moratorium. In one part of Sydney people could be dying because of the landfill and in another part of Sydney there is going to be a moratorium. The Government may not support the bill to stop the landfill. The Chief Secretary said the moratorium is needed because the tip would be too close to houses. I support that view. She said the other main reason is that it would smell. The people of Castlereagh would not disagree with her on either point. People's lives could be at risk because of landfills.
This question is not about landfill or stopping another landfill site. It is to save the backside of the Chief Secretary - the member for Badgerys Creek. The Chief Secretary has indicated already that she will move an amendment about Erskine Park. The only reason she will not support landfill at Erskine Park is that it would be too close to the residential area and because of the smell. It will be interesting to see how the Government votes on the bill. The people of western Sydney will never forgive the Government if it does not support the bill. If the Chief Secretary moves the amendment relating to Erskine Park, the Opposition will probably move an amendment to cover Castlereagh. The Opposition will support the Government's motion with regard to Erskine Park, but I wonder if the Government will support the Opposition's motion with regard to Castlereagh. That will show if the Government is sincere about the landfill crisis in this State.
There are only six to eight years of landfill left in the State. It is a major problem. Fleeting references have been made to the Landfill Depots (Moratorium) Bill, on which debate commenced. However, the Government will not bring that debate on. The Government should give some thought to the problem of landfill in this State. After March next year the Opposition in government will be able to give it some thought. The Government has given no thought to minimisation of waste; it handed it over to local councils, who have to minimise waste by at least 50 per cent by the year 2000. The Government is not doing much about it. The Government is great on recycling but it never gives financial support to local councils to do something about it. No thought is given to neutralysis or distant transfer. A lot of thought should be given to industry, which creates much of the waste involved.
Page 6271
I support the bill. It will be interesting to see which way the Government votes. It wants to privatise everything and if it stays in power until the year 2000 there will be nothing left. The Government talks about selling the farm. Most of the farm is gone. The Opposition will not support that type of situation. I wait with bated breath to see which way the Government votes on the amendments that will be moved in relation to Erskine Park and Castlereagh.
Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank) [4.08]: It is interesting to observe the Government's policy development process in relation to waste management. Most honourable members have been involved with development of policy. An idea is usually formed, followed by public consultation and in some cases the preparation of a green paper. In this matter the Minister produced a waste management green paper. If one reads that paper one learns about the waste management crisis, the Government's objectives and the range of community initiatives that are required.
Mr Hartcher: On a point of order: Mr Speaker, you have ruled that this is a geographically specific bill. The honourable member cannot quote documents which are issued generally on the issue of waste and seek to canvass the whole issue of waste. That is a general document issued in relation to waste management in this State. It is not relevant to whether or not one geographically specific area is given a licence to have putrescible waste.
Mr KNOWLES: On the point of order: I have been speaking for about 30 seconds. I thought that introductory remarks about waste management and a waste management facility at Badgerys Creek might have been germane. More importantly, the issue of landfill sites in Sydney is canvassed chapter after chapter in the waste management green paper, as it was in the subsequent documents arising out of the green paper. I should like to make at least a passing reference to the documents.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind members that the leave of the question before the House is determined by the member who places the question before the House. It is not the fault of the Chair that the bill is couched in restrictive terms; that is the prerogative of the member who introduced the bill. The leave of the bill does not enable broad-ranging debate on waste management in New South Wales per se. I will allow a passing reference, but I ask the member for Moorebank to come to the leave of the bill as quickly as possible.
Mr KNOWLES: Mr Speaker, during your ruling, the Minister for the Environment said that Opposition members want to talk about his earlier bill.
Mr Hartcher: On a point of order: Mr Speaker, you allowed the honourable member to speak on the bill. However, he now wants to talk about a conversation that I had with the Leader of the Government about members speaking.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Moorebank will ignore interjections and comment from members, and address his remarks through the Chair.
Mr KNOWLES: I am more than happy to refer to the bill. However, I thought that, in the context of a government that spouts policy principles, and given its credentials on waste management - the Government's waste management green paper, followed by the joint select committee report on waste management which arose out of the waste management green paper, and followed by the subsequent Landfill Depots (Moratorium) Bill calling for further public consultation arising out of the two earlier reports - there was a fairly good indication that the Government was attempting to establish a policy stance on waste management for Sydney. After all, a letter dated 29 November from Pacific Waste Management Proprietary Limited stated:
EIS preparation and lodgment, the DA process and appeals take at best five years. The Government Bill effectively means that there will be no additional landfill capacity for at least eight years. Sydney, on the Waste Service's own estimates, has less than 8 years landfill capacity left.
The point that I am trying to make, despite the Minister's protestations and attempts to deny me an opportunity to make my point, is that having spent the best part of three years on consultation, policy development, preparation, production of reports, legislation committees, and further legislation to allow further consultation, the Minister for the Environment, in the last dying days of the Government and after seven years of opportunity, is throwing that away purely for expediency. The Minister introduced the Landfill Depots (Moratorium) Bill in response to the Badgerys Creek Waste Facility Bill. The Minister knew that that would put the honourable member for Badgerys Creek in a difficult position. The honourable member for Badgerys Creek sent a letter to a Mr Menoz dated 24 January 1994, in which she stated that she shared his concern about the Badgerys Creek proposal. I quote:
Thank you for your recent letter to me concerning the proposal by Pacific Waste Management to establish a putrescible landfill at Kemps Creek. I too share your concerns about this proposal, and am opposed to it. I have written to the Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Chris Hartcher, making him aware of my opposition to this proposal. Thank you for inviting me to attend your meeting on Friday, 4 February. Unfortunately, due to prior commitments, I will be unable to attend.
That is the position of the honourable member for Badgerys Creek on the Badgerys Creek Waste Facility Bill. Apparently she will support it. In addition to that, she told us earlier today that she will be moving a further amendment to ban the Erskine Park landfill. That is interesting, given the Government's work over the past three years, given its identified waste crisis, given its recommendations in the legislation committee and given the Minister's bill to establish a moratorium for further consultation. The Minister has thrown that all away. Once again, he has agreed to wipe that out without any consideration, policy development or consultation.
Mr Hartcher: On a point of order: once again, the member for Moorebank is referring to the whole issue of waste management, the waste policy Page 6272 statements, and what the Minister may or may not be doing about waste management. He is not within the leave of the bill. Mr Speaker, I ask you to ask the member again to speak to the leave of the bill.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understand that the member for Moorebank was about to link his comments to the Badgerys Creek site. Therefore, the prefatory remarks are in order.
Mr KNOWLES: Mr Speaker, it is nice to know that you are paying attention. Obviously, the Minister for the Environment is not paying attention.
Mr Hartcher: Who would bother?
Mr KNOWLES: For the record, the Minister for the Environment asked: Who would want to listen? I would have thought that 1.2 million people in western Sydney would want to listen to the outcome of this debate. Mr Speaker, you represent a western Sydney electorate, as does the member for Badgerys Creek. That is at least two government members who would like this debate to be opened fully so that people in western Sydney can know whether that region will be treated as the dumping ground for the rest of Sydney's waste, or whether the Government will do something about stopping the region from being used as a tip site. I thought the Minister for the Environment, after all his hard work and hard policy activities, might have taken an interest in that as well.
Many organisations are concerned about the establishment of a landfill site at Badgerys Creek. I shall refer to some of them for the record. The environment planning report for the proposed general solid waste landfill depot at Elizabeth Drive, Badgerys Creek, for Pacific Waste Management Proprietary Limited and dated July 1994 states that a large number of public and private organisations made submissions objecting to the establishment of this facility. The report notes that there was extensive public consultation as part of the development application process, involving government agencies, residents, landowners and community environmental groups. The National Parks and Wildlife Service stated:
The EIS does not address the effect of leachate on the Badgerys Creek corridor
In the report, the Western Sector Public Health Unit is reported to have:
. . . raised concern over the possibility of accepting certain liquid wastes and sludges. Would these be the same as those being accepted at Castlereagh Depot? If so their support is not granted.
The member for Londonderry made a clear and direct reference to the problems that he has experienced as a local member in relation to the effects of landfill and the dumping of liquid wastes and sludges at Castlereagh. Despite the Minister's lack of concern, 1.2 million residents in western Sydney do not want another Castlereagh at Badgerys Creek. It is fair to say that we simply do not want it there. The Department of Conservation and Land Management indicated that the V-shaped terraces - the structural entity to hold the waste - for drainage were not appropriate. I quote:
Stormwater drainage in a non-erosive manner is more readily achievable by constructing terraces with either trapezoidal or parabolic cross sectional drains.
The much talked about Federal Airports Corporation made it clear that on the issue of bird strike the work done on the environmental impact statement and the development application was inadequate. It said:
The bird census undertaken is not considered adequate, given the duration and seasonal timing of the survey.
The Department of Water Resources made it clear that there were problems with the location of various cells. It also made it clear that high levels of ammonia had been detected in the ground water, indicating that some contamination of ground water could and probably would occur, if it had not occurred already. The Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services - the honourable member for Badgerys Creek - indicated that she had contacted the Minister for Land and Water Conservation about this issue. The Department of Mineral Resources is also concerned. It originally objected to the proposal because it represented a sterilisation of clay and shale resources on site. It might be interesting to read what the Environment Protection Authority said, as the Minister for the Environment is at the table:
The proponent -
- should be required to provide in relation to the issue of waste minimisation further and substantial advice on the pricing policy (including consideration of differential pricing) to be pursued and the policy on acceptance and redirection of wastes, and on-site aggregation of processing of wastes.
- could be asked to re-examine the alternative landfill design philosophies, and their different and consequential aftercare requirements.
- needs to re-examine the effects on adjacent and upstream land, of the changes to local stream behaviour brought about by the proposal.
These substantial and legitimate concerns have not been addressed during the assessment process, which is one of the reasons the matter is before the court. The community is outraged. The Government has to consider whether it will throw away years of hard work and policy development, and ignore the waste crisis it has talked about month in, month out, through an inquiry, through a green paper and through further legislation, because on the last day of the sittings of Parliament the Chief Secretary is to be put to the test. I have heard of protecting your mates, but this is an interesting development. It will be interesting to see what this bloke, the Minister for the Environment, does. Does he have the guts to maintain a policy position that he has trumpeted month after month, question time after question time, or will he squib it and let a vote be taken to close down the facility? The Labor Party does not want western Sydney used as a dumping ground for the rest of Sydney's waste. It will oppose the siting of a waste facility at Badgerys Creek. It will be interesting to see how the Chief Secretary votes.
Page 6273
Mrs LO PO' (Penrith) [4.22], in reply: I thank all honourable members who participated in the debate. Despite the fact that the Minister got off his bike several times and tried to be silly, I think there is general consensus. The Chief Secretary and I would agree that there is a need to take some care and control in the Badgerys Creek area. It will also be necessary to assess the Erskine Park quarry. While the Opposition has no objection to the Erskine Park quarry site and the Badgerys Creek site taking non-putrescible waste, there is a concern that putrescible waste will create another set of problems - a seagull problem and a leachate problem. The Opposition will push on with the amendments moved by the Chief Secretary, but I am somewhat confused by them.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Penrith may give consideration to the amendments in Committee, at which time they will be dealt with.
Mrs LO PO': I wanted to flag to the Chief Secretary that I have some difficulty with her amendments. I consider the Badgerys Creek Waste Facility Bill as site specific. I think the honourable member has taken it to mean her electorate, therefore encompassing all sites in Badgerys Creek, but that is not my intent. I am flagging to her that I have a problem with her amendments, because they will change the title of the bill, and I am not sure that we can do that. One of the things that has prompted this move today is that under Standing Order 54, the Opposition acquired a lot of documents about the third runway. In dealing with the third runway the EPA dwelt largely on bird life pertaining to that airport. When the Badgerys Creek airport is set up we will have created a bird life that does not exist, but will exist the minute that a putrescible waste depot is located there. The pattern of birds, and seagulls in particular, is that they dine out on such waste. They will travel for kilometres to get it. I have seen seagulls scavenging in Goulburn Park. We will be creating a problem.
I can see no solution to the leachate problem because the clay liner inside the tip is not adequate. Overseas they are using not only clay liners, but plastic liners. However, no such suggestion has been forthcoming in this instance. You would know, Mr Speaker, that the site is right on Badgerys Creek, which goes into South Creek, which goes into the Nepean River - a river in need of help and not more pollution. The only solution we are considering is the entombing of waste. To adopt such a solution means that our grandchildren will have to deal with the problem, but I am not prepared to allow that. The Western Districts Health Union is concerned about toxic sludge being put in the dump, as it is in Castlereagh. Instead of having one problem at Castlereagh, we will create another one at Badgerys Creek. I am deeply concerned and I know that the Chief Secretary shares my concern. It is my hope that we can achieve a mutually acceptable solution, but I am flagging to her that as her amendments stand I find them very difficult to understand.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Clause 3
Mrs COHEN (Badgerys Creek - Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services) [4.31]: I move:
No. 1 Page 2, clause 3. After line 10, insert:
(2) This Act also applies to land consisting of Lot 91 in DP 838541 at Erskine Park in the Parish of Melville and County of Cumberland, at the corner of Erskine Park Road and Mamre Road in the City of Penrith.
Mrs LO PO' (Penrith) [4.32]: The Opposition supports the amendment.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Mr Glachan): Order! I was given a copy of this amendment earlier and I have given consideration to whether it is in order. The bill relates to a specific block of land and a particular facility. As it is outside the scope of the bill I rule the amendment out of order.
Clause agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.
STANDING ORDERS AND PROCEDURE COMMITTEE
Report
Mr Speaker laid upon the Table the report of the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee on the Repeal of Existing Standing Orders and Adoption of New Standing Orders, dated 2 December 1994.
Ordered to be printed.
STANDING ORDERS
Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services) [4.34]: I move:
(1) That the Standing Orders approved by the Governor on 11 June 1894 and reprinted with additional and amended Standing Orders since that date be repealed.
(2) That the Standing Orders adopted by the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee on 2 December 1994, be approved by the House.
(3) That the new Standing Orders be forwarded to His Excellency the Governor by the Speaker for approval.
This is a most important day for the Parliament. This document for which adoption is sought represents the most significant change to standing orders of this House. This year is the 100th anniversary of standing orders first being assented to by the Governor of the day. Since 1894 the standing orders have been the subject of many amendments and changes but have never been completely reprinted. The standing orders to be presented to His Excellency the Governor in 1994 will have been drafted in plain English, not in the legalese of our forebears in 1894. It is hoped that, as a result of that redrafting, those who come into this House as members of Parliament, as staff of Page 6274 this establishment, as casual observers, or as readers of Hansard, will have a better understanding of what we do and why we do it.
Mr Speaker, I thank you and my colleagues on the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee, which, under your chairmanship, considered these standing orders. More particularly, I the clerks, who, with yourself, Mr Speaker, spent considerable time during the winter recess translating the wording of sections of the old standing orders into plain English. Those sections were then coordinated in final form by Mark Swinson, the Deputy Clerk. I thank sincerely all those associated with facilitating this most momentous document. As a result, all sessional orders that currently prescribe the procedures of this House will be adopted into standing orders. There is no sessional order that has not become a standing order. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [4.38]: I join the Government Leader of the House in thanking the clerks for their work on this measure. These new standing orders and rules of the Legislative Assembly are to be adopted on the 100th anniversary of assent to the original standing orders. Plain English is the order of the day for legislation. It is appropriate that Parliament should bring itself up to date in 1994. That may take some getting used to. However, as the Government leader in the House said, this document will enable those not conversant with parliamentary process to understand it. Standing orders need to be developed to keep pace with constant change in society. Undoubtedly, standing orders will be changed by future administrations to suit the government of the day or to suit the position of members of Parliament.
All Standing orders are now contained in one compendium, one document. That is a most encouraging sign. These standing orders, to be adopted by the Parliament today, are sanctioned under the Constitution as part of the process of government. With the passage of time it is likely that future governments will not adopt the view taken by the current membership of the Legislative Assembly. This morning I was somewhat critical of the Legislative Council, and I have been chided by some of its members for that criticism. Not before time our rules and standing orders have been brought into the twentieth century.
Mr HATTON (South Coast) [4.39]: I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your patience and input at numerous meetings of the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee, which has presented a new set of standing orders on the 100th anniversary of the presentation of the Parliament's first rules and standing orders. I particularly thank the clerks for the difficult work they undertook. I also thank Tim Moore. Although many of his suggestions were not adopted, his drive, vision and dedication with regard to the standing orders of the Parliament and the formulation of the charter of reform shone through at all times.
Standing orders empower backbench members with a greater feeling of participation and provide them with many more opportunities to contribute to debate. As a result of private members' days backbench members know more about procedure and how to process a bill through the House. Honourable members have become aware of the necessity to write precise instructions for Parliamentary Counsel and how important it is to be familiar with the procedure relating to amending bills. The Opposition has been given the opportunity to have bills passed by the Parliament - it has had to share that responsibility with the Government. That was not the situation when I became a member of this Parliament.
Private members days have worked particularly well. The House record is five short second reading speeches in half an hour. It has been an extraordinarily efficient use of Parliament's time, as has the private members' motions procedure - a far cry from the set play every Thursday under the previous standing orders. The far more democratic process provides for matters of public importance; new arrangements for urgency motions; a question time that guarantees 10 answers to questions and the opportunity to ask supplementary questions; questions upon notice that must be answered within a particular period of time otherwise the Minister is asked to explain the delay to the House; and new procedures with regard to no confidence and censure motions that give the person the subject of the motion or the Premier on behalf of the Government - if it is a no confidence motion in the Government - two opportunities to respond at the end of the debate as well as making an initial contribution.
Having standing orders written in plain English will make it much easier for members of Parliament. This is important because the turnover of members in modern parliaments is quite rapid and, therefore, the learning process has to be rapid if they are to participate in meaningful debate. The Parliament belongs to the members of Parliament. I hope that as a result of these initiatives it will not be as easy for the Executive to regard Parliament as a convenience to serve its wishes or demands; that we will see Parliament become more like the Westminster model where members are not slaves to party allegiances, not slaves to the Executive; and the Parliament is a place to express personal wishes and the desires, aspirations, dreams and needs of constituents. This is truly an historic occasion. I congratulate the sessional orders committee. I thank my fellow Independents, the Government and the Opposition. I am very proud to be a part of the process.
Mr CLOUGH (Bathurst) [4.44]: I am pleased that we have moved into the twentieth century. But one thing I noticed when I was re-elected to this House was that questions without notice had become very much questions upon notice. This change started prior to 1988 when questions were farmed out to members of the then Labor Government. The new standing orders allow questions to be read. Ministers read long written replies. In my view, that has taken a lot of character out of question time. I have noticed that honourable members religiously read their speeches - they seem to have lost the art of debating without notes and without reference to written speeches. I trust that when the Parliament resumes after the next election that practice will be reconsidered. Consideration should also be given to limiting the time Ministers have to answer questions.
Page 6275
I remember once when I was sitting on the Government benches the former Minister for Corrective Services, Rex Jackson, took 30 seconds to answer a question and spent 22½ minutes replying to an interjection from the then honourable member for Gordon. I would like to see some character put back into the operation of the House during question time. I attend question time under duress because it no longer is entertaining. For members of the general public, it is a tedious exhibition of one side scoring points off the other. I say to the Leader of Government Business in this House that we should let this place run like a parliament and let the members of Parliament do the job they are supposed to do. It has been said that members of Parliament can talk under wet concrete: I have not seen much evidence of that in the last 3½ years.
Younger members of Parliament are particular about putting a speech together so that they can read page after page. The art of debating has been lost. I would like consideration to be given to ensuring that Ministers do not read lengthy answers to prepared questions that are read by honourable members. The same procedure should apply to the Opposition. The system of rostering people to ask questions has taken all the fun out of question time. I well recall hearing two questions on the one day, both asked of Peter Cox, the then Minister for Transport. His only response to the people sitting next to him was, "Why me? What have I done to deserve this?"
Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services) [4.48], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Bathurst for a very accurate reflection of what happens in this Parliament. I also thank the honourable member for South Coast and the honourable member for Ashfield for their support for this motion.
Motion agreed to.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Printing of Reports
Motion by Mr West agreed to:
That the following annual reports be printed:
Cabinet Office Government Pricing Tribunal Parliamentary Counsel's Office
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION (AMENDMENT) BILL
In Committee
Consideration of Legislative Council's amendments
Schedule of amendments referred to in message of 1 December.
No. 1 Page 3, clause 3. Lines 3 and 4. Omit "or involve a contravention", insert instead "a breach".
No. 2 Page 3-7, clause 3. Line 7 on page 3 to line 5 on page 7. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:
PART 7A - PARLIAMENTARY ETHICAL STANDARDS
Division 1 - Legislative Council
Definition
72A. In this Division:
"designated committee" means the committee of the Legislative Council that is for the time being designated under section 72B.
Designation of committee
72B. (1) As soon as practicable after the commencement of this Division and the commencement of the first session of each Parliament, a committee of the Legislative Council is to be designated by resolution of the Legislative Council as the designated committee for the purposes of this Division.
(2) Another committee of the Legislative Council may be designated by such a resolution from time to time in place of any previously designated.
(3) The designation of a committee under this section does not affect the functions that the committee has apart from this Division.
Functions of committee
72C. (1) The functions of the designated committee are:
(a) to prepare for consideration by the Legislative Council draft codes of conduct for members of the Legislative Council and draft amendments to codes of conduct already adopted; and
(b) to carry out educative work relating to ethical standards applying to members of the Legislative Council; and
(c) to give advice in relation to such ethical standards in response to requests for advice by the Legislative Council, but not in relation to actual or alleged conduct of any particular person.
(2) The designated committee may seek comments from the public in relation to any of its functions under this section.
(3) Before being presented for consideration by the Legislative Council, the designated committee must:
(a) give public notice of the place at which, the dates on which, and the times during which, a draft code of conduct may be inspected by the public; and
(b) publicly exhibit a copy of the draft code of conduct at the place, on the dates and during the times set out in the notice; and
(c) specify, in the notice, the period during which submission may be made to the committee.
(4) Any person may, during the period referred to in subsection (3) (c), make submissions in writing to the designated committee with respect to the provisions of the draft code of conduct. The committee must take any such submissions into consideration.
(5) Within 12 months after the commencement of this Division, the designated committee is to present for consideration by the Legislative Council a draft code of conduct for members of the Legislative Council.
(6) The designated committee is to review the code of conduct at least once in each period of two years.
Division 2 - Legislative Assembly
Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services) [4.51]: I move:
That Legislative Council amendment No. 1 be agreed to.
Page 6276
The Independent Commission Against Corruption can include in a report a finding or opinion that a member of Parliament or Ministers have engaged in corrupt conduct. This bill has been amended to provide that the ICAC must first be satisfied that the conduct could also constitute a breach of the law other than the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act. The bill previously required the ICAC to be satisfied that the conduct could also constitute or involve a contravention of the law other than the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act. This amendment is intended to remove uncertainty as to the conduct which might be caught by the expression "or involve a contravention". Concerns were raised that the original wording might be so wide as to be triggered by the conduct of persons other than a member of Parliament or a Minister, in circumstances where the member of Parliament or a Minister could be said to be involved with those other persons.
Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [4.52]: The Opposition acknowledges the decision by the Legislative Council to amend the bill. It would serve no purpose, in view of potential voting habits, for us to do anything other than say that we will not be seeking a division on this amendment.
Motion agreed to.
Legislative Council's amendment No. 1 agreed to.
Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services) [4.53]: I move:
That Legislative Council amendment No. 2 be amended as follows:
(a) by omitting from proposed section 72C (3) the words "being presented" and by inserting instead the words "presenting a draft code of conduct";
(b) by omitting the heading "Division 2 - Legislative Assembly" and by inserting instead the following:
Division 2 - Legislative Assembly
Constitution of Standing Ethics Committee
72D. There is constituted by this Division a committee, to be known as the Standing Ethics Committee.
Functions
72E. (1) The functions of the Standing Ethics Committee are:
(a) to prepare for consideration by the Legislative Assembly draft codes of conduct for members of the Legislative Assembly and draft amendments to codes of conduct already adopted; and
(b) to carry out educative work relating to ethical standards applying to members of the Legislative Assembly; and
(c) to give advice in relation to such ethical standards in response to requests for advice by the Legislative Assembly, but not in relation to actual or alleged conduct of any particular person.
(2) The Standing Ethics Committee may seek comments from the public in relation to any of its functions under this section.
(3) Before presenting a draft code of conduct for consideration by the Legislative Assembly, the Standing Ethics Committee must:
(a) give public notice of the place at which, the dates on which, and the times during which, a draft code of conduct may be inspected by the public; and
(b) publicly exhibit a copy of the draft code of conduct at the place, on the dates and during the times set out in the notice; and
(c) specify, in the notice, the period during which submissions may be made to the Committee.
(4) Any person may, during the period referred to in subsection (3) (c), make submissions in writing to the Standing Ethics Committee with respect to the provisions of the draft code of conduct. The Committee must take any such submissions into consideration.
(5) Within 12 months after the commencement of this Division, the Standing Ethics Committee is to present for consideration by the Legislative Assembly a draft code of conduct for members of the Legislative Assembly.
(6) The Standing Ethics Committee is to review the code of conduct at least once in each period of two years.
Membership
72F. (1) The Standing Ethics Committee is to consist of 9 members, comprising:
(a) 6 parliamentary members, being the persons who are for the time being the members of the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption and who are also members of the Legislative Assembly; and
(b) 3 community members, being persons who are appointed by at least 4 of the parliamentary members from applicants following public advertisement.
(2) A person cannot be appointed as a community member if the person is a member of either House of Parliament or a member of a party registered under Part 4A of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912.
(3) Community members may, but need not, be appointed for a specific term, but in any case may be discharged from office at any time by at least 4 of the parliamentary members.
Vacancies
72G. (1) A member of the Standing Ethics Committee ceases to hold office:
(a) when the Legislative Assembly is dissolved or expires by the effluxion of time; or
(b) if the member becomes a Minister of the Crown or a Parliamentary Secretary; or
(c) if, being a parliamentary member, the member ceases to be a member of Joint Committee; or
(d) if, being a community member, the member becomes a member of the Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly; or
(e) if, being a community member, the member becomes a member of a party registered under Part 4A of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912; or
(f) if, being a community member appointed for specific term, the term expires; or
(g) if, being a community member, the member is discharged from office by at least 4 of the parliamentary members.
Page 6277
(2) At least 4 of the parliamentary members may appoint a person who is or has been an applicant following public advertisement (being a person who is eligible for appointment in terms of section 72F) to fill a vacancy among the community members.
Chairman and Vice-Chairman
72H. (1) There are to be a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman of the Standing Ethics Committee, who are to be elected from the parliamentary members by at least 4 of the parliamentary members.
(2) A member of the Standing Ethics Committee ceases to hold office as Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Committee if:
(a) the member ceases to be a member of the Committee; or
(b) the member resigns the office by instrument in writing presented to a meeting of the Committee; or
(c) the member is discharged from office by at least 4 of the parliamentary members.
(3) At any time when the Chairman is absent from New South Wales or is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of Chairman or there is a vacancy in that office, the Vice-Chairman may exercise the functions of the Chairman under this Division.
Procedure generally
72I. (1) The procedure for the calling of meetings of the Standing Ethics Committee and for the conduct of business at those meetings is, subject to this Division, to be as determined by the Committee.
(2) The Clerk of the Legislative Assembly is to call the first meeting of the Standing Ethics Committee in each Parliament in such manner as the Clerk thinks fit.
(3) At a meeting of the Standing Ethics Committee:
(a) except in the cases mentioned in paragraph (b) - 5 members constitute a quorum, of whom 4 must be parliamentary members and one must be a community member; or
(b) in cases where this Division confers functions on at least 4 of the parliamentary members of the Standing Ethics Committee without the involvement of community members - 4 parliamentary members constitute a quorum.
(4) The Chairman or, in the absence of the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman or, in the absence of both the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, a parliamentary member of the Standing Ethics Committee elected to chair the meeting by the parliamentary members present is to preside at a meeting of the Committee.
(5) The Vice-Chairman or other parliamentary member presiding at a meeting of the Standing Ethics Committee has, in relation to the meeting, all the functions of the Chairman.
(6) The Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other parliamentary member presiding at a meeting of the Standing Ethics Committee has a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, also has a casting vote.
(7) A question arising at a meeting of the Standing Ethics Committee is to be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting.
(8) The Standing Ethics Committee may sit and transact business despite any prorogation of the Houses of Parliament or any adjournment of either House of Parliament.
(9) The Standing Ethics Committee may sit and transact business on a sitting day of a House of Parliament during the time of sitting.
Status of committee
72J. (1) The Standing Ethics Committee may request the attendance of persons before it and may request the production of papers and records to it.
(2) The Defamation Act 1974 and the Parliamentary Papers (Supplementary Provisions) Act 1975 apply to the Standing Ethics Committee as if it were a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament.
(3) The Parliamentary Evidence Act 1901 does not apply to the Standing Ethics Committee.
Validity of certain acts or proceedings
72K. Any act or proceeding of the Standing Ethics Committee is, even though at the time when the act or proceeding was done, taken or commenced there was:
(a) a vacancy in the office of a member of the Committee; or
(b) any defect in the appointment, or any disqualification, of a member of the Committee, as valid as if the vacancy, defect or disqualification did not exist and the Committee were fully and properly constituted.
Honourable members would be aware that the Legislative Council, in considering this bill, asserted its rights. It was not prepared to be dictated to as to the manner in which the Standing Ethics Committee should operate. The Legislative Council has indicated that it will establish its own ethics committee, which will not comprise any outside members, as provided for originally in the amendment. The amendment I am moving is clearly at the Legislative Council's invitation. It invited us to consider the establishment of a standing ethics committee in this place. The amendment I have moved will achieve that. That means that there will be no Legislative Council members on the Legislative Assembly standing committee, which will comprise six members of the Legislative Assembly, who will be members of the parliamentary Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption, and three community members. In all other material respects the committee will be the same as was originally proposed by the Legislative Assembly. I ask for the support of the Opposition for this amendment.
Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [4.55]: The Opposition agrees to the amendment for the reasons I have indicated. There is no purpose in delaying the Committee any further.
Mr HATTON (South Coast) [4.55]: I have received an assurance that the Standing Ethics Committees will be structurally the same, except in two areas. It was envisaged that there would be a combined committee of upper House members and lower House members. There was certainly no intention to infringe upon the rights and privileges of members of the upper House. We understand why the Legislative Council would like to establish its own committee. It has said that it will not have anyone other than members of Parliament on that committee. That is right and proper - it is the right of the Legislative Council. However, because of that restructuring, there will be six parliamentary members and three community members on the lower House committee. The proportion remains the same. I am Page 6278 pleased to support the amendment. If a problem surfaces because there are different standards in the code of ethics between the Houses I am sure that the Independent Commission Against Corruption, which will be reporting at the time, will point that out and the anomaly will be corrected.
Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [5.57]: I welcome the introduction of the code of conduct that was envisaged in the lower House for an ethics committee. Two codes of conduct will be established, and that might be a good thing. It will enable us to measure the benefits of the excellent code of conduct to be developed in the lower House with the code of conduct of the upper House, which I suspect will not be quite so inclusive and community-based as the code of conduct for the lower House.
Motion agreed to.
Amendment of Legislative Council's amendment No. 2 agreed to.
Legislative Council's amendment as amended agreed to.
Resolution reported from Committee and report adopted.
Message
Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it that the Legislative Assembly agrees with Legislative Council's amendments No. 1 and that the Legislative Assembly proposes an amendment to Legislative Council's amendment No. 2 in which it seeks the concurrence of the Legislative Council.
COMMUNITY PROTECTION BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 23 November.
Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [5.00]: This bill is the result of the emasculation of a previous bill so that the proposed legislation would apply specifically to Gregory Wayne Kable. The previous bill had wider ramifications, and would have applied to the community generally. A great deal has been said already about the previous bill, its wide ambit and the Government's political opportunism on this issue. My colleague the honourable member for Smithfield spoke of the Government's refusal to assist him. The Government denied the benefit of a similar bill against convicted child-killer John Lewthwaite, a person whom the honourable member for Smithfield, on behalf of his constituents, regards in a similar light. Grave reservations about the bill have been expressed by the Society of Labor Lawyers, the Council for Civil Liberties, the Mental Health Advocacy Service, the Bar Association, others in the legal field and other interested parties.
I have mentioned the Government's hypocrisy. It would have been much better for the Attorney General to exercise his power to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal against the leniency of the sentence handed down. Whilst Kable was given four years, many observers considered it likely that he would be given more than 10 years. It is my view that the Attorney General was derelict in not making an appeal. As I have said, the bill has been amended so that its provisions relate specifically to Gregory Wayne Kable. Whilst Opposition members have reservations about that, those reservations have been more eloquently expressed by the shadow attorney general in the other House and there is no point in my repeating the position of the Labor Party.
Mr HATTON (South Coast) [5.02]: I solidly oppose the bill. I do not understand how lawyers in the House, not to mention non-lawyer members of Parliament, could possibly accept a bill enacted specifically to deprive an individual of his rights before the law. For me, this bill, applying to an individual, is as abhorrent as a bill that applied to a number of individuals. Our law is based on the rights and the equality of people before the law. That anyone should bring before the House a bill that applies specifically to one person who may commit a crime is not acceptable. I have been advised that there are existing legislative provisions that would cater for this matter and that an amendment to the Crimes Act would have been a more satisfactory resolution of the issue. I want to know why that was not a clear objective of the Government.
It appears to me that the individual concerned is being made a scapegoat and that this draconian legislation is being passed because a State election is approaching. As the honourable member for Ashfield has pointed out, there are concerns about this matter in the Labor Party, concerns that run deep. The Council for Civil Liberties, the Society of Labor Lawyers, the Mental Health Advocacy the Bar Association and numerous individuals, not the least of whom are Mr Kable's solicitors, are concerned about the proposed legislation. I am most unhappy. This is a very bad day for the Parliament. Certain principles were considered unacceptable and there was outrage at the previous bill, yet it is considered that it is acceptable to apply those principles or, in my view, the lack of principles, to an individual. That is abhorrent. I will not vote for the bill.
Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [5.04], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. It is the view of honourable members opposite and the Government that the legislation is a regrettable necessity. No parliament wishes to pass such legislation. It is unfortunate that in this particular case the circumstances allow Parliament no alternative.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
STATE DEBT CONTROL (BALANCED BUDGETS) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 24 November.
Amendment by Dr Macdonald, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr BOWMAN (Swansea) [5.08]: I intend to move an amendment to the bill because it is my opinion that what is a difficulty for the Parliament can be resolved. There is widespread and strong criticism of the bill as it stands, which reflects unfavourably on Page 6279 the Government and Parliament as a whole. People who have expertise in economics and public finance and observers who do not have expertise in that area are appalled at this hastily constructed bill, which came to light in the dying days of the Fiftieth Parliament. I therefore wish to move an amendment which I believe will address that situation. I move:
That the motion be amended to delete all the words after "That" with a view to inserting instead: "the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of the Legislative Assembly with the following terms of reference:
(1) (a) to investigate:
(i) the likely effectiveness of the proposals contained in the State Debt Control (Balanced Budgets) Bill, 1994 to achieve fiscal responsibility and accountability;
(ii) the potential for the defined purposes of the Bill to be avoided or evaded by State Governments;
(iii) the likely delays, costs and benefits of involving the Courts in resolving financial, economic and political decisions normally made by the executive government or parliament;
(iv) whether the proposed issuing of certificates by the Secretary of Treasury, as contained in the Bill, undermines, or has potential to undermine, the principle of Ministerial accountability under the Westminster System of government as it operates in New South Wales;
(v) whether the proposed Bill, acknowledged to be based on US precedents, is fundamentally inconsistent with a parliamentary system in which the executive government is directly responsible to the parliament; and
(vi) any other matters considered by the Committee to be relevant to determining whether the Bill is in the public interest.
(b) to make recommendations as to whether the proposed Bill should be proceeded with.
(2) That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the committee consist of nine members, namely:
(a) five members supporting the Government nominated by the Premier; and
(b) four other members nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.
(3) That the nominations for membership be made by 2 December, 1994.
(4) That at any meeting of the committee five members shall constitute a quorum.
(5) The chairperson be a member of the Government.
(6) That the committee have leave to sit during the sittings or any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; to have power to take evidence and send for persons and papers and in particular to seek advice from such persons as Professors of Accounting or Public Finance at universities within New South Wales, leading financial and economic journalists, leading economists, business and trade union representatives; and to report by 20 January 1995.
(7) That should the House stand adjourned and the committee agree to any report before the House resumes sitting:
(a) the committee have leave to send any such report, minutes and evidence taken before it to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly;
(b) the documents shall be printed and published and the Clerk shall forthwith take such action as is necessary to give effect to the order of the House; and
(c) the documents shall be laid upon the Table of the House at its next sitting.
This amendment will relieve the widespread contempt within New South Wales for this hastily conceived and misbegotten legislation. The Government has claimed, in some of the material it has released in promotion of the bill, that it is based upon three principles: accountability, credibility and flexibility. Wonderful! In fact it could be more accurately said to be based upon another three principles: obfuscation, equivocation and prevarication. It is not a fair dinkum attempt at legislation. It is not a genuine attempt to reform the procedures of the Parliament or of the Government and by so doing better manage the finances of New South Wales. It is a pretence, an attempt to fool the people for as much of the time as is necessary to obtain some benefit in the election that will take place on 25 March next year.
One can imagine the Government campaigning on the basis that it has succeeded in making government more honest in New South Wales. The Government will say this is the self-denying ordinance that will force governments to be moderate and reasonable in their expenditures, because if you have to balance the budget you will not be able to waste money. I suppose the Government has to be given credit for a certain amount of financial reform in New South Wales. There has been an ongoing process of reform. It is a great shame that the Government is now denying itself a measure of credit that it might have received by an entirely phoney procedure - the introduction of a bill which has been seen, by practised observers or those with expertise in this area and by ordinary people, to be a fake.
The Government has professed that it is against unnecessary regulation and red tape. This is the ultimate regulation. If this self-denying ordinance is genuine the Government could do no more wrong. It would be bound to be virtuous. I suppose if there were regulations that would force everyone to be virtuous, good, wise, sensible, prudent and moderate, such a regulation would be applauded even by those who dislike regulations on principle. But it is not a genuine effort to produce a situation in which a government is forced, by virtue of a change to the constitution, to handle the financial affairs of the State prudently. If it were genuine legislation and an honest effort to achieve what the Government says it wants to achieve, there would not be so many loopholes in the bill. The expression that you could drive a horse and cart through a set of rules is altogether inadequate to describe this legislation, through which you could drive a herd of elephants without any chance that they would touch the sides.
The Government is so far off budget that the suggestion that balancing the budget in New South Wales is properly handling finances is a complete misrepresentation. Government trading enterprises Page 6280 have been corporatised and have been given a life of their own by this Government, despite the problems corporatisation has caused in other States such as Victoria and South Australia. The Government has an agenda which many people think is privatisation. So far I must admit privatisation has not occurred. However, the Government has reformed or changed certain government trading enterprises to make privatisation easy to achieve, if it has the numbers in this House after the election on 25 March next year.
The Government is so far off budget that talk of balancing the budget and pretending it means that the finances of New South Wales are being kept in kilter is not genuine. People far and wide have realised that it is not fair dinkum. "Balanced budget law - a fiscal defeat", says Professor Robinson, a leading academic. Many people in the media have examined the bill and found it wanting. In that case, one might ask why- move this amendment to have a select committee? Why not simply get rid of the bill if it is not genuine and does not properly address the problems involved? The Opposition is opposed to the bill because it is this bill, not because it is in favour of fiscal carelessness. [Extension of time agreed to.]
The Opposition is not opposed to balancing budgets where appropriate, or to prudent financial management in this State. It does not believe that there is a money tree. Despite the rhetoric from Government members, there was a great deal of financial reform during the 12 years of the last Labor Government in this State. I remind Government members that this State had an AAA credit rating when the coalition took office in 1988. We are not against proper management of the finances of this State. We are against the pretence that there will be an improvement in financial management, in the transparency of operations and in the care and efficiency with which the State's finances are managed as a result of the passage of the bill through the Parliament in a hell of a hurry.
If the Government believes that this bill will be accepted by the people of New South Wales - by people in the financial community, in business, trade unions, the professions and local government - and by the Opposition as helping to improve financial accountability and flexibility in New South Wales, it should welcome this amendment. It will provide an opportunity for an educative process that could theoretically see agreement about the terms of the bill. It will further constrain future governments in New South Wales in relation to financial mismanagement or irresponsibility, but not offer them some bill that skites about looking after the budget and dismisses problems about off-budget operations because other checks are in place. That dismisses the concern expressed by a vast number of commentators in New South Wales.
One thing - when it becomes better known - that will lead the Government to have a mile-wide credibility gap on this issue is the extraordinary farce of referring the matter to the Public Accounts Committee with something like a 24-hour deadline. Talk about Speedy Gonzales. The committee will examine the matter, genuflect before it, wonder at its marvellous composition and have 24 hours to complete its acquaintance with the matter. Does the Government want the committee to say "Hallelujah. Treasurer Collins has laboured mightily and produced this wondrous bill"? Predictably, the Government came up with the required verdict.
Mr Collins: Will it be different in a select committee?
Mr BOWMAN: Many, but not all, select committees have come up with consensus decisions. At one time the Treasurer and I were on a committee together. I can remember that we argued about many things. Most of the time the members of the committee stuck to their views with tenacity. Nevertheless, we came up with a consensus which advanced the understanding of the people of New South Wales on the causes of prostitution, and made many recommendations as to how the problem might be better dealt with. Unfortunately, only some of those recommendations have been implemented. The Treasurer and I both know that it is only in the life of this Parliament that the hitherto sacrosanct principle that there are no minority reports of select committees has been abandoned. That is most unfortunate.
The professed aims of the Government and the Opposition about financial management in New South Wales are basically the same. We are both singing the same song: the Government should not spend money that it not there, should have proper accountability procedures and so on. Although there are differences in emphasis and in detail, both sides of politics in New South Wales agree that the proper procedures, attitudes, training and consideration of financial matters in New South Wales are indispensable if the State is to flourish. Our objectives are the same.
The Opposition cannot by any means agree that this bill will advance the cause; quite the contrary, the Opposition believes that it will confuse people further. It will have the capacity to mislead people into thinking that they do not need to worry about financial accountability because it is all done. The pledge has been signed. Never will another drink pass the lips of this Parliament. We have signed the pledge. People do not need to worry about how this Parliament or any government handles money in the future. I wish that could be achieved.
Recently a great deal has been done to improve financial management in New South Wales. We are critical of many things that the Government has done. However, to be honest, there has been a significant improvement in many procedures. It has been an ongoing process over a long period. In the spirit of rational concern for the finances of New South Wales, I call on the Government to accept the amendment providing for the establishment of a select committee. There would be a genuine production of the consensus that we need if the finances of the people of New South Wales are to be handled in the best possible way.
Page 6281
Mr GLACHAN (Albury) [5.27]: I shall make some comments about the remarks of the member for Swansea. In the past, select committees may have reached consensus on a number of issues. I can well understand that is a common practice, but it is not the practice in these circumstances. The major political parties have already taken strict, firm positions on this issue. When I examine the amendment moved by the member for Swansea, which provides that the proposed select committee could meet until the cows come home and under any circumstances that he would like to nominate, I can predict the exact result of the deliberations of such a committee. The result would be five members supporting what the Government is attempting to do, and four members opposing it; because both of the major parties in this State, in their party rooms, in their caucus considerations or however they arrive at their decisions, have fixed their positions on this issue. The result would be exactly the same as that reached by the Public Accounts Committee when it examined this matter.
The time factor, although it makes examination of the matters a little more difficult, will have no effect at all on the result. Does the honourable member opposite think it is at all possible that the four members from his party would be likely to change their views if they discussed the matter in a select committee? In all honesty he cannot answer yes. The Public Accounts Committee has a long and honourable history. It has been of great advantage to the people of New South Wales in considering a wide range of matters over its 92-year existence. On almost every occasion it has reached a consensus because of the bipartisan attempts of its members to examine issues on their merits. If the Parliament cannot make a decision, the Public Accounts Committee cannot make that decision for it, nor can a select committee. If the Parliament cannot reach a consensus, neither can select committees when political parties adopt fixed and unmovable policies.
An example is the consideration by the Public Accounts Committee of the contracts for the Port Macquarie hospital. The result was exactly as predicted. I can predict the result of this process now: five members will agree with what the Government is trying to do and four members will oppose it. I am absolutely astounded by the efforts and the intellectual activity that have been directed at highlighting how governments of the future could circumvent the provisions contained in the bill and, if I could use a colloquial expression, fiddle the books. I am sure that it would not be beyond the wit of a government of the future to find its way around the restrictions imposed by the legislation. If a government is determined to do that, it will. This country has extensive and complex taxation laws, yet a whole industry has developed to find ways around such laws so that individuals, companies and other bodies might minimise their taxation liability.
The catering staff in Parliament House are provided with uniforms which, taxation law says, could be a fringe benefit. Someone has found a way around that. Catering staff wear a logo on the pocket of the shirt or elsewhere on the uniform. I am quite sure that if a government were to set its mind to the task, it could find a way around the provisions contained in the bill. The legislation is an attempt to give the people of this State the opportunity, in a referendum, to indicate to governments the sort of financial responsibility they want and expect. It is well known that polls reveal that the majority of people expect governments to be responsible for their budgets. It is a commonly held and well known view by people who understand financial matters - financial commentators - that State governments should not run deficit budgets.
Taking all that into account, and remembering that the Government wants to give the people of New South Wales the opportunity to state clearly in a referendum the sort of financial responsibility they want governments to exercise, why would honourable member opposite not give the people of New South Wales that opportunity? Why would any responsible elected member of Parliament not want to give the people of New South Wales the freedom and the right in a democracy to indicate clearly by their vote the sort of economic responsibility they want governments of this State to exercise in relation to their taxation money, the money they provide for governments? If the people of New South Wales exercise that right and vote that governments be economically responsible, why would a future government not want to act in a responsible manner in line with the wishes of the people?
It is a simple matter. I am amazed that honourable members opposite would want to prevent the people of New South Wales from having the right to express their views on this matter. It is not difficult for a State government to give the people such a right. If the people want it to happen, it is up to the Government to ensure that their wishes are carried out. The amendments will achieve absolutely nothing. I am surprised that anyone would work so hard to show that a government of the future, if it wished, could get around the provisions. What advantage would there be for a future government to circumvent the wishes of the people? The bill contains provisions for exceptional circumstances. If the government of the day can convince the Parliament that it is necessary to go into deficit, appropriate provisions will apply.
There is nothing to prevent this bill from going ahead. It is wonderful legislation. The Government is sending a message to governments of the future, to parliaments of the future, to the community and to public servants that the people of New South Wales expect responsible economic management. It is interesting to note that in the history of this State there has only ever been one genuine surplus budget. We do not have to have deficits. We desperately need sensible and responsible economic management. The bill gives people an opportunity to say what they want, brings balanced economic management to New South Wales, and sends a clear message to those running this State's economy about the standards they are expected to adhere to. The proposed amendments Page 6282 serve no useful purpose. Once again, I shall predict the result of the deliberations of the select committee: five in support of the measures, and four against.
Mr NEILLY (Cessnock) [5.42]: I wish to express my doubts and concerns about the bill. Under the Constitution Act 1902, the proposed Act is required to be submitted for the approval of the voters at a referendum. It is proposed to hold the referendum in conjunction with the State election on 25 March 1995. The question to be posed in that referendum is couched in simple terms, that is, to consider approval of a bill for an Act to require the Government to balance the State budget. What is proposed might not necessarily be what we will get. Should the proposal for a referendum be carried, the expectation of the public might not be converted into reality. The bill is all about balancing on-budget expenditure rather than balancing total Government expenditure and income both on and off budget. The Government can move between on-budget and off-budget expenditure at will in order to meet its own ends. Proposed subsection 59(2) provides:
However, a State budget may contain a fiscal forecast of a budget sector deficit if the deficit is due to exceptional circumstances (for example, a natural disaster or a major economic recession.
Recently I encountered a natural disaster at Ellalong. I would not have described it as a large scale natural disaster. The bill does not signify the dimension of the natural disaster that may be used as an excuse. Government expenditures associated with the natural disaster that occurred at Ellalong have been paltry. I received complaints of mine subsidence problems in that neck of the woods prior to the earthquake. The area has been subject to drought. Everyone is ducking and weaving to avoid responsibility, and the Government is sitting on the side waiting for the final mop up. The Mine Subsidence Board says that most subsidence is not its responsibility. GIO Insurance, the worst offender, says that the subsidence is all drought related and has nothing to do with the GIO. Residents occupying houses that are not liveable are waiting for an appropriate determination.
The Premier said earlier that a major economic recession would be more appropriately controlled by the fiscal policies of the Federal Government, given that the Commonwealth theoretically has control of the microeconomic picture. However, the government of the day may not necessarily be sympathetic about problems that could be caused by a large or even medium-scale recession. The State might have to take the initiative to fill that void. Proposed new subsection 60(2) states that the proposed measures are to provide for the elimination of the impact of any budget sector deficit on the State debt over a period not exceeding the next three years or any other period provided by law. That section could be more clearly defined. The words "or any other period provided by law" could allow a government to escape from the intent of the bill.
Proposed subsection 60(4) states that the actual budget sector deficit for a financial year is the estimated deficit if actual results for the year are not available when the State budget is prepared. If actual figures will not be available when a State budget is prepared, provision should be made in the bill for people to be informed. Fundamentally, the expectation of a balanced budget is founded on estimates. However, actual figures may not always be available to compare one year's results with those in a previous year. Proposed new section 61 appears pleasing on its surface:
The fiscal forecasts for the budget sector in a State budget must be made in accordance with the principles for the classification of Government financial transactions adopted by the Australian Statistician or in accordance with any other national recognised principles.
That provision presents a problem, as identified by Professor Bob Walker in an article written not long after the last State budget, and also by this State's Auditor-General in his report No. 2. The Auditor-General stated in that report that there are problems in strictly identifying the nature of certain items when measuring them against the doctrines and conventions referred to in the proposed section. Interpretation could prove difficult. I was concerned about the Premier's specific reference to the State's unfunded superannuation liability. He said that liability was approaching $14 billion but in 22 years it will have blown out to $140 billion. He said, "Let us pay our way". If the 1992 dollar figure is stretched out to the year 2030 - 38 years after 1992 - the debt in 1992 dollars terms would be $16.5 billion - far more than the $14 billion mentioned by the Premier.
The Government Actuary has suggested that if an additional $92 million or so, in 1992 dollar terms, had been paid each year, the unfunded liability would have been held under control. I repeat the point I made about the sale of the State Bank. A sum of about $40 million is included in payments to the Government to cover unfunded superannuation liabilities. But that money is being taken into the current purse. The proceeds of the State Bank sale should be paid into the State superannuation fund. That $40 million will be left to be picked up by future governments wanting to fulfil their budgetary obligations. Yet this Government is talking about balanced budgets. I have several pertinent newspaper articles. The first is an editorial under the heading "Mr Collins's Budget stunt" that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of 15 September after the State budget was bought down:
This is an example of the sort of tricks which future governments will get up to in the unlikely event that the balanced-budget proposal becomes law. Asset sale proceeds, instead of being used to retire government debt, will almost certainly be used to balance the books. Government forecasts of receipts will instead become exercises in cooking the books so that people will inevitably lose all faith in budget estimates. Budgets themselves will become exercises in creative accounting as various items are moved "on budget" or "off budget". Perhaps this is what the NSW Treasury had in mind when it said recently a balanced Budget was not necessarily a sign of good financial management, nor of good government.
[Debate interrupted.]
Page 6283
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Private Members' Statements: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Motion, by leave, by Mr West agreed to:
That Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended to prevent private members' statements being taken at this sitting.
[Debate resumed.]
Mr NEILLY (Cessnock) [5.50]: The same edition of the Sydney Morning Herald carried an extensive article by that well-regarded economic expert, Professor Bob Walker, under the headline "Budget's lost balance". Inter alia Professor Walker said:
But Fahey and Collins don't want to start this balancing act right away, or even next year - he was talking about the balanced budget situation -
They plan a balanced Budget from 1997. If Fahey and Collins really thought that a balanced Budget was so important, then with the recent resurgence in State tax revenues they could have managed a balanced Budget for 1994-95.
. . . the whole idea of balanced budget legislation is flawed. It would not impose an effective discipline on the growth of State indebtedness for three reasons. First, the "budget" only relates to a part of government activities, mainly government departments. It excludes some of the public sector's most important agencies and activities: the Department of Public Works, government trading enterprises, even the Auditor-General's office and the Treasury's internal audit bureau. The reason?
They raise fees from charges. Second, the government of the day might decide what it will include and what it will exclude from its "budget sector". Indeed, even though the States have agreed to publish their Budget results on a uniform "GFS" basis, the Fahey Government recently passed legislation authorising the Treasurer to define the scope of the "Budget sector" as he chooses. Third, cash-based budgets and budget results don't cover unpaid financial commitments which are included in measures of State liabilities - a wider concept than "debt", which mainly covers formal borrowings from banks and bond issues. Hence governments could readily evade any such legislation by running up liabilities through GTEs or other agencies outside the scope of their self-defined "budget sector".
A recent comment of interest appeared in the column by McGuinness in the Sydney Morning Herald on 1 December. Once more it is an extensive article on the balanced budget proposition. It is worthy to note one specific comment from that article:
But a constitutional amendment soon might have the NSW Government in the High Court, entangled in definitions. And there is one thing of which the High Court cannot be accused, and that is the slightest knowledge of economics. Since some of the most important terms of the proposal are not even defined (one shudders to think of what would happen when the courts started to define "exceptional circumstances", or even a recession) the possibilities are endless. But the whole thing is really pointless, anyway, since there is a let-out clause which allows Parliament to provide for the elimination of the debt incurred by a deficit "over a period not exceeding the next three years or any other period provided by the law". In other words, the Parliament could run deficits anytime it liked simply by legislation - and since a budget is legislation, why bother about the charade of a constitutional amendment? The truth is, of course, that the NSW Government's proposed referendum on the BBA is a straightforward political stunt.
[Extension of time agreed to.]
I suggest also that the Government should consider some of the evidence given to the recent hearing before the Public Accounts Committee. Mention is made in the Daily Telegraph Mirror of evidence given by Mr Robinson, a professor in economics and public policy at Brisbane's University of Technology. The evidence would be under oath because it was given before the Public Accounts Committee. The article, under the heading "Balanced budget law `fiscal deceit'", reported the view of Mr Robinson:
NSW Government legislation to introduce balanced budgets from 1997 was an exercise in fiscal deceit rather than fiscal responsibility . . .
"These types of proposals can not only be evaded but frankly, you can drive a bus through them," the academic, Mark Robinson said.
. . ."Rather than being a legislative requirement or a mandate for fiscal responsibility, it is something that would make fiscal deceit mandatory."
We certainly do not have the description of balanced budget tied up with barbed wire. As I suggested earlier, it is held together by something about as strong as a leaky sieve. More relevant is the Auditor-General's report, volume two, that was released recently. The report gave a fairly accurate picture of what the Opposition said about off-budget items having great relevance to government debt and to the capacity of government to dodge and weave its way through fiscal responsibility. At page 19 of the report is the heading "Why Have These Off-Balance Sheet Transactions Grown in Popularity?" At the conclusion of that section the Auditor-General stated:
In order to obtain some budgetary relief, a number of the transactions have been designed to be "off" the Government's balance sheet.
So, they are done for a deliberate purpose. He commented on the State financial risk and made the following observation:
To the extent that we have examined these transactions, we have seen their formal arrangements can sometimes allow appearances to dominate substance; that the complexity of the arrangements often carries with it its own costs (transaction costs) and risks (complexity risks); that the private sector counterparty often seems to be an important financial beneficiary while the Government is sometimes left with the important financial risks and no immediate title to assets.
He identified the blow-out risk associated with the HomeFund operation, the finance leases entered into in respect of the Tangara trains and the financial difficulties concerning the Canadian company with the leasing arrangement. At page 22 of the report he stated:
If the State has acquired significant amounts of credit risks through many of its off-balance sheet transactions (and this view appears supported by the nature of such transactions), then consideration is warranted as to the appropriate level of capital support such activities require.
Specifically in relation to HomeFund and the leases, he stated:
Page 6284 The HomeFund program and the recent Canadian cross-border lease experiences support the necessity for assessing the appropriate level of capital support. In the latter example, "New South Wales Structured Finance Activities", being the auditable State entity responsible for the transaction, has a capital base of $2.6 million, which is small relative to the activities it is designed to support.
That is an understatement by the Auditor-General! It is extremely small. The Auditor-General could have used a few stronger words. At page 23 he stated:
The lack of adequate disclosure, the absence of important, central reviews, the decentralisation of management, and the "let the managers manage" philosophy has established an environment where transactions are capable of being executed without adequate or balanced attention. This environment has been further affected by the severe effect on State revenues from the recent recession.
In this context, it is not surprising that the State Government's financial management has involved dealings that attract scrutiny. And sometimes they are seen to be unsound: they exhibit the poorer features of entrepreneurialism and often pretend, by their form, to be more reasonable than they are.
The Auditor-General is not happy about what is going off-budget. The Auditor-General, in his conclusion, states:
Of course, it is preferable that the Government - as it has now sensibly restricted further cross-border leases - eschew all deals which are only or are mainly attractive because of their external form. The pursuit of appearance does not provide a sound economic base for the State's future prosperity. To the contrary, it harbours and hides problems which will emerge in a future time.
The Government has a lot to hide. It has to douse a fire and put these things off budget. The Auditor-General continues:
These recommendations would also allow the State to manage what could otherwise be an unacceptably high level of uncontained risk from off-balance sheet transactions executed at government level, central agency and promoting agency level.
The Auditor-General believes that we have a high level of uncontained risk from off-budget balance sheet transactions. When one has risk there is a capacity for budget blow-outs. Off-budget areas are most susceptible to blow-outs when a government is attempting to balance its budget. The Auditor-General made some interesting comments in the section of his report entitled "New South Wales public sector entities not audited by the Auditor-General". I referred earlier to the accounting standards contained in the balanced budget legislation. The following comment by the Auditor-General is relevant:
Part 3.6 of the Corporations Law relies upon the following definition of "control" contained in Accounting Standard AASB 1024: Consolidated Accounts:
. . . the capacity of an entity to dominate decision-making, directly or indirectly, in relation to the financial and operating policies of another entity so as to enable that other entity to operate with it in pursuing the objectives of the controlling entity.
The Auditor-General sees a practical problem in these legislative requirements. He continues:
While the above legislative requirements are clear cut, applying them in practice is not always straightforward. Firstly, the matter of whether an organisation does in fact "control" another organisation has to be determined. While AASB 1024 gives guidance on determining whether "control" exists, there is no definitive test.
The Government, in its balanced budget legislation, talks about implementing guidelines yet the Auditor-General claims that the Government will have problems measuring accounting standards. The Auditor-General, in his conclusion, states:
Given the current law, it is not always clear that entities are auditable by the Auditor-General, even where they are reliant or dependent on Government funding or where these entities give rise to significant risks for the Government.
I said earlier that all the risks are in the off-budget sector. [Time expired.]
Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [6.02]: Today the left-wing members of the Australian Labor Party have effectively argued against the principle of a balanced budget. We have seen the worst of the Australian Labor Party in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. Honourable members should not forget that members of the Labor Party do not have the ability or the desire to balance their budgets. This Government strongly supports the principle of a balanced budget - the mechanism proposed in this legislation. Earlier, an Opposition member, when referring to the credibility gap, pointed at Government members. The credibility gap - it is a large one - is on the other side of the Chamber. The point that needs to be made - it was briefly alluded to earlier by the honourable member for Albury - is that State debt is aimed at the on-budget sector. In the off-budget sector debt has been decreasing over a period. Strong controls have been in place over that time. In the on-budget sector debt has been increasing - a matter that this bill is attempting to address to ensure that it is brought under control by way of legislation enshrined in the Constitution.
The honourable member for Manly initiated the reference to the Public Accounts Committee. That in itself was unfortunate. The Public Accounts Committee, which has a long and strong tradition of bipartisanship, was placed in an invidious position. Both major parties had clear positions on the issue, which inevitably led to a division. That was disappointing for all members of the committee which, over its long history, has almost without exception brought down unanimous reports. The bipartisan nature of the Public Accounts Committee was placed in jeopardy. Given the positions that the major parties have taken on this issue, a reference to the Public Accounts Committee or any other parliamentary committee would achieve nothing.
If a select committee considered the matter for two days, two weeks or two months, the outcome would be exactly the same. On the proposed formation of that committee the outcome would be a five to four vote supporting this legislation. Yesterday morning the reference and report of the Public Accounts Committee were tabled in this Page 6285 Parliament. Yesterday in question time the Leader of the Opposition inferred that this legislation would not be binding on future parliaments. Professor Pat Lane, one of the witnesses who came before the Public Accounts Committee, is considered to be the pre-eminent legal adviser in this State. Professor Lane said:
Commonwealth Constitution section 106 states that coming Federation January 1st 1901, the constitutions of the States shall continue until altered in accordance with the constitution existing at that time in the State. Section 106 can be seen as a fundamental law, give authority or as a source of the New South Wales Constitution Act. That Section 106 is the provision which ensures that when you put a manner and form provision into the Balanced Budgets Bill by virtue of Section 5 when you put that manner and form provision in your proposed Bill, I say Section 106 of the Commonwealth Constitution ensures that that manner and form provision will stick. It also meets the argument that whether a change of government or change of heart in the present government, in either of those two circumstances the new Parliament cannot say that the earlier Parliament is binding the successor. It is rather Section 106 which is requiring a later Parliament to follow an earlier Parliament.
Section 106 requires this manner and form provision to stick and to be binding on future parliaments. That clearly repudiates the inference made by the Leader of the Opposition during question time yesterday that the Government was well aware that this legislation would not be binding on future governments. Clearly, it is binding, as a constitutional amendment, on any future parliaments. Anyone who supports a reference to a select committee will be supporting nothing more than a stunt - a vote against this proposal. A vote for reference to a select committee would be a vote against the principle of balanced budgeting. Every member of the House recognises that this is the last sitting date of the Fiftieth Parliament. The suggestion of reference to a select committee which would report back shortly after the Christmas break is a ridiculous stunt of the first order, and every member opposite knows that.
The result of reference to a select committee would be a five to four vote in favour of the Government's legislation. The committee process would involve many hours for witnesses, committee members and Hansard, and tens of thousands of dollars would effectively be wasted. The committee's report would not be considered by this Parliament anyway. Amendment of the bill as proposed by the Opposition would merely give the Opposition an alternative to voting no, which would expose Opposition members as opposing the principle of balanced budgeting. Opposition members know that it would be nigh on impossible for a select committee to report back by 20 January 1995, but referral to a select committee would achieve the Opposition's objective of providing an alternative to voting no. I shall now address a few comments to the honourable member for Manly and other Independent members, who, I have no doubt, are listening to the debate.
Independent members should have the courage of their convictions. They should not go along with the stunt being perpetrated by the Labor Party. Now is the time for members to vote. Honourable members should vote either yes or no. If they believe that the principle of balanced budgeting should be enshrined in the Constitution, they should vote yes this evening. If they oppose that principle and if they want to condone what occurred in the past decade in the southern Labor States, they should vote against the bill. But they should vote no. I urge honourable members not to take the cheap way out and refer the bill to a select committee. That would be nothing more than a sham.
I call on all Independent members to have the courage of their convictions and vote either yes or no. If they believe in balanced budgeting, they should support they bill. If they do not believe in accountability, they should at least vote no and demonstrate that they have the courage of their convictions. I urge Independent members not to avoid the decision by referring the bill to a select committee that will never report to a parliament. Members should observe the stance taken by other members on this issue. Any honourable member who votes against the bill or votes to refer it to a select committee will not be endorsing the principle of balanced budgets. I implore those Independent members who have the courage of their convictions -
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Drummoyne to order.
Mr HUMPHERSON: Independent members should vote in support of the Government's proposal to enshrine balanced budget legislation in the Constitution.
Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Treasurer, and Minister for the Arts) [6.14], in reply: I thank all honourable members who have contributed to the debate, with varying degrees of rationality and commonsense. On the issue of balanced budgets the Labor Party started out by saying that it would support the legislation but oppose the referendum. The Labor Party then changed its mind and decided that it would oppose both the legislation and the referendum. Now, at the eleventh hour, on the last day of the Fiftieth Parliament, the Opposition and the Independent members are lining up to request that the bill be referred to a select committee. Of course, this request comes just after the Public Accounts Committee has reported on the matter. The Labor Party went from supporting the legislation before it was seen, to opposing the legislation after it was seen.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Drummoyne to order for the second time.
Mr COLLINS: Now Labor Party members, in cahoots with the honourable member for Manly and his Independent colleagues, are pretending that they want a genuine committee process. The Independent members are being gulled by the Opposition to believe that the Opposition might listen to evidence that might come out of a select committee.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for The Entrance to order.
Page 6286
Mr COLLINS: This comes 10 days or so after the Opposition had a matter referred to the Auditor-General, on terms of reference that it agreed with. Opposition members sat around a table and agreed with terms of reference on a matter proposed by the honourable member for Manly. The matter went to the Auditor-General, who gave the sale of the State Bank the green light. The Labor Party decided that was all very well but the Auditor-General had it wrong. Therefore, I urge the honourable member for Manly to think carefully before lining up with the Opposition on this issue. I urge his non-aligned Independent colleagues also to think carefully about the dubious proposition put forward by the Labor Party on this occasion. Labor Party members will not be changing their minds on this issue. One has only to read the Hansard of the debate so far to understand that the Labor Party will not change its position, because it does not want balanced budget legislation. A couple of speakers have said that if the Government is serious about balancing the budget it should present balanced budgets.
Mr McBride: Why didn't you do that this year?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for The Entrance to order for the second time.
Mr COLLINS: I shall answer that question. I could have presented a surplus budget this year without any problems had I applied the accounting standards applied by the Keating Government. Honourable members know full well that had I applied the same standards used by the Keating Government, and included the sale of the State Bank, a major asset, in this year's budget, the Government could have posted a surplus budget without the slightest difficulty, and with the endorsement of the press. That would have been consistent with the Commonwealth budget and the Victorian budget. The Government did not do that, because it wished to separate the sale of the State Bank from the budget process.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Hurstville to order.
Mr COLLINS: That is something I discussed with the three non-aligned Independent members a full year ago. Members opposite should not ask me why the Government did not present a balanced budget. The Government could have had a balanced budget, by using that method, and that would have been completely legitimate in Commonwealth accounting terms. Members opposite should not ask me why I did not present a balanced budget this year. That would have been seen to have been an accounting trick, one that the Government was not prepared to play. The Commonwealth played that trick this year -
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for The Entrance to order for the third time.
Mr COLLINS: The Government of New South Wales is not going to employ the dodgy accounting standards of the Keating Government.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Hurstville to order for the second time.
Mr COLLINS: This Government is trying to provide a more transparent and accountable system of budgeting, hence this bill. The Government believes in the bill and believes that it enshrines an important principle, that governments should live within their means. I do not address my next comment to the Labor Party, because Labor Party members have made up their minds. On this issue a party room decision has been made by the Labor Party. I address my remarks to the three non-aligned Independent members. In the course of the Fiftieth Parliament the Independent members have time and time again said that they believe in a particular piece of legislation, that they believe it would improve the system and enshrined important principles. Time and time again the Government has said that a particular aspect would not work and had not been thought through properly.
On many occasions the Government has attempted to persuade the Independent members, despite what might have been good intentions on their part on various occasions, that particular pieces of legislation were not workable. That has not prevented the Independent members from getting approval of the legislation, with the support of the Labor Party. The Government now says: here is a principle that should be enshrined, namely, that governments should live within their means. The Labor Party does not believe in that. All one has to do for proof of that is to recall comments made in the debate by various Opposition speakers. The honourable member for Auburn referred to a domestic analogy. The Government understands that taxpayers have to sit down and try to balance their budgets over the kitchen table. That happens every night of the week in homes throughout the State. That is the domestic analogy that the Government refers to. The honourable member for Auburn says it should be acknowledged that just as people have to borrow, so governments have to borrow. However, Governments have to borrow a lot more.
The honourable member for Kiama said that the Government's message was that governments have to live within their means, and that we all have to live within our means. In the next breath he said the Government was miserable for propounding the idea that governments should live within their means. That is why the Labor caucus took the decision it has taken. That is why, if a select committee is established - which the Government strongly opposes - the Labor Party will not change its mind at all. It has a fixed position on this issue and that position is that governments should basically have an unfettered right to borrow. The Government says it should have a fettered right to borrow. The Government wants to be the first government in Australia to begin the process of enshrining the principle of balanced budgets. I predict, as I have said before, that by the end of the decade this sort of legislation will be common throughout Australia; it will be enshrined in every jurisdiction in Australia.
Page 6287
At the end of the decade people will look back on this debate and wonder what the Labor Party was doing in attempting to block this important principle from going to the people of New South Wales. There were a number of other comments from members of the Opposition. There was the old furphy that this has something to do with the goods and services tax - the GST. I do not know how many times I have to say it, but I will say it again for the record: this Government is opposed to a goods and services tax and has no intention of introducing or contemplating a goods and services tax in this State. Significant constitutional barriers, of which the Opposition is fully aware, would prevent a goods and services tax being implemented in New South Wales. That furphy, which the Opposition is keen to push, should be laid to rest. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made the most extraordinary claim that this bill would cost lives. That is a monstrous lie. He also said this sort of legislation could kill small children. It may well kill the ALP but it will not kill children. The Government is about accountability, and that is why the Chamber of Manufactures has said:
Manufacturers recognise that the Government is demonstrating the courage of its convictions through this proposal. Law must be applied in such a way that it does not become a straitjacket which prevents the Government from being able to respond to longer term considerations or unexpected events.
The State Chamber of Commerce said:
At the meeting of the council of the State Chamber of Commerce held on 16 November the bill was considered. After lengthy deliberation it was agreed that the Chamber would support the balanced budget legislation in principle, no matter which party proposed the concept.
Again, it is shades of the State Bank. The Opposition says it was in favour of balanced budgets, but not this balanced budget legislation. The Opposition has never put up any alternative and cannot be believed on this issue, any more than it could be believed on the State Bank issue. I appeal to the powers of observation of the honourable member for Manly to take that on board. The same sort of argument was put by the Labor Party about the State Bank - that it was not the right time, some other time was a better time; that this was not the right price, some other price was a better price; or that someone else would make a better buyer. It was all very vague. The Auditor-General, who is by no means timid when it comes to criticising the Government, says the State struck an acceptable, fair and reasonable deal. Even then the Labor Party sought to oppose it, although it did not have a leg to stand on.
The same situation would apply if the bill is referred to another committee. I have served on the Public Accounts Committee. We have heard from the Chairman and one of the Government members of the Public Accounts Committee and at least one Labor member of the Committee. That committee, which performs excellent work in this Parliament, does best when it is given a long-term project, when it is given terms of reference that do not require jumping one way or the other on a political issue which is currently before the House. The committee is not designed to try to mediate extremely contentious political issues such as this has become. It has become contentious because all members of the Government have taken a vote in the Government party room to support the balanced budget legislation. The Opposition has taken a vote in its caucus to oppose it.
Therefore, it was not surprising that the Public Accounts Committee voted three to two in favour of the proposition before the House. As the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee so correctly said, any select committee now established on this issue or any re-reference to the Public Accounts Committee will have a similar result. The proposed select committee of nine members will vote five to four in favour of the proposal. It will only delay a decision in this matter. That is the Labor Party's wish. It would not matter if Ben Chifley himself gave this legislation the go-ahead; it would not make the slightest difference to the stand of the Labor Party on this issue.
The Labor Party has proposed an amendment the sole purpose of which is to derail this process, to take the decision away from the people of New South Wales, to remove from them on 25 March the right to say yes or no about whether they support the legislation and whether they support the principle of the State bringing its debt under control and securing a balanced budget. The Government believes that principle should be put to the people. This attempt by the Labor Party is designed to kick this issue into the dead ball area. It is designed to take the issue out of play - no more than that. The Labor Party should have the courage of its convictions. Instead of trying to put up this subterfuge at this stage, an honest Opposition would oppose the legislation and seek to stop it.
By proposing that the legislation be referred to a select committee the Opposition is only delaying the vote. It has indicated time and time again in debate that it will oppose the legislation. A select committee will simply chew up resources. It will cost a lot of money and it will vote five to four. If the select committee sat for the next two years and visited every country on earth - that may appeal to some members of the select committee and may be the real reason why it has been proposed - no matter how many jurisdictions it visited and how many experts it talked to, it would not change its mind one iota. They would oppose the legislation, and the Government would support it. The result would be five in favour and four against. This extremely dishonest attempt by the Labor Party to dress up its opposition to consideration by a select committee must be treated with the utmost contempt by Parliament.
I call on the members on the crossbenches to remember what the Labor Party did with the State Bank legislation. They should remember Labor's hypocrisy on that. They should remember that, no matter what the Auditor-General said, Labor would not accept it. That certainly helped the crossbenches on that occasion. On this last day of the Fiftieth Page 6288 Parliament, Labor is kicking this issue into the dead-ball area. Labor knows that by the time the ball is back in play, it will be full time. That is precisely what Labor is about with its exercise in deception and dishonesty, and the constant backflips. Labor has done more backflips than we have seen since the Olympic Games. This must stop.
I call on Labor members to drop this shabby amendment and have the courage of their convictions. If they oppose balanced budget legislation and debt control, they should have the courage to say that they oppose it. However, they do not have the courage to do that. I ask the Independents to cut themselves loose from this shabby attempt by Labor to defer the issue by kicking it into the dead-ball area. I call on the Independents to disassociate themselves from this extremely unworthy but typical attempt by Labor to avoid the decision on this issue. The Government strongly opposes the amendment proposed by the member for Swansea. I commend the bill to the House.
Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 35
Ms Allan Mr Mills Mr Amery Mr Moss Mr Anderson Mr J. H. Murray Mr A. S. Aquilina Mr Nagle Mr J. J. Aquilina Mr Neilly Mr Bowman Ms Nori Mr Crittenden Mr E. T. Page Mr Gibson Mr Price Mr Hatton Dr Refshauge Mr Iemma Mr Rogan Mr Knight Mr Rumble Mr Knowles Mr Shedden Mr Langton Mr Thompson Mrs Lo Po' Mr Whelan Mr McBride Mr Yeadon Dr Macdonald Tellers, Mr Martin Mr Beckroge Ms Meagher Mr Davoren
Noes, 34
Mr Armstrong Mr O'Doherty Mr Blackmore Mr Peacocke Mr Chappell Mr Petch Mrs Chikarovski Mr Phillips Mrs Cohen Mr Photios Mr Collins Mr Schipp Mr Cruickshank Mrs Skinner Mr Debnam Mr Small Mr Downy Mr Souris Mr Hartcher Mr Tink Mr Humpherson Mr Turner Dr Kernohan Mr West Mr Kinross Mr Windsor Mr Longley Mr Zammit Mr Merton Ms Moore Tellers, Mr Morris Mr Cochran Mr W. T. J. Murray Mr Kerr
Pairs
Mr Carr Mr Baird Mr Clough Mr Beck Mr Doyle Mr Causley Mr Face Mr Fahey Mr Gaudry Mr Fraser Mrs Grusovin Mr Glachan Mr Harrison Mr Hazzard Ms Harrison Mr Jeffery Mr Hunter Ms Machin Mr Irwin Mr D.L. Page Mr McManus Mr Richardson Mr Markham Mr Rixon Mr Scully Mr Schultz Mr Sullivan Mr Smith
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.
JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE UPON POLICE ADMINISTRATION
Release of In Camera Evidence
Message
Mr Speaker reported the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council:
Mr SPEAKER
The Legislative Council desires to inform the Legislative Assembly that, having had under consideration the Assembly's Message of 1 December 1994 regarding the Release of In-Camera Evidence, it has this day agreed to the following resolution:
(1) That this House authorises the release to the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service of all evidence taken in camera by the Joint Select Committee Upon Police Administration.
(2) That the evidence be released on condition, agreed to in writing to the Presiding Officers, that it be treated as highly confidential and is not to be published and it only be received for intelligence and investigative purposes, including derivative use.
(3) That the Clerk have leave to produce any documents or records of the House as may be requested by the Royal Commission.
(4) That leave be given to Members of the House to attend, if they think fit, as witnesses before the Royal Commission.
Legislative Council M. F. Willis 2 December 1994 President
ABORIGINAL RECONCILIATION
Mr Speaker reported the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council:
Mr SPEAKER
The Legislative Council desires to inform the Legislative Assembly that having had under consideration the Assembly's Message of 2 December 1994 concerning Aboriginal Reconciliation, it has this day agreed to the following resolution:
That this House:
(1) Notes that in 1991 the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia unanimously enacted the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act 1991 to promote a process of reconciliation between the indigenous and wider Australian communities.
Page 6289
(2) Supports the concept of constructive reconciliation between indigenous and wider Australian communities.
(3) In acknowledgment of this support, adopts, as a vision shared by this House, the vision of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, namely,
"A united Australia which respects this land of ours; values the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage, and provides justice and equity for all".
Legislative Council M. F. Willis 2 December 1994 President
PROTECTED DISCLOSURES BILL
Message
Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it that the Legislative Assembly disagrees with the Legislative Council's amendments Nos 1 to 6.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hours of Sitting: Suspension of Sessional Orders
Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services) [6.46]: I move:
That Sessional Orders be suspended to allow the House to sit beyond 7.00 p.m. at this sitting.
With the House sitting beyond 7.00 p.m. this evening, because there is no agreement between the respective parties, divisions and quorums may be called. I ask that honourable members be reminded of that point.
Motion agreed to.
[Mr Speaker left the chair at 6.48 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]
ROYAL COMMISSION INTO THE NEW SOUTH WALES POLICE SERVICE
Message
Mr Speaker reported the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council:
Mr SPEAKER
The Legislative Council desires to inform the Legislative Assembly that, having had under consideration the Assembly's Message of 1 December 1994 regarding the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service and paedophiles, it has this day agreed to the following resolution:
(1) That the Resolution adopted by this House on 10 March 1994, relating to the reference to the Independent Commission Against Corruption concerning the New South Wales Police Service and paedophiles, be rescinded.
(2) That the Legislative Council agrees to paragraph 2 (a), (b) and (c) in the Legislative Assembly's Message of 1 December 1994 with the following amendment:
After "paedophiles" wherever occurring, insert "and pederasts"
in which amendment the Council requests the concurrence of the Legislative Assembly.
Legislative Council Dr Marlene Goldsmith 2 December 1994 Deputy-President
Motion by Mr West agreed to.
That the amendment in the Legislative Council Message be agreed to.
BILL RETURNED
The following bill was returned from the Legislative Council without amendment:
Children (Parental Responsibility) Bill
SUMMARY OFFENCES AND OTHER LEGISLATION (GRAFFITI) AMENDMENT BILL
Bill returned from the Legislative Council with an amendment.
In Committee
Consideration of Legislative Council's amendment.
Schedule of amendments referred to in message of 2 December.
Page 3, Schedule 1. After line 12, insert:
(2) Instead of imposing a fine on the person or sentencing the person to imprisonment, the court:
(a) may make an order under section 4 of the Community Service Orders Act 1979 requiring the person to perform community service work, being an order containing a recommendation of the kind referred to in section 4(1A) of that Act; or
(b) may make an order under section 5 of the Children (Community Service Orders) Act 1987 requiring the person to perform community service work, being an order containing a recommendation of the kind referred to in section 5(1A) of that Act, as the case requires.
(3) A court that convicts a person of an offence under this section must not sentence the person to imprisonment unless the person has previously been convicted of an offence under this section or section 10B on so many occasions that the court is satisfied that the person is a serious and persistent offender and is likely to commit such an offence again.
Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services) [7.33]: I move:
That the amendment referred to in the Legislative Council's message of 2 December be agreed to.
In explanation, last evening when the Legislative Assembly had this matter under consideration an amendment to the bill was accepted. To standardise and formalise that procedure a similar amendment needs to be accepted to the first bill. That has been done in the Legislative Council as a result of its review. As the Legislative Council is a House of review, and as it has had time to formally consider this legislation, I believe its recommendations should be accepted.
Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [7.34]: I support this commonsense amendment. The amendment provides, in proposed subclause (3), that a court that convicts a person of an offence under that section must not sentence the person to imprisonment unless the person has previously been convicted of an offence under that Page 6290 section or section 10B on so many occasions that the court is satisfied that the person is a serious and persistent offender and is likely to commit such an offence again. That wholesome amendment will enable magistrates to exercise the care required to ensure that young people do not fall into the gaol system, from which they would emerge more professional than when they went in.
Motion agreed to.
Legislative Council's amendment agreed to.
Resolution reported from Committee and report adopted.
PROTECTED DISCLOSURES BILL
Message
Mr Speaker reported the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council:
Mr SPEAKER
The Legislative Council desires to inform the Legislative Assembly that having had under consideration the Assembly's Message of 2 December 1994 it has this day resolved to not insist on its amendments Nos 1 to 6 disagreed to by the Assembly in the Protected Disclosures Bill.
Legislative Council M. F. Willis 2 December 1994 President
WATER BOARD (CORPORATISATION) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 30 November.
Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [7.37]: I appreciate the indulgence of the Leader of the House and the Minister for Land and Water Conservation in allowing me to proceed with the second reading debate, which had been adjourned on the motion of the Minister. By arrangement, I sought to defer my remarks until the completion of a lengthy negotiation process between my office, the other Independents, environment groups, the Water Board and the Minister responsible for the Water Board, the Hon. Robert Webster in the other place. I was keen to see that process completed so that I could address my remarks appropriately to the success or otherwise of that process. I regard this moment as extremely significant not only for water management in this State, but also for myself, having been involved with the Sydney Water Board from the beginning of my political life. A maxim is to be found in the opening section of the report by the Joint Select Committee upon the Sydney Water Board: "You never know the worth of water till the well runs dry". That maxim captures much of what this bill is about.
The bill is all about trying to turn a somewhat onerous organisation into a body that has structure, rigour and direction. The problems we have faced for many years with Sydney's waterways, polluted rivers and polluted oceans were caused largely by a history of poor organisation and lack of regulation. My comment is not meant to reflect on individuals within the organisation. The intent of the bill is not only to corporatise the Water Board but to reform that body. The process of corporatisation will capture enormous benefits that will reform water management in this State. I have waited 10 years for this moment. The Water Board has all the traditional shortcomings of government departments, including secretiveness in decision making and an endemic history of political interference. The Water Board has been an aimless organisation that has lacked accountability.
It has impacted on the environment in a wider sense in all of our waterways which, of course, are the very things that characterise the beauty of this State and city. The water environment that includes the lagoons and beaches has a history of pollution, albeit improving, but with this piece of legislation we can anticipate it will improve even more quickly. Pollution has had an impact on the activities of the Water Board relating to our waterways, and it will impact on the atmosphere. We have a history of using incineration to get rid of waste. I have been intricately involved in this issue over the years. The Water Board is an organisation that clearly has an ailing infrastructure and outdated philosophies. It needs the paradigm shift that I believe this bill will provide.
Recently the Water Board was the subject of a report by a parliamentary joint select committee. It showed that the Water Board delivers water quite effectively - its task is delivering water and taking away waste water. It is the latter function that creates enormous difficulties. The outdated and leaking reticulation system is presenting difficulties and is reaching a point where it needs massive replacement. It has also reached the point where it cannot cope with the capacities it is required to cope with. These problems were reflected in the Camp Dresser and McKee report of the late 1980s. The report also showed that there was poor strategic planning. The Water Board is on the brink of a new age. This will be demonstrated in the amendments to the bill, which have been negotiated in good faith by all parties.
The need to reform the Water Board is not something that has emanated necessarily from this place; it emanated in the late 1980s in the time of community disquiet about the Water Board and its impact particularly on beaches. In a sense, the clean waterways program was a social contract with the community to try to improve the waterways and the delivery of waste water services. It also provided for the special environment levy. The Sydney Water Board is one of the biggest polluters in New South Wales. It is operating in a regulatory vacuum: no targets have been set to reduce the total amount of pollution. The waterways are showing stress, particularly the Hawkesbury-Nepean, which is predicted to be dead by the year 2010.
Benefits and reforms will result from this corporatisation, particularly on the question of better accountability. It is an opportunity to set more enforceable and auditable goals to reduce toxic Page 6291 pollution into our waterways, to find that opportunity for proper demand management and also to hold directors responsible for the clear objectives of the bill. That clear responsibility can also be reflected in a firm and rigorous operating licence, which will be subject to proper independent regulation. Benefits of better customer focus and customer rights are inherent in the bill. I hold the Government responsible for failing to implement stage two of the Environment Protection Authority legislation. We are dealing with some pollution laws that are 30-35 years old. The stage two legislation was sent to Parliamentary Counsel in early 1993 and we have heard nothing from the Government, on the basis that it is all very complex.
A finding of the report on the Sydney Water Board was that an organisation operating in a regulatory vacuum has enormous difficulties. That is why there is a need for clear accountable objectives and regulation. Another important component of any bill is that it should have very clear objectives and that those objectives should not seek to be paramount, one over the other. During the negotiations we sought to enshrine in this piece of legislation that the Water Board should be a successful business, and that the question of ecologically sustainable development principles and public health should have equal status. The EPA has a history of being somewhat ineffective. In the absence of the stage two EPA legislation, the question of introducing into the bill some pollution prevention is important. I want clear legislative endorsement of the objectives that reside in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act for retaining harmless levels of pollution, with progressive targets set by public participation.
One of my aims is to see the technological paradigm shift move from the disposal to oceans and rivers and to consider the question of introducing into a bill some decentralisation, the opportunity for beneficial reuse and also the reduction in ocean disposal. In a recent statement to the press the Minister for the Environment indicated that he has already considered the question of trying to pump Sydney's waste water over the mountains. That reflects very much the community views. The operating licence will include some rigorous concepts and targets. One of the very useful gains has been a demand management target of 25 per cent. That will clearly benefit not only the question of conservation of water but also reduction in the waste streams and, therefore, the capacity of the system.
The gains achieved in the last three months of negotiations result from input from many areas. I acknowledge the input from Tony Simpson from the Australian Conservation Foundation, and Jeff Angel from the Total Environment Centre. I also acknowledge the assistance of John Connor, who is the research assistant in my office, and Amanda Jones and Paul Broad who are with the Water Board. When the bill was first tabled it was inadequate in a number of ways. We have managed to toughen it up and make it into something that is more acceptable - a landmark piece of legislation. I shall speak more on the areas of improvement when we deal with the many amendments. The bill addresses issues related to catchment lands and contains improvements in solution targets, and reuse of sewage, about which I shall speak in great detail in Committee. It also refers to the independent licence regulator.
During discussions with the Water Board the question arose as to whether it was appropriate to have vision built into a piece of legislation. I believe vision is important. There is a requirement on us to reflect community views and the vision the community holds. For that reason I have spent most of the last few months of my input into these negotiations trying to get long-term vision for the reduction of pollution targets and finally the discontinuation of ocean outfall. Albeit there was some resistance, it will be seen as one of the great gains of this particular piece of legislation. For that reason I commend it to the House.
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [7.48], in reply: I am pleased to have the opportunity to reply on behalf of the Government to contributions on historic legislation to corporatise the Water Board. I place on record my thanks to all honourable members who spoke to the debate. Whether they be Independents, Opposition or Government members, all of them have made substantial contributions to what has ultimately been the passage of this bill. Whilst many negotiations have occurred over recent weeks between the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing, who has responsibility for the Water Board, and many officials from the Water Board, other members of Parliament, and community groups, at least we have been able to hold the fort.
The amendments are complex and numerous. I hope we will be able to conclude this legislation tonight and make history with the corporatisation of the Water Board. The Government has proceeded down a path of careful preparation of the Water Board - a matter I outlined when introducing this bill. The Government has provided the framework for the commercialisation of government trading enterprises. This Government established the Environment Protection Authority and, unlike the Leader of the Opposition in his day, provided it with the resources to do its job. This Government established the independent Government Pricing Tribunal which has had an impact on the commercial transactions of the Water Board. Given that the Water Board has a monopoly control in the marketplace, the independence of the Government Pricing Tribunal is extremely important. The Government Pricing Tribunal has some influence on government trading enterprises other than the Water Board.
This Government has met the challenge to make the Water Board green and efficient, and that has yielded clean beaches and a more effective Water Board. In 1988, when I and my colleagues entered this House for the first time, the Water Board became a major community issue. There is little doubt that the scenes we saw in those days, compared with the Page 6292 scenes we see now, represent a dramatic improvement. This improvement can be attributed predominantly to the new outlook of the Government and the Water Board. Most honourable members would be aware that, in respect of corporatisation and environmental improvements, the Government took the decision to go out early and often. It promoted this bill over a long period. I recall in one of my earlier ministerial roles working on this question of the corporatisation of the Water Board. We have reached this stage after discussing these matters for the last two or three years.
The Government wanted to make this bill the best it possibly could without corrupting the principles of corporatisation. I believe we have achieved that. Peak green groups welcome this bill as a world precedent for water management. I am pleased to see representatives of environmental groups in the gallery. I have had many discussions in the past with Sue Salmon. The Government's achievements in this area can be attributed to extensive consultation over the years with various green groups - including the Australian Conservation Foundation, a group to which I referred earlier - and with the Independents. Tonight we have come to the conclusion of this monumental bill. The Government intends to move many amendments, based on these discussions. I believe other amendments will be moved by Opposition members and by the Independents.
Representatives of green, consumer and welfare groups, together with the Independents, have contributed significantly to the refinement of this proposal. Their views and ideas will result in improvements to the key aspects of the bill. I will outline six or seven of those improvements. Commercial, environmental, social and public health objectives will be given equal weight. The Minister responsible will report to the Parliament and answer questions about the performance of Sydney Water against its operating licence. There will be a clear separation of the responsibilities of Ministers who are shareholders and those responsible for the regulation of the corporation. Regulating Ministers will not be shareholders, not even non-voting shareholders. An important aspect of the separation of the role of regulator and operator is that Ministers who have responsibilities will not be involved either as voting or as non-voting shareholders.
The functions of operator and regulator will be separated, particularly with regard to the right to use water and the flow and control of water. The package includes a commitment to commence environmental impact statements to establish flow regimes for the Hawkesbury-Nepean, Shoalhaven and Woronora rivers. The separation of ministerial responsibility will provide genuine independence in those functions. There will be a statutory provision for the licensed regulator to oversee the annual audit of the performance of Sydney Water against its operating licence. The operating licence will be improved as a result of the passage of the proposed amendments. There will be statutory provisions for the memoranda of understanding - MOUs - with the Environment Protection Authority, the Department of Water Resources and the Department of Health. That represents a new era in memoranda of understanding. The MOUs will ensure cooperative relationships between those regulating agencies and Sydney Water aimed at guaranteeing the sharing of information and joint studies.
Public participation will be integral to the development of those MOUs. The Government will ensure that the very high standard of protection and management of catchment lands continues under corporatisation. There will be no diminution of the most vital part of the operational side of water collection. How do these interest groups and the Independent members feel now as the Opposition has done everything it can to stall this bill after six months of negotiation in good faith? At the commencement of the Opposition's marathon filibuster the honourable member for Blacktown announced to the world that the Opposition would support corporatisation - but. The key point about the Opposition's strategy is that we have to worry about the "buts". The "buts" will determine the genuineness and extent of the Opposition's support for corporatisation.
Opposition members say that we cannot have corporatisation until we have the Environment Protection Authority stage two legislation. I am not satisfied with that statement, nor are the greens or the Independents. The reason is simple: this proposal to corporatise the Water Board is a world-beater. Proposals do not come better than this. There is no way that the corporatised model of the Australian Labor Party can deliver anything like it. The model of the Australian Labor Party retains Executive Government control, not at arm's length from political interference in its day-to-day operations. It represents only a name change. The word "corporatisation" resembles an institutional model of incorporation. It does not have the true operator and regulator separation that is required in corporatisation.
An example is the State Bank in South Australia, which shows that the model of the Australian Labor Party is not corporatisation at all; it is a model that fails. One of the committee members who prepared the Hilmer report on competition policy, which, as honourable members know, has been adopted by the Council of Australian Governments and touted by the Prime Minister as being the way of the future, has commented on the statutory corporation model proposed by the Opposition - that is, incorporation instead of corporatisation - and has made the following three points in comparison with the Government's proposal in the bill. While the bill ensures coverage of the Trade Practices Act, "It is not clear that the Opposition's statutory corporation model would achieve this result". The proposal for ministerial accountability under the Opposition's model is inconsistent with the Hilmer report "because the Minister would exercise authority and influence over the corporation on a discretionary basis", creating potential for conflict of interests. The Opposition's concept of ministerial accountability with discretion Page 6293 vested in the Minister to override the commercial judgment of the board of Sydney Water is inconsistent with the objectives of competitive neutrality as proposed by the Hilmer Committee.
There are major departures from the COAG model that the Prime Minister has been involved with, and he is quick to make those important distinctions between the Opposition's version and the Government's proposal. If the Opposition's amendment is carried to delay the corporatisation of the Water Board until such time as the EPA stage two legislation is enacted, then this opportunity will be lost. The proposal to corporatise the Water Board is a self-contained package into which checks and balances to protect the environment have been built in consultation with environment groups. This proposal also gives customers rights, including compensation and a money-back guarantee, and establishes transparent commercial management. All of this would lapse under the Opposition's proposal - and, let there be no mistake, there is no way that it can be brought back.
EPA stage two legislation is symbolic to some, but it is not about standards per se. It is about consolidating the existing legislation. It is not as if there is no regulatory framework in place; the position is quite the contrary. One of the core responsibilities under the operating licence of Sydney Water is to meet the standards set by the regulators. The corporation will be held accountable for these outcomes through the annual audit and through the application of the pollution control laws of the EPA. As requirements for pollution control change, the corporation's responsibility remains the same: it must continue to meet them. I should now like to make some comments on general performance.
Recently the Minister responsible for the Water Board, the Hon. Robert Webster of the Legislative Council, released two reports. The reports, the clean waterways report for the past five years and the special environmental levy report 1989-94, confirm that water quality in our beaches and inland rivers has substantially improved. In 1993-94 operating costs were cut by 7 per cent and the board has adopted a target of reducing overall cost per property served by 20 per cent by 1996-97. The Government has overseen the introduction of user-pays pricing to protect our precious natural resource and has cut the property tax component for business users by $60 million in 1993-94.
Increases in total Water Board charges to households have been limited to consumer price index increases for the average bill. At the same time, non-residential water prices are down 17 per cent in real terms, which is good news for business competitiveness, growth and jobs. The Fahey-Armstrong Government's leadership in microeconomic reform is clear, and this bill is testament to that. Simply, the Government's role is to stimulate growth, competition and innovation. The Government is also about accountability, fairness and an intelligent respect for the environment - sustainable growth to build a better future. Corporatisation of the Sydney Water Board is another milestone in building a better economy, not just for New South Wales but for Australia. The leadership that the bill and the corporatisation will provide to other authorities throughout Australia will be evident.
The reasons for corporatising the Water Board are clear and have been well presented by Government members in the debate, through the media and throughout the community. We all look forward to the ultimate passage of the bill by the conclusion of this evening. Many amendments have been negotiated in the past months. I am thankful for the support from Government members, Independent members and the many community groups and green groups that have been consulted. I am sure that the environmental representatives in the gallery have made a great input into the bill. I have great pleasure in concluding the second reading debate and in commending the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Clause 2
Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank) [8.06]: I move:
No. 1 Page 2, lines 7 and 8. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:
2. This Act commences on a day or days to be appointed for the purposes of this Act by or in accordance with an Act entitled the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1995.
The proposed Protection of the Environment Operations Act is, of course, more commonly referred to as the EPA stage two legislation. I sat on the Water Board inquiry and had the opportunity of spending a great deal of time listening to the various positions on corporatisation. One of the points I made in the Labor Party annexure to the final report I read into the Hansard record during my contribution to the second reading debate. I should like to make that point again, because it underscores the fundamental position of the Labor Party on this matter. I pointed out that the fundamental question that must be addressed prior to any consideration of corporatisation of the Water Board under any model should be how competent are the regulators and how capable are they of regulating the Sydney Water Board in its role as an operator of the system.
The Labor Party does not believe that the current regulatory structures or the regulatory structures proposed in amendments contained in the lists of amendments tabled tonight establish a proper, strong, transparent and suitable regulatory regime to manage a corporatised Water Board. For more than three years we have been promised the introduction of EPA stage two legislation. Contrary to what the Minister for Land and Water Conservation said in his reply to the second reading debate, the Committee is dealing with five legislative measures that are between 20 and 35 years old. I defy anyone to mount an argument Page 6294 that legislation that is so old is able to compete in the management and regulation of the Water Board in environmental matters. That is certainly the view of the Government.
The Governor in his address opening the Fiftieth Parliament in February 1993 indicated clearly that the integration of environmental and economic considerations would be pursued by the EPA in the further development of legislation. That had not been done by March this year, and the Governor then said that the Government would proceed with environment legislation that would aim to consolidate and streamline the five core pieces of legislation: the Pollution Control Act, the Clean Waters Act, the Clean Air Act, the Noise Control Act and part of the Waste Disposal Act.
The Government, of course, was committed to wide consultation on the final form of the legislation. The Environment Protection Authority conceded that the existing legislation was outdated and in desperate need of revision. That is, revision of the 25-year-old Pollution Control Act, the 25-year-old Clean Waters Act, the 34-year-old Clean Air Act, the 20-year-old Noise Control Act, and the 25-year-old Waste Disposal Act. That is the legislation that will be used to regulate the Water Board. In the past week the Minister for Land and Water Conservation eventually tabled Cabinet documents that assessed the corporatisation of the Sydney Water Board. Because this is fundamental legislation, I want to incorporate in Hansard some of the advice the Government received from NERA, the consultant for the Water Board in January 1992. In a confidential draft paper dated 17 January 1991, headed "Priority Tasks and Issues in the Corporatisation Process", NERA advised Cabinet about the most important issues to be resolved during the corporatisation process and the immediate work priorities to begin that process. The relevance of that advice is that the amendment is about establishing a proper regulatory environment by the passage of the proposed Protection of the Environment Operations Bill before the Water Board is corporatised. NERA advised the Government:
It is possible, though by no means definite, that Pacific Road - that is another group of consultants working on the corporatisation exercise -
might attempt to "gloss over" some of the more difficult regulatory and structural issues raised in this paper, since corporatisation with as few changes as possible would undoubtedly be the quickest and easiest route for the government to take. However, such an incomplete solution is unlikely to be in the long-term interests of the Water Board itself. If it is the objective of the Water Board to achieve independence in its management of the water system, whether through real "arms' length" corporatisation or even privatisation, then these difficult issues need to be addressed now, while the political will for change is more likely to be available. For example, the Water Board presently undertakes some roles of a "public policy" nature, which would be inappropriate for a body operating outside government control.
The relevance of that quote to the amendment should not be lost on members of this House. The quotation is talking about separating the regulatory framework and all the regulations from the corporatised Water Board. The amendment will achieve that in relation to the environmental regulations. As a result of the deal cooked up during the past few months about which everyone has been so self-congratulatory, the regulations have been loaded into the bill. The NERA report goes on:
The central element of the external model - that is the regulatory framework under the definitions in the report -
is that the public policy functions of the water cycle should be very clearly separated from the management and operational functions. In particular, regulatory bodies should set standards at the point of emission to the environment but should leave the management of compliance with those standards to the operational body.
What does that say? It says that the regulator and the operator must be kept separate. If the operator has control of the regulatory framework, the two components of the system will be mixed. I repeat what was said in the report:
The central element of the external model is that the public policy functions of the water cycle should be very clearly separated from the management and operational functions.
The amendment will achieve that. The propositions of the Government and the Independents certainly do not. One would have thought that the Government might have adopted some of the recommendations in the NERA report. However, the report went on:
At present, the interaction between public policy and management functions often implicitly takes place within the Water Board itself, since the Water Board has de facto had to assume some of these public policy roles in the absence of any other government agency being able to do so.
The honourable member for Manly will recall that. Bob Wilson, David Harley and Tim Moore told the committee that the Water Board had to adopt some of the regulatory functions because the EPA was, and still is - because the legislation, the board and the resources have not changed - incompetent to meet the tasks. The report said:
For example, the Water Board carries out regulatory duties in areas such as catchment management, household plumbing and drainage, and urban development.
I emphasise the next part:
These duties can be justified whilst the Water Board remains within political control but would be inappropriate for an independent public body or a private company to perform.
That is the baseline of this argument. If the Water Board is corporatised under the model proposed, it will be inappropriate for an independent public body - that is a corporatised body or a private company - to perform these tasks. The regulator and the operator should be kept separate. All the evidence to the inquiry gave that advice. It is stressed in the confidential report to Cabinet and is totally absent from the deal cooked up between the Independents and the Government to get this bill passed. I will say a little more about that later. NERA concludes its remarks about the separation of the regulator and the operator by saying:
Page 6295
. . . corporatisation involves more than just changing the structure and the legal status of the Water Board. It also involves the creation of an appropriate external environment within which a truly independent corporation can operate.
That is the advice the Government received. It paid a great deal of money for it and has ignored it. The Government has squibbed it. It wants to take the opportunity to corporatise the Water Board without addressing the main issue, that is, the structure of the regulatory environment. All honourable members understand that when the Water Board is corporatised, it will be at arm's length from government. That is inherent in every aspect of the bill. The Government will only maintain control of the regulatory framework. However, the corporation will have control of the regulatory framework. The functions of government that should be inherent in its role as a regulator will be given away. NERA makes the point that a huge number of detailed legal and regulatory issues will be involved in setting up a framework that will define the activities of the truly independent corporation. All honourable members would agree with that.
NERA makes the point that that is in contrast to a framework that might be appropriate for a corporation that is still open to political control or direction. In other words, that confirms the point I am making: the Government and the Independents have taken the soft option and walked away from the hard part, that is, the implementation of the EPA stage two legislation. The Government has had three years to introduce that legislation. It has been announced three times, and every time it has been announced I assume the National Party has gone feral and said, "No, we will not cop changes to the 25-year-old Clean Waters Act, or the 34-year-old Clean Air Act or any of those outdated pieces of legislation. That is what we are staying with". As a consequence, we are left with hopelessly outdated environmental regulations while the Water Board is cast off as a new corporation. That is not good enough.
In his concluding remarks the Minister referred to a great deal of negotiation having taken place between the Independents and the Government. There was some negotiation from this side of the Chamber as well. The honourable member for Manly and some of the staff sitting behind the bar will recall a meeting that took place a few weeks ago. I attended the meeting. The meeting was also attended by the honourable member for Manly, the honourable member for South Coast, the honourable member for Bligh and government staff. That meeting was supposedly called to discuss the various positions and views. However, it developed into an argument about whether it was possible to build suitable environmental regulations into the bill or whether the regulatory framework should be established first. That is the EPA stage two legislation, the subject of the amendment.
So that people can find out why this deal has been cooked up, I want to record for posterity that all those discussions about the regulatory framework took place in the absence of the chief regulator, the EPA. The EPA was not represented; it was not asked to participate. I can only assume that is because its views were considered to be irrelevant. That is reinforced by the fact that the Minister for the Environment has not spoken in this debate. Once the board is corporatised he will be the principal Minister to oversee the operations of the Water Board. If the agency is not consulted and the Minister does not participate in the debate, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they are not particularly interested. That is obvious from the findings that were agreed on in the Water Board inquiry, which found they were incompetent. It is totally inappropriate to negotiate regulations with the operator of the proposed system. It is like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank.
Dr Macdonald: We told them.
Mr KNOWLES: That is the interesting part. If the honourable member for Manly is setting himself up as having the competency and breadth of experience and knowledge that the Environment Protection Authority is supposed to have, he is a better man than I gave him credit for. But that is not the point. The EPA should be doing the job. If it is not competent to do the job, the job should not be done for it; but the EPA should be fixed up, as the Government has promised for three years. It is all very well saying, at the end of a three-year electoral cycle, that the Government has the important job of corporatising the Sydney Water Board but because the EPA is still an absolute shambles the Government will do its job. The problem should be fixed first. That provision is absent from this legislation and it is inherent in the Opposition's amendment.
I am not suggesting that environment groups - or the honourable member for Manly for that matter - have done anything but an honest and fair job. They have probably done a good job, but they have missed the point. Without the introduction of the EPA stage two legislation the Government will fail to establish a proper regulatory framework before corporatising the Water Board. It is obvious that the Government has gone in that direction because it is the end of the electoral cycle. It is taking the window of opportunity - as the honourable member for South Coast called it - that exists with the current numbers in the Parliament, and getting what it can out of it.
The honourable member for South Coast put it bluntly when he said he did not trust the Government and he did not trust the Opposition to advance comprehensive stage two legislation. He was happy to fix it up by putting bandaids on it, loading as many regulations as possible into it and getting what he could out of it. I am told this legislation is world-class corporatisation legislation. I hope it is, but it still does not excuse the Government or the Independents for failing to address a proper regulatory framework. In my contribution to the second reading debate I quoted Jeff Kennett, who is somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan. Before he corporatised Melbourne Water he introduced the Office of the Regulator General.
Page 6296
In the second reading speeches on that debate it was stated that until the regulatory framework is right and until there are comprehensive all-embracing environmental regulations, as there will be in the EPA stage two legislation, corporatisation should not be considered. With corporatisation the corporatised body is given control over the process. That has been the case in Europe and England and it is becoming the case here. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 15 November stated that as a result of a report about the continuing discharge of toxic waste into the ocean off Sydney's beaches, a spokesman for the EPA, which sets the pollution limits, said that the target levels for waste might soon have to be raised so that targets were achievable. That means the board's exceeding of a licence limit was not regarded as a breach because the EPA said it was using best practice methods.
The EPA cannot be trusted. What is the solution of the honourable member for Manly? Ignore them and put regulations into a bill? Do not worry about the 20 or 30 other government agencies and authorities and the thousands of private operators who pollute the water cycle, all of whom would be covered by comprehensive stage two legislation? Fix up just the Water Board and forget the rest? The honourable member for Manly talked about a paradigm shift. If this is not a paradigm shift, I do not know what is. He has gone from total, all-consuming environmental standards, as will be contained in the Opposition's amendment, to focusing on the Water Board. That is a paradigm shift.
Unless there is a strong, clear, whole-of-government approach to the regulatory framework that governs government trading enterprises, the international experience makes it clear that ultimately the operators will dominate. They set the standards, they set the prices, and they ultimately become the tail that wags the dog. I made the point that, faced with all the evidence taken over the last couple of years, the honourable member for Manly would have put in his own report and adopted the process that should be followed, and get the regulators right first. But he has not done that. It seems he wants to take that window of opportunity, as described by the honourable member for South Coast, and fix this up. I admire his efforts, but no matter how good the legislation is, no matter whether it is world-class, it misses the point because until there is a proper regulatory framework he may as well give the game away. One has only to look at what is happening overseas and elsewhere in Australia to know that without the proper regulatory framework a major problem is looming.
Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [8.26]: I concur with some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Moorebank. He has taken a high moral stand on this issue and for that reason I admire him. One of the clear outcomes of the report of the Joint Select Committee upon the Sydney Water Board was that the operator and the regulator had to be separated. The honourable member for Moorebank could be damned by his own words because he has already admitted that the EPA is weak and that it cannot be anticipated that it will be strengthened. I would like to think that a future government - whether it is a Labor government or a coalition government - would get on with it after March, but opportunities have to be taken when they present themselves.
The Government is keen to corporatise the Water Board. The bill that was introduced was pathetic. The bill that will be passed tonight will be a better bill. The honourable member for Moorebank should note that I will move an amendment that will introduce a new clause 27 referring to sunset provisions. All the regulations that concern him and which he describes as having been cooked up by the Independents were the result of much input from peak environment groups. I have confidence in the input of those peak environment groups. If the honourable member for Moorebank is a Minister in 1995 - and I hope to be back in this place after the election - he is on notice that I will be looking carefully to see whether he introduces good stage two legislation. When that legislation is introduced, the sunset clause will come into effect.
I do not know if the Government acknowledges the structure of the corporation. I acknowledge that the Government does not want to combine the operator and the regulator. Problems already exist in that regard. However, the opportunity has to be taken when it arises. If and when the honourable member for Moorebank becomes a Minister, he should get tough with the EPA and introduce good stage two legislation. As soon as it is enacted, the sunset clause will apply and my clauses 21 to 25 will take over.
Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank) [8.29]: Taking the opportunity when it arises is a very poor excuse for public policy making, particularly with something as fundamental as the change of a statutory body to a corporatised organisation being placed at arm's length, and particularly when it maintains a monopoly control over a principal resource, that is, water. If taking the opportunity is a euphemism for copping out, or taking a stock option, or doing a deal, maybe that is what the honourable member for Manly means. I respect the fact that he took the opportunity to get the best possible bill for the Water Board but corporatising the Water Board is more than just about the Water Board; it is about the entire water cycle.
I recommend that all honourable members read what has been said by Tim Moore, a political foe of the Labor Party; David Harley, who is no real friend of the Labor Party; and Bob Wilson. They talk about the need to take a whole-of-environment approach to the water cycle, and that includes all the players who pollute, given that we are dealing with environmental regulations at this point in time. Honourable members cannot pretend that this strapped-up Water Board bill makes a good Water Board corporatisation bill. It is a hopeless failure as an overall regulatory framework to protect the entire environment.
I wish now to deal with the silly suggestion that whoever is in government next year will introduce stage two. I would like someone to show me one Page 6297 successful international example where the cart was put back in place after the horse. I will provide an example where it has failed abysmally: in England. I happened to be in England at the time and I looked at the system. It is pretty clear that as a result of the failure to get the regulatory framework right first, the private water companies operating in monopoly environments, as the Sydney Water Board Corporation will be, were totally unable to bring in, after the event, stronger environmental standards. I refer to the English newspaper the Observer of 2 January with the headline, "Government Scraps River Clean-up Plan".
The Government is backing off introducing tougher environmental standards simply because when it tried to introduce the standards after the water authorities were broken up, the water authorities simply said, "Yes, sure, we can do that, and here is the bill. Who is going to pay? It will not be us because under our operating licence, under our memoranda of understanding, we are already achieving what we need to achieve and if you want to move the goal post, this is the cost involved". And that is also the case with this legislation. It will be an interesting set of circumstances that increases water prices, particularly if the economy follows the cycle. This initiative will be forever. If the economy goes into a downturn or if governments are forced, dare I say, to produce balanced budgets, it will be interesting to see what will happen when a government says, "We will agree to increases in water prices to achieve new tougher environmental standards".
Environmental standards should be set up-front, properly articulated to enable everyone to know what they are targeting. But that is not the case here or overseas. Where it has happened overseas, it has failed. I can only say to the honourable member for Manly that Labor also hopes it will be in government. The Opposition is on the record time and again as stating it is committed to the EPA stage two legislation. The honourable member is kidding himself if he thinks that will happen merely because he has enshrined it in a clause in a bill. It is naive, it denies what has happened internationally, and it denies reality. The proper way to proceed is to first get the environmental framework correct and then move to the other structures, such as pricing, dividend, and capital asset management, and then corporatise the Water Board.
I notice that the Opposition's position on this matter has been criticised by the environment movement. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald today referred to the last minute deal between the Government and the Independents backing the water bill. The Australian Conservation Foundation wrote to the Leader of the Opposition advising him of its support for the amendment. I say to peak environmental groups that though they may feel they have done a great job improving this bill - and we would certainly agree with that - they are a long way short of the mark regarding the overall reality of government, price setting and the total concept in which the Water Board has to operate. If honourable members think that will provide stronger environmental standards, they are kidding themselves. All it will do is ensure that half-baked standards of one organisation will be set in concrete, and myriad other polluters will be left behind forever.
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [8.36]: This amendment is about the commencement of EPA legislation. The counter argument from the Government is that the stage two EPA legislation is primarily about rationalising and updating existing pollution control legislation. It includes the Clean Air Act, the Clean Waters Act, the Noise Control Act, the Pollution Control Act and the Waste Disposal Act. The EPA advised that it will also pave the way for some new initiatives, which may include, for example, the development of an integrated schedule of all major polluting activities, such as the basis for licensing and approval.
The Government has indicated that once Cabinet has considered the bill, it will be exhibited for public comment for at least three months before being submitted for final Cabinet approval. Given the number of pieces of legislation incorporated in this package, the consultation may take longer. The corporatisation bill is a self-contained package into which accountability has been built, in consultation with combined conservation and consumer groups. One of the core responsibilities of the new corporation will be to meet the standards set by its regulators. The corporation will be held accountable for these outcomes through auditing of its operating licence and through the application of pollution control legislation by the EPA.
The proposed Protection of the Environment Operations Act is not about setting standards. Should the passage of the bill lead to the imposition of more stringent requirements by the EPA, the corporation would be obliged to meet these standards. Waiting for second stage EPA legislation that will be a panacea is all well and good in theory but it is nothing less than a delay tactic. When the second stage EPA legislation is introduced into the Parliament, its merits or demerits will be debated then. No doubt the Opposition would like to see some reasonable public consultation on the EPA legislation, and, therefore, it would not support the fast-tracking of it.
Taken to its logical conclusion, the argument that the Water Board (Corporatisation) Bill should be delayed until EPA stage two is in place would mean that all forms of industry, development and economic activities should be put on hold until this legislation is in place. This is clearly impractical and undesirable. The question of why reform of the Water Board should be singled out needs to be asked. Corporatisation of the Water Board promises to deliver improved performance, improved accountability to government, and last, but not least, a greater focus on customer service. Surely the Australian Labor Party would not want the people of Sydney to miss out on such benefits. Therefore, the Government opposes this amendment.
Page 6298
Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 31
Ms Allan Mr Mills Mr Amery Mr Moss Mr Anderson Mr Nagle Mr A. S. Aquilina Mr Neilly Mr J. J. Aquilina Ms Nori Mr Bowman Mr E. T. Page Mr Crittenden Mr Price Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge Mr Harrison Mr Rumble Mr Hunter Mr Shedden Mr Iemma Mr Thompson Mr Irwin Mr Whelan Mr Knowles Mr Yeadon Mr Langton Tellers, Mr McBride Mr Beckroge Ms Meagher Mr Davoren
Noes, 34
Mr Armstrong Mr O'Doherty Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page Mr Chappell Mr Peacocke Mrs Cohen Mr Phillips Mr Collins Mr Photios Mr Cruickshank Mr Rozzoli Mr Debnam Mr Schipp Mr Hartcher Mrs Skinner Mr Hatton Mr Small Mr Humpherson Mr Souris Dr Kernohan Mr Tink Mr Kinross Mr West Mr Longley Mr Windsor Dr Macdonald Mr Zammit Mr Merton Ms Moore Tellers, Mr Morris Mr Cochran Mr W. T. J. Murray Mr Kerr
Pairs
Mr Carr Mr Baird Mr Clough Mr Beck Mr Doyle Mr Causley Mr Face Mr Chikarovski Mr Gaudry Mr Downy Mrs Grusovin Mr Fahey Ms Harrison Mr Fraser Mr Knight Mr Glachan Ms Lo Po' Mr Hazzard Mr McManus Mr Jeffery Mr Markham Ms Machin Mr Martin Mr Petch Mr J. H. Murray Mr Richardson Mr Rogan Mr Rixon Mr Scully Mr Schultz Mr Sullivan Mr Smith
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [8.48]: I move:
No. 1 Page 4, clause 3, line 20. Omit "sewerage", insert instead "sewage".
I take this opportunity to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Minister Sisivath, the Minister for Water Resources in Laos.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 5
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [8.52]: I move Government amendment No. 2:
No. 2 Page 4, clause 5. After line 36, insert:
(2) If it is proposed to amend subsection (1):
(a) the Premier is to request the Licence Regulator constituted by section 29 to hold a public inquiry into the potential social, environmental and economic impacts of the proposed amendment; and
(b) the Licence Regulator must hold the public inquiry and provide the Premier with a report setting out its findings as to the effect that the proposed amendment may have on the Corporation's ability to implement the objectives imposed on it by this Act.
Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [8.53]: This is an essential amendment to ensure that the Water Board cannot be privatised. The community has been concerned that this legislation is a Trojan horse leading to the privatisation of that body, and I also hold that concern. We have plenty of overseas evidence, especially from Great Britain, that privatisation of public resources like water organisations is just not on. This is a contentious issue that needs to be put to rest. Frankly, when this bill was introduced by the Government, it provided an opportunity for this or any future government to privatise the Water Board. I do not necessarily accuse this Government of having a secret agenda, but the opportunity existed. This is a belt and braces amendment to ensure that privatisation does not occur.
Although the Government has ensured in the bill that shares in the Water Corporation cannot be sold to other than eligible Ministers, a future government could contemplate a change, and that could be a serious matter. This amendment would mean that a public inquiry would have to be held into such a change. That inquiry - held by the licensed regulator, who knows most about the organisation - would call for public submissions and examine the social, environmental and economic impacts of the proposed change and its effect on the objectives of this legislation.
Of course, it is possible that an unscrupulous government could move to change this proposed new subsection, but the political cost of doing so would be great if that government were to move to prevent the Page 6299 public inquiry as well. The amendment enhances the accountability framework of the bill, and it will ensure that the new Sydney Water Corporation will be kept in public hands. It will ensure that this or any future government, if it considered privatisation, would have to do so through a public and accountable process. Therefore, this is a very important amendment and should be supported.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 6
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [8.54]: I move Government amendment No. 3:
No. 3 Page 5, clause 6, lines 1-11. Omit all the words on those lines, insert instead:
Role of certain Ministers
6. (1) The Premier may not nominate:
(a) the Minister who is responsible for administering the provisions of this Act relating to any operating licence and who is required, under this Act, to report to Parliament in relation to the Corporation's operations; or
(b) a Minister administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Water Administration Act 1986, the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 or the Public Health Act 1991, as being eligible to hold shares in the Corporation.
(2) However, the Minister who has the responsibilities referred to in subsection (1)(a) is authorised to attend meetings of the shareholders of the Corporation.
(3) If a Minister nominated by the Premier as being eligible to hold shares in the Corporation becomes the Minister who has the responsibilities referred to in subsection (1)(a) or who is responsible for the administration of any of the Acts refer to in subsection (1)(b), the Premier must, as soon as practicable, revoke the nomination of the Minister as being eligible to hold shares in the Corporation and nominate another Minister in the Minister's place.
(4) The Minister who is responsible for administering the provisions of this Act relating to any operating licence is to answer all questions directed to the Minister in Parliament in relation to the administration of those provisions.
Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [8.55]: This is another important amendment as it will effectively prevent the Minister responsible for the Water Board, or his successor, from being a shareholder. Also, it prevents the regulating Minister - who along with the Treasurer has a watchdog role over the new corporation - from being a shareholder. A conflict could arise if this amendment were not passed. Proposed new subsection (4) will mean that the Minister, unlike the case with the Hunter Water Corporation, will have to answer questions in Parliament on this matter. This will ensure that the accountability processes are locked into the legislation.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 10
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [8.56]: I move Government amendment No 4:
No. 4 Page 8, clause 10. After line 19, insert:
(6) An order to vary the area of operations does not take effect until written notice of the order, accompanied by a copy of the order, is laid before each House of Parliament and either:
(a) 15 sitting days of each House of Parliament has passed after the order was tabled and notice of a motion to disallow the order has not been given; or
(b) if notice of a motion to disallow the order has been given, the motion has lapsed or has been withdrawn or defeated.
This proposed subclause provides that notice of an order to vary the corporation's area of operations must be tabled in each House of Parliament in a manner similar to variations in the operating licence.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 12
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [8.58]: I move Government amendment No 5:
No. 5 Page 9, clause 12. After line 23, insert:
(4) The authorisation given by subsection (3) in relation to an operating licence has effect only until such time as the Corporation is granted a licence or permit by the relevant authority for the purposes referred to in that subsection and the Minister, by certificate published in the Gazette, certifies that such a licence or permit has been granted.
This amendment will ensure that the Water Administration Ministerial Corporation's right to the use and flow, and to the control of water is granted to the Sydney Water Corporation on a transitional basis to enable it to perform its functions until the granting of a water use licence or permit by the relevant authority.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 13
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [8.58], by leave: I move Government amendment Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 in globo:
No. 6 Page 9. After line 28, insert:
Form of initial operating licence
13. (1) The initial operating licence granted to the Corporation is to be the same as the draft licence that was presented to the Speaker for tabling before the third reading on the Bill for this Act by the Minister who introduced the Bill for this Act in the Legislative Assembly.
(2) However, the initial operating licence is to incorporate such changes (if any) as are necessitated by amendments made to the Bill for this Act by either House of Parliament after the presentation of the draft licence to the Speaker by the Minister or as are necessary to effect minor errata.
Page 6300
No. 7 Page 10, clause 13, line 10. After "licence", insert:
; and
(d) to compile indicators of the direct impact on the environment of the Corporation's activities:
(i) to enable preparation of an annual report on the Corporation's performance; and
(ii) to provide information for a year to year comparison in relation to the Corporation's performance in this area.
No. 8 Page 10, clause 13. After line 10, insert:
(2) The operating licence granted to the Corporation is to provide for the preparation of an operational audit in accordance with Division 2 of Part 6.
No. 9 Page 10, clause 13. After line 25, insert:
(4) If it is proposed to transfer responsibility for the provision, operation, management or maintenance of the stormwater drainage system to a council or councils (within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1993), in order to be satisfied that satisfactory arrangements have been made for the purposes of subsection (3), the Minister:
(a) is to cause written notice of the proposed transfer and details of the proposed new arrangements to be served on the council or councils concerned and is to invite them, by that notice, to comment on the proposal within 40 days after service of the notice; and
(b) is to be satisfied that at least the same standard of service will be provided under the new arrangements as had been provided by the Corporation.
(5) If new arrangements are entered into in pursuance of subsections (3) and (4), the Corporation must, within 14 days after the arrangements are entered into, give notice of the terms of the arrangements by notification published in the Gazette.
Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [8.59]: Amendment No. 6 is very important because it will ensure that the operating licence will be tabled at either the end of the Committee stage or before the third reading. It has been negotiated through a lengthy process with the peak environmental groups. It is hardly for me to suggest that any skulduggery might take place, but we could end up with a different licence and it is important that we do not take a chance. Amendment No. 7 inserts in clause 13(1) a paragraph (d) that requires that the operating licence must include terms or conditions under which the Corporation is required to compile indicators of the direct impact on the environment of the Corporation's activities. This is important because the operating licence is the riding instructions by which the organisation operates.
The requirement is that the licence must include procedures by which indicators of environmental impact are to be followed in decision making. That clearly is a message that the licence must have regard to its impact on the environment as the years go by. We know that the Sydney Water Board is a major polluter in New South Wales, and is a major polluter of our waterways. That environmental impact is at the forefront of our minds, and that is why it is important that those indicators and trends should be included in the licence. Amendment No. 9 relates to stormwater services, which have a serious impact on the environment and local amenity and have economic implications for local areas. Only recently we saw community and Government concern about stormwater pollution, and the resulting destruction of environmental values and health effects.
It is important to involve local councils, who maintain a large part of our stormwater infrastructure, in decisions, and this amendment will facilitate that involvement. The amendment ensures that they will be consulted about any changes to the stormwater arrangements, by making that consultation a condition of the Minister being satisfied about the new arrangements. It is also important to ensure that the new stormwater arrangements continue the duties and obligations included in the bill. It would be contrary to the public interest to have a new corporation or group placed in charge of the system, without the obligation to satisfy the environmental, social and economic objects of the Act.
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [9.00]: I would like to comment on amendment No. 9, relating to the proposed transfer of responsibility for stormwater drainage management. I cannot share the enthusiasm that the honourable member for Manly is trying to communicate when he states that this amendment will ensure consultation. The wording of the amendment will ensure that a written notice of the proposed transfer and details of the proposed new arrangements will have to be circulated to the relevant councils. They will then be invited, by that notice, to comment on the proposal within 40 days. But there is no guarantee in the amendment that the comments will be listened to. Subclause (4)(b) is also very interesting. The reassurance is that at least the same standard of service will be provided. But where is it imperative to improve the standard of service for stormwater drainage management? It is not happening.
As the honourable member for Manly has already said, stormwater drainage pollution is a key concern of the community. Amendment No. 9 raises the spectre of stormwater management being transferred to local government in the future. It provides an absolutely inadequate assurance about the involvement of local government in the process. The amendment provides an absolute minimalist position for the transfer of responsibility. It is equivalent, at least, to the development applications that are currently being received from public housing authorities and public sector authorities for housing and other developments and the necessary involvement, which is absolutely minimal, of local government in whose areas of responsibility the developments take place.
On behalf of the Opposition I consider that amendment No. 9 is inadequate. It was one of the early great weaknesses identified in the first draft of the Water Board (Corporatisation) Bill. It was one of the first apparent backdowns by the Government in response to the onslaught of pressure by the honourable member for Manly and peak conservation groups, yet the amendment is totally inadequate. It Page 6301 simply acknowledges the role of local government, continues to raise the possibility of the transfer of responsibility, and gives no guarantees that an improved level of stormwater drainage will be provided in the area of the Water Board.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 15
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [9.03], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 10 and 11 in globo:
No. 10 Pages 10 and 11, clause 15, line 37 on page 10 to line 20 on page 11. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:
(2) However, a proposed amendment to an operating licence will not take effect until written notice of the proposed amendment, accompanied by a copy of the proposed amendment, is laid before each House of Parliament and either:
(a) 15 sitting days of each House of Parliament has passed after the proposed amendment was tabled and notice of a motion to disallow the proposed amendment has not been given; or
(b) if notice of a motion to disallow the proposed amendment has been given, the motion has lapsed or has been withdrawn or defeated.
No. 11 Page 11, clause 15, lines 23-26. Omit all words on those lines.
Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [9.03]: I sound like an apologist for the Government, doing all the talking. These amendments are important and, whether or not one likes the process - the Labor Party is still spitting chips about it - one has to look at the benefits that will come out of it. The operating licence will be an auditable licence, one that will be looked over very closely by the licensed regulator. It is a clear admission from the Government that if there is to be any amendment to the operating licence, it will be subject to disallowance. Clearly, the Parliament will have an opportunity to have a role in that process. We do not want surreptitious, secret changes to the operation licence that will weaken the requirements of the organisation. It will be an open process and will be subject to disallowance. It is a much simpler mechanism. It is something that should be supported.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 20
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [9.04], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 12, 13, 14 and 15 in globo:
No. 12 Page 13, clause 20, lines 32-34. Omit "and by endeavouring to accommodate these when able to do so".
No. 13 Page 13, clause 20, lines 35 and 36. Omit "under an operating licence with reference to", insert instead "in compliance with".
No. 14 Page 14, clause 20, line 1. After "water", insert "to its customers and other members of the public".
No. 15 Page 14, clause 20. After line 2, insert:
(2) Despite section 8 of the State Owned Corporations Act 1989, each of the Corporation's principal objectives is of equal importance.
Subclause (3)(a) of clause 20 has been amended to state that exhibiting a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates is an unqualified objective of the corporation. Subclause (3)(b) of clause 20 has been strengthened to require compliance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development, rather than simply referring to such principles. Subclause (3)(c) of clause 20 has been amended to broaden the requirements imposed on the corporation in relation to the provision of safe drinking water to apply to customers and to other persons. A new subclause (2) has been inserted in clause 20, to provide that all the corporation's principles are to rank equally; that is, it will give equal weighting to commercial environment objectives.
Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [9.06]: I support the Government's amendments. They set equal goals, something that has been achieved only after a long, hard fight. The setting of equal ecological, customer and commercial goals is of enormous importance. There was a concern that when a body like the Sydney Water Board was corporatised it would turn into a lean, mean operator preoccupied with profit, the bottom line being the balance sheet. The amendment seeks to produce a corporation that has regard to other than the bottom line in relation to commercial activity, that is, one equally concerned about its impact on the environment and in providing services to customers. It is a fundamental requirement of the corporation and one that the Government has agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
New division 2
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [9.07]: I move Government amendment No. 16:
No. 16 Page 14. After line 2, insert:
Division 2 - Licence Regulator
Definitions
21. In this Division:
"Licence Regulator" means the Sydney Water Corporation Licence Regulator constituted by section 22;
"operational audit" means the operational audit of the Corporation that is required to be prepared under the operating licence.
Sydney Water Corporation Licence Regulator
22. (1) There is constituted by this Act a Sydney Water Corporation Licence Regulator. The Licence Regulator is a body corporate.
(2) The Licence Regulator is, for the purposes of any Act, a statutory body representing the Crown.
(3) The Licence Regulator consists of 5 part-time members appointed by the Minister.
Page 6302
(4) Of the members:
(a) one is to have expertise in, and extensive knowledge of, water conservation and environmental matters and is to be appointed by the Minister from a panel of 3 persons nominated by the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales; and
(b) one is to have experience in, and knowledge of, consumer issues and is to be appointed by the Minister from a panel of 3 persons nominated by the Australian Consumers Association; and
(c) one is to have extensive experience in finance, commerce and business management; and
(d) one is to have experience in the management of a water utility business or a waste water utility business, or both; and
(e) one is to be a nominee of the Minister administering the Water Administration Act 1986.
(5) Schedule 1 has effect with respect to the members and procedure of the Licence Regulator.
Functions of Licence Regulator
23. (1) The function of the Licence Regulator is to ensure that the operational audit is prepared in accordance with the operating licence.
(2) The Licence Regulator must:
(a) inform the Minister about any failure of the Corporation to meet operational standards or any other requirements imposed on the Corporation under the operating licence; and
(b) monitor, and report to the Minister on, compliance by the Corporation with the operating licence; and
(c) provide advice to the Minister about any penalties or remedial action required as a result of the Corporation's performance under the operating licence.
(3) The Licence Regulator has such other functions as may be conferred or imposed on it by the operating licence.
(4) The Licence Regulator is to report annually to the Minister in accordance with the requirements of this Division.
(5) The Licence Regulator is not subject to the direction and control of the Minister in respect of the contents of any report or advice given to the Minister.
Annual report
24. The Licence Regulator is to present to the Minister a report on each operational audit within one month after its receipt of the audit.
Presentation of report to Parliament
25. (1) The Minister is to lay the report (or cause it to be laid) before both Houses of Parliament within one month after the Minister receives the report.
(2) If a House of Parliament is not sitting when the Minister seeks to furnish a report to it, the Minister may present copies of the report to the Clerk of the House concerned.
(3) The report:
(a) on presentation and for all purposes is taken to have been laid before the House; and
(b) may be printed by authority of the Clerk of the House; and
(c) if printed by authority of the Clerk, is for all purposes taken to be a document published by or under the authority of the House; and
(d) is to be recorded;
(i) in the case of the Legislative Council - in the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Legislative Council; and
(ii) in the case of the Legislative Assembly - in the Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly,
on the first sitting day of the House after receipt of the report by the Clerk.
A new division has been inserted, creating a Sydney Water Corporation Licence Regulator, to be established as a body corporate and a statutory body representing the Crown. The licensed regulator is to consist of five part-time members who are appointed by the Minister, each of whom is to have at least one of the qualifications referred to in clause 28(4). The key initiative of the amendment is to have one member of the licensed regulator nominated by the Nature Conservation Council and one member nominated by the Australian Consumers Association. Clause 29 states that the principal function of the licence regulator is to ensure that the corporation will carry out its operational audit in accordance with its licence. The licence regulator will be required to report to the Minister on each operational audit. Within one month of receiving the audit, the Minister will be required to lay the report before both Houses of Parliament. The licensed regulator will not be subject to the direction and control of the Minister in respect of the contents of any report or advice given to the Minister.
Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank) [9.09]: I assume this little pearl could be more properly entitled the regulator you have when you don't have a regulator, to make up for a pretty inefficient Environment Protection Authority. I am looking at Mr Angel behind the bar, whose raised eyebrows suggest that I might be right. The amendment will set up an organisation to be called the Sydney Water Corporation Licence Regulator. We are to establish a board and give it functions. It will report annually. It will present reports to Parliament. The Environment Protection Authority is supposed to be able to do all that now but the EPA is so shot full of holes, and the Government and the Independents are so anxious to get the bill through, they are going to build into the bill a licence regulator rather than do the job properly and fix up the EPA. That is what it is all about. The proposed structure, membership and reporting functions - the authority that creates it and the powers vested in it - mean that it is nothing more than a water board specific EPA.
Dr Macdonald: What is wrong with that?
Mr KNOWLES: Of course we want a regulator: I have spent the best part of three hours in this Chamber and many other hours arguing for just that. But we want a proper regulator. This amendment is nothing more than a concession to everything the Labor Party has argued, that is, that the current regulatory framework is hopeless. The Government and the Independents are setting up another regulatory body, another layer of Page 6303 bureaucracy, another watchdog within the Water Board bill. That is a Government admission of Labor's position that the EPA is not up to the task. The logical way to proceed is to fix the EPA. There is something very wrong with the process and development of the bill. It is nothing more than expedience and opportunism. I have accused the honourable member for Manly of being way off his high moral ground on this matter. I included Mr Angel as well. I repeat it so that it will be recorded in Hansard. I described them as being down in the sleazy, dark and grubby gutters of expediency and deal making. That is what this legislation is all about.
The honourable member for Manly has failed abysmally in the work he put in as chairman of the Water Board inquiry, which underscored the need for a proper regulatory framework. He has perceived that he has run out of time and is now loading into the bill a de facto EPA to be called the Sydney Water Corporation Licence Regulator. A proper regulatory structure should be established before the corporatisation of the board. I will not go back into the detail of why that is appropriate but there are numerous reasons why that is the way to go. To amend the bill in this fashion is a concession of the fundamental flaw of the argument, particularly of the Independents and, of course, of the Government.
I make the point again that the NERA report, the confidential Cabinet papers tabled in this House only a few days ago about this very subject, made it clear that the regulatory functions "can be justified as being maintained with the Water Board whilst ever the Water Board remains within political control, but it would inappropriate for an independent public body" - that is, a corporatised Water Board - "or a private company to perform". NERA, based on international experience, in confidential advice provided to the Cabinet, made it clear that this amendment was inappropriate, and I support that view. The expediency, the deal to get this up and running, is nothing more than a sham. It has been done because some people in this place think they are running out of time.
Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [9.14]: I thought that the honourable member for Moorebank had got all this off his chest in the earlier stages. He should come down off his high horse, stop being so precious about this, and ask whether this is a good form of licence regulator, whether there are some benefits, and consider the details of the amendment. The original Government bill provided for the licence regulator to be merely an advisory committee to the Minister. It was just a joke. I am not surprised that when the bill was published it was the subject of derision from many groups. There was an indication that the bill would have to be tightened considerably. My message to the honourable member for Moorebank is that although the EPA is not there to do the job at the moment and is not taking its regulatory role as it should, here we have a legislatively backed regulator with a membership that has been clearly described. It has members from the Nature Conservation Council and the Australian Consumers Association - two members out of the five.
Clause 23 provides a clear expression of the functions of the regulator, particularly the key role of monitoring the operating licence. This document is to be tabled today. It cannot be amended without the possibility of its being disallowed as a regulation. Under clause 23(5) there is no opportunity, as I see it, for ministerial influence. There is a clear requirement under clause 24 for the Minister to report on each of the operational audits within one month after receipt of the audit, and the report is to be made public. Putting aside all the arguments about why we should not have done this, it would seem to be a slightly more constructive debate to acknowledge that there is accountability. The concern I have had about the current Sydney Water Board is that there is absolutely no accountability. We are creating a new corporation, a new creature and we have to decide where we want the accountability processes. Surely one method is by having an independent licence regulator.
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [9.17]: I note the proposed representation on the licence regulator of a member from the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales and a member from the Australian Consumers Association in amendment No. 16 as moved by the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. That is significant. During the public debate that preceded this bill coming before the Parliament there was considerable press coverage of the support by the conservation movement and the negotiations between the Government and the conservation movement on this issue. Over and over again the NCC and the ACA were referred to in the media. They are to get spots on the licence regulator. As the honourable member for Moorebank has already said, obviously a deal has been orchestrated by the Government. The greens are very happy with the deal because they are going to get something out of it. They will also have the opportunity to serve on the licence regulator.
I presume that will not cut across the opportunity they have already with Judy Messer, who is on the Sydney Water Board and who was until recently the chairman of the Nature Conservation Council. I do not mind people brokering deals but I strongly object to people running off to the media pretending to be completely dispassionate in their deal brokering. For example, Judy Messer wrote to Bob Carr on Thursday, 10 November outraged about something I said in the second reading debate on 27 October. She conjures up these organisations as almost dispassionate supporters of her point of view. She said that "at all times the conservationists' negotiators, Mr Tony Simpson and Mr Jeff Angel" - who I might add are sitting here behind the chair; I think they are advisers tonight to the honourable member for Manly but in the letter of 10 November they were the conservationists' negotiators - "have made all proper efforts to keep the relevant peak environment groups fully informed and in a position to endorse or vary the conservationists' strategic initiatives".
She went on to note that the environmentalist package - presumably Angel, Simpson, Macdonald, Messer and whoever else - has also been supported by Page 6304 consumer organisations such as the Australian Consumers Association and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. The ACA popped up again in this amendment in relation to licensed regulators. The ACA is going to nominate a representative on a panel of three, and the Minister is going to pick the rest. I think Tony Simpson is a former director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. We are talking about a family. We are not talking about a range of dispassionate observers who can be evoked in the public press as supporters of the initiative of the honourable member for Manly or Dr Judy Messer or whoever. We are talking about a fairly small group of negotiators, players and people brokering deals and attempting to get something out of it. I do not suggest they are seeking financial gain, but they are getting out of it what they consider to be an absolute priority, that is, a role in the system.
This is where the amendment comes into play. The ACA and the NCC, I presume, will continue to be represented by someone such as Judy Messer, her successor or someone else on the board of the Water Board. There will be the NCC, the ACA - and whoever else - regulating or attempting to regulate themselves, their colleagues, and their former chairman. That small family of people, supposedly dispassionate negotiators, seem shocked that for once the Labor Party might take the high moral ground. I find the defensiveness of the honourable member for Manly as the debate has proceeded quite interesting. He does not like to be categorised this time as the deal broker advised by a fairly small group of environmental elitists who have decided that what is good for the community in New South Wales is a corporatised Water Board.
It is probably disappointing for the Minister for Planning that he has to be represented in the House by someone who has not been quite so involved in the debate as the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. If the Hon. Robert Webster is listening on the monitor, I send him a cheerio, for I know he would like to be in this Chamber with the bit between his teeth arguing these issues. He should not worry, because a small environmental group in this Chamber is doing the job for him. What they will get out of it, amongst other things, is a small, almost minuscule place in the sun, in this case a lame duck apology for a licensed regulator, a job - as the honourable member for Moorebank has indicated so eloquently - that should be done by the Environment Protection Authority.
New division agreed to.
New clauses 21 to 25
Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [9.25]: I move:
No. 1 Page 14. After line 2, insert:
Implementation of principal objectives
21. (1) In implementing the principal objectives set out in section 20, the Corporation has the following special objectives:
(a) to reduce risks to human health;
(b) to prevent the degradation of the environment.
(2) Those special objectives are to be interpreted by reference to the objectives referred to in section 6(1)(b) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991, so far as they are relevant to the Corporation.
(3) In implementing those special objectives, regard is to be had to the means referred to in section 6(1)(b) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991, so far as they are relevant to the Corporation, and (in particular) to the following means:
(a) reducing the environmental impact of its discharges into or onto the air, water or land of substances likely to cause harm to the environment;
(b) minimising its creation of waste by the use of appropriate technology, practices and procedures;
(c) reducing its use of energy, water and other materials and substances;
(d) re-using and recovering energy, water and other materials and substances, used or discharged by it, by the use of appropriate technology, practices and procedures;
(e) reducing significantly, by 30 June 2000, the combined environmental impact of the per capita amount of energy and water used by the Corporation and other materials and substances discharged by the Corporation, compared with that impact in the year ending 30 June 1994.
(4) The Corporation is to have regard to the levels of energy that would be necessary to implement its special objectives and may adjust its implementation of those objectives if the levels of energy would be excessive.
(5) However, the Corporation is to have regard to its statutory functions, and may adjust its implementation of its special objectives but only if it is necessary in order to act responsibly.
(6) The Corporation must publish in the annual report on the Corporation's performance prepared for the purposes of section 13(1)(d)(i), a statement as to the implementation of its special objectives and annual adjustments made under subsections (4) and (5).
(7) The Environment Protection Authority must review the statement referred to in subsection (6) as soon as practicable after it is published and must, within 3 months after the publication date, make its evaluation of the statement available for public inspection. The evaluation is to include an opinion as to whether the best environmental outcome has been achieved.
Pollution reduction targets
22. (1) The Corporation must adopt targets (as developed and determined in accordance with this section) to effect significant reductions, by 30 June 2000, of Schedule 9 substances present in waters as a result of the conduct of the Corporation's sewerage services under an operating licence.
(2) The targets are to be developed as follows:
(a) The Corporation is to publish in the Gazette a statement, in a form approved by the Environment Protection Authority, showing:
(i) the range of concentrations and total load of those Schedule 9 substances that were monitored at the Corporation's sewage treatment plants; and
(ii) the total volumes of sewage discharged from its sewage treatment plants to waters as monitored by the Corporation, for the year ended 30 June 1994.
(b) The statement is to be published within 14 days after the initial operating licence is granted to the Corporation.
Page 6305
(c) The Corporation is to conduct ecological risk assessments in relation to Schedule 9 substances discharged into waters from each of the Corporation's sewage treatment plants.
(d) Ecological risk assessments are to be carried out in accordance with a methodology for the time being approved by the Environment Protection Authority in accordance with section 23.
(e) Reports on ecological risk assessments are to be provided to the Environment Protection Authority as follows:
(i) reports on assessments for the ocean are to be provided by 31 December 1995; and
(ii) reports on assessments for the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment are to be provided by 30 June 1996; and
(iii) reports on the remaining assessments are to be provided by 30 June 1997.
(f) Copies of the reports on ecological risk assessments are to be placed on display for public comment by the Corporation in accordance with section 24.
(3) The Environment Protection Authority is, within 3 months after the expiration of the period for public comment referred to in section 24(2), to determine the targets for the Corporation that are referred to in subsections (1) and (2), having regard to the following:
(a) the reports on ecological risk assessments;
(b) any public comments on the reports that have been provided to the Authority by the Corporation in accordance with section 24(3);
(c) such other factors as appear relevant to the Authority, taking into account the statutory obligations of the Authority under any Act.
(4) The Corporation must adopt the targets as determined by the Environment Protection Authority.
(5) The Environment Protection Authority must ensure that the licence conditions imposed by it on the Corporation, and any directions given by it to the Corporation under section 12 of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991, are consistent with and are conducive to the meeting, or exceeding, by the Corporation of its targets, as determined in accordance with this section, by 30 June 2000.
(6) As and when the targets, licence conditions and directions are determined, imposed or given and take effect, the Corporation and the Environment Protection Authority are each to enter details of the targets, licence conditions and directions in a register kept at their respective principal offices and are to make the register available for public inspection, free of charge.
(7) The Corporation is to monitor its performance against the targets and publish the results on an annual basis in accordance with the requirements of an operating licence.
(8) By 30 June 1999, the Corporation is to determine the bases for setting targets to effect further reductions, after 30 June 2000, of Schedule 9 substances present in waters as a result of the conduct of the Corporation's sewerage services under an operating licence. However, the targets are not to be set until the Environment Protection Authority approves of the bases determined.
(9) In this section, "Schedule 9 substances" means the substances listed in Schedule 9.
Approval of methodology for ecological risk assessment
23. (1) Before the Corporation submits a proposed methodology to the Environment Protection Authority for approval for the purposes of section 22(2)(d), the Corporation must:
(a) place the proposed methodology on display for public comment for a period of 30 days after the date of publication of the notice referred to in paragraph (b); and
(b) by notice published in a newspaper circulating throughout New South Wales, specify the place or places at which copies of the proposed methodology may be inspected and the address to which public comments concerning the methodology may be directed.
(2) Any person may, within the period of 30 days referred to in subsection (1) (a), or such longer period as may be specified in the notice, direct comments concerning the proposed methodology to the Corporation.
(3) A methodology must be approved by the Environment Protection Authority within 30 days after the Corporation has provided the Authority with the proposed methodology that has been placed on display and copies of any public comments received on that methodology.
(4) In approving a methodology, the Environment Protection Authority is to have regard to any public comments concerning the proposed methodology that have been provided to it and made in accordance with this section.
Public display of reports on ecological risk assessments
24. (1) As soon as practicable after providing the reports on ecological risk assessments to the Environment Protection Authority in accordance with section 22(2)(e), the Corporation must:
(a) place copies of those reports on display for public comment for a period of 30 days after the date of publication of the notice referred to in paragraph (b); and
(b) by notice published in a newspaper circulating throughout New South Wales, specify the place or places at which copies of the reports may be inspected and the address to which public comments concerning the reports may be directed.
(2) Any person may, within the period of 30 days referred to in subsection (1)(a), or such longer period as may be specified in the notice, direct comments concerning the reports to the Corporation.
(3) The Corporation must provide the Environment Protection Authority with copies of any such public comments.
Amendment of pollution reduction targets
25. (1) After the Corporation has adopted a target under section 22 (4), the Environment Protection Authority may, from time to time, re-determine the target.
(2) The Corporation is to adopt a target as re-determined by the Environment Protection Authority. Subsections (5)-(7) of section 22 then apply to the re-determined target.
(3) The Environment Protection Authority may, for the purpose of assessing whether to re-determine a target under this section, require the Corporation to carry out a further ecological risk assessment and provide a report on that assessment to the Environment Protection Authority by a specified date. Sections 22-24 apply, with necessary modifications, to any such further ecological risk assessment and report.
Page 6306
(4) Any target re-determined in accordance with this section is to be re-determined by the Environment Protection Authority having regard to the following:
(a) the report on any further ecological risk assessment or, if no further assessment is made, the report on the previous assessment;
(b) any public comments on the report on the further assessment that has been provided to the Authority by the Corporation in accordance with section 24 (3) (as applied by this section) or, if no further assessment is made, any such public comments on the previous report;
(c) such other factors as appear relevant to the Authority, taking into account the statutory obligations of the Authority under any Act.
(5) The Corporation and the Environment Protection Authority are to enter the reasons for the re-determination of a target in the registers kept by the Corporation and the Authority under section 22 (6).
The proposed amendment consists of a number of clauses. Proposed clauses 21 to 26 relate to implementation of principal or special objectives, pollution reduction targets, ecological risk assessment, public display of ecological risk assessments, amendment of pollution reduction targets, and reuse of sewage effluent. Proposed clause 27 is the sunset clause that applies to clauses 21 to 25. I acknowledge the strength of the argument by the honourable member for Moorebank that stage two of the pollution control legislation has not been reached and that the ALP attempted to defer this corporatisation bill until pollution control became available. My amendment seeks to allay community fear that the plan to corporatise the Water Board lacks adequate environmental regulatory framework.
My amendment, albeit derided by the Labor Party, reflects the efforts of peak environmental groups. I do not regard them, as the Opposition spokesperson described them, as part of an elite group. Those peak groups reflect a broad range of environmental, consumer and welfare groups who have had major impact in setting environmental goals and targets in the bill. I acknowledge the argument that a regulatory role should not be provided by the bill and that such a role should be separate. However, the amendment offers strong environmental directions for a corporation which could otherwise wander into areas of economic and commercial gain. The amendment seeks to create a broad framework of duties for the new corporation to reduce risk to human health and to prevent degradation of the environment by pollution. Those are the so-called special objectives. That framework is interpreted with reference to the key legislative charter for protection of the environment, that is, the Protection of the Environment (Administration) Act. The amendments have been proposed from that reference point.
The new corporation will have a clear obligation to significantly reduce the environmental impact of its use and discharge of water, energy and toxic chemicals. We spent many weeks and months on that complex interactive concept determining the right wording for it. I believe that wording strikes a balance. The amendment recognises that the act of balancing the impact of water, energy, toxic chemicals and other factors should be kept under review by the corporation, but that any adjustments by the corporation under that provision should be properly reviewed by the Environment Protection Authority. The EPA has agreed to that proposal, which might provide comfort to the honourable member for Moorebank. The EPA is required to review any of those adjustments to ensure that the best environmental outcome has been achieved. Proposed section 22 creates a process for achieving pollution reduction targets with public involvement. Proposed section 23 reflects the concept of ecological risk assessments of the ocean, the Hawkesbury-Nepean and other catchments.
The methodology and results of those assessment reports will be open to public comment, which again provides for necessary accountability. That process has an initial five-year framework, leading to further reduction processes after 30 June 2000. Of particular significance is proposed section 26, reuse of sewage effluent, which I commented on in my second reading speech. That provision reflects community concerns. I invite any honourable member to walk down Macquarie Street or the Manly Corso and ask people how waste water and sewage effluent should be dealt with. Very few would support putting sewage effluent out to sea or into our rivers. The proposed amendment focuses the corporation on sewage effluent reuse. That goal should be considered in the broad sense, for it can be achieved in many ways. One way is through decentralisation of the system. For years I have argued that one of the faults of the system is that it is centralised. Decentralisation is one means of achieving that goal, even to the extent of establishing small units and neighbourhood plants.
Another approach is reuse which recognises water as an important, common resource that should not be dumped out to sea. Currently one billion litres of effluent is dumped into the ocean off Sydney every day. This is happening in the driest, most arid continent in the world. The reuse of this valuable resource, treated to various levels, depends on its purpose and having regard to public health, whether on municipal golf courses, in industry, or pumping it west across the Great Dividing Range. I have seen feasibility studies regarding the reuse of water in the Hunter area to cool power stations, in the Lachlan Valley to grow trees, and for it to be taken to the cotton fields which are running out of water. I am not arguing the benefits or otherwise of those proposals but having a goal, a vision, of sewage reuse will drive that shift, that change in attitude from simply transporting the sewage and dumping it.
It has been estimated that 90 per cent of expenditure on waste water is spent on transporting it and 10 per cent is spent on treating it. There is a strong case that that ratio should be reversed and 90 per cent should be spent on treating it and 10 per cent spent on transporting it. That will help to bring about that paradigm shift that I have been talking of. The words in proposed section 26(1) have been carefully drafted. Inter alia, the proposed section states that:
Page 6307
. . . the Corporation is to adopt as an ultimate aim the prevention of all dry weather discharges of sewage to waters, including from ocean outfalls, except to the extent that this is necessary to safeguard public health or prevent environmental degradation, or both.
That is the vision for the future. It may not be something from which I or my generation will necessarily benefit but today's younger generation and future generations will benefit. This amendment does not mean that we will stop the ocean outfalls tomorrow, or put at risk public health in this State. I acknowledge the benefits of the separation of drinking water from waste water which underpins the sewage disposal system. With modern technology of treatment and the early opportunities for reuse, this is a goal, a vision that I have fought for and dreamt about for many years. This amendment states that one of the ultimate aims of this corporation is that all dry weather discharges, all sewage discharge into rivers and oceans will cease. The amendment does not set a time. The necessary discretion in terms of environmental degradation that might follow from any such decisions, particularly safeguarding public health, is dealt with within that proposed section.
This is a signal to the people who suffer as a result of sewage discharges; it is a signal to the community that this new corporation will be bound by those sorts of aims and goals. It is a credit to the Managing Director of the Water Board that he was ultimately able to accommodate this provision. I have fought for this provision. It is dear to my heart, in the sense that I would not have been in this place had it not been for the ocean outfall at Manly and its consequent impact on both the health and recreation of the environment where I live. I spent 15 years on the beachfront in my previous role as a medical practitioner and I recognise the public health risk of ocean outfalls. We now have deep water outfalls which I suggest are not working. I am not happy with the results of the monitoring. I am not happy with the results of the sludge fields that are developing. I am not happy with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation reports on coprostanol, or the monitoring that has taken place, or the doubts that the report has raised.
I have serious misgivings about the deep water outfalls. This is an opportunity to ultimately move away from them. The target-setting process within this pollution reduction is established with five-yearly increases and a public review. That relates to sewage reuse as well. Proposed section 27, which sunsets all but proposed section 26, will be overtaken at the commencement of the new pollution control legislation. The corporation will be subject to the same new laws as every other agency. I say that with some emphasis for the benefit of the honourable member for Moorebank. I hope that the provisions within these proposed sections will set a precedent in the light of experience. The obligation to complete that program of ecological risk assessments does not sunset, nor does sewage reuse.
With apologies to the honourable member for Moorebank, who will probably take this amendment and rip it apart, I reckon it is an excellent outcome in terms of incorporating regulation within the bill. It also provides for a very open and public process of assessing environmental impact but, most of all, it has the long-term vision of discontinuing ocean outfalls. Also, it is a clear acknowledgment that ultimately the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act stage two should be paramount to all but proposed section 26.
Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank) [9.36]: The honourable member for Moorebank is not going to take this and rip it apart, as suggested by the honourable member for Manly. He may have been fighting for and dreaming about this vision for 15 years, but it would have been nice if he had given me a copy of the amendment. I put on the record that at 9.30 a.m. - and I am looking at what was handed to me by Mr O'Keeffe on behalf of the Minister - I was given a copy of the Government amendments and the Independent amendments. I have them here. I picked up this amendment when I walked into the Chamber tonight. I do not want to be on the record as endorsing or not endorsing this in any way. I have scanned it but it is five pages long and it contains an enormous amount of detail. If the Independent member for Manly expects me, or anyone else, to absorb that information on what he tells me is a fundamental vision forming the absolute foundation of his entire thrust on the corporatisation of the Water Board, he needs to think twice.
I also place on record the fact that on numerous occasions - and I have made this comment to a number of people assisting the honourable member for Manly - I have asked for copies of the amendments. It was a bit like what Fatty Vautin says, "I'll get back to you later". The last "I'll get back to you later" was last night at the photocopier outside my office on level 10 when Mr Connor, for about the tenth time, said, "They are on their way". They were on their way this morning via the Government courier, Mr O'Keeffe. That is not cooperation. In fact, I obtained these amendments when I picked them up off the table when I walked in tonight.
The environmental movement, Mr Connor, and others might think the arrangement was set up with the Government so it did not need to talk to the Australian Labor Party. I think they have been a bit naughty and cheeky and maybe had a chuckle about that. In this business we have long memories. They did that to me once before in relation to the south-east forest legislation when things were sprung on at the last minute. I am very close to calling a division over this matter and recording my concern in that way. But I will not, given the time and what we are trying to achieve. Honourable members opposite may think it is funny, but this is a serious business. To put a five-page complex amendment into the ring at the start of debate tonight, when it has been sought for weeks, is a bit over the odds.
New clauses agreed to.
Page 6308 New division 3
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [9.40]: I move Government amendment No. 17:
No. 17 Page 14. After line 2, insert:
Division 3 - Memoranda of understanding
Definitions
26. In this Division:
"memorandum of understanding" means a memorandum of understanding referred to in the operating licence;
"regulatory agencies" means the Water Administration Ministerial Corporation, the Director-General of the Department of Health and the Environment Protection Authority.
Corporation to enter into memoranda of understanding
27.(1) The Corporation is to enter into a separate memorandum of understanding with each of the regulatory agencies.
(2) Subject to section 28, the Corporation is to enter into the memoranda of understanding as soon as practicable after it is granted an operating licence.
(3) If the Corporation and a regulatory agency are not able to agree on a term of a memorandum of understanding, the view of the regulatory agency is to prevail.
Public exhibition of memoranda of understanding
28.(1) Each regulatory agency must give notice of the preparation of the memorandum of understanding to which it is a party.
(2) The notice is to be given in a newspaper circulating in the Corporation's area of operations and must:
(a) specify the address of the place at which copies of the memorandum of understanding may be inspected; and
(b) specify the address to which representations concerning the memorandum of understanding may be forwarded.
(3) Any person may, within 30 days or such longer period as may be specified in the notice, make representations to the regulatory agency concerning the memorandum of understanding.
(4) Each regulatory agency must, on the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (3), and before entering into the memorandum of understanding, consider any representations made under this section.
(5) Notice of the execution of a memorandum of understanding is to be published in the Gazette and in a newspaper circulating in the area of operations within 14 days after the execution.
(6) The requirements of this section apply to an amendment to a memorandum of understanding in the same way as they apply to a memorandum of understanding.
This amendment provides for a new division to be inserted obliging Sydney Water to enter into a separate memorandum of understanding with each of the Water Administration Ministerial Corporation, the Department of Health, and the Environment Protection Authority. Memoranda of understanding on the basis of a cooperative relationship covering the exchange of data and research between Sydney Water and its regulators help drive the regulators into defining their respective roles. Public participation will be integral to the development of the drafting of these memoranda. Public notice preparation of each memorandum is to be given in a newspaper circulated in the corporation's area of operations and representations made by any persons within the prescribed period must be considered. In the event that Sydney Water and a regulator cannot reach agreement on the contents of a MOU, the view of the regulator will prevail as set out in clause 34(3). Members of the public must be informed of the commencement of a memorandum of understanding within 14 days through publication of a notice in the Government Gazette and a newspaper.
New division agreed to.
Clause 32
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [9.41]: I move Government amendment No. 18:
No. 18 Page 22, clause 32, lines 15 and 16. Omit "from which the Corporation draws its supply or".
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
New Clause 34
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [9.42]: I move Government amendment No. 19:
No. 19 Page 22. After line 30, insert:
Penalty notices
34. (1) An authorised person may serve a penalty notice on a person if it appears to the authorised person that the person has committed an offence against this Act or the regulations, being an offence prescribed by the regulations.
(2) A penalty notice is a notice to the effect that, if the person served does not wish to have the matter determined by a court, the person may pay, within the time and to the person specified in the notice, the penalty prescribed by the regulations for the offence if dealt with under this section.
(3) A penalty notice may be served personally or by post.
(4) If the amount of the penalty prescribed for the alleged offence is paid under this section, no person is liable to any further proceedings for the alleged offence.
(5) Payment under this section is not an admission of liability for the purposes of, and does not affect or prejudice, any civil claim, action or proceeding arising out of the same occurrence.
(6) The regulations may:
(a) prescribe an offence for the purposes of this section by specifying the offence or by referring to the provision creating the offence; and
(b) prescribe the amount of penalty for the offence if dealt with under this section; and
(c) prescribe different amounts of penalty for different offences or classes of offences.
(7) The amount of penalty prescribed under this section for an offence may not exceed the maximum amount of penalty which could be imposed for the offence by a court.
Page 6309
(8) This section does not limit the operation of any other provision of, or made under, this or any other Act relating to proceedings which may be taken in respect of offences.
(9) In this section, "authorised person" means a person appointed in writing by the Minister as an authorised person for the purposes of this section.
New clause 34 will provide for the issue of penalty notices, in other words, on-the-spot fines, for prescribed offences. The Minister must authorise people who may issue these fines.
New clause agreed to.
Clause 61
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [9.42], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos. 20 and 21 in globo:
No. 20 Page 34, clause 61, line 21. Omit ", in the opinion of the consent authority, may", insert instead "would".
No. 21 Page 35, clause 61, line 1. Omit "may", insert instead "must".
These amendments seek to ensure that council-assessed development applications are likely to have consistent impact on water quality.
Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [9.43]: The Minister said this amendment is about catchment protection. Amendment No. 20 removes what was formerly a test that was open to interpretation by consent authority and replaces it with a more objective test. It especially heightens the protection of catchments. Of course, this relates to the outer catchment areas. Amendment No. 21 just firms up on the issue of guidelines to councils for catchment protection. It is worth noting at this stage that the Water Board catchments perhaps by chance in many cases are in almost pristine condition. Clearly it is a concern, when a government department moves into a corporation, that such catchment areas should be adequately protected.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 63
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [9.44]: I move Government amendment No. 22:
No. 22 Page 35, clause 63, lines 30 and 31. Omit ", the Director-General of the Department of Conservation and Land Management,".
This clause has been amended to omit reference to the Department of Conservation and Land Management as a joint sponsor.
Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [9.44]: This amendment removes the Department of Conservation and Land Management from the planning and management involvement in those special areas. Clearly it leaves the responsibility with the National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 64
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [9.45], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos. 23 and 24 in globo:
No. 23 Page 36, clause 64, line 19. Omit "or repealed".
No. 24 Page 36, clause 64. After line 20, insert:
(5) The Minister must cause a copy of an order made under this section, including an order amending an order, to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 14 sitting days of that House after the order has been published in the Gazette.
(6) A special area must not be reduced in size, and an order declaring an area of land to be a special area must not be repealed, unless authorised by an Act of Parliament.
These amendments provide that the size of a special area can be reduced only by an Act of Parliament.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 65
Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [9.45]: I move my amendment No. 2:
No. 2 Page 36, clause 65, lines 21-26. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:
Restriction on alienation of land in special areas and land with nature conservation values
65. (1) The Corporation must not alienate, mortgage, charge or demise land in a special area that is owned by or vested in the Corporation unless:
(a) to or in favour of the Minister administering the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974; or
(b) authorised by an Act of Parliament.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) operates:
(a) to extinguish or otherwise affect any existing lease, licence or other interest in the land in a special area; or
(b) to prevent the renewal of any such lease, licence or other interest; or
(c) to prevent the grant of a lease, licence or other interest in the land in accordance with any plan of management prepared in relation to the land under this Act.
This is an acknowledgment of the importance of those special land areas and the possibility that they could be alienated. Before the negotiating process the bill clearly allowed special catchment lands to be sold. That is completely unacceptable, particularly with the acknowledgment of the importance of good catchment management. The Labor Party would agree that the joint select committee was concerned that catchment management can be put at risk if there is a move to water treatment. This amendment seeks to protect those lands. They are precious and should never leave public control. While the present clause prevents sale to private interests, there is still a possibility of a transfer to, dare I say, an unsympathetic government agency.
This amendment ensures that in the event of the transfer of those lands to any government agency, it can only be to the National Parks and Wildlife Page 6310 Service. Some environment groups are not happy with this provision. They would like the amendment to set a time frame within which the transfer would take place. The Government does not agree to that course. However, the transfer ultimately should occur and I will certainly support it in the future. The amendment also preserves existing leases, licences and other interests. Any new lease must be in accordance with a plan of management. This plan is prepared in conjunction with the National Parks and Wildlife Service. In conjunction with other measures in the bill, this provision will protect the ecological integrity of the lands and the special areas will not be harmed. The amendment is very similar to the one moved by the Opposition, but I seek support for this amendment.
Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank) [9.48]: This amendment is almost identical to the Australian Labor Party No. 2 amendment, and the Opposition withdraws its amendment. I have just confirmed with Mr Angel that the environment movement preferred the Opposition's amendment to that of the honourable member for Manly. Given that the honourable member for Manly has moved this amendment, no division will be called.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 69
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [9.50], by leave: I move the following Government amendments Nos 25, 26 and 27 in globo:
No. 25 Page 38, clause 69, lines 4 and 5. Omit "and to submit it to the Minister".
No. 26 Page 38, clause 69, line 7. Omit "and submitted to the Minister"
No. 27 Page 38, clause 69. After line 8, insert:
(3) When a plan of management has been prepared, the joint sponsors must give notice of the plan in a newspaper circulating throughout New South Wales and must, in that notice:
(a) specify the address of the place at which copies of the plan of management may be inspected; and
(b) specify the address to which representations concerning the plan of management may be forwarded.
(4) Any person may, within 30 days or such longer period as may be specified in the notice, make representations to the joint sponsors concerning the plan of management.
(5) The joint sponsors must, on the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (4), and before submitting the plan of management to the Minister, consider any representations made under this section.
No. 28 Page 38, clause 69. After line 21, insert:
(7) Subsections (3)-(5) apply to an amendment or alteration of a plan of management in the same way as they apply to a plan of management.
New subclauses (3), (4), and (5) of clause 69 require notification of a plan of management by publication in a newspaper and oblige joint sponsors to consider representations made by any person. These requirements are also to be followed when considering alterations to plans of management. Clause 69(5) prohibits the submission of any plan of management to the Minister until the prescribed period has elapsed for the making of representations. These amendments are in line with requirements for making a plan of management included in the National Parks and Wildlife Service Act.
Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [9.52]: These amendments ensure that the plans of management which refer to those special areas and any amendments to them are done by way of a public process. I encourage the Opposition to acknowledge those benefits. The previous operations of the Water Board, as I have indicated, have been characterised by secrecy and a lack of accountability. If we are to move into this area of corporatisation, it is important that we ensure there is public involvement in the process. There should be an opportunity for comment from the public. That is ensured by way of this amendment.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 71
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [9.53]: I move the following Government amendment:
No. 29 Page 39, clause 71, line 4. After "including paragraphs (a)-(c),", insert, "and the second paragraph".
This amendment ensures that Prospect reservoir is classified as a special area rather than a controlled area and is managed in accordance with schedule 1 of the special areas regulations.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 73
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [9.54]: I move the following Government amendment No. 30:
No. 30 Page 39, clause 73. After line 33, insert:
(2) Subsection (1) applies only until such time as the Corporation is granted a licence or permit by the relevant authority for the purpose referred to in that subsection and the Minister, by certificate published in the Gazette, certifies that such a licence or permit has been granted.
A new subclause (2) has been inserted to render the power of the corporation to exercise the power of the Water Administration Ministerial Corporation outside its area of operation, subject to the granting of a water use licence at some future date.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Page 6311
Clause 74
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [9.55], by leave: I move the following Government amendments Nos 31 and 32 in globo:
No. 31 Page 40, clause 74. After line 18, insert:
(3) The power to exercise rights conferred by subsection (2) has effect only until such time as the Corporation is granted a licence or permit by the relevant authority for the purposes referred to in subsections (1) and (2) and the Minister, by certificate published in the Gazette, certifies that such a licence or permit has been granted.
No. 32 Page 40, clause 74. After line 20, insert:
(4) The entering into of a contract or other arrangements under this section does not relieve the Corporation of its responsibilities to comply with an operating licence.
The powers of Sydney Water to authorise others - that is, contractors - to exercise the powers of the water administration corporation is transitional and subject to the granting of a water use licence to Sydney Water at some future date.
Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [9.56]: Amendment No. 32 binds the corporation into its responsibilities under the operating licence. It is quite likely that the corporation may well contract out various work but, in doing so, it does not relieve itself of any of those responsibilities which it is required to comply with under an operating licence. As we know, that is essentially the licence to operate. It is a part of the legislation before the House.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
New clause 76
Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [9.57]: I move:
No. 3 Page 40. After line 26, insert:
Performance of community service obligations
76. (1) This section applies when a direction is made under section 11 of the State Owned Corporations Act 1989 or to any activity the performance of which the Corporation identifies as not being in its commercial interests or for which the Corporation seeks reimbursement or is entitled to be reimbursed as a consequence, whether the activity was previously carried out by the Water Board or not.
(2) Before any direction is made under section 11 of the State Owned Corporations Act 1989 is made or reimbursement is sought, the Corporation's board of directors, or the Minister, as the case may be:
(a) must quantify for the Treasurer the cost of performing the activities so as to identify the least capital and operating costs of obtaining the outcome or service to which the activity or direction relates; and
(b) must certify to the Treasurer that the costs have been quantified by open public tender or such other means as may be considered appropriate to demonstrate that the service or activity is being provided at the least capital and operating cost.
(3) The Treasurer is to publish a notice of any payment made, together with the certification provided under subsection (2)(b) in the Gazette within 14 days after payment is made.
(4) This section applies despite anything in section 11 of the State Owned Corporations Act 1989.
This amendment relates to the performance of community service obligations. One of the features of corporatisation is the process of community service obligations where those activities which could be deemed by the corporation to be not basic to their activities are transferred to the Government for funding. While this process is not as simple for Sydney Water in view of the fact that it has three equal objectives - it might be if it only had a single objective - the CSO process will still occur. Because of the transfer of CSO functions, it is of fundamental interest to the community. This amendment makes the process more transparent and subject to strict costing. The direction or reimbursement must be of at least capital and operating costs and subject to open public tender or such other means to reinforce the pricing function. Greater transparency is achieved by this amendment as a result of the requirement for the Treasurer to publish a notice in the Government Gazette.
Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank) [9.58]: The Joint Select Committee upon the Sydney Water Board heard evidence at length from Treasury and others about what is commonly known as "Walls of China", that is, the notional barriers set up amongst the various divisions of Treasury to oversee and separate the various components of asset management, capital development, assessment, dividend and community service payments and obligations. This amendment tries to establish a structure to unravel some of the problems that have historically been the hallmark of negotiations between the Water Board and Treasury - for that matter, between all government trading enterprises and Treasury - over the complex issues of community service obligation assessment and dividend payments.
The financial regulator - in this case, the Treasury - needs to be fixed; not this bill. As the NERA report stated, it is inappropriate to maintain this sort of function within the bill once the Water Board is removed from government control into a corporatised structure. The soft option has been taken. Instead of trying to redress the problems that exist in Treasury, exemplified most clearly by the evidence of David Harley and the $200 million special dividend - this is not only for the Water Board but all GTEs - we are fixing up the Water Board bill. What is wrong with this is that we are trying to work from the inside rather than thinking from outside of the box. Whilst I understand and support the principles inherent in this amendment, the issue is being approached from the wrong end.
New clause agreed to.
New clause 77
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [9.59]: I move Opposition amendment No. 3:
No. 3 Page 40. After line 30, insert:
Page 6312 Staff elected director
77. (1) Regulations may be made for or with respect to the election of a person to hold office as a staff elected director, as referred to in Schedule 2.
(2) The Electoral Commissioner, or a person employed in the office of and nominated by the Electoral Commissioner, is to be the returning officer for an election, and has the functions conferred or imposed on the returning officer by the regulations made under this section in relation to the election.
(3) Full-time employees of the Corporation are entitled to vote at an election in accordance with the regulations made under this section for the staff elected director.
(4) A person's nomination as a candidate for election as the staff elected director is not valid unless:
(a) the nomination is made by at least 2 persons who are full-time employees of the Corporation; and
(b) the person is, at the time of nomination, a full-time employee of the Corporation.
(5) A person may be, at the same time, both the elected staff member and an employee of the Corporation.
(6) Nothing in any law, rule, direction or other requirement that:
(a) is applicable to the staff elected director in his or her capacity as an employee of the Corporation; and
(b) would not be applicable if the staff elected director were not such an employee,
operates so as to prevent or restrict the exercise by the staff elected director of any of the functions of a director.
Typically, despite all the rhetoric of the Fahey Government about its concern for the labour movement in this State, it has not seen fit to recommend in its package of proposals the creation of a staff-elected director position within the corporatised Water Board. I take this opportunity to place on record the appreciation of the community and the Committee for the work of Ken McDonell who, as a member of the Water Board, has been representing the unions. Ken McDonell, who is either retiring next month or has already retired, has been a very loyal member of the Sydney Water Board. Although he has had a brief to represent the labour movement on the board, he has played a scrupulous role. I have grave concerns that, with the departure of Ken McDonell from the Water Board, the current Government will not see it as appropriate - it has already indicated that it does not see it as appropriate because it has failed to include such a provision in its legislation - for a staff-elected director to be part of a new water corporation.
A number of my colleagues in their contributions to the second reading debate spoke at length about the impact that corporatisation, and possibly privatisation, would have on the labour force of the Sydney Water Board. This Government may not like it, but the workers are a crucial component of the water industry in this State. They do all the dirty work that has to be done to ensure that water and sewerage services are delivered to the people of New South Wales. Whatever framework the Government wishes to establish for the water industry in this State it will never get away from the fact that the labour movement is integral to that process. Why does the Government not take the opportunity which the Labor Party is about to offer it to at least acknowledge the contributions that those people have made?
At the moment the people at the front line are suffering as a result of the cutbacks to programs such as the clean waterways program and various sewerage capital works programs. Those people are in limbo land. Some are waiting for the inevitable redundancies, others, who have already left their jobs and who have spent their lives working for the Water Board, have already been thrown on the scrap heap. Thousands of people are still employed by the Water Board and they and their families are a vital part of the water industry in this State. The Government and the non-aligned Independents should ensure that this amendment is successful. It would be a show of good faith on the part of the Government that it is committed to an effective, corporatised board. I would certainly like to think that my colleagues in the conservation movement who have been so active on behalf of other interest groups in the community will also see fit to ensure that their lobbying extends to the Water Board work force, which is delivering the services that the community is so urgently demanding.
Mr RUMBLE (Illawarra) [10.03]: I support the proposition that there should be a staff-elected director. I point out to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation that Mr Ken McDonell, who is a certified practising accountant, has done a sterling job as the staff-elected representative on the Water Board. Mr Ernie O'Keefe is the staff-elected representative on the board of New South Wales Lotteries. The 1992-93 annual report of the Ambulance Service of New South Wales shows that Mr Jeff Marlborough is the staff-elected director on the board of that service. In countries such as Germany and Japan - our major trading partners - it is common that staff-elected directors participate in management decisions. I urge the Minister to accept the well-reasoned proposition that a staff-elected director should be appointed to the Water Board.
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [10.04]: The Government rejects this amendment, mainly because the Opposition does not understand the concept of corporatisation. The extra obligations placed on directors as a result of the Corporations Law would result in a conflict of interests. The honourable member for Illawarra referred to bodies that had staff-elected representatives. Unfortunately, none of the examples given referred to corporatised bodies. The special obligations and arms-length nature of the obligations imposed under Corporations Law which would apply to a corporatised body are different from those that apply to a statutory authority or any other government trading enterprise. So this really Page 6313 represents a conflict of interest. The representative suggested by the Government in its legislation - a member of the New South Wales Labor Council - would meet all the requirements outlined earlier. But that is not really the argument. It depends on who the nominee is. The nominee proposed by the New South Wales Labor Council ought to have all those qualifications. It would be unpalatable under all the concepts of corporatisation to have a staff-elected representative on such a board.
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [10.06]: There is certainly a conflict of interest in this debate. It is a conflict between various models of corporatisation. I thank the Minister for his economics lesson, but he is wrong. It was a pretty poor economics lesson anyway. We believe that there are alternatives to the model that this conservative Fahey Government and the previous Greiner Government persisted in inflicting on the public sector in this State. Our model would include a greater role for the labour movement. It is not necessarily just a ministerial appointment, even on the part of the Labor Council. I do not think that any of the matter that I and my colleague the honourable member for Illawarra referred to related to the needs of bureaucrats within the Labor Council. We are talking about ensuring that the work force becomes part of the process of corporatisation.
If the Minister were really serious about achieving all the aims that he has set for himself this evening in this package, he would make the work force feel as though they are part of the process. He should trust them and involve them. He should not just seize the opportunity that will inevitably occur with the retirement of Ken McDonell to make sure that he does not have a worker representative in his corporation. Because of the concerns expressed by the honourable member for Manly and others, I believe that the natural ally for conservationists in this debate is the labour movement of the Water Board. The Water Board work force has already joined with the Opposition and conservationists to ensure that the clean waterways program survives and expands and that its integrity is maintained.
Workers of the Water Board in this State recognise that, without a clean waterways program, job opportunities simply will not exist. The Minister should not try to coat a bitter pill with some economic nonsense to suggest that this is not an appropriate model just because Government members are economic rationalists and want to persist eventually with the privatisation agenda for the Water Board. The Minister should not try to kid Opposition members. The Opposition believes that we can have a model of corporatisation which will ensure an active role for the labour movement of this State.
Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 31
Ms Allan Mr Mills Mr Amery Mr Moss Mr Anderson Mr Nagle Mr A. S. Aquilina Mr Neilly Mr J. J. Aquilina Ms Nori Mr Bowman Mr E. T. Page Mr Crittenden Mr Price Mr Gibson Mr Rumble Mr Harrison Mr Shedden Mr Hunter Mr Sullivan Mr Iemma Mr Thompson Mr Irwin Mr Whelan Mr Knowles Mr Yeadon Mr Langton Tellers, Mr McBride Mr Beckroge Ms Meagher Mr Davoren
Noes, 34
Mr Armstrong Mr O'Doherty Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page Mr Chappell Mr Peacocke Mrs Cohen Mr Phillips Mr Collins Mr Photios Mr Cruickshank Mr Rozzoli Mr Debnam Mr Schipp Mr Hartcher Mrs Skinner Mr Hatton Mr Small Mr Humpherson Mr Souris Dr Kernohan Mr Tink Mr Kinross Mr West Mr Longley Mr Windsor Dr Macdonald Mr Zammit Mr Merton Ms Moore Tellers, Mr Morris Mr Cochran Mr W. T. J. Murray Mr Kerr
Pairs
Mr Carr Mr Baird Mr Clough Mr Beck Mr Doyle Mr Causley Mr Face Mrs Chikarovski Mr Gaudry Mr Downy Mrs Grusovin Mr Fahey Ms Harrison Mr Fraser Mr Knight Mr Glachan Mrs Lo Po' Mr Hazzard Mr Markham Mr Jeffery Mr Martin Ms Machin Mr McManus Mr Petch Mr J. H. Murray Mr Richardson Dr Refshauge Mr Rixon Mr Rogan Mr Smith Mr Scully Mr Schultz
Question so resolved in the negative.
New clause negatived.
Page 6314
New clause 79
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [10.16]: I move:
No. 33 Page 41. After line 10, insert:
Special audit of activities
79. (1) Despite section 36(1)(b) of the State Owned Corporations Act 1989, the provisions of Division 2A of Part 3 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 apply to the Corporation.
(2) For the purposes of this section and Division 2A of Part 3 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983:
(a) the Corporation is taken to be an authority within the meaning of section 38A of that Act; and
(b) the chief executive officer of, or the person who exercises the functions of a chief executive officer in relation to, the Corporation is taken to be the Head of an authority within the meaning of that expression as defined in section 4(1) of that Act.
This is a new section, which will empower the Auditor-General to conduct a special audit of the affairs of Sydney Water, within the meaning of division 2A of part 3 of the Public Finance and Audit Act. This inclusion will give the Auditor-General a wide power to audit Sydney Water's compliance with legislative and regulatory provisions. The power is not restricted to the financial responsibilities of Sydney Water.
New clause agreed to.
New clause 83
Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [10.17]: I move Independent amendment No. 4:
No. 4 Page 43. After line 18, insert:
Restraint of breaches of Act
83. (1) Any person may bring proceedings, concerning matters relating to the protection of the environment, in the Land and Environment Court for an order to restrain a breach of this Act (or a threatened or apprehended breach of this Act).
(2) Any such proceedings may be brought whether or not any right of that person has been or may be infringed by or as a consequence of the breach (or the threatened or apprehended breach).
(3) If the Court is satisfied that a breach, or a threatened or apprehended breach, will, unless restrained by order of the Court, be committed or be likely to be committed, it may make such orders as it thinks fit to restrain the breach or other conduct of the person by whom the breach is committed or by whom the threatened or apprehended breach is likely to be committed.
(4) Proceedings under this section may be brought by a person on the person's own behalf or on behalf of other persons (with their consent), or a body corporate or unincorporated (with the consent of the committee or other controlling or governing body), having like or common interests in those proceedings.
(5) Any person on whose behalf proceedings are brought is entitled to contribute to or provide for the payment of the legal costs and expenses incurred by the person bringing the proceedings.
Restraint of breaches of customer contract
84. (1) Any person may bring proceedings in the Supreme Court for an order to restrain a breach (or a threatened or apprehended breach) of a customer contract by the Corporation.
(2) Any such proceedings may be brought whether or not any right of that person has been or may be infringed by or as a consequence of the breach (or the threatened or apprehended breach).
(3) If the Court is satisfied that a breach, or a threatened or apprehended breach, will, unless restrained by order of the Court, be committed or be likely to be committed, it may make such orders as it thinks fit to restrain the breach or other conduct of the person by whom the breach is committed or by whom the threatened or apprehended breach is likely to be committed.
(4) Proceedings under this section may be brought by a person on the person's own behalf or on behalf of other persons (with their consent), or a body corporate or unincorporated (with the consent of the committee or other controlling or governing body), having like or common interests in those proceedings.
(5) Any person on whose behalf proceedings are brought is entitled to contribute to or provide for the payment of the legal costs and expenses incurred by the person bringing the proceedings.
This amendment relates to third-party rights. It has been hard fought for and is important. The amendment embraces a key accountability mechanism, that of unfettered third-party rights, which essentially provides a right to the community to have a window on the Act and also on the compliance of the licence regulator with the requirements under that licence and under the Act. I should point out that similar third-party rights have been included in other legislation and there has been no flood of litigation - in fact, the opposite has been the case. On many occasions community groups have difficulty in passing public interest tests and in obtaining legal advice. They have also had to get the support of organisations such as the Environmental Defenders Office.
The concept that access to third-party rights opens the floodgates has not been proved. In addition, community groups have to commit an enormous amount of time and effort, and they do not do that frivolously. This amendment provides third-party rights over the Act when a breach, or a threatened or apprehended breach, is likely to cause harm to the environment. It also provides third-party rights over the activities of the licensed regulator, and will put added pressure on the regulator to properly perform its role as a watchdog over the operating licence. Again, this is all about accountability and having regard to obligations under the Act and the licence. Rights are given in regard to the customer contract, which in turn will increase consumer rights under the Act.
New clause agreed to.
Page 6315 Clause 85
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [10.21]: I will not move Australian Labor Party amendment No. 4 but I seek a guarantee from the Minister about Pecky's Playground. I have all the documentation written in the past day or two, which covers most of the Opposition's concerns. I seek a guarantee that the land that is to be leased will be at least the land currently occupied by Pecky's Playground.
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [10.21]: I am pleased to provide the undertaking on behalf of the Government and on behalf of my colleague in the other place that the land that will be leased will be at least the land currently leased. I move:
No. 34 Page 44, clause 85. After line 11, insert:
(b) in the case of drought or accident, or if the Minister is for some other reason of the opinion that it is necessary in the public interest and for the purpose of maintaining water supply - the restriction or regulation of the supply and use of water in the area of operations; and
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
New schedule 1
Amendment by Mr Souris agreed to:
No. 35 Page 46. Before line 1, insert:
SCHEDULE 1 - PROVISIONS RELATING TO
MEMBERS AND PROCEDURE OF
SYDNEY WATER CORPORATION LICENCE
REGULATOR
(Sec. 29 (5))
PART 1 - PRELIMINARY
Definitions
1. In this Schedule:
"Chairperson" means the Chairperson of the Licence Regulator;
"member" means a member of the Licence Regulator.
PART 2 - MEMBERS
Chairperson
2. The Chairperson is to be selected by the Minister from among the 5 members.
Deputies
3. (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:
(a) may, if available, act in the place of the member; and
(b) while so acting, has the functions of the member and is taken to be the member.
(3) A person while acting in the place of 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 person.
Terms of office of members
4. 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 reappointment.
Remuneration
5. 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.
Vacancy in office of member
6. (1) The office of a member becomes vacant if the member:
(a) dies; or
(b) completes a term of office and is not reappointed; or
(c) resigns the office by instrument in writing addressed to the Minister; or
(d) is removed from office by the Minister under this Schedule or by the Governor under Part 8 of the Public Sector Management Act 1988; or
(e) 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
(f) becomes a mentally incapacitated person; or
(g) is convicted in New South Wales of an offence which is punishable by penal servitude or imprisonment for 12 months or more or is convicted elsewhere than in New South Wales of an offence which, if committed in New South Wales, would be an offence so punishable; or
(h) is absent from 3 consecutive meetings of the Licence Regulator of which reasonable notice has been given to the member, except on leave granted by the Licence Regulator or unless, before the expiration of 4 weeks after the last of those meetings, the member is excused by the Licence Regulator for having been absent from the meetings.
(2) The Minister may remove a member from office at any time.
Disclosure of pecuniary interests
7. (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 Licence Regulator; 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 practicable after the relevant facts have come to the member's knowledge, disclose the nature of the interest at a meeting of the Licence Regulator.
(2) A disclosure by a member at a meeting of the Licence Regulator that the member:
(a) is a member or officer, 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,
Page 6316
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 are to be recorded in a book kept by the Licence Regulator 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 Licence Regulator.
(4) After a member has disclosed the nature of an interest in any matter, the member must not, unless the Minister or Licence Regulator otherwise determines:
(a) be present during any deliberation of the Licence Regulator with respect to the matter; or
(b) take part in any decision of the Licence Regulator with respect to the matter.
(5) For the purpose of the making of a determination by the Licence Regulator 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 Licence Regulator for the purpose of making the determination; or
(b) take part in the making by the Licence Regulator of the determination.
(6) A contravention of this clause does not invalidate any decision of the Licence Regulator.
Filling of vacancy in office of member
8. If the office of any member becomes vacant, a person is, subject to this Act, to be appointed to fill the vacancy.
Effect of certain other Acts
9. (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 such a member.
(3) The office of a member is not, for the purposes of any Act, an office or place of profit under the Crown.
PART 3 - PROCEDURE
General procedure
10. The procedure for calling meetings of the Licence Regulator and for the conduct of business at those meetings is, subject to this Act, to be as determined by the Licence Regulator.
Quorum
11. The quorum for a meeting of the Licence Regulator is 3 members.
Presiding member
12. (1) The Chairperson is to preside at a meeting of the Licence Regulator.
(2) The Chairperson has a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, has a second or casting vote.
Voting
13. A decision supported by a majority of the votes cast at a meeting of the Licence Regulator at which a quorum is present is a decision of the Licence Regulator.
Transaction of business outside meeting or by telephone or other means
14. (1) The Licence Regulator may, if it thinks fit, transact any of its business by the circulation of papers among all the members for the time being, and a resolution in writing approved in writing by a majority of those members is taken to be a decision of the Licence Regulator.
(2) The Licence Regulator may, if it thinks fit, transact any of its business at a meeting at which members (or some members) participate by telephone, closed-circuit television or other means, but only if any member who speaks on a matter before the meeting can be heard by the other members.
(3) For the purposes of:
(a) the approval of a resolution under subclause (1); or
(b) a meeting held in accordance with subclause (2),
the Chairperson and each other member have the same voting rights as they have at an ordinary meeting of the Licence Regulator.
(4) A resolution approved under subclause (1) is, subject to the regulations, to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the Licence Regulator.
(5) Papers may be circulated among the members for the purposes of subclause (1) by facsimile or other means for transmission of the information in the papers concerned.
Minutes
15. (1) The Licence Regulator is to ensure that full and accurate minutes of all its proceedings are kept.
(2) The Licence Regulator is to submit a copy of the minutes of a meeting of the Licence Regulator to the Minister within 14 days after the meeting is held.
First meeting
16. The Minister may call the first meeting of the Licence Regulator in such manner as the Minister thinks fit.
New schedule agreed to.
Schedule 5
Ms MOORE (Bligh) [10.23]: I move the following Independent amendment:
Page 54, Schedule 5(5). After line 37, insert:
(g) the effects of pricing on environmental outcomes (including the sustainability of eco-systems) and the use of natural resources by the government agency.
The amendment does not make it mandatory for the Government Pricing Tribunal to take into consideration environmental outcomes when determining charges. It simply encourages the tribunal to consider other than purely economic matters when determining methodology.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule as amended agreed to.
Page 6317
Schedule 8
Amendments, by leave, by Mr Souris agreed to:
No. 36 Page 70, Schedule 8. After line 25, insert:
(d) the Water Board (Water Restrictions) Regulation 1994.
No. 37 Page 70, Schedule 8, line 26. Omit "The provisions referred to in subclause (1) (a) and (b)", insert instead "The provisions and the Regulation referred to in subclause (1) (a), (b) and (d)".
No. 38 Page 70, Schedule 8, line 32. Omit "(a)-(c)", insert instead "(a)-(d)".
No. 39 Page 72, Schedule 8, lines 20 and 21. Omit ", in the opinion of the consent authority, may", insert instead "would".
Schedule as amended agreed to.
New schedule 9
Amendment by Dr Macdonald agreed to:
No. 5 Page 75. After line 8, insert:
SCHEDULE 9 - LIST OF SUBSTANCES
(Sec. 22 (9))
Aluminium Ammonia (insofar as it is a toxicant) Arsenic Barium Benzidene Boron Cadmium Chloride Chromium Cobalt Copper Cyanide Dichlorobenzidine Diphenylhydrazine Halogenated aliphatic compounds, including chlorinated alkanes and alkenes Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Monocyclic aromatic compounds, including chlorinated benzenes, chlorinated phenols and phenolic compounds Nickel Nitrate and nitrite (insofar as they are toxicants) Pesticides, including organochlorines and organophosphates Polyaromatic hydrocarbons, including chlorinated naphthylenes, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) Selenium Silver Sulphate Surfactants Tin Trihalomethanes Total residual chlorine, including available chloramines Zinc
New schedule agreed to.
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [10.25]: In accordance with the amendment agreed to in relation to new clause 13, I table a copy of the draft operating licence for Sydney Water Corporation Limited.
Bill reported from Committee with amendments, and report adopted.
RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES (CARAVAN PARKS AND MANUFACTURED HOME ESTATES) AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Mr CHAPPELL (Northern Tablelands - Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Regional Development) [10.27], on behalf of Mr Souris: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill was introduced in the other place, and I refer honourable members to the second reading speech delivered in that House.
Mr J. J. AQUILINA (Riverstone) [10.27]: The Opposition is prepared to support the bill. The Opposition has many reservations about the bill and had prepared some 52 amendments to it. Before honourable members feel a heart attack coming on at the thought of debating the 52 amendments, I put it to the Government that the Opposition does not propose to debate the 52 amendments, following negotiations on these matters with the Government and the Independent members. During the course of my contribution to the debate, however, I shall have various comments to make about clauses in the bill. The proposed legislation is important. It is of great credit to and is a great mark of the work of the honourable member for Heffron, who almost singlehandedly, apart from the assistance she has had from her staff member Mr Peter O'Keeffe, worked untiringly on both the original bill she presented to the House and the Government bill drawn up in response to the original bill.
The original bill introduced by the honourable member for Heffron consisted of some 72 pages of legislation specifically designed to provide a complete legislative framework to properly regulate the residential park industry into the next century. That in itself was a monumental task. It is work that will have a great impact on the lives of something like 100,000 people of this State, very special people who were very much in need of special legislation. The drawing up of the private member's bill by the honourable member for Heffron was no mean feat and would not have been achieved without input from people who live in and manage residential parks. I emphasise that point because it is extremely important that we acknowledge that the original legislation brought into the Chamber was drafted as a result of substantial input from both those who live in caravan parks and manufactured home estates and those who run them.
Page 6318 I do not want this to be regarded as a debate between residents and park owners or vice versa. The bill is the result of a corporate effort by both sides to correct the deficiencies in the current law. At the time the honourable member for Heffron introduced her 72-page bill, the Government made a great song and dance about a number of aspects of the bill being flawed. The honourable member for Heffron would be the first to acknowledge that. I had a number of reservations about various facets of the bill. Concerns were expressed to me by both residents of a large caravan park in my electorate, the Parklea Gardens Estate, and the owner, Mr Norman Whitmont, who is extremely influential among those who run caravan parks and manufactured home estates. I took up my concerns with the honourable member for Heffron. I met with about 200 residents for about two hours on a Saturday afternoon recently and listened to their pleas. I listened also to the well-informed and sincere comments made by Mr Whitmont about the way he believed the bill should be amended. I do not want the Government to go off on a tangent and infer that the honourable member for Heffron had not done her homework properly when the legislation was drafted. Her bill was groundbreaking; it was a comprehensive initiative that no-one had attempted to take. It is a credit to her and her assistant, Peter O'Keeffe, that they pursued this matter for months in an effort to bring justice to the 100,000 tenants living in caravan parks and manufactured home estates around the State, and to bring some degree of regulation to the industry.
The Government believed that the bill of the honourable member for Heffron was not adequate. There has been a great deal of consultation with the honourable member for Ballina, who I understand will deal with the bill on behalf of the Government. During the last few weeks a genuine effort has been made to ensure that a bill was produced that would benefit all concerned. It ill behoves the Government to claim that the legislation introduced by the honourable member for Heffron required amendment and was in some ways inadequate, because the Government introduced a 17-page bill in response. That legislation also needs to be amended. I do not say that to be critical of the Government. I have been a member of this House for a long time and I realise that groundbreaking legislation needs to be flexible and sometimes needs to be amended. Legislation sometimes changes dramatically after protracted debate backwards and forwards during the Committee stage. That is part of the beauty of the legislative process: members are able to put forward points of view from many different interests. Hopefully, the final form of the bill will be the legislative framework to govern the interests of the people for whom the legislation was drafted.
I will not be unduly critical of the Government's legislation, although I have a number of reservations to which I will refer shortly. I hope that in return the Government acknowledges that the honourable member for Heffron has done a great deal of innovative work in preparing her bill, and her persistent endeavours to ensure that the best result is obtained from the negotiations and eventual legislation in the interests of the park residents and those who run the various caravan parks and manufactured home estates in New South Wales. As I said earlier, the bill has resulted from consultation and negotiation between park owners, park residents, combined pensioners groups, tenants unions, tenants advocacy groups and other interested parties. The amendments proposed by the Opposition resulted from various requests made at a joint meeting where agreement was reached between park owners and residents. Despite the serious differences between those groups, they were able to accommodate each other's needs and try to ensure that the industry will be regulated to benefit the individuals involved. It is important that honourable members realise that for the first time these parties have made a genuine and united approach to present separate, complete and comprehensive legislation to this House.
The Government has given the Opposition some credit, particularly the honourable member for Heffron for her work on this reforming legislation. The Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing in another place said, in his concluding remarks about this bill, "The Australian Labor Party has, if anything, erred in attempting to assist tenants". If the Opposition has erred in any way in relation to this legislation, it has erred in favour of the tenants to try to improve their lot. I want to acknowledge also the roles played by other members of this Chamber. I refer specifically to my colleague the honourable member for Wyong, who will support me in the debate on the bill. He has a deep and abiding interest in this issue. During his first contribution in this Chamber, as well as in other places in this Parliament, he has shown a burning zeal to do something positive about the interests and welfare of caravan park tenants. I look forward to his contribution. It will be a tribute to his dedication to this issue and to his hard work on behalf of his constituents. Having taken over the carriage of this legislation from the honourable member for Heffron on behalf of the Opposition, I acknowledge the discussions I have had with representatives of the honourable member for South Coast. I am aware of his sincere interest in this issue. I acknowledge also his contribution to negotiations with the State Opposition and the Government. It is in many ways a cooperative effort and it is in that spirit of cooperation the Opposition is facing this legislation.
I am concerned about many issues that have been brought to my notice by tenants in caravan parks and manufactured home estates in my electorate, as well as by the owners of those places. I warn caravan owners not to enter into some form of vendetta and, in anticipation of this legislation, issue eviction notices, as I have heard may be the case up and down the coast. Reputable owners will not do that. They are proud of their reputation and of the establishments they run. They would not dare to risk their reputations in such a way. Although I know of owners who would feel extremely upset that others Page 6319 among them would undertake this sort of activity, I sincerely hope the Government will be vigilant to prevent this. Reputable tenants should not be harassed as a consequence of this legislation. Some caravan park owners may consider taking action against tenants in anticipation of the proclamation of this legislation. I shall speak about that matter later.
The reform of the residential park industry in the context of harmonious communal living standards and attractive promotion in the future is extremely important to many Opposition members, as well as to many Government members and to the non-aligned Independents. Tenancy reforms in other areas are also well overdue. In the months leading up to March 1995 it will behove all honourable members to look at policy in far more detail, to decide what needs to be done to promote the welfare of those who live in this form of accommodation. If I can be critical in any way of the Government it is to say that it has had the opportunity over seven years to do something positive about this matter and it did not do so. It has introduced its own bill because of the vigilant attention given by the honourable member for Heffron and the honourable member for Wyong to the needs and welfare of caravan park tenants and those in the manufactured home estates, in legislation which was originally introduced privately in this House.
One matter of grave concern is that this legislation, after being passed this evening and hopefully later by another place, will not take effect until 1 March 1995. Unscrupulous owners who do not have any care or concern about the morality of what they do, or the interests and welfare of their tenants, will have four months to issue eviction notices and try to dodge the basic thrust of the bill by ejecting residents from caravan parks prior to the legislation taking effect. I do not understand why it is necessary to wait until 1 March 1995, except to suggest that the Government may have some political interests in mind by making a grandiose announcement in the lead-up to the elections on 25 March 1995.
This legislation could easily have been enacted on 1 December 1994. It hardly comes as a surprise to the Government. It has been negotiated over a number of months. There would have been ample time after the legislation passed through both Houses of Parliament for the appropriate documentation to be drawn up, regulations attended to and the legislation to be enacted on 1 December or thereabouts rather than having to wait another four months for its enactment on 1 March 1995. I lay the burden fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Government to do everything possible to bring that date forward. The honourable member for Ballina, in response, may be able to give some assurance in this regard. I have given an undertaking, in the interests of smooth carriage of the bill, not to move any amendments. However, it is important that the Opposition's concern be noted during the course of the second reading debate on this legislation.
Other amendments which the Opposition would like to have moved relate to the issue of Crown lands and national parks. The amendments were intended to deal with the fact that the legislation would not apply to either. It is my present understanding that the Government intends to move an amendment in relation to Crown lands. However, that still leaves national parks and wildlife reserves not dealt with in this legislation. That is a matter of grave concern. Hopefully the Government will deal with wildlife reserves as well as national parks later, in addition to its amendment on Crown lands.
The Government appears to be quite happy to pay the relocation costs of residents who are compelled to move in accordance with the new clauses in schedule 3, a matter that rests squarely on the shoulders of private sector park owners. On the other hand, the Government does not wish to pay that cost for families and other residents permitted to occupy residential sites in national parks. Approximately 25,000 people are affected in this way. It is clearly unjust that the burden of relocation costs should fall on national park residents who in most instances are financially incapable of paying them, when a similar burden will not be borne by residents of a privately owned park. This seems to be a cost-saving exercise on the part of the Government. It is immoral for the Government to shirk its responsibilities and at the same time expect private enterprise to pay. It is one thing to prevent the future use of such lands by the general public but quite another to pay for relocating residents who are requested to move so that the lands can be allocated for a different use.
I welcome the proposed amendment to the Government's legislation in relation to Crown lands. However I ask that further consideration be given to national parks and wildlife reserves. Another series of amendments dealt with assignment and subletting. The Opposition is seeking to permit the assignment of a leasehold only to the purchaser of the dwelling and to delete the present clause in the bill that states it is not unreasonable for a landlord to withhold or refuse consent for the assignment or subletting of a residential site on grounds that would allow the landlord to terminate the leasehold under clause 9 of the bill.
Over the past six months the honourable member for Heffron has had many meetings with park owners, park owners' associations, park residents and their associations. During those meetings she was told time and again emphatically that they sought to have park community living standards preserved and enhanced. They feared that indiscriminate assignment of subletting of residential sites would create disharmony and acrimony within their localised park communities. They do not want investors purchasing dwellings to sublet because the standard of maintenance of a dwelling, upkeep of the gardens and general commitment to the park standards and welfare of other residents will deteriorate. They do not want subtenants who have no equity or interest in the home. The same logic would apply to assignments of leasehold, where the incoming party has no financial interest in the home.
Page 6320
The Government has pushed the line that park owners already have sufficient protection against undesirable persons entering parks by being able to ask for character references and to undertake their own private inquiries prior to deciding whether or not to refuse permission to sublet or to assign the leasehold. I understand that the Government is of the view that the honourable member for Heffron, and perhaps the Opposition as a whole, is being too prescriptive in its proposals for subletting and assignments, but park owners and residents want that prescription to ensure that the park lifestyle to which they are committed, and in which they have invested considerable sums of money, will retain its communal character and will not be a place for transients with no real commitment to the park community.
Other concerns related to the upgrading of parks. The Opposition sought to raise a number of issues concerning the upgrading of parks, particularly those relating to Crown lands and national park owners, and the opportunities for owners to evict residents on the grounds of upgrading the parks. These issues have been discussed at length by the honourable member for Heffron and by the Opposition. I shall not go into detail but I note that, despite the Government's proposals, the problem remains that this measure will apply to future residents. This legislation does not include retrospective provisions. The Government should give consideration to safeguarding the welfare and interests of existing residents as opposed to future residents of Crown lands and national park areas.
A further specific area of concern relates to the termination notice to a resident on the ground of change of use of sites. Termination of leaseholds can have serious social, financial and emotional repercussions to residents. For this reason the intent of the bill should be clearly understood by all parties. This measure could be open to abuse. The Opposition wishes it to be noted that any notice given should be given only on the basis that the change of use has been approved by the relevant local authority. Perhaps the Government could consider ways of amending the legislation to accommodate these interests.
A section 12 termination notice proposes an escape hatch for park owners who may give a notice of termination on the grounds that the park owner would suffer undue hardship if unable to terminate the lease agreement on any other ground. Such hardship could be easily orchestrated by the landlord through ownership structures or could result from incompetence and mismanagement of the owner's financial affairs, through no fault of the resident. A resident could be made to suffer through the contrivance of the landlord. The Government should consider this, and try to eliminate such problems.
I understand the Government has agreed to an amendment that will permit a landlord to issue a notice to relocate to another residential park operated by the same landlord, in lieu of a notice of termination. I may be mistaken, but I also understand there has been some agreement by the Government in relation to an amendment relating to compensation payments. Perhaps the honourable member for Ballina will clarify that matter for me. Originally, the Opposition had proposed moving two related amendments seeking to exclude from the calculation of compensation the costs payable to residents under clause 14 of the bill, damage rightly attributable to the resident, and also to deal with the payment of costs of repairing any damage caused to a dwelling during the relocation process. The restriction on compensation payable to the resident for the cost of transportation of the dwelling and possessions to a distance of 100 kilometres will be extended to 300 kilometres. The Opposition will support that amendment.
In relation to associations appearing before the tribunal, the Opposition requests the Government to consider allowing park owners and park residents' associations to assist their members when requested to do so by such members in applications before the tribunal. This matter was raised with me by residents at the Parklea Gardens Estate. Though they welcome the thrust of the bill, residents and park owners are concerned that the legislation may result in considerable litigation and overrepresentation before tribunals. People are genuinely afraid of making applications to tribunals unless they have appropriate assistance. The Opposition will seek to provide governmental assistance to associations to represent parties which are their concern before tribunals. The Opposition's amendment perhaps would not provide for park owners or park residents to be represented by their respective associations if they so wished; rather, it proposes that the respective association be permitted to participate in the proceedings before the tribunal on behalf of the residents.
I urge the Government to consider a sunset clause that would enable a park owner to regain control after death of a tenant. The Opposition's amendment will introduce a transitional provision to balance the competing rights of park owners and park residents. It would not mean that on a death or sale the dwelling would necessarily be required to be removed from the residential site; it would only have been an option for the park owner at the time. However, the Opposition is concerned that if no action is taken after the death of a tenant, a caravan or a manufactured home might be allowed to fall into gross dilapidation, and proper maintenance would not be undertaken because of an inability to do so.
It is apparent from the few matters I have raised that there is much wrong with the proposed legislation. I have not canvassed anywhere near the Opposition's 52 areas of concern but raised only those concerns that may be regarded as the most serious. Under normal circumstances, the Opposition would have argued the point more vehemently, over a few days or even a week, in an attempt to negotiate a better result. But at least the legislation may at a later stage, perhaps with the benefit of hindsight, provide a better way of dealing with the welfare and interests of both residents and tenants, as well as looking after the commercial and other interests of park owners. Caravan park activity will continue to grow. People Page 6321 on a weekly basis seek this mode of living as opposed to the traditional lifestyles of this State and country. New South Wales has many beautiful areas that lend themselves to the lifestyle.
The legislation has come a long way since its introduction in 1985 towards giving park residents permanency. I had some involvement with that legislation. It is tragic that this type of regulating legislation was not introduced sooner, for it provides a better system for tenants, as well as greater guarantees to owners and managers. At a later stage perhaps the legislation can be amended and refined in the interests of all those involved. The Opposition is pleased to be involved. I conclude by putting on the record the enormous contribution and dedication of the honourable member for Heffron to bring this matter to the attention of Parliament. She and her assistant, Peter O'Keeffe, are to be commended for their hard work in drafting the original private member's bill and following it through to the stage at which the Government has introduced its own legislation. I hope the bill will pass tonight with the various amendments moved by the Government.
Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [11.04]: I thank the honourable member for Riverstone for his contribution to the debate. I thank him also for his conciliatory remarks and the Opposition's support of the legislation, notwithstanding the reservations that have been mentioned. At the outset, I indicate my appreciation to the Independent members, particularly the honourable member for South Coast for his important role in bringing things together in the later stages to ensure that the legislation will provide protection to the many residents of caravan parks and manufactured home estates in New South Wales. I shall endeavour to address most of the matters that the honourable member for Riverstone raised. If I forget any of them, I shall come back to them in Committee, where I shall move seven amendments.
Last week in another place, the Government introduced the Residential Tenancies (Caravan Parks and Manufactured Home Estates) Amendment Bill to address security of tenure for residents and other concerns. This amending bill will address the special needs of permanent residents of caravan parks and manufactured home estates. Parks and estates have become an increasingly popular housing option in recent years because of the lifestyle they offer, the attraction of many of the locations, the community atmosphere and the relative affordability of the accommodation. As at the end of October this year, there were 947 parks and estates in New South Wales, which provided accommodation for between 60,000 and 75,000 people.
The Government recognises that permanent caravan park and manufactured home estate residents face some special issues. That is why the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing asked me in July to examine the current tenancy laws to see whether they were adequate to address the special needs of these residents. After consultation with both park residents and the industry, the Government released a discussion paper in September and called for public submissions so that the legislative shortcomings could be addressed. Forty submissions were received. All submissions have now been given full consideration.
This bill responds to the key area of concern raised in the submissions: security of tenure. The overwhelming view of tenants was that, because of the high level of financial commitment in buying a moveable dwelling, it was unreasonable that they should be put in a position where the park owner could give them notice of termination of the site for no reason. The concept of notice for a just and valid reason only was strongly supported. During this process, I had strong support from the Government and my parliamentary colleagues the members for the electorates of Murwillumbah, Clarence, Coffs Harbour, Oxley, Port Macquarie, Myall Lakes, Maitland and Bega.
Though there was some difference of opinion between park operators and residents on the effect of changing the legislation to provide grounds for termination, it was clear that, for residents, security of tenure was the most significant issue. The proposed legislation will enhance their security of tenure but will also open up other benefits, such as obtaining cheaper finance to assist in the purchase of their dwellings. The introduction of security of tenure provisions is a major initiative by this Government in recognition of the special position of residents who own dwellings located on sites owned by another person. It is landmark legislation. Currently, without specific reason, a landlord may give notice of termination. As a result, residents feel uncertain about their future occupation of the site that contains their family home.
Other issues raised in the submissions to the discussion paper include restrictions on the frequency of rent increases, the use of standard residential tenancy agreements, dealing with abandoned goods, dispute resolution, representation before the Residential Tenancies Tribunal and park rules. The Government will continue to consult with each of the relevant groups on these and other issues raised so that appropriate legislative responses can be devised where necessary. It is worth pausing for a moment to note some of the initiatives the Government has already introduced that provide important and beneficial changes for park and estate residents. The Government has recently introduced regulative amendments in two areas. Since 21 October this year management cannot charge visitors' fees when friends or families stay with residents overnight, if dwellings are self-contained, or where facilities are already provided on a user-pays system. This is an important benefit to tenants as they will not face additional costs for communal facilities which are not used.
The other amendment was to the caravan and relocatable home park industry code of practice. Effective from 21 October landlords are no longer permitted to charge premiums when allowing the sale of a dwelling on site. In the past some park managers Page 6322 have required residents to pay a proportion of the sale price as a charge for being able to sell a home on site, and to leave the dwelling thereafter. This amendment removed this unpopular impost on permanent residents once and for all. The Government has also introduced legislation to provide pensioner rebates on electricity charges to permanent residents of caravan parks and manufactured home sites. This will save eligible residents an average of $80 a year, and so relieve them of some of the cost of living in their chosen form of housing.
The Government's bill covers this important area of outstanding concern, namely, security of tenure. The bill does not provide a system for protected tenancies, but instead provides a balanced approach ensuring the protection of the rights of both tenant and landlord. Park and estate tenants have substantial financial investments at stake, and the bill takes account of this fact. Without adequate security of tenure these residents are exposed to considerable expense and disruption if tenancies can be terminated without due provision for these special circumstances. At the same time, the bill also recognises that circumstances will arise in which the landlord may need to recover the site.
This bill will result in a new schedule being applied to the principal Act which deals with residents of caravans, caravans with rigid annexes and tenants of manufactured homes. It will cover those living in dwellings as a principal place of residence. Those using the dwellings for holidays or casual occupation will not be covered. The new schedule will cover situations in which landlords covered by the schedule can seek to terminate residential tenancy agreements with their tenants. The amendments provide that a landlord may give notice of termination of an agreement in a range of circumstances. The grounds will be the non-payment of rent; serious or persistent breach of the agreement; the dilapidated state of the dwelling; upgrading of the park or estate; a change in the use of the park or estate; and hardship to the landlord.
These last three grounds will include provision for payment of compensation to the tenant. Notice of termination on the grounds of upgrading or changes of use will not be able to be given during the fixed term of an agreement. Where the agreement is frustrated, such as in situations where the site has become uninhabitable, or is not lawfully useable for the purposes of a residential site, the landlord may give notice of termination. If the agreement is terminated on the grounds of the site not being lawfully useable, and the tenant was not aware of this when the agreement was entered into, the tenant is entitled to compensation.
Compensation for these special provisions will be limited to reasonable moving and relocation costs, and will be payable only where termination or relocation is sought at the landlord's convenience or because of fault on the landlord's part. When the landlord and the tenant cannot agree on appropriate compensation, the dispute will be heard by the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. Compensation for damage to dwellings has been limited to the value of the dwellings, and where there are relocation costs to be paid they are limited to 100 kilometres. However, as the honourable member for Riverstone said, the Opposition will move an amendment to increase that limit to 300 kilometres.
The schedule provides appropriate minimum notice periods for each of the grounds of termination. In addition, as an alternative to a notice of termination the amendments provide for the relocation of a tenant to another site in the park or another park operated by the landlord. The amendments will give further benefits to permanent residents by ensuring that landlords cannot unreasonably refuse assignment or subletting arrangements. This is of particular significance in a situation in which a landlord may allow a resident to sell a dwelling on site but then refuse permission for the purchaser to become the tenant of the site. This approach retains the landlord's right to be satisfied regarding the good character and financial capacity of incoming tenants, so long as any anti-discrimination law is not offended.
If the landlord needs to get vacant possession to comply with local government requirements to upgrade - he would have the right to give notice of termination on this ground - refusal to agree to an assignment or subletting arrangement would not be unreasonable. If necessary, the Residential Tenancies Tribunal can adjudicate on what is unreasonable refusal by a landlord. The benefits of the amendments in providing security of tenure are so significant that the provisions of the bill will come into effect on the day of assent. This was a concern raised by the honourable member for Riverstone regarding operation of the legislation from 1 March. I assure him that this will take effect on the date of assent, and it is the Government's intention, because of the circumstances which could prevail in which people would want to use the current law, to move quickly to have the bill assented to as soon as possible.
Special provisions have been included to ensure the ongoing protection of reserved and dedicated Crown land and National Parks and Wildlife Service reserves. These lands have been reserved for the long-term public benefit and are, in many cases, environmentally significant sites. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to limit the capacity of the Crown to manage these lands responsibly in the public interest. Accordingly, under the new provisions an agreement on reserved or dedicated Crown land that is subject to the new schedule can be terminated when the land is required for a public purpose.
The Government proposes to introduce amendments during the Committee stage to ensure that existing permanent residents on Crown land will have the same protection as existing tenants of sites in private parks, including the right to compensation for relocation costs if a tenancy is terminated at the landlord's convenience. I make that point clear for the member for Riverstone: we are talking about providing protection for all people currently on Crown Page 6323 land, but for new tenancies the capacity to acquire compensation if the land is required for public purposes will not be available. I perceived an element of confusion in the remarks of the honourable member for Riverstone.
For new tenancies, the Department of Conservation and Land Management will be implementing appropriate management policies to ensure that all new permanent tenancies on reserved and dedicated Crown lands have the approval of the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. In addition, special provisions have been included in the bill relating to new tenancies to provide that where such land is required for public purposes no compensation will be payable. To ensure that residents are protected in such circumstances, longer notice for termination periods - for example, 12 months - will apply, and a duty of disclosure will apply so that residents are informed of these special conditions.
The new schedule will not apply to National Parks and Wildlife Service reserves. That issue was raised by the honourable member for Riverstone, and I am not sure whether he was confused on this matter. He said that he thought about 25,000 people were in National Parks and Wildlife Service areas, but most of these people are on Crown land, not National Parks and Wildlife Service reserves. It is appropriate that we should provide protection for those people currently on Crown land, but not for those in national parks, because of environmental considerations. Very few people are involved in the latter category anyway.
Another important matter covered by the bill relates to when caravan parks and manufactured home estate residents are concerned that management has not taken sufficient action to control the behaviour of an anti-social resident who disrupts the lifestyle of the other tenants in the community. The amendments will make it a term of every agreement that the landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the other tenants comply with their obligations. If the landlord fails to do this, tenants then have a remedy through an application to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal for a breach of agreement by the landlord.
Living in a caravan park or manufactured home estate is a genuine community lifestyle. Having disruptive neighbours in such a community has a severe effect on harmony and comfort. The bill will ensure that park and estate managers are responsive to complaints by residents about the uncooperative minority. These amendments are appropriate and are the result of proper consideration of the issues concerning those involved in providing and using caravan parks and manufactured home estates as their preferred permanent housing options.
In conclusion I should thank a few people. When the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing asked me to take on this task I firstly called together industry and tenancy groups representatives. We had a series of very beneficial meetings, and I thank all those who had an input to that process. I also thank those who made public submissions. I thank Bob Browne, the Tenancy Commissioner, for his compilation of the discussion paper. I also thank Rebecca Richardson, Vivienne Milligan and Peter Berry in the Ministry, and Sue Moxham in the Minister's office for their assistance. I also thank the honourable member for Heffron for her interest and sincerity on this subject. Undoubtedly, she has done a great deal of work in this area during the past six or eight months. During more recent stages we had some very good discussions about how best to achieve a common purpose. Although the Government and Opposition legislation differed, we had a common goal of trying to providing proper security of tenure for these people. I also compliment the honourable member for South Coast, who was particularly helpful in relation to Crown land matters. His input in bringing the legislation together was vital. [Time expired.]
Mr HATTON (South Coast) [11.19]: I thank the honourable member for Ballina for his kind remarks. The Residential Tenancies (Caravan Parks and Manufactured Mobile Homes) Amendment Bill is an extremely important bill to the tens of thousands of people living in caravan parks throughout New South Wales, particularly those living along the coast of New South Wales, a significant number of whom live in the Shoalhaven City Council area, compromising almost the entire electorate of the South Coast. The Shoalhaven City Council grosses almost $6 million per year from its caravan parks. There are also a large number of privately-owned caravan parks.
The bill will provide security of tenure for the vast majority of permanent residents in caravan and mobile home parks by instituting just cause evictions and minimising the incidence of no fault evictions. It is of great value to proprietors because if people feel more secure they will adopt that lifestyle. Permanent tenants of caravan parks are a vital source of earnings. They even out the income graph, making up for income lost in many areas in the winter months. I, too, join with others in acknowledging the important role played by the honourable member for Heffron, a role that has been well acknowledged by previous speakers.
The honourable member for Wyong first raised this matter in his maiden speech in 1991. At the end of this parliamentary term the bill is being debated. He spoke of the impact of this legislation on his and other electorates, and as a new member of Parliament he doggedly pursued the issue. I congratulate him on his persistence. The honourable member for Ballina has worked tirelessly on the Government side to develop a response to the private member's bill introduced by the honourable member for Heffron. The legislation demonstrates the value of private members' bills. On a number of occasions in this Parliament they have triggered a response from the Government.
Mr Des Sheehan of the Tenants Union has described the resultant legislation as very good in relation to security of tenure, after discussions with residents associations. The honourable member for Page 6324 Heffron undertook discussions with proprietors. The Independents further refined the bill, a key role being played by my assistant, Bill Dunbar, who has the concerns of the residents at heart. He went in to bat for them on many occasions when I could not attend discussions, because the Parliament has had a very busy couple of weeks. He was in close consultation with Government officers who are now behind the bar of the House. I thank them for their contributions in working out compromises in many areas of conflict.
We negotiated amendments with the Government to provide for relocation compensation for permanent residents on Crown land when the park was to be used for enhanced public purposes. This area of concern was foreshadowed by Australian Labor Party amendments. Without this amendment the residents would have received no compensation, especially pensioners whose life savings are invested in homes on such sites and who could not afford to relocate, regardless of the length of notification. They would have suffered extreme hardship and possible homelessness. All involved in this process should have a warm feeling in their hearts, because they have done an excellent job.
From the point of view of the public purse, from the Government's perspective as well as from the humane perspective, the amendment is financially responsible. If people are happily housed on Crown land with some feeling of security and are compensated if they are forced to relocate, many of them will not end up as potential clients at a potential cost to the Government in emergency housing. The Independents secured Government agreement on amendments foreshadowed by the ALP, which provide that residents can only be asked to relocate to a reasonable distance, and this was mentioned by both the honourable member for Ballina and the honourable member for Riverstone. Residents are now able to seek relocation compensation up to a maximum of 300 kilometres, again satisfying the foreshadowed amendments of the ALP and the concerns reflected therein.
Further areas of concern with the legislation fall under the heading of excessive rental increases. The Government argued that that issue is already dealt with under section 46 of the Residential Tenancies Act, which provides for appeal to the tribunal over excessive rent increases. In regard to the right of residents associations to appear before the tribunal on behalf of a tenant, the Government argued that such capacity existed under section 49. I point out to the readers of this Hansard that they can exercise those rights. The Opposition expressed concern that the Government would not have this bill proclaimed, but it will be proclaimed before Christmas by assent, with a 180-day safeguard by way of notification so that people cannot be evicted. Assent is the fastest way to implement the legislation.
For many thousands of people living permanently in caravan parks throughout New South Wales, especially on the coast, this is a most important piece of legislation. All those involved in the process on a bipartisan basis can be proud of it. The legislation is of comfort to the responsible park owners, the Combined Pensioners and Superannuation Association, the Tenants Union and various caravan park tenants associations and others. It was drafted in consultation with all sectors of the industry, and it recognises the rights of caravan proprietors. I support the bill and the amendments. I am very pleased to be associated with it.
Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong) [11.27]: I support the thrust of the bill. It deals with security of tenure which, in my mind, is the crucial issue affecting people who live in mobile home parks in New South Wales. Presently New South Wales has no-fault eviction. People can be evicted from their mobile homes without any reason being given and they can be forced to pay up to $15,000 to move their homes, simply because park owners have decided that is the way it has to be. The bill will remedy that situation, and I am very pleased that it is before the House. As the honourable member for Riverstone pointed out, amendments to the bill perhaps would have enhanced it, but that was not to be. I still think it is a step in the right direction. The philosophical arguments for the need for security of tenure for residents of mobile home parks are contained in a speech I made on 27 August 1991. I do not intend to traverse that area again tonight.
On 28 August 1991 I moved an amendment in this House which would have had the same effect as this bill. The then Minister for Housing, the honourable member for Wagga Wagga, called it socialist nonsense. The honourable member for Baulkham Hills spoke of it in similar terms. I am pleased to note that the Government has conceded that it has been a party to social engineering and social control of people in mobile home parks, at least for three years and three months, and that it is doing something about it tonight. The genesis of this bill was a private member's bill introduced by the honourable member for Heffron a few weeks ago. She and her research officer, Peter O'Keeffe, spent a great deal of time addressing the issue, together with considerable input from the Labor candidate for Murwillumbah, Trevor Wilson, and the Labor candidate for Coffs Harbour, Bruce Clarke. They produced a comprehensive package of legislation to deal with the unique situation of people in mobile home parks. The honourable member for Heffron and the Labor candidates deserve great credit for their work on the legislation.
What amazes me is that we have waited so long to address the problem. The Ahern National Party Government in Queensland addressed this issue in 1989 in a separate bill. Termination of a tenancy by the owner was no big deal under that legislation. There are six heads under which a tenant can be ejected from a mobile home in Queensland. The Queensland bill provided a fair go and finally the New South Wales coalition Government has introduced appropriate legislation for the nineties. I congratulate the Minister for Housing for coming to the party and doing the right thing by tenants of mobile home parks Page 6325 in New South Wales. He was quoted in the Newcastle Herald on 16 July as defending the eviction law in relation to mobile home parks. The article stated:
A law that allows residents of relocatable home parks to be evicted at a personal cost of thousands of dollars without any reasons needed was defended yesterday by the new Minister for Housing, Mr Webster.
It has taken him some time but he has finally done the right thing. The election campaign in the Federal seat of Richmond in 1993 was not heeded by the Minister. The National Party candidate, Larry Anthony, was very concerned when this became the predominant issue in that electorate. The Liberal candidate, Bruce Francis, was running around saying, "We must do something". They were not able to convince the coalition Government of the need to act, but I am pleased to see that finally as the Fiftieth Parliament draws to a close the Government, the Opposition and the Independents are taking comprehensive actions to address the issue.
The bill provides for compensation to be awarded by the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. In the past the tribunal has not been all that wonderful in dealing with residents of mobile home parks: it has done a Pontius Pilate, washed its hands and said, "We would love to do something for you but unfortunately we cannot. Our hands are tied. No reason need be given to remove you from a park and there is nothing we can do". The tribunal now has responsibility and I hope it acts judiciously on behalf of the people affected. I do not intend to deal with the specific clauses of the legislation but I mention one important clause. Clause 13 is titled "Relocation of tenant". It would be more appropriate to call it the Oxley clause. Mr and Mrs Oxley were involved in the most disgraceful eviction from a mobile home park that has ever been seen. They were asked to remove their mobile home from a park in the Terrigal area because the park owner decided that his friend needed the site. It was cheaper for the park owner to tell the Oxleys to get out without giving a reason than to do the right thing, tell them that he wanted the site for another person and pay their relocation costs to another part of the park. Finally, under this clause people such as the Oxleys will not be able to be treated in such a way. It is a tragedy it has taken so long for us to come to grips with this problem.
Whilst I am very proud of the contributions made by Labor candidates in Murwillumbah and Coffs Harbour, I should also acknowledge the contribution of the honourable member for Ballina. I think he has done a tremendous job in addressing this pressing concern of the Government, after the honourable member for Heffron introduced her private member's bill. He has shown a great deal of dexterity in dealing with key issues of premiums and commissions on sale, and business fees under regulations of the Fair Trading Act and the Residential Tenancies Act. It was an innovative approach. This legislation providing security of tenure is a major step forward for the people of New South Wales.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Schedule 1
Amendments, by leave, by Mr D. L. Page agreed to:
No. 1 Page 7, Schedule 1, line 18. After "reserve", insert "entered into after the commencement of this Schedule".
No. 2 Page 11, Schedule 1, line 16. After "reserve", insert "the subject of a residential site agreement entered into after the commencement of this Schedule".
No. 3 Page 11, Schedule 1, line 30. After "reserve", insert "the subject of a residential site agreement entered into after the commencement of this Schedule".
No. 4 Page 12, Schedule 1, lines 5-21. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:
(6) Compensation is not payable in respect of a residential site agreement for a residential site situated within a Crown reserve (being an agreement entered into after the commencement of this Schedule) if:
(a) the tenant is informed (when the agreement is entered into) that there is no right of compensation in the event that the agreement is terminated under this clause; and
(b) the purpose for which the agreement is terminated is for the residential site to be used for a public purpose other than that of a residential site.
No. 5 Page 13, Schedule 1, line 15. After "the landlord would", insert "and the tenant would not".
No. 6 Page 13, Schedule 1, line 37. After "some other residential park", insert "within a reasonable distance".
No. 7 Page 15, Schedule 1, line 21. Omit "100 kilometres", insert instead "300 kilometres".
Schedule as amended agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee with amendments, and passed through remaining stages.
Message
Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it that the Legislative Assembly agrees to the bill with amendments and requesting the concurrence of the Legislative Council with the amendments.
WATER BOARD (CORPORATISATION) BILL
Bill read a third time.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Orders of the Day
Mr West: I seek leave to move Order of the Day (For Bills) No. 23, the Queanbeyan Showground (Variation of Purposes) Bill, in the name of the honourable member for Monaro, to be dealt with as Government business.
Leave not granted.
Page 6326
Mr Cochran: I seek the leave of the House to move a motion to suspend standing orders to permit consideration forthwith of all stages of the Queanbeyan Showground (Variation of Purposes) Bill at this sitting.
Leave not granted.
SYDNEY AIRPORT THIRD RUNWAY
Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services) [11.42]: It was not possible earlier in the week to table papers held by the Sydney Olympic Games Bid. I therefore table those papers in accordance with Standing Order 54.
LEAD CONTAMINATION
Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services) [11.43]: In accordance with Standing Order 54 I table lead reports, test results and information.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services) [11.44]: I move:
That this House at its rising this day do adjourn until Tuesday 7 February 1995 at 2.15 p.m.
Seasonal Felicitations
Mr FAHEY (Southern Highlands - Premier, and Minister for Economic Development) [11.45]: It is with pleasure that I extend my Christmas wishes to the Parliament, its members and staff. I feel sure I am not the only person in this place who is looking forward to Christmas and a chance to return to our electorates and to spend some well-earned time with family and friends. This will be the final Christmas message in what may be termed the momentous life of this Fiftieth Parliament. There will never be a Parliament like this Fiftieth Parliament - and perhaps in the interests of the people of New South Wales there never should be. As we prepare for our well-earned Christmas break, I am sure all of us will remember the moments of excitement and drama that have characterised this Parliament.
Despite the drama, we have achieved much. In the past few weeks alone we have passed legislation to sell the State Bank of New South Wales at a fair and reasonable price, in a deal judged by the Attorney General to be appropriate. We have also passed legislation that prepares New South Wales to deliver a sustainable balanced budget within the next Parliament. In many ways it is a tragedy that the Parliament has not yet accepted its obligation to enshrine the principle of fiscal responsibility. One day that responsibility will certainly be carried by this Parliament. We have continued the progressive reform of our State's legal system, making the legal system relevant to the needs of today while at the same time protecting its great strengths and its independence.
Our Parliament has joined the other Parliaments of Australia in passing a motion for Aboriginal reconciliation, a very real demonstration of our commitment to the reconciliation process. These are important achievements that will improve the life of the people of New South Wales as we prepare for the next century. This significant and pace-setting legislation, backed up by a competent and capable Executive Government, has positioned the premier State as the leading and certainly the best managed State in Australia. The continued passage through this Parliament of important legislative reform, despite the delicate balance of numbers in this place, reflects the underlying stability of our political system. Even though temperatures have been raised to a degree that we have all had difficulties with at times, the great traditions and strengths of our parliamentary democracy have been observed.
During the past 36 hours there has been a degree of fragility of democracy in this place. I sincerely hope that we overcome that difficulty and continue to observe democracy in the true sense of the freedom of speech and opportunity that is presented to all honourable members who represent the people of this State. That is a tribute to all honourable members who share my Government's respect for the parliamentary institution, even when it works at times to frustrate us - and it does. The successful running of the Parliament would not be possible without the dedicated and professional officers who serve here. That has never been more evident that in this Fiftieth Parliament, when tight numbers imposed problems not previously encountered.
Mr Speaker, on behalf of my Government I would like to extend my sincere thanks to you for your patience and fairness throughout the year. You have exercised a steadying hand over our sometimes heated exchanges to ensure the smooth running of the Parliament. I must say, however, Mr Speaker, that on occasions when I sat with my friend and colleague the Minister for Transport - the only Minister who has been ejected or evicted from this Parliament - I was aware that he kept hoping that you might, in your wisdom, make a decision that would result in one of his colleagues ultimately joining him. The honourable member for Ashfield seemed likely to be that colleague to join the Minister for Transport. But it was not to be.
Mr Speaker, throughout that difficult time you ensured that democracy worked in this place, so that the suggestion could not be made, given our tight numbers, that advantage was taken on the basis of membership of a political party. You ensured that legislation and motions would not be tarnished by political advantage. You ensured that we enjoyed the smooth running of this Parliament. I extend my thanks also to my ministerial colleagues. I am proud to say that in New South Wales we are served by a Cabinet that is second to none. Each and every one of my colleagues shares my commitment and determination to do what is best for this State. I thank them for their support and hard work throughout this year. I particularly thank my Deputy Page 6327 Premier, the Minister for Public Works, and Minister for Ports, for his contribution this year. With his dedication and energy we have ensured that the coalition between our two great parties remains as strong as ever. We are united and we are cohesive.
It has not been the easiest of years for the Deputy Premier. In the course of the year he underwent a triple bypass. That put additional strains on him. In addition, his family was wracked by health problems, which added to his concerns and his own problems. Nevertheless, at all times he has demonstrated that he is a relaxed person, and he has bounced back, in my view, better than he ever was. I am very grateful for that. In recent weeks he has demonstrated that he is as adept as ever with a stockwhip. If the honourable member for Lachlan can have a triple bypass and within weeks be as accurate with a stockwhip as he has always been, that certainly demonstrates he is as strong as ever.
I also acknowledge the Leader of the House, the Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services. The Leader of the House, despite taking on a very demanding portfolio, has remained a skilled parliamentarian. His careful management of this place has been appreciated by members on all sides of the House. I said last year and repeat this year that in my 11 years in this place I have never had the opportunity to serve with a better Leader of the House. Government business has never been better managed than under the member who is currently in the position of Leader of the House. In my time in this Parliament I have had no better friend than the Leader of the House. He has no greater admirer than me for the job that he does.
I also acknowledge honourable members on both sides of the House for the courtesies they have extended and the commitments they have made to their electorates. I have always argued in this Parliament that all members are genuine in their beliefs. I may disagree with some of the views they express, but I have never doubted their genuineness or the manner in which they represent their constituents. We should all be proud of and maintain that record in this Parliament in the future. On this side of the House, I have always allowed my colleagues to express their views in the interests of their constituents. At times that has been difficult. I still believe that members of Parliament are elected to represent their constituency and if there is a view in their constituency they should have the right to express it in this Parliament and in the public arena.
I extend my sincere thanks to those parliamentary staff who have proved so reliable and professional during these trying times. I refer to the Clerk, the Clerk-Assistant, the Serjeant-at-Arms - although I do not think he had enough to do - the Parliamentary Librarian and staff, the staff of the bills and papers room and the accounts staff. The Serjeant-at-Arms should have caught all those paper planes from the gallery earlier in the week before any landed. He has always had a great sense of humour and he is a very genuine person. My appreciation goes also to the Hansard staff. It is a constant source of amazement to many in this House that they are able to follow the rowdy and fast-paced nature of debate in the House. Only a few days ago the Leader of the Opposition congratulated the captain of the Australian cricket team and referred to him as Mark Daley. I wondered then if it might be recorded as Laurie Taylor. The correct name appeared in the Hansard, and I am grateful for that.
The security staff, the police and the parliamentary attendants also deserve our thanks for another year of cheerful efficient service, as do the cleaning staff who must sometimes feel that they have the least pleasant task in this place. To the staff of the parliamentary dining room I say thank you. Thanks go to David Draper, Kevin Connolly, and all of the team who constantly look after us and make us feel that this is not such a bad place, even on the worst of days - and we all have them. I thank them for their good food and fine service. During the long nights of sitting it can be a relief to know that at least we will be fed, even if we will not get much sleep.
Many people help us carry out our duties as members of Parliament. An important group is our electorate staff. They are often the front-line troops for each and every one of us, who spend so much time in this place. While we are here until all hours they are representing us in our electorates and are helping members of our communities. We all recognise that their efforts are considerable and their dedication is admirable. I extend my thanks to each of them irrespective of whom they look after and represent in the Parliament. I depart from the traditional speech at this stage and say that there are two people I want to pay particular tribute to.
On behalf of many members of this House this will be my last chance to speak about two people and say simply that in the time they have been with us as colleagues, as representatives, they have served the community and this Parliament well. The first is the former Deputy Premier, the honourable member for Barwon, Wal Murray. For as long as I live he will have a place in my heart. I have been proud to stand alongside him. The big man from Barwon made me a little better by simply being his friend and a colleague. For the commonsense he often brought to the debates and arguments in the committee meetings, and the simple resolution of problems, Wal Murray will be remembered by all members of this place long after he departs. I wish him well as he embarks upon a new business career. I suspect it will be a career that will grow to a size we would all appreciate.
I know he will follow his new career with his family in a way which will again serve the community in a simple way. The way Wal Murray served his community may often be described as simple. Frequently simplicity is the best way to address any particular problem. Wal, I wish you many, many years of happiness; I wish you many, many years of good health; I wish you and Daphne all that you hope for. I sincerely hope you do not lose touch with the many friends you have made on both sides of this Page 6328 House. I sincerely hope you and I continue to talk to each other on a regular basis, because that would be good for me. On the other side of Parliament, the honourable member for Liverpool is about to embark upon a radio career which I believe starts next week.
Ms Moore: Competing with Michael Yabsley.
Mr FAHEY: The honourable member for Bligh interjects that the honourable member for Liverpool is about to compete with the former member for Bligh. I am not sure that either of them would like to compete. I am not sure that either of them would play upon the same field in ways that the honourable member for Liverpool would describe as sport. I am not sure that any of us would want to see the collision that might occur if they had a head-to-head confrontation. Both of them, of course, did much for this Parliament. On this occasion I pay tribute to the honourable member for Liverpool. He and I have shared a happy and convivial moment on many occasions. I appreciate, with regard to the honourable member for Liverpool, the camaraderie that does still exist.
We often lament the days before many of us were here when Parliament House was much smaller, when members shared rooms, and many stories were told - I think some of them myths - around a bar. The honourable member for Liverpool has always been a genuine person. He made an enormous contribution to this State, on many occasions. I never doubted the fact that everything he said was from the heart and that he believed in what he said. I believe that if you can leave this place trusted by your opponents, who are still your colleagues, then you have left here a good man. I wish him every success in his future career. He deserves it. The State of New South Wales will be the poorer because he will not serve in this Parliament after 25 March. Good luck Peter Anderson.
Finally, on behalf of the members of the Government I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to the husbands, wives, partners and families of the members of this place. The demands that we place on our families are considerable. We are always busy and are often late, yet our families are always there for us. The support of my wife, Colleen, and my children has been invaluable throughout my entire parliamentary career; but most especially since I have been Premier. In this International Year of the Family it is important that we all take time to acknowledge our families and the very special role that they play in our lives.
The people of New South Wales began 1994 fighting terrible bushfires and will end the year in the grip of a terrible drought. The enormous challenges posed by these natural disasters remind us why we are really here. Throughout this year the people of New South Wales have drawn together in the spirit of courage and generosity to fight the sometimes unkind forces of nature. As members of Parliament we have seen at first hand what a wonderful community we are honoured to serve. I extend to this Parliament and all the people of New South Wales my best wishes for a happy and holy Christmas. I hope it is a time for family and relaxation, a season that is safe and peaceful for everyone.
Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [11.58]: On behalf of the Australian Labor Party I take this opportunity to wish all members of Parliament, on all sides, a well-earned break and, with God's blessing, a safe return. I have my doubts that we will be here on 7 February, but I am confident that following 25 March the Liberal-National Party will be sitting on this side of the House and the Labor Party will be sitting on the Government benches. It has been a very difficult job for me oversighting Opposition business in this House. It has been quite a memorable year in many ways. I think I am the first member in the history of this Parliament to be sin-binned. Honourable members will recall the result of an incident involving myself and the former Minister for Police. That incident, for which I sincerely apologise to you, Mr Speaker, was difficult, but throughout the year you have treated all members of the House with the utmost fairness.
If I am incorrect in this statement, I would be surprised, but although motions of dissent have been moved against you, I do not think any of them proceeded. That is a tribute to your fairness and qualitative response as the Speaker, and I thank you for that. I thank the Clerks, Russell Grove, Mark Swinson, Les Gönye and Ronda Miller, for their invaluable assistance throughout the year, distinguished by the qualitative advice given to me without fear or favour - always in absolute confidence and known to be in confidence. To the Editor of Debates I offer sincere thanks for all those great speeches that end up being made and to all your staff, who correct all the mistakes that members make. I am looking at the Minister for the Environment. The other day he was giving me a bake about the Liberal candidate in Ashfield running against me. He got his names mixed up, both surname and christian name. I said to him, "I've got you there, tagged; you won't be able to change that because I'm going to use it during the campaign". Obviously Hansard are much more astute than I because the next day when the Hansard came out the correction was made. So, Hansard not only have many transcription skills, they have a lot of insight into the internal workings of the Liberal Party as well!
Kevin Connolly told me he has celebrated 25 years in the Parliament. He and David Draper have done a stirling job looking after the members. I thank them, as I do all the attendants and the Serjeant-at-Arms, Merv Sheather, who has a mobile phone that Alexander Graham Bell would be proud of, because it is just as old. To the Government Leader of the House who is underpaid and overworked, I thank him. I am sick of being known as compliant Paul throughout the year. Frankly, I am sick of just being in Opposition and continuing to do the Government favours! But it has worked very well. The genuine intention to have family friendly hours for the Parliament has obviously fallen in a great heap because we are still here at midnight on the last night. Page 6329 But it is probably better than coming back on Monday or Tuesday. It has worked. The Government Leader of the House has been successful in having the standing and sessional orders combined and written in plain English. That is a great personal tribute to him and a feather in his cap.
On a personal note, this is a very sad moment for me, as I am sure it is for many of my colleagues in the Australian Labor Party. We are going to lose the top end of our batsmen: Peter Anderson, Wes Davoren, Don Bowman, Tony Aquilina and Jeff Irwin. I came to Parliament in 1976 and Peter came in 1978. The people of Penrith made a mistake in 1988 when they did not return him to office, but he came back. I was just looking at the portfolios he has held. He has a wealth of experience from 1978 as Minister for Police, Minister for Services, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for Corrective Services, Minister Assisting the Premier, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Youth and Community Services, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Minister for Health and Minister for the Drug Offensive. In each of those portfolios Peter had made a significant change to the State's laws, all for the betterment of the people. It is a great loss to see you go, Peter. I am very sad about the circumstances that occasioned Peter leaving the Parliament, but I am sure his mother, his wife Kay, and Jeremy and Dominique will see more of him. I am sure they are the winners whilst the New South Wales Parliament is the loser.
My good friend Wes Davoren has decided to call it a day after 10 years in Parliament. I thank him and Bill Beckroge for doing such a good job. It will be sad to see the last of his friendly smile and regular Irish jokes, but I am sure that he and Don Bowman, Tony Aquilina and Jeff Irwin, who have all made significant contributions to the Labor Party and looked after their electorates, will not fail to visit members in the future - they will certainly be welcome to come at any time. When I was elected with the class of 1976 I was a lot thinner. But one bloke who came in with me was probably the same weight as he is now - Wal Murray. I have had many a cross word with Wal Murray but they have all been only short term. I wish you well in your retirement, Wal, and your family all the best. I wish everybody here, particularly the Parliamentary Library staff, all the best. The transition of the library is a tribute to Rob Brian, Greig Tillotson, Richard Baker and all the very courteous and efficient staff in the library. They are overtaxed all the time, they do a great job, and I thank them. I thank too the Parliamentary Counsel. On a personal note, I thank my electorate secretary, Lyn Cuneo, for putting up with me this year. Last, I take the opportunity to wish every member of this Parliament every best wish for Christmas, a good break and may the peace and fellowship of the good Lord visit us all in 1995.
Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, and Minister for Ports) [12.05 a.m.]: As 1994 comes to an end it is appropriate to look back and think what an eventful year it has been for many and varied reasons. No doubt it has been one of the toughest years that many people can possibly remember - a tough year for a community that has had to experience fire, drought, windstorms and, of course, a turbulent economy. But as has been the history of New South Wales and Australia, the community has come through in a most stoic manner. The drought, of course, continues to ravage rural New South Wales. Its effects will be felt for many more months, even if as I hope, it breaks in the summer months between now and March.
The fact is that the New South Wales rural economy is a vital and integral part of the good health and good order of the economy of New South Wales. Without an agricultural economy we will find times increasingly difficult in this State. However, every cloud has a silver lining, and in this case it is that the broader community has now recognised the importance of country New South Wales not only to the economy but in the social infrastructure. The response from the broader community in recognition of the effects of the drought has been absolutely wonderful. This coming week there will be a trial train of water leaving Sydney for Kempsey to work out the logistics of carting water to country towns at some stage during the summer, if that is necessary.
As news of this has crept out, there has been an enormous interest from the public in recognising once again that rural New South Wales is in difficulties. The response to the various appeals by way of money and goods in kind has been one of the biggest I have seen in its effect across the community. The National Party has rural New South Wales as its natural constituency, and on behalf of country people may I record in Hansard at the end of 1994 our appreciation of the wonderful support that country people have received from the remainder of the community in its time of need.
One would like to say many things on an occasion such as this, but I guess one of the most important is to extend a very warm future to those retiring members of this Chamber. The Premier and the honourable member for Ashfield have already elucidated on some, but I would like to mention two in particular. First, Wal Murray, my former leader, the former Minister for Public Works and Roads, Minister for Ports and the former Deputy Premier. May I also bracket with Wal his wife, Daphne and his family. By any benchmark, Wal Murray has been an outstanding member of this Parliament. He entered Parliament on 1 May 1976 and we all know he is a big man. The old cliche often used of Wal is that he is a big man from the inside out. He certainly is.
I do not think I have worked with a more honest man, a more loyal man, a man who is more dedicated to just doing the job that he was appointed to do. He got up every morning to try to build a little bit more into the day than he did the previous day. Wal Murray gave a soft leadership: on the one hand he was a kind leader, but on the other hand there was a stick as big as a baseball bat inside his fist that ensured discipline and that action was taken to improve the lot of the people he represented. Wal Page 6330 Murray's leaving this Parliament will certainly be felt. His contribution to the Parliament and the future of New South Wales will be recognised forever. He can leave this place feeling very proud indeed. Wal, your peers from all sides of the Parliament recognise your contribution and your efforts. Most importantly, New South Wales - this wonderful old State - is significantly better for your presence here since 1976.
The Premier has already referred to the honourable member for Liverpool, Peter Anderson. Last night it was my pleasure to host a very informal function in my room in recognition of Wal's retirement. We invited members of the National Party and Wal's staff. I also invited Peter Anderson. Peter is a likeable fellow. He plays the game honest and square, and he shows loyalty to his brand of politics at all times. That loyalty is recognised by the National Party, and I suspect it is recognised by the people of New South Wales. When I first came into Parliament in 1981 a group of parliamentarians on the Opposition side had an enormous amount of principle and objectivity. Peter Anderson is one of the last of that group, one of the last of the old guard. Peter, it has been a pleasure to work with you. We wish you well in the future. We look forward to hearing your dulcet tones - I am not sure whether your tones will be dulcet - on the 2GB afternoon program.
It is fitting that I thank a number of people. I refer first to the Leader of the House, Garry West. Garry, who is the honourable member for Orange, is an outstanding Leader of the House, and he is an outstanding man. Some 18 months ago I became leader of the National Party. Garry was one of the contenders for that position, and no doubt he would have been disappointed. But Garry has devoted himself to his role as Leader in an extraordinary manner. He is competent. I have not seen anyone with a better knowledge of parliamentary procedure. If ever there was a man suited for the job, it is Garry. We thank him. We extend our thanks also to Garry's wife, Libby. He does not spend very many hours at home and he has a young family, like many honourable members.
Mr Speaker, thank you for your exercise of your duties. I thank the Clerks of the House and wish you well. To the House staff: thank you, your work is noticed and appreciated. I thank the dining and catering staff. I particularly enjoy breakfast, as it is my main meal. I thank Hansard - the best speech writers in the Parliament. We all thank you for that. I thank the attendants. I also thank the library staff. The research they do is recognised not only by members, but increasingly by people outside the Parliament. Our library is recognised as one of the best in any parliament of Australia today. I thank the support staff: we recognise and thank you.
I thank the press gallery. There is a lone press representative here tonight, the current chairman of the press gallery. We appreciate your cooperation and friendship. We appreciate the responsibility that you undertake in disseminating and despatching messages from the Parliament to the broader public. Your role can never be underestimated and your responsibility can never be overestimated. You are the communication link between the Parliament and the broader public. To the general support staff, I thank you. I thank the electorate staff of all members. I congratulate you on a good year.
I thank my electorate staff, particularly Julie Harrison and Claire Taylor. Julie has been with me for 13½ years. They do a fantastic job. I do not think anyone realises, unless they have been a Minister, how much support the electorate staff give and how much responsibility they take when members are successful in obtaining high office. I thank my ministerial staff. I thank my secretary, Debra; my chief of staff, Polly; my executive officer, Bryce Osmond. I thank Russ Talbot, Emma, Regina, Helen, Janine, Belinda, Steve, Phil, Wendy and Ron. I thank Ray, my driver. I also thank Paula, the receptionist. Recently I spoke to a management consultant who said, "We always consider that the boss is at the top and is the most important person." Bosses are the least important; they should be at the bottom of the triangle. The most important person is the receptionist and the person in the mail room. They are the first and last people to deal with the public. That is ever so right. At the end of the day they are probably the most important, because they have to deal with the public. [Time expired.]
Mr DAVOREN (Lakemba) [12.15 a.m.]: I seized the opportunity to speak during felicitations because it will be my valedictory speech. I said to the honourable member for Liverpool earlier that I thought I might speak extemporaneously, but he said it would be better to speak off the cuff. I have enjoyed my years in here. I entered the Parliament in 1984 - the same year as the Premier and a lot of the members of the Liberal Party and National Party. When Geoff Irwin and I leave, John Price will be the only member left from the Labor Party team who entered Parliament in 1984.
I have certainly enjoyed my time here, and I trust that I have done something for the residents of the Lakemba electorate and the people of New South Wales. I can leave the Parliament knowing that I have tried, and I suppose that is all that is necessary. I have met a lot of lovely people in the Parliament. I have made delightful friends that I will treasure for the rest of my life. Of course, there is a cross-section of people in the Parliament and I have also met people I would not want to include among my friends, but fortunately there are not many who fall into that category, and I would find it very difficult to name them.
I have always found the staff of Parliament House to be excellent. They are of excellent character, delightful in their personality, and experienced in their work. I have always tried to treat people the way I want to be treated myself. I do not think I can recall an occasion when I have asked for something from the staff and I have not received it. I may not have always got exactly what I wanted, but they went as far as they could to assist me. And in most cases I have got exactly what I wanted.
Page 6331
Other speakers have mentioned the various people that make the Parliament tick. Without them there would not be a Parliament. We can have members of Parliament, but without the auxiliary staff who keep the Parliament running, there would not be a Parliament. I do not think we could sit any more than 100 days a year because of the work behind the scenes, which is necessary to keep the Parliament running. I have certainly made that clear to people who constantly ask, "Why aren't you sitting 360 days a year?" I point out that that is just not possible. However, I think we could sit a little more often than we currently do. But that is a problem in the province of the Government.
I thank all those people who have been more than friendly to me. I am the fourth member for Lakemba, Fred Stanley having been first, and Stan Wyatt the second. Some of the older members of the House might remember Stan. My immediate predecessor was Vincent Patrick Durick - a man for whom I held the greatest respect, as I am sure do all honourable members in my party who knew him. As other honourable members have said, we could not operate without our electorate staff. It would be wrong for any honourable member to say that electorate staff do not keep the pot boiling and the wheels rolling. I have excellent staff. Cheryl Chalmers, my secretary, has been with me for the whole time I have been a member of Parliament. She worked with Vince Durick from the time that Tom Lewis decided electorate secretaries should be appointed.
The other two marvellous members of staff who do research work and assist generally in my office are Maria Hatziostergos and Melanie Jones. As the Premier said, we could not function without the assistance of our staff. My wife has been great. She puts up with all my idiosyncrasies. The Premier is nodding his head in agreement. I am of Irish descent, as is the Premier. My family has been marvellous. All in all, I have enjoyed my period in this House. I trust that I have contributed something to the running of the Parliament and to the Lakemba electorate. I cannot go without paying tribute to my immediate superior, the Opposition Whip. He and I have had many fights, but we have managed to keep the pot boiling. The Whip has said that it is very easy to keep two or three balls in the air, but it becomes very difficult when one has five or six. However, the Whip seems to manage that. That is why the Whips receive a huge stipend each year.
I thank honourable members for the opportunity I have been given to speak to this motion. There will be far more eminent valedictorians than I; I am only an imminent valedictorian. I will sit in this Chamber and listen to eminent valedictorians such as Wal Murray and Peter Anderson; I know they will give of their best. I wish everyone who is leaving all the very best. Whatever I wish for myself they should wish also because they would not do any worse. I wish everybody a very happy and holy Christmas and a prosperous New Year. But, do not forget: vote Labor on 25 March.
Mr W. T. J. MURRAY (Barwon) [12.23 a.m.]: I thank the Parliament for the opportunity to speak to this motion, especially as this will be my last speech to the Parliament. On 1 May 1976 I left home to do a tour of the electorate. When I walked out the door of my home I said to my wife Daphne, "We will get two votes anyway". She looked me up and down and said, "Do not bet on it". We did not know 19 years ago what we were letting ourselves in for. The whole political scene revolves around the family - in my case, Daph, Paula and Katrina. My family has made life bearable in this place. I would hate to think what it would be like in this Parliament without the support of my family. It could be difficult in the political scene if one had not only the problems of one's electorate, the Parliament and everything else, but also problems at home. I thank Daph, Paula and Katrina for the support they have given me over the last 19-odd years.
I followed Geoff Crawford who had been a member of Parliament for 26 years. Before becoming a member I spoke to him to find out how the show operated. What he told me and what actually happened bore no relationship to each other. It was something of an education to become a member of Parliament. I think that would be the experience of everyone who has entered this place. One learns pretty quickly because of the assistance given by one's party, the staff, the Clerks and everyone who makes up this place. To them we owe an enormous debt. We can run around, jump up and down, rant, rave and scream and carry on but, unless we know what we are talking about and unless we have assistance from everybody we work with, it is all to no avail. We would make awful fools of ourselves.
Many years ago I remember Albie Sloss, a Labor member of Parliament, coining the phrase, "You can have the logic; I will have the numbers". Sometimes, however, a bit of logic can help to get the numbers. The relationships that I have built up in this Parliament will last for a long time. We have experienced incredible changes. Westy and I - sorry, the honourable member for Orange - shared a room in the cell block, in the old records block, when we first became members of Parliament. It was a fascinating place. There were three floors to the west of this building - ground, first and second - and a very narrow steel stairway. My colleagues looked me up and down and said, "Murray, you will go down to the bottom", because the staircase could accommodate only one person at a time. In an emergency there was no way that one could get out through the windows. They were far too small. My colleagues would not entertain the possibility of my blocking the stairway.
It was an interesting time. I have heard people talk about inequities or the lack of opportunity to get separate offices in this place. When I happened to be in the room and Westy came in I would have to get up before we could both sit down. If three people entered the room we all had to stand up. There were five people sharing a room immediately west of this Chamber. Honourable members can imagine what that would have been like! We have seen changes to Page 6332 the communications system. We used to type out press statements with seven carbons. The poor, unfortunate journalist who got the seventh copy used to have to battle to decipher it. There have been changes with the introduction of faxes. When I first became a member of Parliament my staff would post telexes and hope to heck that they got to their destination before someone else's.
My electorate secretary, Toni Hunt, has been with me for 16 of the 19 years that I have been in this place. Debra Campbell became my assistant electorate secretary when I first got an electorate secretary in 1988. Toni carried the burden in those years of my leadership and deputy leadership of the party to such a degree that it was amazing! The work that she did for me in the electorate over those 16 years deserves much more recognition than I can give her in this Parliament. In my ministerial capacity I had a great staff. Bryce Osmond and I worked together for nine years. The girls who were in that office made a great deal of difference. Earlier someone said that we could not operate in this place without our staff. Never a truer word has been spoken.
When I first came to this place members did not have refrigerators in their rooms. Tim Fischer and Col Fisher had a refrigerator in their room which was used by us all. We used to descend on their room pretty regularly. Before the new Parliament House was built there were 13 different levels in this building. Today we have refrigerators, television sets and wirelesses in our rooms. Those things were not available in those days. But it really was not all that bad because we used to go to the bar.
The interesting thing about the bar was that it was always a four-person shout. It did not matter who was in the bar - whether it was staff, Labor Party, National Party, Liberal Party, the press or anyone else - it automatically developed into a four-person shout. Members talked freely in the bar and what was said there was absolutely sacrosanct. No-one talked about what they heard in the bar. Unfortunately, that is not the situation today and it has had a detrimental effect on the whole of the process of politics that we cannot or do not, as members of Parliament, associate together, knowing full well that what we say will remain with those we have spoken to in a relaxing circumstance. That is a shame. That freedom may come back; I certainly hope it does.
Tonight I particularly want to thank my colleagues. I have had a rather charmed life in politics. To enter the political scene as a backbencher in Opposition and then progress not many years later to be shadow spokesman for agriculture, then Deputy Leader and Leader of the Party in Opposition, then Leader of the Party and Deputy Premier and Minister in government; and then sit once more as a backbencher, but this time in government, one can only be satisfied to have turned the full wheel of politics It has been a very interesting 19 years. I thank my colleagues especially for that opportunity.
I have worked with four Premiers - particularly closely, of course, with Nick Greiner, and more especially with John Fahey in latter years; with two National Party leaders - Leon Punch and Ian Armstrong - each of whom has made a contribution to my political career. They have taught me a great deal. The other two Premiers were Barrie Unsworth and Neville Wran. When we were in Opposition here with 13 seats each, Liberal Party and National Party, 26 out of 99, we would walk out of the House on a Thursday afternoon shaking our heads, wondering why we were in the place at all. It was a learning curve of politics that really brought one down to the ground. Some members today jump up and down, rant and rave and say "We cannot do this" and "We cannot do that"; and "If you do not do what I want I will cross to the other side". When there are only 13 of you, you really need to be all going in the same direction at the same time. It is a salutary lesson in Opposition politics to have so few seats and produce the team that will carry through into government.
I have never served on any committee of this Parliament in my 19 years here. Perhaps that is a confession one should not make. However, for some entirely unknown reason - perhaps by design or opportunity, or something else - I did not click on one of them. It is perhaps a side of the parliamentary system that I have missed. I assure the Leader of the House that I am not about to change that. Mr Speaker, I would like to particularly thank you and the Clerk, and the many people who work to make up this Parliament - Hansard, the attendants, the post office staff - Jilly was here when I first came, or shortly after; and I thank the staff of the bar and the dining room - each of which has led to my problems, but I have enjoyed every moment - the library; and, of course, the cleaners, who do such a tremendous job for us all day and every day when we are here.
One matter of particular concern to me is the future of the Parliament, the future of the political process that confronts us in this State and in this nation. Changes in world politics have led to excessive control in the political scene. We, as members of Parliament, create our own credibility; we, as members of Parliament, create the view held by people in the wider community of what we are and what we do. If members of the community have the opinion that we are not particularly bright, or that we do not do as we promise, or we do not do this or that, it is because we have created an impression that has led them to believe it.
I recognise that political ploys will always take place, but more than ever there is a need to maintain this as the best State in the best nation in the world, and for us to recognise that a political point scored is not always the best point achieve. I make a plea to the Parliament, and to the members of the press gallery who send our political message to the wider community, to constantly substantiate what we say and what we do. The media have an enormous responsibility to question what we are saying. When I first came into Parliament there were what we called the older members of the press gallery. They knew Page 6333 the history of the place. I remember being told that a politician who loses his credibility in this place will not get it back. The playing of the issue rather than the man really must come back into the political scene.
That credibility is of enormous value, not only to politicians but to the processes of Parliament. And so, to all of you who will continue in this place, I make the plea that you try to raise the stature of the politicians in this State and nation. To those who are going out, my best wishes. To those who perhaps will not be back here, for reasons that will be determined on 25 March next year, my recognition and thanks, and my best wishes for the future. To those who are going and will not return, good luck. To all of you who will be here for many years into the future, my thanks for the opportunity of being able to serve with you, and my thanks for the opportunity to be part of the Parliament of New South Wales.
Mr ANDERSON (Liverpool) [12.37]: I made my maiden speech on 7 November 1978, the first day the Parliament sat after my election on 7 October 1978. It is therefore appropriate that I make my farewell speech on what will almost certainly be the last day the House sits before the next State election. As I speak for the last time in this Parliament, I am very conscious of the honour the people of my electorates bestowed upon me. I have been proud to represent the people of the Nepean, Penrith and Liverpool electorates. I have done my utmost to improve the lot of those I represented. Those electorates covered six local government areas that can best be described as: from Faulconbridge to Werrington; Yarramundi to Camden - Narellan; Warragamba to Cecil Hills; and Nattai River to Warwick Farm.
In all I represented in excess of 70 suburbs, all in the greater west and all in growth areas. At the time I represented them, each of my electorates was in the top three for enrolments. I particularly want to thank my electorate staff over the years. Firstly, Kate, who for more than eight years helped me to serve the Nepean and then the Penrith electorates. In Liverpool no member could have been more fortunate than I in having Rita and Natalina since 1989, who not only served the people of Liverpool but who, until October this year, also assisted me greatly to discharge my responsibilities as a shadow minister. I am delighted that they have made the effort to be here tonight - or, should I say, this morning.
During my 6½ years as a Minister with difficult portfolios I was indeed fortunate to have a personal staff acknowledged by all as the best in the former government. Their talent, commitment and effectiveness was exceeded only by their loyalty as evidenced by their ongoing contact with, and concern for, their former boss. When I was first elected in 1978 I was allocated a room on the top floor at the far end of what was then known as the pizza hut. Next door to me was another new member, Michael Egan. Fortunately for me, two people who were in rooms opposite decided to help me. Those two people were Carole Worland and Di Storr. I will always be grateful for their many kindnesses.
My arrival here in 1978 had been preceded by an unsuccessful preselection attempt in 1973. In 1976 I was the ALP candidate in Nepean, but did not win. Like all unsuccessful candidates, I was disappointed. In hindsight, though, it was the best thing that could have happened. From the end of 1976 I was fortunate to work on the personal staff of Ron Mulock, first when he had justice and services and then when he had justice and housing.
After being elected to Penrith City Council in 1977, I became Deputy Mayor. Representing Penrith council on Prospect County Council, I became Prospect's chairman in 1977-78. That pales in comparison to the achievements of my mother, who was on Sydney County Council from 1963 to 1991 and had two terms as chairman. I honestly believe that the experiences of working for Ron Mulock and in local government were enormously helpful to me when I became a local member and when I became a Minister three years later. During my last two years on Penrith City Council I was also a Minister. The only other person to have two similar positions, I understand, was Ben Chifley.
I express my heartfelt appreciation to both past and present staff of the Parliament: to the Clerks for their efficient and timely advice; to the Legislative Assembly office and in particular the bills and papers officers, who have always been helpful; to the Serjeant-at-Arms, Merv Sheather, and all of the attendants who do so much to assist members and visitors to this Parliament. In particular I mention the Principal Parliamentary Attendant, Ray Lynch, who has been here since 1959 and is the only remaining member of staff who remembers my late father. The only person who has been here longer than Ray is Bob Gorman, the administrative assistant in Parliamentary Food and Beverage Services, who has been here since the mid 1950s.
While on the subject of catering, I pay special tribute to David Draper and all of his staff. I believe that things have improved dramatically under David's leadership. I cannot mention everyone, but I want to especially mention David, Joseph, Maureen, June and José. José has been here for some 19½ years. I say a special thank you to Kevin Connolly who, apart from celebrating his birthday last week, also completed 25 years here at Parliament House. I remember Kevin getting a highchair for my son, Jeremy, when he was a little toddler and we came in for a meal in the old building shortly after my mother was elected in 1973.
All of us value the work of the printing section, and in particular Pat Makin who, despite all of the extraordinary demands, still manages to have a friendly smile. The security staff, led by Alan Beverstock, provide a most necessary service. Mr Speaker, I took particular note of your timely comments earlier in the week. I can only urge the utilisation of the expertise we have here, plus that of Page 6334 the special branch, to ensure the safety of all who enter this important building. Lack of time precludes me from paying proper tribute to Stationery and Stores, the Parliamentary Information Technology Services, the cleaning staff and building services. In particular, I thank Ron Rockliffe, for whom I have the highest regard.
I want to especially thank past and present Hansard personnel. Having spent much of my time as a police prosecutor, I have known some very efficient deposition clerks and court reporters. We are indeed fortunate to have such gifted Hansard people, who work under incredibly trying conditions yet always have a smile. It is worth remembering that when the House rises Hansard still has a considerable amount of work to do before they finish. I recall speaking on the adjournment debate, as it was then called, in early 1980 just before 1.00 a.m. I delivered a speech of about 2,000 words in approximately seven or eight minutes. Hansard never missed a syllable. People have often asked me why I speak so loudly in the Chamber. It was something I learned as a police prosecutor, and I did it here to assist those who had to take the record.
If all of the sections I have mentioned think I was a pain, they might spare a thought for the Parliamentary Library. The library tells me that I am one of the most, if not the most, prolific users of its facilities. At all times staff of the library have been courteous, responsive and enormously efficient in assisting me to discharge my responsibilities. The library is probably the most important resource honourable members have and, as I have said many times, library staff do magnificent work under great difficulty. It is up to honourable members to ensure that they have proper resources. The other entity I must mention is the press gallery. I have undertaken countless press conferences over the years. I am pleased to say that I have never walked out of a press conference before everyone had a go. I learned to roll with the punches and to take the good with the bad. I, too, am delighted that Steve Chase, the president of the gallery, is here.
Everyone remembers the April 1991 farewell speech of my colleague and long-time friend Michael Cleary. During that speech he gave only half the story. In the days when the House had only one Whip on each side of the Chamber the late Tom Cahill as Chairman of Committees never used to call the Whips in Committee but would pick two other members. I used to sit up at the back, where I was seated tonight, as a backbencher, terrified that Tom would call, "You and Cleary". Whenever I went down to record a division with Cleary, Michael would say, "I'm the senior man. You take the board, I'll call them out." Michael did not call out members by their names or by their electorates. I would be there with my head down, a pencil and the board in hand, and off Cleary would go at a hundred miles an hour, calling out members present. A division list ran something like this: "Supermouth, Buckets, Popeye, Fares Please, Big Bear, Gabby Hayes, Heckel and Jeckel, Nifty, Eck, Yogi, Daisy, Darcy, Father and Pee Wee" - and that was the first line. The House will understand the terror that was struck in the hearts of those called on to count a division with Michael Cleary.
I recall my first day in the House. All of the new people were sitting up at the back. There was an experienced person in front of me. We of the Labor Party were very proud as we had had a fair win in 1978. In walked Kevin Ryan. I asked the fellow in front of me, "Where does Kevin sit?", and he said, "Wherever he likes". When faxes were received in my office addressed to CC from CD my staff could never work it out, but it was quite simple. CC was Chubby Chap - that was me - and CD was Mick Clough, Chrome Dome. That is when he was the honourable member for Bathurst and I was the honourable member for Liverpool. Originally, in the Nepean region, I had the lower mountains and he was the honourable member for Blue Mountains and had the upper mountains. We were known as "Dentures" - he was upper and I was lower. In the good old days when we were in government under Neville, Coxie would have scorecards for the Opposition's questions. It was quite interesting getting the scores -
Mr West: It wasn't good for our side.
Mr ANDERSON: No. The Opposition would be in full flight. The greatest joy for us all was to sit there and watch Neville. He would get hit with an absolute boomer of a question, he would get up, go to the table, hold the line for a second and suddenly the Fay Williams brief would arrive. He would whip off his glasses, check, have a look at the clock and then, with a hand behind his back, he would put his glasses back on and give the facts.
Mr West: The cuffs!
Mr ANDERSON: Yes, he would adjust his shirt cuffs. When he had finished with the facts he would take off his glasses, and we would all think, "Here it comes". He gave it to everybody. He was wonderful, and certainly the best I have seen. There are many other stories I should like to tell but I shall not - except for the cricket story. I have to talk about Roger Wotton. I remember Wotton at the Cricket Ground one day when we were playing the press gallery. Wotton said to the Minister for Police, the Leader of the House, and myself, "You two open the bowling. You've only got to bowl three overs from each end, we'll whip you off, you can keep down and everything will be right." Nine unchanged overs later, and I couldn't walk for a week. That was the last time I opened the bowling for the parliamentary team. I took up wicket keeping.
In wicket keeping for the parliamentary side I was fortunate. My first slip was the honourable member for Barwon, Wally Murray. I have to tell honourable members that we did not take a lot of catches, but there were no byes. There would be an enormous snick - well, it would not be that enormous, because our bowlers were not that fast. The snick would come and Wally and I in unison would be Page 6335 heard to say, "Yours". The skipper, Roger Wotton, was unbelievable. He put us on to bowl against their good opening batsmen, and we would get them down to three for 150, or maybe four for 150. Roger would say, "Righto, I'm bringing myself on." He would come through and clean up the rabbits. He would get five wickets. The cricket games were a good way of getting to know each other.
I should mention my first few weeks as a Minister. I had been a Minister for four weeks when the Parliament resumed, and guess who was the target for the first month. It was me. The Opposition was into me. Everybody was into me, not the least being the late Leon Punch. Leon belted me for the whole week. Honourable members would never guess what was my first official trip. It was a trip up to Taree to open the SES building. I went up there on a Saturday morning, thinking, "This bloke has kicked me to death all week, what's he going to do to me up here?" We got up on the platform and I was wondering just how Leon would introduce me. Leon got up and said, "This wonderful young man is going to be a great Minister." I thought that was a bit of all right. Of course, when I got back to the House the following Tuesday, Leon was into me again. I learned a valuable lesson there.
There was also Jimmy Brown, who used to drive my wife to Sunday School. Fortunately, I was able to capture her away from that sort of influence. There was Bruce Duncan who, I understand, got angry when the Country Party became the National Party, and sat on the crossbenches. He was a member who had everything. Whenever he spoke to a bill, paid tribute in an obituary, or spoke in any other kind of debate he expressed himself eloquently. He was a great loss to the Parliament. Tim Bruxner used to give me a workout, too. One of my prize possessions is a book that Tim gave me about his father, because I had expressed an interest. He wrote some very nice words, and has also written to me since. When certain events transpired earlier in the year the people, apart from my own colleagues, who were on the phone immediately thereafter expressing their personal disappointment, not their political disappointment, numbered many from the other side of the House, from the Deputy Premier down. I appreciate all of their comments.
I will not take more than a few minutes; I want to go out with a big finish. Next week I will have been a member of the Labor Party for 32 years. One of my prized possessions is a letter from Eddie Ward to me when I was eight years old, thanking me for letterboxing. I have been around the Labor Party all my life. I owe it; it does not owe me. That may explain what has happened in recent times. My Nepean victory party in 1978 was held at the Austral Bowling Club. The guest speaker was E. G. Whitlam. Gough pointed out that we - that is the Andersons - were the first mother, father and son to have served in the same Parliament in the British Commonwealth. Many here know my mother, Kathleen, and therefore can understand the example set for me to follow all my life. Few remember my late father, Keith, who I idolised and who died 29 years ago last week at the age of 49. I have missed him every day since.
The Bible says to honour thy mother and thy father. This I have tried to do. When people say to my mother, "Are you Peter Anderson's mother?" She says "No, he is my son!" My mother has always had a saying during the many crises in our lives, and that is "God is good". He certainly has been. When I was 18 I met my wife at the Waverley Methodist Church. We celebrate our twenty-fourth wedding anniversary this month. Kay is the kindest, most decent human being I have ever known. She has given much for me to pursue my vocation. She is my most vociferous critic, but my staunchest defender. As I said in my maiden speech, Kay's loyalty and support know no bounds. It is a debt I can never repay, but I intend to try. My maiden speech in 1978 was witnessed by a 6-year-old boy, Jeremy Keith Anderson. He is now a man of 22. He is known to many in this House and he sits in the gallery tonight. Jeremy has an inner strength and wisdom beyond his years, and I am proud to be both his father and friend.
Seven years ago tomorrow, God bestowed a second great blessing upon Kay and me. From that day on, Dominique Courtney Anderson has dominated our lives. When all else has been gloomy and I have been weighed down with the pressures of life, I have gazed upon her angelic sleeping face and long, flowing red hair and realised that compared to the love of your family, nothing else matters. I am overjoyed that Kay, our children and my mother and a number of my friends are in the gallery tonight. Every time I have spoken in this House, whether making a speech or answering a question as a Minister, the adrenaline has pumped and I have been nervous. Once I started to speak in this illustrious Chamber, that tension disappeared and I felt fulfilled in what I was doing. I shall miss that feeling. I shall also miss this Parliament and its traditions, and I deem it a great honour to have been part of this most vital of all democratic institutions. I depart with a heavy heart but with my head held high. If I may plagiarise Sinatra: let the record show I stood tall and did it my way. May I conclude my final speech in this Parliament as I ended my first. Today is a day of many memories for me, some of great happiness and pride, though many tinged with sadness.
Mrs GRUSOVIN (Heffron) [12.52 a.m.]: I speak in the debate on seasonal felicitations and offer my best wishes for the Christmas and the festive season to all members of this House. I particularly want to place on record my regret that today is the last day that Peter Anderson will be present in this Chamber. He has made an outstanding contribution to government and politics in this State and will be long remembered. I am pleased to see his illustrious family, who carry a proud record in Labor politics in this State, in the gallery this evening. I pay particular tribute to his mother, Kathleen Anderson; to his wife, Kay; to his son, Jeremy; and to his daughter, Dominique. Honourable members will understand Page 6336 that this is a difficult Chamber. We sometimes suffer some travail when undertaking our commitments in this House. In the past 24-hour period I have clearly accepted responsibility for my actions in the House yesterday. In this closing session of Parliament I want to advise the House that I am now in possession of a recording of a conversation between Frank Arkell and an under-age boy in which that boy was offered sex.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Heffron is referring to matters that are outside the scope of this debate. I ask her to desist.
Mrs GRUSOVIN: I now have not only the recording but a transcript, and I intend to forward that material to the royal commission.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have asked the member to desist from dealing with such matters.
Mr COCHRAN (Monaro) [12.54 a.m.]: On the occasion of the farewell to Wal Murray it is appropriate that a member of the National Party backbench should thank him for his great leadership, unequalled political wisdom, honesty and integrity and for the example he has set for the party. The one thing that we will all remember about Wal Murray is that he is an honest man. He set examples and expected those who followed in his footsteps to maintain the same standards. He was consistent in his discipline, and speaking as one who has, from time to time, been in conflict with him about a number of matters, I have always had the greatest respect for him. His door has always been open for advice. I have sought his advice on many occasions, both during and since the time he was leader of the party. He is a great man and he will be a great loss to this Parliament. I wish him good luck and a long and healthy new life in his fish and chips shop in Moree.
I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to Ando, as we know him, the honourable member for Liverpool. He has become a friend of mine and he is known to me as boofhead. He has been a good copper, a good colleague, and I believe the Australian Labor Party's loss is our gain. I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to Geoff Irwin who, regrettably, is also leaving us. On behalf of the Public Accounts Committee and the chairman, I thank Geoff for his contributions to the committee. He is a thorough and logical thinker. He always offered bipartisan support in the committee. To Wes Davoren, I say "Farewell, Wes, and thank you for your contribution". One person who is not with us tonight and who is also leaving politics is Terry Griffiths. I pay tribute to him, despite the allegations that have been made against him, for his enthusiasm, dedication and diligence as Minister for Police. The police have great respect for him, despite all of the allegations that have been made against him. I place on record that Terry Griffiths leaves us as an innocent man. No charges have been laid against him. I remind honourable members of the words spoken by an authority far greater than I: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
Mr IRWIN (Fairfield) [12.57 a.m.]: The hour is late and I will be brief. I wish to place on record my thoughts on my 10-plus years in this Parliament. I deem it an honour and a privilege to have been a member of this House. I thank the staff and my colleagues, who have made it a pleasure to serve in the New South Wales Parliament. I endorse the many fine comments made about the staff and the assistance they have provided during the past year. That endorsement applies to the staff over the past 10 years. I will sum up my time in this Parliament with one fairly short and straightforward anecdote. It relates to a time when I had the opportunity to sit on the Opposition frontbench. As my colleague the honourable member for Liverpool may have put it, I got the chance to have a run in first grade. I recall one occasion when I was leading for the Labor Party in a fairly torrid debate on a bill introduced by the honourable member for Dubbo.
One of the members who took part in that debate had recently won a by-election and was fairly new to the House. After the torrid debate I met the honourable member for Dubbo behind the Speaker's chair. He said, "How about coming up to my office for a beer?" That is reputed to have happened here on more than a few occasions. I took him up on the offer, and went back to his office. We were accompanied by the new member, who sat there wide-eyed at the prospect of two people who had just been tearing at each other's throats sitting down, having a friendly beer and sharing a joke. I am referring to the former member for The Hills, Tony Packard. Not long after that he found out, to his cost, that that was but one side of the Parliament; that the other side is about as close as one can get to a blood sport without getting the floor too messy. It is an unforgiving game. Many fine colleagues, many fine members of this Parliament, have departed under various circumstances. However, without exception they have served this State well and have served their office within the Parliament to the best of their ability.
I again thank everyone within the Parliament with whom I have had the privilege of being associated over the past 10 years. I give special thanks to my family: my wife, Julia, and my children Rebecca and Blake, who have contributed very much through their sacrifices in not having both parents at home on occasions when both are often needed. I thank them for their support, for their criticism when it has been necessary, and for their general all-round support that only a family can give. Mr Speaker, I conclude by thanking you for your efforts over the years. I sincerely apologise if I have, on more than one occasion, earned your ire. I believe that the Speakers who have served in this House in my time have done the office a great honour. I again thank everyone within the Parliament with whom I have been associated over the past decade.
Mr A. S. AQUILINA (St Marys) [1.00 a.m.]: I believe it is a great privilege for anyone to be elected to this Parliament to represent the people of this State. I thank the people of St Marys, and before that the people of Mulgoa, for electing me to Page 6337 represent them. I also thank the many people on both sides of the Chamber who have been of assistance and have become friends. When I refer to friends on both sides of the Chamber, it is important that parliamentarians remember that in a sense we can sometimes become too serious and vociferous and forget that we are all here to represent the people of this State. We should enjoy ourselves some of the time. I know some people enjoy themselves more than others.
It has been a great honour and a great pleasure to represent my constituents. Mr Speaker, the dignity of the House is something of which you have always been mindful, and I congratulate you on that. You may have noticed that in more recent times - although there are reasons for this - I have not interjected as much as I used to, and I certainly have not taken many points of order. I have come to the conclusion that members of Parliament have to consider their behaviour in the Chamber, even though we do get carried away sometimes. That is only natural and it is probably a good thing because it means people feel strongly about the issues they are discussing.
However, in recent times there has been some excitement when a couple of people in the gallery went too far. That may be an indication of problems ahead and perhaps should be considered in an endeavour to alleviate any problems. Perhaps our own behaviour might help. I would like to thank particularly the officers of the Chamber, the librarians, those involved in the catering services, the attendants and all those people throughout the Parliament who have been so helpful and so kind. I will always cherish and remember my time in this Parliament. I do not know what the future holds and I do not want to decide too quickly what I will be doing. However, I believe that anyone who has had the honour and privilege of working here can only say they have gained a great deal of experience and hopefully a great deal of wisdom and pleasure from being a member of this Chamber.
Finally, I would like to place on record my thanks to my family. My two boys, Daniel and Nicholas, have been through some difficult times in recent months and I thank them for their understanding and support. As Peter Anderson said, if one does not have one's family, one does not have much at all. All members of Parliament must agree that family is important. While I am talking about Peter Anderson, I should place on record, in case anyone is not aware, that in a sense I should not have been here for the last seven years. At the end of 1987 when new seats had been created it appeared that a seat of Mulgoa would definitely be created and would be a much safer seat than the seat of Penrith. I thought Peter Anderson would take the seat of Mulgoa; in fact I expected him to do so. If he had done so the history of this State would have been quite different. I believe he would have been the Leader of the Opposition and he would have certainly made his mark in the politics of New South Wales.
His decision not to stand for the seat of Mulgoa was to my advantage and my good fortune. I have always felt that Peter should have taken the seat. I also believe he has been an outstanding Minister and an outstanding member of Parliament. I join with my colleagues in wishing him and his family well. I also place on record my appreciation of the work that Jeremy Anderson has done for me in my electorate office and the work that he has performed generally as electorate officer. I give my thanks and congratulations to those members of the Labor Party who are not necessarily members of Parliament but who work hard and support their members or candidates. If it were not for Labor Party members we would not be able to provide the appropriate assistance during and prior to election time so that we can fight the war - if you wish to call it that - that must be fought.
It is very much like a war or a battle in this Chamber. A battle also takes place in relation to the needs of the working-class people of this State. At one stage I was told that I was a ideologue. It is important for members of the Labor Party to remember those whom we represent - the working class people who have expected the Labor Party to support and represent them over many generations. I do not in any way apologise for the fact that I am a member of the Labor Party. Indeed, I hold my head high with great pride and I believe that what has transpired over the last 100 years or so indicates that the Labor Party represents the people well, has their interests at heart and has done well for the working-class people of this State and this country.
Nevertheless, there are times when other parties have reasonable policies. At times they have stolen some of the Labor Party's policies, and they should be congratulated on it. That political parties make use of the policies of their opponents is an indication of democracy in action, and we should be thankful for that. I pay tribute to the media and all those who assist us in undertaking our duties. Finally, Mr Speaker, I thank you for your good advice and certainly for your indulgence. I shall miss this place but I will also miss the many people I have come to know. I hope I will be able to see them regularly in the future.
Mr HARRISON (Kiama) [1.10 a.m.]: I express pride at having been a part of this Fiftieth Parliament of New South Wales. Mr Speaker, I place on record my sincere appreciation for the courtesy and dignified way in which you have conducted your role as Speaker in this session of Parliament. I know that it has been trying for you at times but you have conducted yourself in a way that every member of this Parliament appreciates. I should like to express my appreciation also to Hansard, to the Parliamentary Library and to all the staff. I will thank them collectively and say that they are worth their weight in gold and we appreciate them very much.
Page 6338
To the retiring members on both sides of the House - Wal Murray, Peter Anderson, Jeff Irwin, Tony Aquilina and Wes Davoren - I extend the wish that God grant to each of them his choicest blessings and many years of health and happiness for themselves, their families and the people they love and hold dear. I feel it would be remiss if I did not mention that the reason Parliament is going into recess at this particular time is that we are in the lead-up period to Christmas Day, the day on which we celebrate the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was born almost 1994 years ago. He lived on this earth for only about 32 years. He never visited the big cities of Rome or Carthage. Throughout most of his life, in fact until the last couple of months of his life, he mixed with ordinary people such as fishermen and people who were not of any great patrician breed. These were the people he chose to mix with and preach to.
So profound was the effect of his preaching that in this day and age we still use the anniversary of the birth of our saviour as a benchmark by which we measure time. For that reason I would like to extend to all honourable members the wish that they have a happy and holy Christmas, that they share in the joy of the Christmas season when they get together with family and friends and loved ones. To all honourable members of this House I would like to express the sincere wish that Christmas is a happy and joyous occasion for them and their loved ones.
Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [1.13 a.m.]: I join with colleagues on both sides of the House in extending the season's greetings to you, Mr Speaker, the clerks, all the staff of the Parliament, and my colleagues, including those who are departing. Peter Anderson has been a friend of mine for just on 30 years. Peter and I joined the Labor Party at the same time. We have had our differences, but we have shared friendship. I wish to remember two of our colleagues who are not here tonight. I refer to the former member for Parramatta and the former member for Cabramatta. I extend to their families my best wishes and assure them that the House remembers those two members who are no longer with us because of tragic circumstances. The honourable member for Parramatta has taken the place of her late husband in this Chamber, and the family of the former member for Cabramatta is still mystified as to what happened.
I also wish to put on record my appreciation for my staff, Christine and Lisa. Christine joined me in 1988 on the basis of working with me for a week to give me a trial. She has been with me for 6½ years and I am very grateful because she is an exceptional electorate secretary. Her daughter Lisa also works for me. They both do an excellent job and look after an office that is complex and difficult because of its multicultural diversity. I thank my wife for her support over the years through the many burdens I place upon her. On 26 January I will become a father. I will bear in mind comments made by other members tonight about families and how they suffer because of the pressures of political life.
Finally, I wish everyone a very happy Christmas. I note the comments made by the member for Kiama about it being Christ's birthday. We are both Christians, and understand the true meaning of Christmas. Last but not least, may I just advise the House that Australia has beaten Zimbabwe by two wickets in Perth, set 167 to win. I wish everyone a happy Christmas and a prosperous 1995.
Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services) [1.16 a.m.], in reply: I should respond to the many contributions that have been made in felicitations. I should like, first, to thank the Premier, the Deputy Premier, and other speakers, including the honourable member for Ashfield, who kindly gave glowing references in respect of the work I have done as Leader of the House. It is with a great deal of pleasure that I will send them to Mr Justice Slattery of the remuneration tribunal.
This is probably a unique time for those who are retiring, those who will be back on 7 February, and those who may not come back after 25 March. This has been a special year for me. I started off as Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives, and I finished the year as Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services. I must tell a story - maybe not all the story. On a day in June I received a phone call from the Premier advising me, as Leader of Government Business of the House, of certain events that were taking place in respect of one of our former ministerial colleagues. I thanked him very much for his advice and said I would be happy to participate. He then invited me to come to Sydney and I will not tell you the words that I said to him in response.
I think my colleague the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs summed it up best when she said, "We all heard the news. We heard there was a vacancy. We all wanted to know what it was. We found out it was police so we hid under the bed and it was Garry's legs that were sticking out". That is my story; the Premier has another story and there are others, I am sure, who will tell many other stories as the years go on. That is one thing about this Parliament - the stories get better as the years go.
I would like to thank two people who paid me a great tribute tonight. The Premier of this State, John Fahey, is a close friend and has been for many years, both in Opposition and in government. I have enjoyed working closely with him in the Government and I thank him for his confidence in me. I do my job to the best of my ability in carrying out the task that he demands of me. My parliamentary leader, Ian Armstrong, and I were combatants in a tussle for the leadership. I was hurt for a time, as all people hurt in such a situation, but I am now over that hurt. I now serve loyally, as I always have served loyally, the National Party - the party which I have had the honour to represent in the electorate of Orange for some 19 years.
Page 6339
The Fiftieth Parliament has been a unique parliament. As someone said, once in every 30 or 40 years a parliament has to face the trials and tribulations brought about by the frustrations of an inadequate majority of numbers. Such a situation brings out the best and the worst in individuals. It is has been a tough time, but we are closer for the experience. This place is often described as the bear pit. It is aptly named. I often think back to when I came into this Parliament. My predecessor, Sir Charles Cutler, who still resides one block away from me in Kite Street, Orange, sent me to this place with two messages: be tough but fair and play hard in the Chamber, but when you leave, have a drink with your colleagues at the bar. Sometimes that spirit is lost in this place.
This is a special Parliament. The staff of this particular Parliament have probably worked harder than any others. Many trees have been felled to enable the House to comply with Standing Order 54 resolutions. But when we return we will fix that! I thank all the ministerial staff for their loyalty and dedication. I pay my respects to my personal staff here in Sydney and in my electorate. Come February next year, I will have been in this Parliament for 19 years. My electorate secretary in Orange has been with me for those 19 years. That is not a bad stint. I thank her for her tolerance and patience.
I thank my wife. Last Thursday when the House adjourned, I received a message on my pager as I was driving home which said: "Good night from Libby". I wondered what I was going home to. When I got home I woke my wife to ask whether I had come home to a cold shoulder or a warm bed. I will not tell the House what message I received tonight when I informed my wife that I would be driving home tonight in time for my nine o'clock interviews in the electorate tomorrow. It was not pleasant. As I said earlier, it is 100 years since the standing orders of this Parliament were introduced and commissioned by the Governor. In that time there have been substantial changes. This House has passed a motion relating to the management of Parliament. I know that some people have mixed feelings about that. However, I assure you, Mr Speaker, and those who are responsible for the management of Parliament, that it is not at all a reflection on the way in which this Parliament has been managed. There is a clear indication that members want to become more closely involved in the destiny of their affairs. They do not want to take over; they want to work closely with you and the managers.
I thank compliant Paul, the member for Ashfield, for his cooperation. I realise that some members are retiring from the Parliament. I wish to pay tribute to three special members. Obviously, one of them is my former leader, Wal Murray. I was elected to this Parliament earlier than Wal. Wal's story is that when we both went into Opposition, we had to share a narrow little room. We had some fun getting in and out of the door of that room. The room was in a building that had been condemned to store records, but we members of Parliament were put there. Wal and I soon sorted out our differences.
I was always so thin and Wal was always so robust. As the odd skinny politician left, Wal would say, "There goes another skinny one. The big ones kept living on". Wal loves food and he loves life. He has a great sense of humour, and he came here with the attitude to be tough but fair. He plays it hard and tough but he is always fair. He developed many friendships is this place. I thank Wal for the years he has spent here; he has made this a better place.
Peter Anderson is also a special friend, although he is on the other side of politics. Many would ask, "How dare you say anything nice about Peter Anderson?" How could I not say anything nice about Peter Anderson after his speech tonight? It was one of the best speeches that I have heard in my 19 years in this Parliament. Well done, Peter. Congratulations! I know that Peter's mother is proud of him; she has every right to be proud. She served this Parliament with great distinction, as Peter has served this Parliament with great distinction. Peter will be remembered by members on all sides as a friend and colleague.
I wish to relate just one story. Honourable members will recall the old so-called Pink Room in which, about once a month, a group of fellows used to meet. There was John Barraclough from the Liberal Party, Timmy Brooks from the National Party and Michael Cleary from the Labor Party. I managed to sneak in as a young fellow. Peter Anderson was invited as well. We were the old-fashioned prayer group. We had many a good night and many stories were told. We enjoyed each other's friendship. I will always remember those times fondly. Good luck to Peter and his family; they are entitled to it.
I want to say farewell also to one other person. It is not well known in the corridors of this place that she too is retiring. I am speaking of Meredith Sims, a young lady on my staff. She helps me and everyone else in this place. She has served me in the 2½ years that I have been the Leader of the House, and she served Tim Moore prior to that time. She is a great friend of everybody, and has served this Parliament well. In a letter to me - I will not read all of it because it is inappropriate to do so - Meredith wrote:
As everybody around Parliament is so fond of saying, there is more to life than politics and there is another world outside. It is time to leave the friends and the security of the parliamentary environment.
Meredith is going on to other pastures. I know that everyone in this House will join me in sending Meredith best wishes. My personal thanks go to Meredith. I know that Tim Moore, Meredith's previous employer, would express similar sentiments. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr SPEAKER: Before putting the question, I shall briefly add my felicitations to those expressed by members. To the Premier, members and their families, I extend the warmest of seasons greetings. In particular, to the managers of House business and to the Whips, with whom I have a close working relationship, I say thanks for their cooperation and Page 6340 assistance throughout the year. I want to mention especially the work done by the clerks this year, particularly in regard to the revision of the standing orders. It was a large, comprehensive and at many times onerous - but a very interesting - task.
I appreciate the collegiate relationship I have with my four clerks. I impress on members how much the ongoing culture of the Parliament rests with that group, as they represent a continuity which would otherwise not be present. I pay special tribute to the clerks for the work they did on the standing orders. I thank the procedural officers of the Legislative Assembly, Hansard, the library, catering, the building manager and all the other sections of the Parliament for their excellent work. They frequently work under considerable pressure, particularly in a week like this. In the often highly charged environment of the Parliament, the excellence and dedication of the staff often goes unnoticed and unappreciated. It is not until one occupies a position like mine that one sees at close quarters, and appreciates, what a marvellous job they do. I also record my thanks to my personal staff, who continue to support me in an excellent manner.
I briefly add my farewell to those members who are retiring from Parliament. I now relate something I have not mentioned to all members: when I first came to this Parliament, which is now some years ago, I was met by the Speaker at that time, Speaker Ellis, who said to me, "It does not matter who the member of Parliament is, they have all earned the right to be here." Some members during the course of their careers will make greater contributions than others. Nevertheless, all of them have earned the right to be here, and they all make a good contribution to the democracy and welfare of this State. Regardless of whether members are backbenchers, Ministers or Premiers, they in their own way make a contribution. It is always sad when members leave the Parliament. To all who have an association with the Parliament I hope Christmas brings with it a sense of hope, renewal and good fortune.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at 1.33 a.m., Saturday, until Tuesday, 7 February 1995, at 2.15 p.m.
______
Page 6341
QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE
The following questions upon notice and answers were circulated in Questions and Answers:
TOONGABBIE RAILWAY STATION OVERBRIDGE
Ms Allan asked the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads -
(1) What risk assessment studies have been done on the Toongabbie Railway Station overbridge? (2) When was the most recent? (3) What were the results of the study? (4) How much heavy traffic uses the bridge? (5) How safe is the bridge? (6) When will the bridge be replaced?
Answer -
(1) A structural capacity check and consulting engineer's study. (2) August 1991. (3) The bridge was found to be structurally sound. (4) There are no accurate statistics on heavy traffic use. (5) The bridge is structurally sound for the legal load limit. (6) The State Rail Authority has no plans for replacement.
FUEL DRUM DISPOSAL
Ms Allan asked the Minister for the Environment -
(1) Is he aware of difficulties being experienced by the Royal Flying Doctor Service in Broken Hill in returning empty aviation fuel drums to fuel companies? (2) Are empty fuel drums being abandoned throughout the New South Wales outback because Shell will not replace fuel drums? (3) Will he request Shell and other major aviation fuel providers to work co-operatively with the Royal Flying Doctor Service to eliminate the problem? (4) Has the EPA identified pollution hazards from abandoned empty fuel drums? (5) If so, what are they?
Answer -
(1) No. (2) The EPA is not aware of empty fuel drums being abandoned in outback New South Wales as a result of Shell fuel drum replacement policies. (3) Shell has advised that in order to facilitate the recycling of aviation fuel drums used by its customers, its network of Shell distributors will accept returned aviation fuel drums from any Shell customers. (4) No. (5) Not applicable.
ENVIRONMENT IN CRISIS CONFERENCE
Ms Allan asked the Minister for the Environment -
(1) Is he aware of the various resolutions passed by the NSW Environment in Crisis Conference at the University of Sydney on 27 August 1994? (2) What action will he take arising out of each of the resolutions?
Answer -
(1) Yes. (2) The resolutions of the conference are wide-ranging and relate to various areas of government activity and influence. The Government shares many of the same concerns as the environment movement and will use the resolutions as a vital input to its programs and initiatives.
MOUNT DRUITT HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS
Mr Amery asked the Minister for Health -
What is the number of people admitted to the Mount Druitt Hospital, on a monthly basis, from January to August 1994?
Answer -
January 1,188 February 1,253 March 1,492 April 1,315 May 1,255 June 1,123 July 1,137 August 1,229
Demands placed on many hospital services are of a seasonal nature. Accordingly, it is not uncommon to have variations in admissions to a hospital on a month-by-month basis.
MOUNT VICTORIA RAILWAY SERVICES
Mr Clough asked the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads -
(1) What expenditure is committed to upgrading Mount Victoria Railway Station? (2) What is the purpose of the upgrade? (3) When is it intended to terminate Lithgow-bound trains at Mount Victoria? (4) What services are affected? (5) Will this action be postponed till after the next State election?
Answer -
(1) $600,000. (2) It is part of CityRail's station upgrading program.
Page 6342 (3) CityRail does not have any plans to terminate Lithgow trains at Mount Victoria. (4) Not applicable. (5) Not applicable.
TEACHING POSITIONS
Mr McBride asked the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, and Minister for the Status of Women, representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism, and Minister Assisting the Premier -
With regard to the new teaching positions to be allocated in Term 1, 1995 - (1) Which schools within the Department of Education's Metropolitan North Region and Hunter Region will receive new teaching positions and how many positions will be allocated to each school? (2) What is the existing teacher-student ratio at each school where positions are to be allocated? (3) What is the student-teacher ratio at each school where positions are to be allocated expected to be upon the appointments being made?
Answer -
(1) The allocation of teachers to schools for 1995 has yet to be finalised and at this stage it is not possible to identify the new teaching positions. My Government announced in July under its Education and Training Policy Foundation Statement an additional 1,466 staff to be allocated to New South Wales schools. Of this total, for 1994 Metropolitan North received 152 extra positions and Hunter Region received 125 extra positions. (2) and (3) Collating and providing this detailed information would impact significantly on the resources of the Department and cannot be considered a priority. Clearly, my Government is committed to reducing class sizes. As a result of the Education and Training Policy Foundation Statement of 18 July 1994 the primary school staffing formula has been revised so that no kindergarten class need exceed 26 students, no Year 1 class need exceed 28 students, no Year 2 class need exceed 29 students and no class in Years 3 to 6 need exceed 30 students. The secondary staffing formula for Years 11 and 12 has also been revised so that no Year 11 or 12 class need exceed 24 students.
SCHOOL COUNSELLORS
Mr McBride asked the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, and Minister for the Status of Women, representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism, and Minister Assisting the Premier -
(1) What is the full-time equivalent of school counsellors employed at each primary school and each high school within the Department of Education's Metropolitan North Region and Hunter Region? (2) On what basis is the determination of full-time equivalent positions determined? (3) Is this currently being applied accurately at each school within the aforementioned regions? (4) If not: (a) Why not? (b) What steps are being undertaken to address any imbalances which may be occurring?
Answer -
(1) School counsellors are not formally appointed to each school. They are appointed to a centre school for administrative purposes and provide a counselling service to that school and several other schools. School counsellors are allocated to regions after taking into account their relative student enrolments and needs. Regions allocate their establishment of counsellors according to local need and not by a staffing formula. (2) No answer required. (3) No answer required. (4) No answer required.
TERTIARY EDUCATION REQUIREMENT SCORES
Mr McBride asked the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, and Minister for the Status of Women, representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism, and Minister Assisting the Premier -
With regard to all schools within the Department of Education's Metropolitan North Region and Hunter Region - (1) What has been the mean TER score for each school in: (a) 1991? (b) 1992? (c) 1993? (2) What was the standard deviation of TER scores at each school in: (a) 1991? (b) 1992? (c) 1993? (3) What was the range of TER scores at each school in: (a) 1991? (b) 1992? (c) 1993? (4) Have these figures revealed any difference in the standard of educational support and programs available at each school? (5) If so, what programs will be undertaken to address any imbalances?
Answer -
The information requested concerning TER scores is confidential to schools. The mean TER score for a school is not a useful statistic out of context as it is not a fair indication of school performance. Individual schools are able to give a more comprehensive picture of student performance in the senior years of schooling than can be expressed through TER statistics. HSC results are analysed thoroughly at all levels to develop appropriate strategies for ensuring the provision of quality teaching and learning.
Page 6343
GREAT LAKES COUNCIL LANDFILL WASTE DISPOSAL PROPOSAL
Mr Martin asked the Minister for the Environment -
(1) Has he received representations from North Arm Cove Progress Association Incorporated expressing unanimous objection to Great Lakes Council's proposal to establish a landfill waste disposal depot at Bulga Creek, North Arm Cove, or any other coastal region where it has the potential to pollute the waterways? (2) If so, what action has he taken in respect of those representations? (3) Is the Environment Protection Authority aware of the close proximity of the proposed management depot to an environmentally sensitive waterway and an interstate highway? (4) Is the Environment Protection Authority aware of the potential demise of a community of rare and endangered flora species? (5) Is the Environment Protection Authority aware of the failure of the Environmental Impact Statement to adequately address these problems? (6) If not, will the Environment Protection Authority investigate these concerns? (7) Will the Environment Protection Authority, on establishing the validity of these concerns, take appropriate action to prevent Great Lakes Council from developing a landfill waste management depot unless it addresses these matters in an Environmental Impact Statement?
Answer -
(1) I am advised that there is no record of any correspondence from this group on this issue in my office. (2) See answer (1). (3) Yes. (4) The EPA considers that it is not best qualified to comment on this issue. (5) Refer to answer (4). (6) Refer to answer (4). (7) Responsibility for siting and approval of waste depots in rural New South Wales rests with councils.
HOME CHILD CARE ALLOWANCES
Mr Mills asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, representing the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing -
(1) Does the Department of Housing assess the new Home Child Care Allowance in full for rental for low income families? (2) Is he aware that this allowance replaced the Dependent Spouse Tax Rebate for many Department of Housing tenant families and that the rebate was not assessable for rental? (3) Is it correct that some Department of Housing tenant families will be up to $3.40 per week worse off because of Department of Housing rent assessment policies? (4) Will assessment policy toward the new Home Child Care Allowance be changed so as to eliminate disadvantage to families?
Answer -
I have been advised by the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing that the answers to the honourable member's questions are: (1) Yes. It was initially decided that the Home Child Care Allowance should be treated in the same manner as any other source of income. However, following representation from the Commonwealth, I have decided to place a moratorium on assessing the allowance as income for rent determination purposes until discussions have been held with the Department of Social Security and a number of administrative and policy issues have been resolved. (2) Yes. The allowance was treated in a manner consistent with other similar Department of Social Security payments. Tax rebates such as the Dependent Spouse Rebate are not assessable since they are payments delivered through the tax system rather than income payments like pensions and benefits. The Home Child Care Allowance was introduced by the Commonwealth Government without prior consultation with State housing authorities and how it should be assessed. (3) No. Prior to the announcement of the moratorium, only a few families had been affected by the decision to assess the allowance as income. These will either receive a refund or be credited with the amount they have paid from the allowance. (4) See (1) above.
HUNTER WATER CORPORATION OPERATIONS
Mr Mills asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, representing the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing -
(1) Has the Hunter Water Corporation made offers of redundancy to 11 plumbers? (2) Are these the last remaining fully qualified plumbers in the work force of Hunter Water? (3) What qualifications in plumbing are held by staff who will subsequently be required to carry out plumbers' duties? (4) Are these changes part of a restructuring plan for Hunter Water? (5) If so, what are the principal recommendations of the restructuring plan? (6) What kinds and percentage of plumbers' work will be sent out to private contractors? (7) Were Hunter Water's plumbing staff given a chance to submit in-house tender(s) for plumbing work intended to be contracted? (8) How can technical standards and best practice be maintained without suitably qualified staff as required in Hunter Water's Performance Agreement and Operating Licence? (9) Are the proposed new work arrangements, which exclude plumbers, in breach of: (a) Building Services Corporation rules? (b) The National Plumbing Code? (10) Will the meter valve service for customers continue in the absence of plumbers? (11) Will soldered pipe connection work cease, to be replaced by compression fitting work?
Page 6344 (12) Has Hunter Water also adopted a risk management approach in place of preventative maintenance, for example, leaking hydrants?
Answer -
I have been advised by the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing that the answers to the honourable member's questions are: (1) to (12) As a corporate entity, the Hunter Water Corporation operates under a set of regulatory arrangements set in place by the Government specifically to protect consumers and the environment. Accordingly, where questions arise of a regulatory nature, it is appropriate that the relevant Minister reponds. In contrast, where matters of an operational nature arise, it is appropriate that such matters are dealt with directly by the Corporation. The issues raised by the honourable member for Wallsend are primarily operational matters for which the Hunter Water Corporation is fully responsible and accountable. As such, the honourable member's questions have been referred to the Corporation's Managing Director for direct reply. Question (9) has a regulatory component. Responsibility for the licensing of plumbers rests with the Building Services Corporation. In addition, the Hunter Water Corporation requires all plumbing work carried out within its area of operations to comply with both the New South Wales and National Plumbing Codes of Practice. The Hunter Water Corporation advises that the Corporation carries a plumbing licence with the Building Services Corporation. This licence is invested in a suitably qualified management employee within the Corporation. The Corporation, by way of its Act, can undertake work on its assets and consequently this does not contravene any Building Services Corporation rules. The proposed new work arrangements of the Operations Business Unit will not be in breach of the National Plumbing Code. The Corporation further advises that since 1988 average charges to customers have reduced by 17 per cent and that such reductions are a direct result of efficiency improvements brought about by organisational restructures such as those raised by the honourable member.
HUNTER AREA HEALTH SERVICE FUNDING
Mr Mills asked the Minister for Health -
What sum was allocated in the 1994/95 budget to the Hunter Area Health Service in each of the following program areas: (a) 2.3 Support for area health services and public hospitals? (b) 2.5 Support for dental services? (c) 2.8 Services for the psychiatrically ill? (d) 2.9 Services for the aged and disabled?
Answer -
The cash budget allocated in 1994/95 in each of the following program areas within the Hunter Area Health Service is: (a) Program 2.3 $270,495,581 (b) Program 2.5 $6,281,597 (c) Program 2.8 $29,033,737 (d) Program 2.9 $51,448,930
JOHN HUNTER HOSPITAL ACCIDENT AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
Mr Mills asked the Minister for Health -
(1) Has the Government given a commitment to upgrade and enlarge the Emergency Centre at John Hunter Hospital? (2) If so, was money allocated to this project in the 1994/95 budget? (3) Where does the allocation appear? (4) If not, why not?
Answer -
(1) A Procurement Feasibility Plan is to be prepared for the John Hunter Hospital Emergency Department. The objectives of the plan are to consider the available options for addressing the service needs. (2) to (4) $30,000 was allocated for the Procurement Feasibility Plan and is included as a component of the 1994/95 Health Capital Works Program; Health Building Infrastructure - Consultancies.
ABORIGINAL HOUSING, LIGHTNING RIDGE
Mr Markham asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, representing the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing -
(1) Has the Lightning Ridge Local Aboriginal Land Council or Aboriginal community been promised two houses to be constructed at Lightning Ridge? (2) If so: (a) Why is construction of these homes not proceeding? (b) When will construction commence? (c) What is the expected date that these homes will be handed over to the Land Council or community?
Answer -
I have been advised by the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing that the answers to the honourable member's questions are: (1) The Lightning Ridge Local Aboriginal Land Council was approved for two dwellings under the 1993/94 Homes on Aboriginal Land Program. (2) (a) and (b) Acquisition of these dwellings has been initiated by spot purchasing with contract settlement already achieved for one of the dwellings. A second dwelling has been identified following a breakdown in negotiations in respect of a previously submitted property. (c) Much upgrading work is required on the dwelling already purchased on 23 September 1994. However, an early handover to Lightning Ridge Local Page 6345 Aboriginal Land Council is anticipated. Provided negotiations with the vendor proceed satisfactorily, exchange of contracts is anticipated for the second dwelling by November 1994 with settlement by 13 December 1994.
ABORIGINAL HOUSING, WANAARING
Mr Markham asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, representing the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing -
(1) Has the Wanaaring Local Aboriginal Land Council or Aboriginal community been promised two houses to be constructed at Wanaaring? (2) If so: (a) Why is construction of these homes not proceeding? (b) When will construction commence? (c) What is the expected date that these homes will be handed over to the Land Council or community?
Answer -
I have been advised by the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing that the answers to the honourable member's questions are: (1) The Wanaaring Local Aboriginal Land Council was approved for two dwellings under the 1993/94 Homes on Aboriginal Land Program. (2) (a) Because of the isolation of this community and following consultation (visit) with the Community, it was decided to achieve this program with transportable homes. Design consultation with Wanaaring Local Aboriginal Land Council has been completed and selective tenders closed on 28 September 1994. (b) and (c) Once tenders have been assessed and submissions approved, it is anticipated that home manufacture will commence in November 1994 with delivery to the site forecast for January 1995 and on-site work completed in February 1995. The dwellings will be transferred to the contract of the Wanaaring Local Aboriginal Land Council soon thereafter.
ABORIGINAL HOUSING, WAKOOL
Mr Markham asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, representing the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing -
(1) What is the current situation with funding for three duplex houses proposed to be built by the Department of Housing for the Wamba Wamba Local Aboriginal Land Council? (2) Has Wakool Shire Council granted approval for these homes to be built? (3) When will the Department of Housing proceed with the building of these homes? (4) What is the expected date for these homes to be handed over to the Wamba Wamba Local Aboriginal Land Council?
Answer -
I have been advised by the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing that the answers to the honourable member's questions are: (1) and (3) The Wamba Wamba Local Aboriginal Land Council was allocated and approved for three dwellings within the 1991/92 Capital Works Program. Due to extensive infrastructure problems and difficulties with shire council approvals, the allocation has been carried over and is to be included within the 1994/95 Housing Aboriginal Communities Program. (2) The Wakool Shire Council has granted approval for the construction of three dwellings on Lot 75 DP 722007 which is located 100 metres back from the Murray River having flood levels 0.5 metres above the 1 per cent flood level for the site. (4) It is my understanding that the Department of Housing will be initiating the consultation process for the design and siting of the dwellings as a matter of urgency. The Department of Housing has advised me that the standard contract period for the design and tender of dwellings is 26 weeks and therefore project completion would be anticipated on or before 30 June 1995, notwithstanding any other unforseen site difficulties arising given the area chosen for consideration.
KEIRA ELECTORATE WATER QUALITY TESTING
Mr Markham asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, representing the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing -
(1) Does the Water Board carry out water quality tests at the following beaches in the electorate of Keira: (a) Bellambi Beach? (b) Corrimal Beach? (c) Towradgi Beach? (d) Fairy Meadow Beach? (2) If so: (a) What tests are carried out to determine possible levels of E.coli and faecal coliforms present in the water? (b) How often were these tests carried out in: (i) 1992? (ii) 1993? (iii) So far in 1994? (c) What were the results of these tests? (3) If not: (a) Will testing be done to inform the community of water quality at these popular surfing beaches? (b) If not, why not? (4) Does the Water Board carry out water quality tests at the following creeks in the electorate of Keira: (a) Bellambi Creek and Lagoon? (b) Towradgi Creek? (c) Fairy Creek? (5) If so: (a) What tests are carried out to determine possible levels of E.coli faecal coliforms present in the water?
Page 6346 (b) How often were these tests carried out in: (i) 1992? (ii) 1993? (iii) So far in 1994? (c) What were the results of these tests? (6) If not: (a) When will testing be done to inform the community of water quality in these creeks/lagoon? (b) If not, why not? (7) What action does the Water Board take to inform and/or warn the public when water quality is not safe for swimming, etc., at these beaches, creeks and lagoon in the electorate of Keira? (8) If none, when will an appropriate warning system by implemented?
Answer -
I have been advised by the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing that the answers to the honourable member's questions are: (1) (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) Yes, tests have taken place up to March 1994. (d) Tests have taken place up to August 1993. (2) (a) Determination of faecal coliform by the method described APHA 9222D (American Public Health Association) - (faecal coliform membrane filter procedure) in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. (b) (i) Tests were carried out at a frequency of once every 6th day in 1992. (ii) Tests were carried out at a frequency of once every 6th day in 1993. (iii) Tests are being carried out at a frequency of once every 6th day in 1994. (c) The results of these tests show that the waters of Corrimal, Towradgi and Fairy Meadow Beaches met water quality standards greater than 95 per cent of the time. The results of tests for the waters of Bellambi Beach show that this beach met water quality standards greater than 90 per cent of the time. (3) (a) and (b) The Water Board will inform the appropriate council (Wollongong City Council in this instance) when: * an investigation of a complaint shows evidence of sewage pollution; * an inicident at a sewage treatment plant may impact on bathing water quality. If appropriate, the Water Board will also request local radio stations to broadcast the warning as a community service announcement. (4) (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) No. (5) (a) Determination of faecal coliform by the method described APHA 9222D (American Public Health Association) - (faecal coliform membrane filter procedure) in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. (b) (i) Tests were carried out at a frequency of once every 6th day in 1992. (ii) Tests were carried out at a frequency of once every 6th day in 1993. (iii) Tests are being carried out at a frequency of once every 6th day in 1994. (c) Tests indicate that the waters of Bellambi Creek and Lagoon and Towradgi Creek are of low water quality standard. Preliminary investigations have failed to fully identify the sources of this contamination. However, the major supply to these waterways is urban runoff from the suburbs of Bellambi and Corrimal. (6) (a) and (b) Testing for faecal coliform is done to comply with current EPA licence requirements, which do not include testing water quality in the creeks/lagoons that are listed. (7) The Water Board will inform the appropriate council (Wollongong City Council in this instance) when: * an investigation of a complaint shows evidence of sewage pollution; * an incident at a sewage treatment plant may impact on bathing water quality. If appropriate, the Water Board will also request local radio stations to broadcast the warning as a community service announcement. (8) Not applicable.
PYRMONT HELIPORT INSURANCE
Ms Nori asked the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, and Minister for Ports -
(1) What insurance arrangements are in place to ensure that the Helicopter Association Australia has sufficient cover for the costs of any possible helicopter accident at Pyrmont Wharf 8? (2) Is the amount on the policy adequate? (3) What is the upper limit of this insurance cover? (4) What is the name of the public liability insurance carrier? (5) Can he produce a copy of the certificate of currency? (6) Are the fire codes for the heliport the same as those outlined by Commissioner Simpson? (7) (a) Will upgrading work be solely funded by the HAA? (b) If not, to what extent will the upgrade be Government subsidised?
Page 6347
Answer -
Although this matter falls within the responsibility of the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing, I have obtained from him the answers to the honourable member's questions: (1) None at present. However, the lease document being prepared by the City West Development Corporation requires the heliport operator, the Helicopter Association of Australia (HAA), to take out appropriate and adequate insurance prior to commencing operations. To assist in this process, the Corporation has appointed consultants to undertake a risk assessment which will form the basis of assessing the amount of insurance required and the extent of the insurance. (2) Given the above, it is obviously intended that the amount of the policy will be adequate. The Corporation will advise the HAA of the amount of insurance the Corporation believes to be appropriate based on the advice of its consultants and the risks that need to be covered. (3) This will be determined by the risk assessment study currently underway. (4) As yet unknown, but given the nature of the insurance, it is probable that the carrier of the insurance will be an overseas entity, either from the U.S. or London, who already have substantial experience in aviation insurance and, in particular, insurance of airport operators and civil aviation authorities. (5) This will be available when the insurance policy is written. (6) Yes, plus any other requirements thought appropriate by bodies such as the NSW Fire Brigade. (7) (a) No. (b) Under the tender document, the Government is obliged to ensure the removal of Shed 8 to provide a surface sufficient to allow operation of the heliport. Any additional works necessary to commence operations such as fencing, firefighting equipment, and terminal buildings will be the sole responsibility of the HAA.
NEW ENGLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD FACSIMILE MACHINE TRIAL
Dr Refshauge asked the Minister for Health -
(1) Has one of the New England District Health Service Board members been provided with a facsimile machine on a trial basis to provide a comparison with postal and courier services? (2) When did this trial commence? (3) When will it finish? (4) Will he publish the results of this trial?
Answer -
(1) I have been advised that one director of the New England Health Service District Board has been provided with a facsimile machine on a trial basis. (2) The trial commenced in January 1994. (3) The trial should be completed by the end of November 1994. (4) The Director and Executive will report to the New England Health Service District Board meeting in December, detailing the results of the trial use of this facsimile machine.
LICENSING OF ACCOMMODATION FOR THE DISABLED
Dr Refshauge asked the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister for the Ageing -
(1) Is he aware of a report by Hannah Sharp and Bill Thomas concerning the conditions of accommodation of people with mental disabilities? (2) Did the report say people are living in incredibly crowded situations, five or six people to a room, certainly not anywhere near enough services to maintain quality of life? (3) What is the Department of Community Services doing about abusive and exploitive practices in boarding houses in the inner west of Sydney?
Answer -
(1) I have received a copy of the report entitled "Boarding on the Edge" by Hannah Sharp and Bill Thomas and have referred the report to the Department of Community Services. (2) This report highlighted a number of issues concerning the standard of accommodation for people with disabilities. These issues were also raised in the report of the Taskforce I established into Private "For Profit" Hostels and the Burdekin Report on Human Rights and Mental Illness. (3) The Government has given a clear commitment to improving accommodation and care provided to boarding house residents with disabilities. The Government recently announced a number of measures including: * The conditions on new licences (new or where existing services are sold) reflect a commitment to increasing the standard of accommodation for people with a disability in the private sector. To achieve this, the criteria for determining applications for new licences under the Youth and Community Services Act 1983, include conditions limiting the maximum occupancy of bedrooms to no more than two, and the provision of internal recreation space of 3 square metres per resident. These conditions will pave the way for the development of improved service standards and promote a better accommodation environment in the sector; * Increasing the number of licensing advisers from 9 to 14, with these advisers concentrating on the areas of greatest need, especially in the inner west of Sydney; * Establishing clear service standards for boarding houses;
Page 6348 * Establishing an Implementation Advisory Committee of key stakeholders to oversee the introduction of the new service standards for boarding houses and advise on the implementation of the Government's reform strategy announced on 5 September 1994 in the document "Caring for the People with a Mental Illness"; * Ensuring that boarding house residents have access to the Community Services Commission to safeguard their rights.
GEORGES RIVER SANDMINING
Mr Rogan asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation -
(1) When will sand mining operations in the Georges River at Revesby cease? (2) What measures will be taken to ensure that the sand mining residue and material will be fully cleared when sand mining operations cease? (3) What measures will be taken at this site to ensure siltation ponds and dump sites will be cleared to guarantee waste material is not able to be washed back into the Georges River during flooding?
Answer -
(1) Dredging operations ceased on 10 December 1993. (2) All pipes, drums and plant from the area covered by the Crown's Permissive Occupancy have been removed. The stabilisation and rehabilitation of the land base area will be carried out primarily to meet the requirements of the National Parks and Wildlife Service which manages that area. (3) The Department of Conservation and Land Management will be making recommendations in consultation with the National Parks and Wildlife Service to ensure the satisfactory rehabilitation of the site.
WOLLONGONG REGION HOUSING WAITING LIST
Mr Rumble asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, representing the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing -
How many applicants were on the waiting list for each type of accommodation applied for in respect of the Wollongong region of the Department as at: (a) 30 June 1988? (b) 30 June 1989? (c) 30 June 1990? (d) 30 June 1991? (e) 30 June 1992? (f) 30 June 1993? (g) 30 June 1994?
Answer -
I have been advised by the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing that the answers to the honourable member's questions are: The Department of Housing can generally provide only current waiting list statistics that are broken up into bedroom categories for each allocation zone. The Department retains only a statewide waiting list figure for each type of accommodation on an annual basis. This figure is not broken up into regions or allocations zones. Waiting list statistics for the Wollongong area are, however, currently available by bedroom category for the past 3 years. The following table shows waiting list figures for the two allocations zones that cover the Wollongong area:
Accommodation 1992 1993 1994 category 1-bedroom 1,351 1,451 1,473 2-bedroom 720 766 773 3-bedroom 590 618 776 4-bedroom 59 49 50 1 2 1 5-bedroom
WOLLONGONG REGION HOUSING REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Mr Rumble asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, representing the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing -
In respect of the Wollongong region of the Department, how much was budgeted and spent for repairs and maintenance for the years ended: (a) 30 June 1988? (b) 30 June 1989? (c) 30 June 1990? (d) 30 June 1991? (e) 30 June 1992? (f) 30 June 1993? (g) 30 June 1994?
Answer -
I have been advised by the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing that the answers to the honourable member's questions are: (a) to (g) Budget Allocations: The Department of Housing is unable to provide information in regard to budget allocations for repairs and maintenance for the financial years ended June 1988 to June 1990. For the financial years ended June 1991 to June 1994, only a figure for the entire South Eastern Region for budget allocations is available. This figure is not able to be broken up into electorates or local government areas. These regional budget allocations were as follows:
Page 6349
$'000 June 1991 5,824 June 1992 7,175 June 1993 5,438 June 1994 5,770 Actual Expenditure: The Department has actual expenditure levels for the Wollongong area for repairs and maintenance for the financial years ended June 1989 to June 1994. However, only a regional figure for expenditure is available for the financial year ended June 1988. The expenditure levels were as follows:
$'000 June 1988 6,664 (regional figure) June 1989 2,477} June 1990 2,400} June 1991 2,763} Wollongong area June 1992 3,717} June 1993 2,701} June 1994 2,995} All the expenditure figures represent gross expenditure by the Department and do not include recoveries from tenants for any maintenance charges incurred. As a result of the reorganisation of the Department, information in regard to budget allocations and expenditure levels for repairs and maintenance will be readily available by local government areas from the 1994/95 financial year onwards.
CONISTON PRIMARY SCHOOL CLEANING CONTRACT
Mr Sullivan asked the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services -
(1) What weekly hours of cleaning were allocated to Coniston Primary School in: (a) 1988? (b) 1990? (c) 1992? (d) 1994? (2) How many cleaners provided this cleaning service at Coniston Primary School in: (a) 1988? (b) 1990? (c) 1992? (d) 1994? (3) What was the area in square metres cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service at Coniston Primary School in 1988? (4) How many classrooms and what other school facilities were cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service at Coniston Primary School in 1988? (5) What is the area in square metres cleaned by Menzies Cleaning Contractors at Coniston Primary School in 1994? (6) How many classrooms and what other school facilities are cleaned by Menzies Cleaning Contractors at Coniston Primary School in 1994?
Answer -
(1) to (6) Contracts for the cleaning of sites formerly cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service (GCS) are based on outcome - performance and quality - rather than inputs such as hours. This means the cleaning must be performed to specification. In the case of schools, this specification is determined by the Department of School Education. The time taken to clean a site to specification is a matter for cleaning professionals. As a result of increased productivity due to improvements in work practices, equipment and training effected by the GCS and the private contractors, cleaning standards can be and have been maintained with fewer hours. The Government is committed to ensuring that standards of cleanliness in schools are maintained if not improved. If school principals have any genuine concerns with regard to cleanliness in schools they should contact the contractor immediately.
CRINGILA PRIMARY SCHOOL CLEANING CONTRACT
Mr Sullivan asked the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services -
(1) What weekly hours of cleaning were allocated to Cringila Primary School in: (a) 1988? (b) 1990? (c) 1992? (d) 1994? (2) How many cleaners provided this cleaning service at Cringila Primary School in: (a) 1988? (b) 1990? (c) 1992? (d) 1994? (3) What was the area in square metres cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service at Cringila Primary School in 1988? (4) How many classrooms and what other school facilities were cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service at Cringila Primary School in 1988? (5) What is the area in square metres cleaned by Menzies Cleaning Contractors at Cringila Primary School in 1994? (6) How many classrooms and what other school facilities are cleaned by Menzies Cleaning Contractors at Cringila Primary School in 1994?
Answer -
(1) to (6) Contracts for the cleaning of sites formerly cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service (GCS) are based on outcome - performance and quality - rather than inputs such as hours. This means the cleaning must be performed to specification. In the case of schools, this specification is determined by the Department of School Education. The time taken to clean a site to specification is a matter for cleaning professionals.
Page 6350 As a result of increased productivity due to improvements in work practices, equipment and training effected by the GCS and the private contractors, cleaning standards can be and have been maintained with fewer hours. The Government is committed to ensuring that standards of cleanliness in schools are maintained if not improved. If school principals have any genuine concerns with regard to cleanliness in schools they should contact the contractor immediately.
GWYNNEVILLE PRIMARY SCHOOL CLEANING CONTRACT
Mr Sullivan asked the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services -
(1) What weekly hours of cleaning were allocated to Gwynneville Primary School in: (a) 1988? (b) 1990? (c) 1992? (d) 1994? (2) How many cleaners provided this cleaning service at Gwynneville Primary School in: (a) 1988? (b) 1990? (c) 1992? (d) 1994? (3) What was the area in square metres cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service at Gwynneville Primary School in 1988? (4) How many classrooms and what other school facilities were cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service at Gwynneville Primary School in 1988? (5) What is the area in square metres cleaned by Menzies Cleaning Contractors at Gwynneville Primary School in 1994? (6) How many classrooms and what other school facilities are cleaned by Menzies Cleaning Contractors at Gwynneville Primary School in 1994?
Answer -
(1) to (6) Contracts for the cleaning of sites formerly cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service (GCS) are based on outcome - performance and quality - rather than inputs such as hours. This means the cleaning must be performed to specification. In the case of schools, this specification is determined by the Department of School Education. The time taken to clean a site to specification is a matter for cleaning professionals. As a result of increased productivity due to improvements in work practices, equipment and training effected by the GCS and the private contractors, cleaning standards can be and have been maintained with fewer hours. The Government is committed to ensuring that standards of cleanliness in schools are maintained if not improved. If school principals have any genuine concerns with regard to cleanliness in schools they should contact the contractor immediately.
LAKE HEIGHTS PRIMARY SCHOOL CLEANING CONTRACT
Mr Sullivan asked the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services -
(1) What weekly hours of cleaning were allocated to Lake Heights Primary School in: (a) 1988? (b) 1990? (c) 1992? (d) 1994? (2) How many cleaners provided this cleaning service at Lake Heights Primary School in: (a) 1988? (b) 1990? (c) 1992? (d) 1994? (3) What was the area in square metres cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service at Lake Heights Primary School in 1988? (4) How many classrooms and what other school facilities were cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service at Lake Heights Primary School in 1988? (5) What is the area in square metres cleaned by Menzies Cleaning Contractors at Lake Heights Primary School in 1994? (6) How many classrooms and what other school facilities are cleaned by Menzies Cleaning Contractors at Lake Heights Primary School in 1994?
Answer -
(1) to (6) Contracts for the cleaning of sites formerly cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service (GCS) are based on outcome - performance and quality - rather than inputs such as hours. This means the cleaning must be performed to specification. In the case of schools, this specification is determined by the Department of School Education. The time taken to clean a site to specification is a matter for cleaning professionals. As a result of increased productivity due to improvements in work practices, equipment and training effected by the GCS and the private contractors, cleaning standards can be and have been maintained with fewer hours. The Government is committed to ensuring that standards of cleanliness in schools are maintained if not improved. If school principals have any genuine concerns with regard to cleanliness in schools they should contact the contractor immediately.
MOUNT ST THOMAS PRIMARY SCHOOL CLEANING CONTRACT
Mr Sullivan asked the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services -
(1) What weekly hours of cleaning were allocated to Mount St Thomas Primary School in: (a) 1988? (b) 1990? (c) 1992? (d) 1994?
Page 6351 (2) How many cleaners provided this cleaning service at Mount St Thomas Primary School in: (a) 1988? (b) 1990? (c) 1992? (d) 1994? (3) What was the area in square metres cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service at Mount St Thomas Primary School in 1988? (4) How many classrooms and what other school facilities were cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service at Mount St Thomas Primary School in 1988? (5) What is the area in square metres cleaned by Menzies Cleaning Contractors at Mount St Thomas Primary School in 1994? (6) How many classrooms and what other school facilities are cleaned by Menzies Cleaning Contractors at Mount St Thomas Primary School in 1994?
Answer -
(1) to (6) Contracts for the cleaning of sites formerly cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service (GCS) are based on outcome - performance and quality - rather than inputs such as hours. This means the cleaning must be performed to specification. In the case of schools, this specification is determined by the Department of School Education. The time taken to clean a site to specification is a matter for cleaning professionals. As a result of increased productivity due to improvements in work practices, equipment and training effected by the GCS and the private contractors, cleaning standards can be and have been maintained with fewer hours. The Government is committed to ensuring that standards of cleanliness in schools are maintained if not improved. If school principals have any genuine concerns with regard to cleanliness in schools they should contact the contractor immediately.
PARA MEADOWS SPECIAL PRIMARY SCHOOL CLEANING CONTRACT
Mr Sullivan asked the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services -
(1) What weekly hours of cleaning were allocated to Para Meadows Special Primary School in: (a) 1988? (b) 1990? (c) 1992? (d) 1994? (2) How many cleaners provided this cleaning service at Para Meadows Special Primary School in: (a) 1988? (b) 1990? (c) 1992? (d) 1994? (3) What was the area in square metres cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service at Para Meadows Special Primary School in 1988? (4) How many classrooms and what other school facilities were cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service at Para Meadows Special Primary School in 1988? (5) What is the area in square metres cleaned by Menzies Cleaning Contractors at Para Meadows Special Primary School in 1994? (6) How many classrooms and what other school facilities are cleaned by Menzies Cleaning Contractors at Para Meadows Special Primary School in 1994?
Answer -
(1) to (6) Contracts for the cleaning of sites formerly cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service (GCS) are based on outcome - performance and quality - rather than inputs such as hours. This means the cleaning must be performed to specification. In the case of schools, this specification is determined by the Department of School Education. The time taken to clean a site to specification is a matter for cleaning professionals. As a result of increased productivity due to improvements in work practices, equipment and training effected by the GCS and the private contractors, cleaning standards can be and have been maintained with fewer hours. The Government is committed to ensuring that standards of cleanliness in schools are maintained if not improved. If school principals have any genuine concerns with regard to cleanliness in schools they should contact the contractor immediately.
PORT KEMBLA PRIMARY SCHOOL CLEANING CONTRACT
Mr Sullivan asked the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services -
(1) What weekly hours of cleaning were allocated to Port Kembla Primary School in: (a) 1988? (b) 1990? (c) 1992? (d) 1994? (2) How many cleaners provided this cleaning service at Port Kembla Primary School in: (a) 1988? (b) 1990? (c) 1992? (d) 1994? (3) What was the area in square metres cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service at Port Kembla Primary School in 1988? (4) How many classrooms and what other school facilities were cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service at Port Kembla Primary School in 1988? (5) What is the area in square metres cleaned by Menzies Cleaning Contractors at Port Kembla Primary School in 1994? (6) How many classrooms and what other school facilities are cleaned by Menzies Cleaning Contractors at Port Kembla Primary School in 1994?
Answer -
(1) to (6) Contracts for the cleaning of sites formerly cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service (GCS) are based on outcome - performance and quality - Page 6352 rather than inputs such as hours. This means the cleaning must be performed to specification. In the case of schools, this specification is determined by the Department of School Education. The time taken to clean a site to specification is a matter for cleaning professionals. As a result of increased productivity due to improvements in work practices, equipment and training effected by the GCS and the private contractors, cleaning standards can be and have been maintained with fewer hours. The Government is committed to ensuring that standards of cleanliness in schools are maintained if not improved. If school principals have any genuine concerns with regard to cleanliness in schools they should contact the contractor immediately.
WEST WOLLONGONG PRIMARY SCHOOL CLEANING CONTRACT
Mr Sullivan asked the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services -
(1) What weekly hours of cleaning were allocated to West Wollongong Primary School in: (a) 1988? (b) 1990? (c) 1992? (d) 1994? (2) How many cleaners provided this cleaning service at West Wollongong Primary School in: (a) 1988? (b) 1990? (c) 1992? (d) 1994? (3) What was the area in square metres cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service at West Wollongong Primary School in 1988? (4) How many classrooms and what other school facilities were cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service at West Wollongong Primary School in 1988? (5) What is the area in square metres cleaned by Menzies Cleaning Contractors at West Wollongong Primary School in 1994? (6) How many classrooms and what other school facilities are cleaned by Menzies Cleaning Contractors at West Wollongong Primary School in 1994?
Answer -
(1) to (6) Contracts for the cleaning of sites formerly cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service (GCS) are based on outcome - performance and quality - rather than inputs such as hours. This means the cleaning must be performed to specification. In the case of schools, this specification is determined by the Department of School Education. The time taken to clean a site to specification is a matter for cleaning professionals. As a result of increased productivity due to improvements in work practices, equipment and training effected by the GCS and the private contractors, cleaning standards can be and have been maintained with fewer hours. The Government is committed to ensuring that standards of cleanliness in schools are maintained if not improved. If school principals have any genuine concerns with regard to cleanliness in schools they should contact the contractor immediately.
WOLLONGONG PRIMARY SCHOOL CLEANING CONTRACT
Mr Sullivan asked the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services -
(1) What weekly hours of cleaning were allocated to Wollongong Primary School in: (a) 1988? (b) 1990? (c) 1992? (d) 1994? (2) How many cleaners provided this cleaning service at Wollongong Primary School in: (a) 1988? (b) 1990? (c) 1992? (d) 1994? (3) What was the area in square metres cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service at Wollongong Primary School in 1988? (4) How many classrooms and what other school facilities were cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service at Wollongong Primary School in 1988? (5) What is the area in square metres cleaned by Menzies Cleaning Contractors at Wollongong Primary School in 1994? (6) How many classrooms and what other school facilities are cleaned by Menzies Cleaning Contractors at Wollongong Primary School in 1994?
Answer -
(1) to (6) Contracts for the cleaning of sites formerly cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service (GCS) are based on outcome - performance and quality - rather than inputs such as hours. This means the cleaning must be performed to specification. In the case of schools, this specification is determined by the Department of School Education. The time taken to clean a site to specification is a matter for cleaning professionals. As a result of increased productivity due to improvements in work practices, equipment and training effected by the GCS and the private contractors, cleaning standards can be and have been maintained with fewer hours. The Government is committed to ensuring that standards of cleanliness in schools are maintained if not improved. If school principals have any genuine concerns with regard to cleanliness in schools they should contact the contractor immediately.
CONSTABLE EL AZZI SUSPENSION
Mr Yeadon asked the Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services -
(1) Are there currently 26 officers of the NSW Police Service on formal suspension from duty as a result of allegations of misconduct against those officers?
Page 6353 (2) Of the 26 officers currently on suspension, are only 6 officers on suspension without pay? (3) Of the 6 officers on suspension from duty without pay, is Constable William El Azzi the only officer who has not been convicted of the charges made against him? (4) If so, why has Constable William El Azzi been singled out for suspension from duty without pay before any charges have been proved against him? (5) Is the decision by the NSW Police Service to suspend Constable William El Azzi without pay contrary to the Government's stated policy of not suspending police officers without pay until convicted of the charges against them? (6) If the suspension of Constable William El Azzi without pay is within the Government's stated policy in this regard, what was the criteria used in the decision by the NSW Police Service to suspend Constable El Azzi without pay? (7) When did Constable William El Azzi first join the NSW Police Service? (8) For what period or periods of his service has Constable William El Azzi been suspended on: (a) Duty with pay? (b) Duty without pay? (9) What criminal charges have been laid against Constable William El Azzi and what was the outcome of each charge? (10) What was the date of charging and finalisation of each matter referred to in (8) (a) above? (11) What departmental charges have been preferred against Constable William El Azzi and what was the outcome of each charge? (12) What was the date of charging and finalisation of each matter referred to in (11) above?
Answer -
(1) 19 officers as at 24 October 1994. (2) 5 officers as at 24 October 1994. (3) Of the 5 officers currently suspended without pay, Constable El Azzi is the only unconvicted officer. Another unconvicted officer is currently being considered for suspension without pay. This has been approved in principle by the Commissioner and is awaiting the officer's comments before the matter is finally determined. (4) I have been advised that Constable El Azzi has not been "singled out". (5) Constable El Azzi's case falls within the Government's current guidelines. (6) There is a provision in the Government's Suspension Policy for the Commissioner of Police to decide, in exceptional circumstances, that an officer be taken off pay before he or she is convicted. I am advised that the Commissioner of Police was satisfied that Constable El Azzi's case fell within the category of exceptional circumstances when the decision to suspend without pay was made. (7) This officer commenced training on 19 January 1981 and was sworn in on 6 April 1981. (8) (a) Suspended with pay 1 March 1989 to 1 July 1994. Prior to this period he had been dismissed (September 1987). He was subsequently reinstated by GREAT in late February 1989. The period from dismissal to reinstatement was considered as leave without pay and formed part of the penalty GREAT imposed. (b) Suspended without pay 1 July 1994 to date. (9) Constable El Azzi has faced a number of criminal charges: * Charged with Conspiracy to Murder Michael John Sayer with Victor Camilleri and Kevin Theobold. Discharged at Committal in 1989. * Possess Cannabis on 25 August 1988. Dismissed at Court. * Charged January 1992 by the Australian Federal Police with Importing Heroin into Australia. Discharged at Committal in January 1994. In June, the Federal DPP then advised that no ex-officio would be filed. * June 1992 question of whether criminal charges should be preferred against Constable El Azzi for false bank accounts. Federal DPP advised no proceedings. * 7 April 1994, Corruptly Receive Reward, Possess Unlicensed Firearm, Possess Cannabis. Awaiting determination before the Court. (10) See response to (9). (11) * Charged with Neglect of Duty in respect of failing to report for duty for 2 days in May 1985. Dealt with before the Police Tribunal in February 1986 when the charges were dismissed. * Charged with Disobedience for leaving Australia without permission and in contravention to a direction given. The offence was found proved and Constable El Azzi was severely reprimanded after the charges were found proven at the Police Tribunal on 25 September 1989. * Charged with Misconduct relating to his attendance at Court in the matter of R v. Cavell. Constable El Azzi was charged with Misconduct and had the matter determined by the Police Tribunal. The charge was found proved and Constable El Azzi was found to have lied to the Tribunal by Chief Judge Staunton CJ., who recommended he be dismissed. He was dismissed on 15 September 1987 and was subsequently reinstated on the basis that the penalty was too severe. * Constable El Azzi had been previously paraded in February 1992 for losing his police belt and handcuffs. * Constable El Azzi has a number of outstanding departmental charges which currently await determination before the Police Tribunal. (12) See response to (11).
NEWCASTLE-LAKE MACQUARIE PUBLIC HOUSING WAITING LIST
Mr Face asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, representing the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing -
Page 6354
(1) What is the present waiting time for applicants for public housing in the various categories in the Newcastle/Lake Macquarie area? (2) How many people in each category are awaiting accommodation?
Answer -
I have been advised by the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing that the answers to the honourable member's questions are: (1) The eligibility date of applicants presently being offered accommodation determines the allocation date for any one area. The allocating date is used as a guide when determining waiting times. Waiting times are variable depending on factors such as vacancy rates and construction activity in any one area. Applicants for housing are registered by Allocations Zones. The Newcastle/Lake Macquarie area falls within the three Allocations Zones of Newcastle, East Lake Macquarie and West Lake Macquarie. As at 18 October 1994, the allocating dates for these three zones were as shown in the following table:
Allocating Dates for Newcastle/Lake Macquarie Area
Housing Category Newcastle East West Lake Macquarie Lake Macquarie Married couples February 1989 November 1987 July 1989 2-bedroom Apartments - October 1992 June 1990 June 1990 General - January 1990 3-bedroom Apartments - January 1993 June 1990 August 1991 General - November 1989 4-bedroom March 1990 September 1992 May 1992 Pensioner couples January 1988 October 1988 May 1988 Lone pensioners September 1987 April 1988 May 1987 Single persons September 1987 August 1987 July 1989
There are no 2-bedroom or 3-bedroom apartments in either of the Lake Macquarie zones.
(2) The following table shows the number of clients awaiting housing in the various accommodation categories as at 18 October 1994:
Housing Demand Statistics for Newcastle/Lake Macquarie Area
Housing Category Number of Clients Total Newcastle East Lake MacquarieWest Lake Macquarie Married couples 73 5239164 2-bedroom 611 2811441,036 3-bedroom 482 231124837 4-bedroom 45 181679 Pensioner couples 88 5124163 Lone pensioners 684 21885987 Single persons 1,017 211991,327 TOTAL 63,000 1,0625314,593
The figure for single persons in respect of the Newcastle zone includes 42 clients who have indicated a preference to share larger accommodation with other approved single persons. The figure for single persons for East Maitland includes 27 clients who wish to share larger accommodation and West Maitland 10 clients who wish to share larger accommodation.
GREYSTANES NOISE AND AIR MONITORING
Mr Scully asked the Minister for the Environment -
(1) Is he aware that the Environment Protection Authority has refused to carry out noise and air pollution monitoring at the Cumberland Highway along Betts Road and Jersey Road, Greystanes?
Page 6355 (2) Why does the EPA not carry out the function of noise and air pollution monitoring? (3) Will he direct the EPA to carry out such tests on Betts Road and Jersey Road Greystanes?
Answer -
(1) The EPA has advised the honourable member in writing the reasons that it is unable to conduct specific investigations. (2) The EPA does carry out noise and air monitoring but not for specific local issues. (3) No.
LOOK AT ME NOW HEADLAND OUTFALL
Mr J. H. Murray asked the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, and Minister for Ports -
(1) Is the Public Works Department taking an active role in promoting the "Look At Me Now" ocean outfall proposal? (2) Has the Department expended any monies backing publicity for this proposal? (3) How much has the Department spent on matters relating to technical aspects of the proposal? (4) How much has the Department spent on matters relating to the publicity of the proposal? (5) Is the Department contributing to cost to carry out a poll within the Coffs Harbour local government area? (6) How much has been spent to date on this poll? (7) What is the estimated total cost for the Department for the poll?
Answer -
(1) Public Works has a responsibility to provide technical assistance on sewerage matters to Government and local government clients. In this regard, as confirmed by the recent Commission of Inquiry findings, much of the advice provided would support the preferred option for discharge of surplus reclaimed water to the ocean at Look At Me Now (LAMN) Headland. Coffs Harbour City Council has developed a community communications program to address a wide range of local water supply and sewerage issues. Part of this program deals with communicating the Commission of Inquiry findings on the LAMN proposal. Other information on the sewerage schemes generally (such as effluent reuse, monitoring and demand management initiatives) is also being communicated. (2) Public Works has been approached concerning funding of these various council programs. Where aspects assist developing community awareness and input into specific projects, then financial assistance may be offered as part of the State Government's commitment to community involvement. For the Coffs Harbour Northern Areas Sewerage Scheme, significant subsidy has been provided to promote community communication to date. Aspects include activities associated with two Environmental Impact Statements (both involving working parties), two Commission of Inquiries and the recent conveying of information concerning the findings of the latest inquiry. (3) Details of all preconstruction costs associated with the Coffs Harbour Northern Areas Scheme appear below. These costs show the signficant expenses associated with the exhaustive studies and assessments undertaken for this scheme. (4) Public Works has not specifically conducted any publicity for the proposal. Community communications are essentially by council and included in the details in response to question (3). The activities are wide-ranging and have occurred over many years. (5) No. The conduct of a poll is a matter for council, who on Friday 30 September 1994 resolved not to proceed with the poll. (6) As indicated, the poll is a matter for council and any costs incurred are not available to Public Works. (7) Specific funding requests have not been received from council. It is understood an initial communications budget of $150,000 was proposed by council and had the poll proceeded the only aspects of the program which would have attracted financial assistance would be the distribution and advising of inquiry findings to allow informed public discussion. Coffs Harbour Northern Areas Sewerage Pre-construction Costs The budget for Coffs Harbour Northern Areas Sewerage pre-construction activities is $6.01 million. The breakup is as follows: Item $'000 Surveys 500 Reticulations 430 Pump Stations 390 Woolgoolga STW 840 Moonee STW 520 Effluent Management 660 EIS/Legal (see below for details) 2,350 General 320 _____ TOTAL 6,010
EIS/Legal Details $'000 Original Works 1st EIS 124 Associated Studies 180 1st Commission of Inquiry 129 General Input/co-ordination/enquiries 167 _____ Subtotal 600
Additional Works Task Force 137 2nd EIS 405 Extra Studies 70 Co-ordination/liaison/advice 343 Legal Hearings 230 Communication Consultant 65 2nd Commission of Inquiry/Legal 500 _____ Subtotal 1,750 _____ TOTAL 2,350
GWYDIRVILLE FEED MILL PLANT
Ms Allan asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, representing the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing -
Page 6356
(1) Is he aware of community concerns over the construction and operation of a feed mill plant at Gwydirville near Moree? (2) Is he further aware that construction of the plant was carried out in variance of council regulations? (3) Can he confirm that after construction was begun, the plant was found to be sited closer to residential properties than the distance stipulated by council? (4) Did council then alter the conditions of consent to accommodate this breach of council's conditions of consent? (5) Did council issue a stopwork notice to the builders after discovery of this breach? (6) What action was taken following this stopwork notice? (7) Is he aware that residents consider that their own health and welfare are at risk through failure to address air, noise, traffic and chemical pollution? (8) Will he enquire into the circumstances surrounding the construction and operation of this plant? (9) (a) Will he further give an assurance to residents of Gwydirville that their health and welfare is of concern to the Government and that the Government will take necessary steps to safeguard them? (b) If not, why not?
Answer -
I have been advised by the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing that the answers to the honourable member's questions are: (1) Neither he nor his Department of Planning have had any formal involvement in the Gwydirville feed mill plant. However, the Moree Plains Council has provided information regarding the current concerns. (2) Council has advised the Department that building and development applications were dealt with for the feed mill plant. This is a matter for the Moree Plains Council as the local planning authority. Building applications are not a matter which comes under the portfolio of the Minister. (3) The Department of Planning has been advised by the council that the original development consent approved the plant being located 450 metres from residents. It is understood that the plant was constructed 400 metres from the nearest residence. (4) Rumentek Developers made an application under section 102 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to vary the condition on the location of the plant. In January 1993, council approved a variation of the development consent to permit the plant being located 400 metres from the nearest residence. (5) It is understood that the developers were requested by council to cease all work until the section 102 application was determined. (6) It is understood that work ceased on the project until the section 102 application was determined. (7) This issue is a matter for the Moree Plains Council as the local planning authority and does not come under the portfolio of the Minister. However, the council has advised the Department of Planning that the premises are licensed by the Environment Protection Authority. Council has also advised it has taken steps to ensure that traffic is minimised through the Gwydirville residential area. (8) The operation of the plant is a matter for the local council and other Government authorities. However, no evidence has been put forward suggesting that the construction or operation of the plant was in any way improper. (9) (a) No. (b) This matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Moree Plains Council as the local authority and for other Government authorities, such as the Environment Protection Authority and the NSW Department of Health. The matter does not fall under the portfolio of the Minister for Planning or his Department of Planning.
BONDS FACTORY, PENDLE HILL, OPERATIONS
Ms Allan asked the Minister for the Environment -
(1) Is he aware that noise pollution emanating from the Bonds factory in Pendle Hill is still causing concern to local residents? (2) Is he also aware that residents are complaining of truck movements at 4 a.m. in the morning? (3) Will he take action to curb the persistent noise pollution from this factory? (4) Will he also have allegations of dust and foul aromas from this factory investigated? (5) If not, why not?
Answer -
(1) No. (2) No. The EPA advises that there are no current complaints. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. (5) Not applicable.
APOLLO BATTERY FACTORY, RIVERSTONE, LEAD MONITORING
Ms Allan asked the Minister for the Environment -
(1) Can he confirm that periodic monitoring of lead emissions from the Apollo battery factory at Riverstone are being undertaken? (2) If so, who is responsible for such monitoring and to whom are the results produced? (3) Are the results of such monitoring forwarded to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)? (4) If not, how can the EPA carry out its work of protecting the environment? (5) If such results are available to the EPA, are they available to the public who have a right to know what pollutants are being discharged into the atmosphere? (6) Will he take steps to ensure that lead emissions from the Apollo battery factory are within the prescribed limits?
Page 6357 (7) Will he further assure residents living in western Sydney that the factory represents no risk to their safety or health? (8) If not, why not?
Answer -
(1) There is no Apollo battery factory located in Riverstone. (2) Not applicable (see (1) above). (3) Not applicable (see (1) above). (4) Not applicable (see (1) above). (5) Not applicable (see (1) above). (6) Not applicable (see (1) above). (7) Not applicable (see (1) above). (8) Not applicable (see (1) above).
PORT STEPHENS ELECTORATE CROWN ROAD ACCESS
Mr Martin asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation -
(1) Has Port Stephens Council sought permission to install a silt trap on a Crown road at Boat Harbour? (2) If so, is it normal practice to allow developers to use Crown roads as the receiving point for waste waters? (3) Will he allow this road to be opened? (4) Has this proposal been approved by officers of the Department of CaLM? (5) If so, who were the officers? (6) Have Department of CaLM officers approved such practices previously within the electorate of Port Stephens? (7) If so, where are the locations of such previous approvals? (8) Who were the officers who approved such practices in each particular case?
Answer -
(1) No. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) No. (7) Not applicable. (8) Not applicable.
NELSON BAY BOAT HARBOUR
Mr Martin asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation -
(1) Does the Department of CaLM have an interest in Nelson Bay Boat Harbour? (2) If so, how much of that interest is leased to: (a) d'Albora Marine? (b) Fishing industry? (c) Charter boat industry? (3) How many berths are there for each? (4) How much of the Department's interest is available for: (a) Government use? (b) Public thoroughfare and/or waterway? (5) How many times has there been alterations to the leased areas since 1988? (6) Who authorised these alterations? (7) Was he a signatory to these alterations? (8) What is the Department's reference and file numbers in respect of each lease and/or licence? (9) Are there any plans to hand over administration of these leases/licences to another department (10) If so, which department? (11) When is the transfer of administration to occur? (12) Is there a proposal to appoint a trust to manage this area? (13) If so, when is this to occur?
Answer -
(1) The Nelson Bay Boat Harbour is Government land that is vested in the Minister for Public Works. The development and maintenance of the boat harbour is managed by NSW Public Works under the Fishing Ports Program. The land administration function transferred to the Department of CaLM on 1 July 1993. To facilitate this arrangement, an Agency Agreement has been executed to enable certain actions to be performed whilst the property remains in the ownership of the Minister for Public Works. (2) (a) d'Albora Marina holds a 40-year lease over property which has an area of 4.3 hectares. (b) The fishing industry has two leased areas. Those leases are over the floating and pile moorings having an area of 7,216 m2 and the premises which has an area of 4,958.9 m2 The total area leased to the fishing industry is therefore slightly in excess of 1.2 hectares. (c) The total area occupied by the charter boat industry is 1,253.6 m2. (3) d'Albora Marina currently has 146 berths. The fishing industry occupies 41 berths and charter boat operators have 7 berths. (4) (a) From time-to-time, other Government agencies use the police jetty. (b) Approximately 10 hectares. (5) There has been only one alteration to the lease areas since 1988. (6) The Principal Surveyor and Property Officer, Public Works Department, under authority from the Minister. (7) Yes. (8) The respective Nelson Bay lease/licence file numbers are listed hereunder: L88/6113:L2 L91/0071:L3 L91/0058:L4 L92/0092:L5 L89/6286:L26 L87/6042:L38 L89/6230:L149 L90/0012:L204 L91/0055:L205 L89/6295:L216 L88/6114:L287 L91/0054:L298
Page 6358 L87/6076P-II:L304 L93/0132:L335 L93/0135:L338 A6937:L344 A6843:L349 A6843:L350 (9) No. (10) Not applicable. (11) Not applicable. (12) Preliminary consideration is being given to the creation of a trust to enable a greater community involvement in the operation of the port. (13) If it is determined that a trust model is feasible, a trust would not be created unless discussion with Port Stephens Council, port users and community groups showed that there was support for the proposal. Arrangements have not yet been made to hold discussions.
SILVERWATER ROAD EXTENSION
Mr Langton asked the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads -
(1) With regard to the Silverwater Road extension, will he direct the Roads and Traffic Authority to undertake a residential environment impact study of all the affected areas, i.e., Dundas Valley, Marsden Road between Stewart Street and Mobbs Lane, and Eastwood to the railway bridge? (2) If not, why not? (3) Are there plans to undertake the County Road project, Stewart Street to Rutledge Street link? (4) If not, why not? (5) If so, what is the proposed timetable for this project? (6) Is he aware of traffic problems around Eastwood residential streets? (7) What plans does the Roads and Traffic Authority have to alleviate these problems?
Answer -
(1) In planning for the Silverwater Road extension, the Roads and Traffic Authority has met the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by ensuring that all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment as a result of the new road link have been examined and taken into account. This planning and environmental impact process has included extensive community consultation since 1990. This has led to significant modifications to the design originally proposed for the project. The conclusion reached in the environmental impact assessment process was that, subject to the implementation of certain safeguard measures, the effect on the environment will not be of such significance as to require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. (2) See (1) above. (3) Resulting from the findings of a consultant's study of the Stewart Street/Marsden Road route, the Roads and Traffic Authority is examining a number of recommended improvements to this area. These traffic management proposals will address the issue arising from the opening of the Silverwater Road extension and are currently being considered by the RTA. (4) See (3) above. (5) See (3) above. (6) Yes. (7) The Authority engaged consultants to develop a Traffic Calming Strategy for the major route used by through traffic (Lovell and Quarry Roads route), a Route Development Study for Blaxland Road and an Environmental Overview of the Blaxland Road to Epping Road link. The Traffic Calming Strategy and the Route Development Study are being assessed by the Authority and by Ryde Council. The construction of the M2 Motorway is predicted to reduce traffic volumes on these local streets.
RAILWAY CONCESSION TICKET SALES
Mr Langton asked the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads -
With regard to the identification of how many concession tickets are sold per week, on average, compared with how many concession tickets were sold per week, on average, before the introduction of automatic fare collection - (1) Do ticket vending machines give no data on the number and type of tickets sold? (2) If not, what data do they collect? (3) Is information from the machines linked to a central database? (4) If so, why is it too difficult to ascertain concession ticket sales? (5) (a) Prior to automatic fare collection, was data collected on the number and type of tickets sold? (b) If not, why not? (c) If so, why is it too difficult to ascertain concession ticket sales?
Answer -
(1) and (2) The machines do give the number and type of tickets sold each day. (3) Yes. (4) Particulars of concession fare ticket sales can be ascertained. (5) (a) Yes. (b) Not applicable. (c) Particulars of concession fare ticket sales prior to automatic ticketing can be ascertained.
RAILWAY TICKET SALES
Mr Langton asked the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads -
(1) Do railway stations have to sell a minimum number of tickets before they are allowed to stock that type of ticket in their booking office? (2) If so, what is that minimum number and why does this policy exist?
Page 6359 (3) Are smaller stations' booking offices issued with "blanks" on which journey details are handwritten? (4) Are these "blank" tickets always readily available? (5) How long does it take from when a station orders a stock of tickets to when those tickets are delivered? (6) Are all stations required to keep a stock of change to assist commuters to purchase tickets from ticket vending machines? (7) Is it possible to purchase a single or weekly ticket for a journey between two stations (e.g., Hurstville and Chatswood) at a third station (e.g., Allawah), from a booking office? (8) Is it possible to do this from a ticket vending machine?
Answer -
(1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. (4) Yes. (5) 6 to 8 weeks. (6) Stations are authorised to retain a varying amount of cash for change purposes. (7) Yes, providing the journey passes through the issuing station. (8) No.
COUNTRYLINK LUGGAGE HANDLING
Mr McManus asked the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads -
(1) What procedures are supposed to be followed when luggage is unloaded from CountryLink trains or coaches? (2) Are passengers required to hand in their luggage check before collecting their luggage? (3) If not, why not? (4) If so, can you explain why passengers at Murwillumbah Station on the night of 8 August 1994, had to find and collect their own luggage without supplying any identification, from the platform of the station? (5) What measures are in place to locate passengers whose luggage has been left behind? (6) Are you aware that Mr and Mrs Osland, who had travelled on the EXP to Murwillumbah, ex-Broadmeadow, on 8 August 1994, were unable to locate one of their suitcases and that they made several phone calls to the station trying to find out what happened to it? (7) Were Mr and Mrs Osland told six days later their suitcase had been at the station all the time, but no explanation or apology was offered? (8) Will he apologise to Mr and Mrs Osland and order CountryLink to do the same, and further order CountryLink to improve their procedures with regard to luggage and their customer relations?
Answer -
(1) Booked luggage unloaded from trains is placed on the platform, while both booked and unbooked luggage from coaches is placed adjacent to the coach loading bay. (2) Yes, when an authorised officer is in attendance. (3) Not applicable. (4) The present procedures are that passengers completing their journey at Murwillumbah collect their own booked luggage from the platform, and only luggage booked to destinations further north is transhipped from the train to the connecting coaches. Mr Osland's suitcase was booked to Murwillumbah. (5) When the booked luggage check clearly indicates rail or coach destinations, the luggage is forwarded there. If a passenger then fails to collect it, provided that relevant information is available, every endeavour is made to contact the passenger to arrange collection. (6) Mr Osland's suitcase was unloaded onto the platform. When it was not collected, the suitcase was placed in the luggage room and remained there until, at his request, Mr Osland collected it on his return journey. It is not known who Mr Osland telephoned, however, all Murwillumbah Station staff were aware that an unclaimed suitcase was there. (7) Luggage room staff informed a caller the day after it was left that the suitcase was at Murwillumbah, and were requested to hold it there for collection. (8) Mr and Mrs Osland have written to the General Manager, CountryLink, and he has apologised for the inconvenience caused on this occasion.
MINMI SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
Mr Price asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, representing the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing -
(1) Has the Minmi sewage treatment plant been completed? (2) What is the capacity of this plant in terms of total residential blocks that can be serviced as a result of this initiative? (3) What effect is the nutrient enriched discharge having on the nearby Hexham wetlands? (4) Will any detrimental effect that is detected affect the plant such that its maximum operating capacity will have to be reduced? (5) If there is a detrimental effect on the wetland, how is it intended to reduce the consequent impact to the point where maximum capacity of operation can be achieved?
Answer -
I have been advised by the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing that the answers to the honourable member's questions are: (1) to (5) As a corporate entity, the Hunter Water Corporation operates under a set of regulatory arrangements set in place by the Government specifically to protect consumers and the environment. Accordingly, where questions arise of a regulatory nature, it is appropriate that the relevant Minister responds. In contrast, where matters of an operational nature arise, it is appropriate that such matters are dealt with directly by the Corporation.
Page 6360 The issues raised by the honourable member for Waratah are operational matters for which the Hunter Water Corporation is fully responsible and accountable. As such, the honourable member's questions have been referred to the Corporation's Managing Director for direct reply. The Corporation advises, however, that as a result of the significant population growth expected in the Minmi/Marylands corridor, the Minmi wastewater treatment plant is to be decommissioned and flows diverted to a larger plant to be constructed at Shortland. An Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed new plant is expected to be on public display in late November 1994 with commissioning anticipated in early 1997. All discharges from wastewater treatment plants are regulated under strict licence conditions established by the Environmental Protection Authority. Regular monitoring has shown that there is no adverse environmental impact on the nearby Hexham wetland from the Minmi waste water treatment plant.
NEWCASTLE WESTERN SUBURBS HOSPITAL SERVICES
Mr Price asked the Minister for Health -
(1) What is the future intended use for the Newcastle Western Suburbs Hospital building? (2) When will this complex return to some form of public health provision? (3) What modifications to the existing structures on site will be required? (4) What is the estimated cost of the project? (5) When will the conversion and refurbishment commence?
Answer -
(1) The buildings of the former Western Suburbs Hospital will continue to play an important role in the provision of public health services in Newcastle. (2) A range of public health services are currently being offered from the site and include the Hunter Genetics Unit, Child and Family Health Service facilities, the Aged Care Assessment Team and the William Lyne Day Centre. The Area Health Service has also made space available on the campus to enable the expansion of the Tinonee Gardens Aged Hostel. (3) to (5) I have been advised that the Area is currently examining options for the development of further health services on the Western Suburbs campus.
HOME PURCHASE ASSISTANCE FUND
Mr Schipp asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, representing the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing -
(1) What was the fund balance in the Home Purchase Assistance Account as at: (a) 30 June 1991? (b) 30 June 1992? (c) 30 June 1993? (d) 30 June 1994? (2) What amount of capital, excluding conversions of surpluses to Treasury loans, were deposited in the fund in each of those years?
Answer -
I have been advised by the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing that the answers to the honourable member's questions are: (1) Since February 1989, home purchase assistance has been provided in New South Wales through the Home Purchase Assistance Fund (HPAF). At that time, the former Home Purchase Assistance Account was incorporated into the HPAF and, in March 1994, two other smaller trusts, the HPAA/Australia #1 Trust and the HPAA Overseas #1 Trust, were incorporated into the HPAF. The HPAF's financial statements do not contain the item "fund balance". Nonetheless, details of the total assets and net assets of the HPAF (after providing for known liabilities/obligations to be met from the HPAF and including the other two smaller trusts) are set out below for the dates that have been requested: (a) As at 30 June 1991, the total assets of the HPAF were $757.5 million and net assets were $208 million. (b) As at 30 June 1992, the total assets were $745.3 million and net assets were $194.6 million. (c) As at 30 June 1993, the total assets were $725.7 million and net assets were $179.7 million. (d) As at 30 June 1994, the total assets were $780.9 million and net assets were $174.6 million. (2) Capital contributions by the Department of Housing and the Housing Reserve Fund to the HPAF over the past 4 financial years have been as follows: 1990/91 $25 million 1991/92 - 1992/93 $45 million 1993/94 $55 million
PUBLIC HOUSING WAITING LIST
Mr Schipp asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, representing the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing -
(1) How many applicants for public rental housing were wait listed as at: (a) 1 September 1992? (b) 1 September 1993? (c) 1 September 1994? (2) For each of those years: (a) How many applicants were wait listed for housing in Wagga Wagga, in total and for each category of housing? (b) How many applications for: (i) allocation; (ii) transfer; were received from applicants living outside the electorate? (c) From what other areas were these applications received, categorised as to the type of housing sought?
Page 6361 (d) How many applicants coming from outside the electorate were: (i) housed; (ii) transferred to Wagga Wagga; for each category of housing?
Answer -
I have been advised by the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing that the answers to the honourable member's questions are: (1) (a) 72,313 (b) 83,287 (c) 86,834 (2) (a) The Department of Housing can generally only provide current waiting list statistics that are broken up into bedroom categories for each allocation zone. The Department usually retains only a statewide waiting list figure for each type of accommodation on an annual basis. Consequently, housing demand figures for Wagga Wagga, as at the dates specified by the honourable member, are not available. The following details have been compiled from information available from Department sources other than general statistical records.
Accommodation As at As at Category 30 Sept 1992 8 October 1994 1-bedroom 36 22 2-bedroom 126 75 3-bedroom 81 51 4-bedroom 16 8 5-bedroom 1 1 Lone pensioner 10 7 Pensioner couple 67 73 Single person 76 138 Single person share 9 6 ______Total 422 381
Housing demand figures for Wagga Wagga for 1993 are not available. (b) to (d) The Department of Housing retains a wide variety of statistical data extracted from public housing applications. It does not, however, keep statistics by address category in regard to applicants for accommodation in the various statewide allocation zones. Similarly, statistics are not kept on the former addresses of incoming tenants of departmental accommodation. The Department is therefore unable to provide details as to which applicants/incoming tenants at Wagga Wagga in 1992 to 1994 were from within or outside the electorate.
ROCKDALE RAILWAY STATION REFURBISHMENT
Mr Thompson asked the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads -
(1) Have plans been approved to refurbish the concourse area above Rockdale Railway Station? (2) If so, when was such approval given? (3) When will work commence? (4) What is the scheduled date for completion?
Answer -
(1) No. (2) to (4) Not applicable.
ROCKDALE ELECTORATE DRUG CHARGES
Mr Thompson asked the Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services -
(1) How many persons have been charged with selling and/or supplying drugs in the electorate of Rockdale in each of the following years: (a) 1988/89? (b) 1989/90? (c) 1990/91? (d) 1991/92? (e) 1992/93? (f) 1993/94? (g) 1994 to date? (2) In each of these years, how many persons were convicted of the charges?
Answer -
(1) (a) to (g) The requested figures have been provided for each year and not each financial year. Year Persons Charged 1988 15 1989 31 1990 25 1991 32 1992 49 1993 34 1994 14 as at 19 October 1994 (2) A precise response would require considerable dedication of staff time which is not warranted within the priorities of the Police Service. However, after consultation with the police concerned, a conviction rate of 85 per cent to 90 per cent is estimated.
LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO Dr MICHAEL RYAN
Mr Whelan asked the Minister for the Environment, representing the Attorney General, and Minister for Justice -
Following the resolution of the Legislative Assembly on 22 September 1994, supporting the payment of legal assistance to Dr Michael Ryan in relation to matters referred to the ICAC, will he now arrange for Dr Ryan's costs to be paid?
Answer -
As the circumstances in which Dr Ryan incurred these costs is outside the statutory scheme for legal assistance, I am not able to deal with his claim. However, I have written to the Premier, who has Page 6362 utlimate authority in this area, drawing his attention to the resolution of Parliament, for his consideration of payment of Dr Ryan's costs on an ex gratia basis.
Mr JOHN DONNELLY TAXI LICENCE APPLICATION
Mr McManus asked the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads -
(1) Is he aware of correspondence to his office on behalf of Mr John Donnelly of James Street, Dunoon, concerning Mr Donnelly's application for a taxi licence? (2) Why did the Department of Transport, on 17 May 1994, tell Mr Donnelly that the application to operate a taxi service had been approved and then, 10 days later, that the decision had been reversed? (3) Why does the Department of Transport object to Dunoon having a taxi service? (4) Is it normal Department of Transport practice to advise people of decisions, allowing them to further invest in their proposed businesses, and to then reverse the decision? (5) Will he order the Department of Transport to authorise Mr Donnelly to operate his proposed taxi service in Dunoon, and to compensate for the months of lost business incurred as a result of the Department's mismanagement?
Answer -
(1) Yes. (2) Mr Donnelly made application to the Department of Transport to establish a taxi service in Dunoon. The application was processed following normal administration guidelines. While Mr Donnelly's application was being processed, the taxi industry in conjunction with the Department of Transport, commenced a study into the under and over supply of taxis in country New South Wales. Due to the commencement of this study, Mr Donnelly was advised that the decision to award him a short-term taxi licence was being deferred until the study was completed. Mr Donnelly was offered reimbursement for his costs up to that point in time. (3) The Department of Transport does not object to Dunoon having a taxi service. Options are being considered that would establish a taxi service in the area. (4) No. (5) Mr Donnelly is presently exercising his right of appeal through the local court, pursuant to his rights under the Passenger Transport Act 1990. The Department of Transport will be bound by the determination of the court.
RAIL TRANSPORTATION OF COAL
Mr Markham asked the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads -
How much coal from Clutha-owned collieries has been moved by rail from Glenlee to Port Kembla for export in the: (a) 1992/93 financial year? (b) 1993/94 financial year?
Answer -
(a) 66,000 tonnes. (b) 61,000 tonnes.
HUNTER VALLEY COAL WAGONS USE
Mr Markham asked the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads -
(1) Have ex-Hunter Valley coal wagons been permanently deployed to transport coal in the southern and western coal regions of New South Wales? (2) If so: (a) Why were they deployed? (b) How many coal wagons were deployed for permanent use in the southern coal region in: (i) 1992/93? (ii) 1993/94? (c) How many coal wagons were deployed for permanent use in the western coal region in: (i) 1992/93? (ii) 1993/94? (3) Will new coal wagons be provided for coal transportation in the southern and western coal regions? (4) If so, when? (5) If not, why not?
Answer -
(1) No. (2) (a) to (c) Not applicable. (3) No, not in the forseeable future. (4) Not applicable. (5) Existing rolling stock meets current needs.
SUPPORTED ACCOMMODATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM REVIEW
Mr Face asked the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister for the Ageing -
(1) Is he in a position to introduce legislation to amend or replace the Act governing the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program? (2) If so, when? (3) Has he consulted with refuges as to how their services will be affected and when will any legislation in draft form be available for community consultation if there are to be changes?
Answer -
(1) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable.
NELSON BAY BOAT HARBOUR
Mr Martin asked the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, and Minister for Ports -
Page 6363
(1) Does the Public Works Department have an interest in Nelson Bay Boat Harbour? (2) If so, how much of that interest is leased to: (a) d'Albora Marine? (b) Fishing industry? (c) Charter boat industry? (3) How many berths are there for each? (4) How much of the Department's interest is available for: (a) Government use? (b) Public thoroughfare and/or waterway? (5) How many times has there been alterations to the leased areas since 1988? (6) Who authorised these alterations? (7) Was he a signatory to these alterations? (8) What is the Department's reference and file numbers in respect of each lease and/or licence? (9) Are there any plans to hand over administration of these leases/licences to another department? (10) If so, which department? (11) When is the transfer of administration to occur? (12) Is there a proposal to appoint a trust to manage this area? (13) If so, when is this to occur?
Answer -
(1) The Nelson Bay Boat Harbour is Government land that is vested in the Minister for Public Works. The development and maintenance of the port is managed by NSW Public Works under the Fishing Ports Program. The responsibility for leasing and licensing was transferred to the Department of Conservation and Land Management on 1 July 1993 under an agency agreement. (2) to (13) As outlined above, these matters are now dealt with by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. I understand that these matters will be addressed by the Minister for Land and Water Conservation in response to Question on Notice No. 1457.
STANDARD DRINKS LABELLING PROGRAM
Mr Mills asked the Minister for Health -
(1) What was the decision of the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy meeting on 30 September 1994, concerning endorsement of the standard drinks labelling strategy? (2) What was the position of the NSW Government at that meeting regarding the standard drinks labelling strategy? (3) When will this issue be settled?
Answer -
(1) to (3) At its meeting on 30 September 1994, the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy (MCDS) agreed to recommend that the National Food Standards Council alter the labelling requirements for alcoholic beverages to include standard drink information. The NSW Government supported the introduction of the standard drink labelling strategy. The issue was referred to the National Food Standards Council for consideration out of session in October 1994 and a final decision is expected shortly. The labelling requirements will apply from the date 12 months after the gazettal of the amendment to the Food Standards Code. The introduction of the labelling strategy will be accompanied by a public education campaign to ensure that consumers can use standard drinks information effectively. The alcohol industry will be involved in the development of this education campaign.
HAYES PARK PRIMARY SCHOOL CLEANING CONTRACT
Mr Sullivan asked the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services -
(1) What weekly hours of cleaning were allocated to Hayes Park Primary School in: (a) 1988? (b) 1990? (c) 1992? (d) 1994? (2) How many cleaners provided this cleaning service at Hayes Park Primary School in: (a) 1988? (b) 1990? (c) 1992? (d) 1994? (3) What was the area in square metres cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service at Hayes Park Primary School in 1988? (4) How many classrooms and what other school facilities were cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service at Hayes Park Primary School in 1988? (5) What is the area in square metres cleaned by Menzies Cleaning Contractors at Hayes Park Primary School in 1994? (6) How many classrooms and what other school facilities are cleaned by Menzies Cleaning Contractors at Hayes Park Primary School in 1994?
Answer -
(1) to (6) Contracts for the cleaning of sites formerly cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service (GCS) are based on outcome - performance and quality - rather than inputs such as hours. This means the cleaning must be performed to specification. In the case of schools, this specification is determined by the Department of School Education. The time taken to clean a site to specification is a matter for cleaning professionals. As a result of increased productivity due to improvements in work practices, equipment and training effected by the GCS and the private contractors, cleaning standards can be and have been maintained with fewer hours. The Government is committed to ensuring that standards of cleanliness in schools are maintained if not improved. If school principals have any genuine concerns with regard to cleanliness in schools they should contact the contractor immediately.
Page 6364
KEMBLAWARRA PRIMARY SCHOOL CLEANING CONTRACT
Mr Sullivan asked the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services -
(1) What weekly hours of cleaning were allocated to Kemblawarra Primary School in: (a) 1988? (b) 1990? (c) 1992? (d) 1994? (2) How many cleaners provided this cleaning service at Kemblawarra Primary School in: (a) 1988? (b) 1990? (c) 1992? (d) 1994? (3) What was the area in square metres cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service at Kemblawarra Primary School in 1988? (4) How many classrooms and what other school facilities were cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service at Kemblawarra Primary School in 1988? (5) What is the area in square metres cleaned by Menzies Cleaning Contractors at Kemblawarra Primary School in 1994? (6) How many classrooms and what other school facilities are cleaned by Menzies Cleaning Contractors at Kemblawarra Primary School in 1994?
Answer -
(1) to (6) Contracts for the cleaning of sites formerly cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service (GCS) are based on outcome - performance and quality - rather than inputs such as hours. This means the cleaning must be performed to specification. In the case of schools, this specification is determined by the Department of School Education. The time taken to clean a site to specification is a matter for cleaning professionals. As a result of increased productivity due to improvements in work practices, equipment and training effected by the GCS and the private contractors, cleaning standards can be and have been maintained with fewer hours. The Government is committed to ensuring that standards of cleanliness in schools are maintained if not improved. If school principals have any genuine concerns with regard to cleanliness in schools they should contact the contractor immediately.
PRIMBEE PRIMARY SCHOOL CLEANING CONTRACT
Mr Sullivan asked the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services -
(1) What weekly hours of cleaning were allocated to Primbee Primary School in: (a) 1988? (b) 1990? (c) 1992? (d) 1994? (2) How many cleaners provided this cleaning service at Primbee Primary School in: (a) 1988? (b) 1990? (c) 1992? (d) 1994? (3) What was the area in square metres cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service at Primbee Primary School in 1988? (4) How many classrooms and what other school facilities were cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service at Primbee Primary School in 1988? (5) What is the area in square metres cleaned by Menzies Cleaning Contractors at Primbee Primary School in 1994? (6) How many classrooms and what other school facilities are cleaned by Menzies Cleaning Contractors at Primbee Primary School in 1994?
Answer -
(1) to (6) Contracts for the cleaning of sites formerly cleaned by the Government Cleaning Service (GCS) are based on outcome - performance and quality - rather than inputs such as hours. This means the cleaning must be performed to specification. In the case of schools, this specification is determined by the Department of School Education. The time taken to clean a site to specification is a matter for cleaning professionals. As a result of increased productivity due to improvements in work practices, equipment and training effected by the GCS and the private contractors, cleaning standards can be and have been maintained with fewer hours. The Government is committed to ensuring that standards of cleanliness in schools are maintained if not improved. If school principals have any genuine concerns with regard to cleanliness in schools they should contact the contractor immediately.
COMMUNITY DISASTER RELIEF FUND AUDIT REPORT
Mr Whelan asked the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister for the Ageing -
(1) Will he table the audited report of Arthur Anderson referred by him in an answer to a question without notice on 11 October 1994? (2) If not, why not?
Answer -
(1) and (2) Copies of the Audit Report of the Department of Community Services' administration of the Community Disaster Relief Fund have been circulated to the members of the Community Disaster Relief Fund Committee. I have also asked for a copy to be made available to the Member for Ashfield.
Page 6365
CASTLEREAGH INDUSTRIAL WASTE DEPOT SECURITY CONTRACT
Mr Page asked the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services -
(1) Was a 2-year contract awarded in July 1992 for security guarding at the Castlereagh Industrial Waste Depot? (2) Was the successful tenderer Dunheved Security Service Pty Ltd? (3) Were its services during that 2-year period satisfactory and were all relevant industrial awards complied with? (4) Was the contract advertised again this year? (5) Were only two companies considered suitable and capable of fulfilling the contract specifications? (6) Did Dunheved Security Service Pty Ltd tender $117,800 per annum and Tricorp Security $103,000 per annum? (7) Did the evaluation period go for 8 weeks after the contract expired and was Dunheved Security Service requested on four occasions to extend the service for an additional 2 weeks? (8) Did a representative of Dunheved Security Service telephone the NSW Supply Service on Wednesday, 21 September and advise that it was not the successful tenderer? (9) Did the tender specifications clearly state that non-compliance with award conditions result in a tender being invalid and unacceptable? (10) Did a recent High Court ruling, with regard to enterprise agreements, state that no company can implement any form of agreement in anticipation of being awarded a contract and therefore cannot submit a quotation based on such an agreement? (11) Is the labour value of this contract according to the operative award $111,500 per annum? (12) Does this mean that Tricorp would be operating the service at a loss of $8,500 per annum, not including additional costs of vehicle, equipment, administrative and incidental costs? (13) Does Tricorp Security have a ratified and registered enterprise agreement with the Industrial Relations Commission? (14) Does Tricorp Services meet all the tender requirements, including the payment of award rates to its staff? (15) Did she advise Dunheved Security Service by letter dated 28 September 1994 that its representative had not been told on or before 21 September 1994 that the company had been unsuccessful? (16) Did she express concern as to how this information became available prior to that date? (17) Did the Managing Director of Dunheved Security Service inform you by letter dated 5 October 1994 that his company had been informed by telephone by Mr Mal Patton, a Director of Tricorp Security, shortly before the original contract commencement in late July that the NSW Supply Service had written to him, Mr Patton, some 2 weeks previously, that is, early July, confirming that Tricorp's tender price was to be accepted? (18) How was the Director of Tricorp Security able to inform Dunheved Security Service more than 2 months before 21 September, allegedly before any final decision was made, that Tricorp Security would be awarded the contract? (19) Does she intend to have a review made of this contract to address the anomalies which have occurred?
Answer -
(1) The Waste Service of NSW has confirmed that it had let the 2-year contract in July 1992 for security services at its Castlereagh Industrial Waste Depot. (2) The Waste Service of NSW appointed Dunheved Security Service Pty Ltd (Dunheved) as contractor. (3) The Waste Service of NSW has reported that the firm's services were satisfactory and as far as is known Dunheved complied with all industrial awards. (4) Yes, through the NSW Supply Service of the Commercial Services Group. (5) No. Other firms offering higher rates may have been capable of fulfilling the contract specifications, but were not fully evaluated as tenderers offering lower rates complied. (6) These were the approximate rates tendered. (7) The tender for this requirement closed on 7 June 1994 and the State Contracts Control Board approved the contract on 20 September 1994. (8) Yes, a representative of Dunheved telephoned the NSW Supply Service on 21 September 1994. NSW Supply Service advised him that his firm's tender was unsuccessful. (9) No. However, Clause 2.20.1 of the tender document states: "The Contractor shall comply, and accept sole responsibility for compliance, with the appropriate Industrial Awards for any of the Contractor's employees involved in the provision of services pursuant to the contract." (10) As the honourable member has not identified the High Court ruling concerned, I am not in a position to respond to your question. However, Tricorp has not registered an agreement with the Department of Industrial Relations, Employment, Training and Further Education and is obliged to meet all the contractual requirements of the tender to provide security services to the Castlereagh Depot. (11) Section 4 of the tender document required firms to submit prices on the following basis: "Provision of Security and Watching Services to the Waste Service - Castlereagh Depot in accordance with the Conditions of Contract, hereto: (a) All Inclusive Hourly Rate for determining variations to annual rate at (b) - due to a greater or lesser number of security hours being required than those stipulated at Clause 3.2 (a).
$______
(b) Annual Rate based on providing security services in accordance with Clause 3.2 (a) Monday to Friday nights, Saturdays (not 06:30 to 14:30 hours every second Saturday), Sundays and all Public Holidays based on the all inclusive hourly rate at (a)."
$ ______
Page 6366
Tenderers were not requested within the tender document to provide a breakdown of the various components of their tendered rates. The rates for (a) and (b) above were used to determine whether the tenderers had an understanding of the hours required to service the contract. Tenderers were then evaluated on the basis of compliance with the essential criteria. Both Tricorp Services Pty Ltd (Tricorp) and Dunheved meet requirements. Tricorp was selected on the basis of its lower tendered rate and its statement of compliance with the tender specification and conditions. I am therefore not in a position to comment on the labour value provided within the question. (12) That Tricorp chose to submit a lower hourly rate than Dunheved is a matter for the management of Tricorp which will be required to honour its statement of compliance whether or not the firm operates at a profit or a loss on this contract. (13) The NSW Supply Service has informed me that enquiries directed to the Department of Industrial Relations, Employment, Training and Further Education indicate that Tricorp has not registered an Enterprise Agreement. (14) The NSW Supply Service is satisfied that Tricorp met all tender requirements at the time of the awarding of the contract. That service will monitor Tricorp's compliance with the contract conditions through the Waste Service of NSW. (15) Yes. The NSW Supply Service issued written advice to the successful and unsuccessful tenderers on 22 September 1994. I was not aware at the time of writing to Dunheved on 28 September 1994, that the NSW Supply Service had actually informed the firm by telephone of the tender result on the afternoon of 21 September 1994. (16) Yes. (17) Yes. (18) The senior management of the NSW Supply Service has examined the claims made by Mr A. Warne, Managing Director, Dunheved, and can find no evidence of correspondence, as claimed, to Tricorp during July 1994. However, the NSW Supply Service did telephone Tricorp during that month to seek confirmation of its tendered rate which was subsequently provided. No indication was given or implied that the firm would be successful in its tender. Tricorp has acknowledged that it did not receive any correspondence from the NSW Supply Service during July 1994 nor any indication that its tender would be accepted. (19) As indicated earlier the senior management of NSW Supply Service has examined the matters raised by Mr Warne and can find no substance to his claims of prior notice provided to Tricorp Services Pty Ltd. In the circumstances, I propose to take no further action in this matter and I have informed Mr Warne accordingly by letter.
DEPARTMENT OF COURTS ADMINISTRATION BUDGET ALLOCATION
Mr Hatton asked the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice, representing the Attorney General, and Minister for Justice -
(1) What was/is the annual budget for the Department of Courts Administration for each of the financial years: (a) 1991/92? (b) 1992/93? (c) 1993/94? (d) 1994/95? (2) What was/is the financial savings imposed upon the budget for the Department of Courts Administration for each of the years referred to above? (3) Has the Government imposed annual budget reductions upon the department, despite the fact that the Parliament in April 1993, rejected the regulation that would have allowed the department to raise additional monies to compensate for budget reduction? (4) What are the Department of Courts Administration permanent staffing numbers for each of the years referred to in question (1) above.
Answer -
The Attorney General, and Minister for Justice has advised me the answers to the honourable member's questions are: (1) The Budget Estimates for the Department funded from the Consolidated Fund were/are: (a) $154.229 million† (b) $137.805 million (c) $139.906 million (d) $150.867 million †For consistency, funding for the Judges' Pension Scheme has been deducted as this is now a Crown expense. Source: The State Government's Budget Estimates Papers. (2) (a) 1991/92 $6.3 million (includes approximately $1.8 million productivity savings). (b) 1992/93 $15.8 million (includes approximately $1.7 million productivity savings). (c) 1993/94 $18.9 million (includes approximately $2.6 million productivity savings). (d) 1994/95 $23.75 million (no productivity savings to be applied in this year). Productivity savings at the rate of 1.5 per cent were applied in 1991/92 and 1992/93, and 2.5 per cent in 1993/94. These savings were applied to reflect the extent to which the Department should have been able to contain costs below inflation by reducing cost structures, improving efficiency, and by program rationalisation. The remuneration of judicial officers has been exempted. Source: Treasurer's Allocation Letter advices. (3) Annual budget reductions have continued to be imposed on the department. However, for the current financial year (1994/95), some relief was provided by way of a $2.750 million reversal of the planned budget reductions that were to be imposed for the year. In addition, no productivity savings were to be imposed on the department in 1994/95. (4) (a) 3,413 Equivalent Full Time (EFT). (b) 3,354 EFT.
Page 6367 (c) 3,385 EFT (includes the Compensation Court and the Dust Diseases Tribunal). (d) 3,359 (estimate) EFT (includes the Compensation Court and the Dust Diseases Tribunal). Source: The State Government's Budget Estimates Papers.
MURWILLUMBAH COUNTRYLINK BUS-RAIL INTERCHANGE
Mr Langton asked the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads -
(1) Is he aware of complaints from CountryLink passengers concerning the bus/rail interchange at Murwillumbah? (2) How many staff are rostered at any one time to give assistance to passengers? (3) Are there any plans in place to improve signage, pedestrian traffic and customer service at Murwillumbah? (4) If not, why not? (5) If so, what are the details of such plans?
Answer -
(1) Yes. (2) Three, in addition to the train crew. (3) Yes. (4) Not applicable. (5) Announcements are made on board the arriving trains advising passengers of the coach connections, and coach drivers are also available to ensure that passengers board the correct coach. The authority proposes to erect an awning to protect the luggage unloading area at the Sydney end of the platform. In addition, the car parking area is currently being extended and it is anticipated that this will be completed in early 1995. Included in this work is the provision of a pedestrian ramp suitable for those passengers who have difficulty in using the steps to the platform area.
CAR REGISTRATION CANCELLATION
Mr Langton asked the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads -
(1) Is he aware of correspondence from Mr and Mrs Scott of Bellingen concerning the unwarranted cancellation of the registration of their car? (2) Can he explain how their car had its registration cancelled for non-payment of an infringement notice incurred by a completely different make of car, with a completely different number plate? (3) Why were the Scotts not informed of the cancellation of their registration? (4) How often does the Roads and Traffic Authority incorrectly cancel registration of vehicles? (5) How often does the Roads and Traffic Authority apply infringement notices to the wrong vehicle? (6) What steps will be taken to improve the Roads and Traffic Authority's record in this area? (7) Will he direct the Roads and Traffic Authority to compensate the Scotts for having to resolve a problem not of their making?
Answer -
(1) Yes. The event occurred in June 1993. However, the particular problem with the Scott’s vehicle did not become apparent until they attempted to re-register their vehicle in September 1994. The problem was immediately corrected. (2) Because of a rare combination of circumstances, name details were incorrectly matched with the wrong vehicle. The criteria used to match names with vehicles were upgraded soon after this event and there have been no further incidents. (3) A Notice of Intention to Cancel the registration of the Scott’s vehicle was sent to them on 30 June 1993. They responded by contacting the Infringement Processing Bureau (IPB). The IPB apparently promised to inform the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) that a mistake had been made and that the fine which caused the notice to be sent should be withdrawn. The RTA has no record of receiving such advice. Mr and Mrs Scott assumed that the matter had been resolved and did not pursue the issue with either the IPB or the RTA. At the time, the RTA did not send final notices for registration cancellations but it will be doing so in the near future as part of an overall enhancement of fine default collection activities. (4) See answer (2) above. (5) See answer (2) above. (6) See answers (2) and (3) above. (7) As I recently advised the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, in response to his personal representations to me on behalf of Mr and Mrs Scott, the RTA will reimburse Mr and Mrs Scott on a pro-rata basis for the vehicle registration fees during the period that the registration was cancelled.
STATE RAIL AUTHORITY LITIGATION COSTS
Mr Langton asked the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads -
(1) Did the State Rail Authority sue companies Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd, Nuline Constructions Pty Ltd, three Davies brothers and three former State Rail Authority employees for approximately $2,700,000 in the Supreme Court? (2) Did the State Rail Authority fail in all of those actions against Earthline? (3) Did it only succeed against Earthline for about $150,000? (4) Has Earthline been ordered to pay 20 per cent of the State Rail Authority's taxed costs? (5) Has the State Rail Authority been ordered to pay the taxed costs of all the other defendants? (6) What costs has the State Rail Authority incurred in running this case? (7) What sum can the State Rail Authority anticipate receiving from Earthline? (8) Is it anticipated that the State Rail Authority will have to pay out an amount about equal to or in excess of the amount of its judgement and costs against Earthline to pay the costs of the other parties against which it failed?
Page 6368 (9) Is it the case that the State Rail Authority sought and was granted injunctions about 2 years ago to stop each of the defendants disposing of their assets for an amount of $2,500,000? (10) Is it the case that to get those injunctions, the State Rail Authority had to give the court an undertaking to pay damages which might be incurred by a defendant if the State Rail Authority lost or substantially failed? (11) Does the State Rail Authority face the prospect of having to pay such damages to all of the denfendants including Earthline? (12) Could such damages exceed any amount it might be entitled to receive from Earthline? (13) Is it the case that the State Rail Authority sought to join four further companies in this litigation and failed in that application and was ordered to pay costs? (14) Has the State Rail Authority launched new proceedings against those four companies of which the first defendant is Pattop Pty Ltd? (15) Is the State Rail Authority's claim against these four companies a claim for the same $2,700,000 claimed in the Earthline litigation? (16) Is the State Rail Authority's claim in this new litigation based solely upon allegations which it made in the Earthline litigation? (17) Is there any real reason to suggest that the outcome of this new litigation will be any different?
Answer -
(1) Yes. (2) No. (3) Yes. (4) Yes. (5) Yes, but it should be noted that the former SRA employees and the Trustee in Bankruptcy did not participate in the hearing and that the same solicitor and barrister represented the Davies Brothers, Earthline and Nuline so that, in effect, there are not separate costs for each defendant. (6) Professional costs were in the order of $405,644 and disbursements in the order of $708,005.15 (total $1,113,649.15). (7) The authority would expect to receive significant satisfaction of its claim if its appeal against the court's judgement of 14 September is upheld. (8) The current determinations relating to the appeal preclude informed comment. (9) Yes. (10) Yes. It is a condition of the grant of a Mareva injunction that undertakings be given. (11) Only if Earthline and Nuline could establish that they incurred actual damage from the Mareva injunctions. (12) This is not anticipated. (13) An application was made in court to join a current action against Pattop Pty Limited and other companies with the proceedings against Earthline and Nuline, however, this was not granted. Nevertheless, a Mareva injunction was successfully obtained in respect of those companies in separate proceedings. Costs were awarded to Earthline only in respect of that Notice of Motion. (14) Yes. (15) Yes. The authority contends that assets to which it would have had access have been transferred to Pattop. (16) No. (17) The authority is seeking favourable outcomes from the appeal and the Pattop litigation.
STOCKTON RIFLE RANGE
Mr Martin asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation -
(1) Are there plans to close the Stockton Rifle Range? (2) If so, have any alternative plans been made for future use of the land? (3) Is it proposed to utilise the land for future housing in the proposed Fern Bay Development of Howship Holdings? (4) Does the Hunter Coastal Urban Study indicate that 17,000 people will live in the vicinity of Fern Bay in the near future? (5) What arrangements will be made to cater for range shooters of the Hunter Valley should this range be closed?
Answer -
(1) Stockton Rifle Range is located within Lot 5 DP 233358 at Stockton "owned" by "The Commonwealth of Australia" and, as such, does not come under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. (5) Not applicable.
FRUIT FLY CONTROL
Mr Martin asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and Minister for Mines -
(1) Has a representative of the E. & I. Branch of the Department of Agriculture approached a private organisation to consider the feasibility of undertaking the baiting of Queensland fruit fly? (2) If so, what is the name of the organisation? (3) Was the organisation advised that if its costing made the proposition economically viable, the department would award them the contract? (4) Was a similar offer made to other organisations? (5) If so, who were these organisations? (6) Is it normal practice to offer the contracting of pest control work relating to the control of fruit fly to only one organisation?
Answer -
(1) Yes. An approach was made to W. A. Flick & Co. to gain an indication of what it would cost for a company such as Flick to bait spray Lake Cargelligo. This was to get some comparison to the cost of NSW Agriculture during the work.
Page 6369 (2) W. A. Flick & Co. Pty Ltd. (3) No. (4) No offer was made to any organisation. (5) Not applicable. (6) No. If the enquiry to Flick had indicated some cost advantages, then the department would have proceeded to open tender.
GEORGES CREEK CATCHMENT WILDERNESS
Mr Martin asked the Minister for the Environment -
(1) Did the Premier issue a media release on 23 December 1993 as a joint announcement with the Minister that 11 new wilderness areas were to be declared this year? (2) Did the release announce that a further 80,000 hectares of land assessed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, as meeting wilderness criteria, would be referred to the National Resource Audit Council (NRAC) for a full socio-economic analysis? (3) Was the Georges Creek catchment in the Dampier State Forest part of the area to be referred to the NRAC? (4) If so, has the NRAC made a determination in respect of the Georges Creek catchment? (5) If not, why not? (6) Why was the area removed from the NRAC assessment process? (7) Has the Government recently announced that forestry operations will be allowed within the Georges Creek catchment? (8) If so, what independent assessment was undertaken to allow the Government to reach this determination?
Answer -
(1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (4) No. (5) Following the 9 September announcement it was no longer applicable for NRAC to consider this area for possible wilderness declaration. (6) See answer (5). (7) I am not aware that an announcement has been made regarding forestry operations in the Georges Creek catchment. (8) See answer (7).
BERESFIELD AND WARATAH RAILWAY STATIONS
Mr Price asked the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads -
(1) What are the current levels of State Rail Authority staffing at: (a) Waratah Station? (b) Beresfield Station? (2) How many shifts are worked each week at these stations? (3) What are the operating hours of the ticket/booking office at these stations? (4) What is the proposed staffing for the university station to be built at Warabrook?
Answer -
(1) (a) and (b) Monday to Friday 2 shifts daily. Saturday 1 shift. Sunday Nil. (2) (a) and (b) 11 at both. (3) (a) Waratah Monday to Friday: 6.15 a.m. to 5.45 p.m. Saturday: 7.10 a.m. to 2.50 p.m. Sunday: closed. (b) Beresfield Monday to Friday: 5.35 a.m. to 5.55 p.m. Saturday: 5.35 a.m. to 1.35 p.m. Sunday: closed. (4) It will be unstaffed.
WOLLONGONG REGION WATERMAINS
Mr Rumble asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, representing the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing -
(1) To what extent is old piping contributing to the dirty water problem in the Wollongong region? (2) How much money has been spent in the Wollongong area for the replacement of old piping for the years ended: (a) 30 June 1989? (b) 30 June 1990? (c) 30 June 1991? (d) 30 June 1992? (e) 30 June 1993? (f) 30 June 1994? (3) How much money has been budgeted to be spent in the Wollongong area for the replacement of old piping for the years ended: (a) 30 June 1995? (b) 30 June 1996? (c) 30 June 1997?
Answer -
I have been advised by the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing that the answers to the honourable member's questions are: (1) Old piping is not contributing to the dirty water problem in the Illawarra region. The dirty water problem is related to the sediment, iron and manganese entering the reticulation system from the Avon Dam source water. The sediment load is estimated to be 20 tonnes annually. Iron and manganese levels vary depending on the water condition and these, together with the sediment, will be dramatically reduced by the water filtration/treatment plant when it is commissioned in December 1996. (2) Money spent on replacing old mains in the Illawarra region is as follows: (Expressed in financial year terms and in actual dollars spent at that time) (a) To 30 June 1989 $80,000 (b) To 30 June 1990 Nil (c) To 30 June 1991 $2,930,000 (d) To 30 June 1992 $8,916,000 (e) To 30 June 1993 $4,429,000 (f) To 30 June 1994 $1,170,000
Page 6370 (3) (a) $50,000 has been budgeted to be spent on watermain renewals to 30 June 1995. (b) and (c) Programs of work and consequential budgets for the periods to 30 June 1996 and 30 June 1997 and beyond have not been determined and will be dependent upon ongoing evaluation of the water systems to determine the condition of pipelines. If pipelines need to be replaced because of their condition, funds will be allocated.
REPRESENTATIONS BY Mr AND Mrs BROPHY
Mr Rumble asked the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, and Minister for the Status of Women, representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism, and Minister Assisting the Premier -
When will a response be furnished in respect of Mr and Mrs Brophy concerning representations made on 16 October 1989 regarding Dapto Public School (reference RML 14639)?
Answer -
I am unable to confirm whether or not the former Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Mr Terry Metherell, responded to Mr Rumble's representations on behalf of Mr and Mrs Brophy. Should Mr Rumble provide me with a copy of his representations, I will undertake to provide a response as soon as possible.
PRE-TRIAL DIVERSION OF OFFENDERS PROGRAM
Mr Rumble asked the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister for the Ageing -
In respect of the New South Wales pre-trial diversion of offenders program for each of the last 3 years - (1) How many persons have been referred to this program? (2) How many persons breached this program? (3) How many persons have successfully completed the program? (4) How many persons elected to participate on an extended program (the 2-year treatment program)? (5) What was the most common crime committed by the above persons? (6) What was the minimum and maximum penalty on conviction of a crime in question (5)?
Answer -
These matters are more appropriately addressed by the Attorney General, the Hon. J. Hannaford, MLC, who has responsibility for the pre-trial diversion program.
NATIONAL PARKS
Ms Allan asked the Minister for the Environment -
(1) Is Reef Beach situated in the Sydney Harbour National Park? (2) Are both Obelisk Beach and Cobblers Beach also situated in the Sydney Harbour National Park? (3) Has control of Reef Beach been transferred to Manly Council? (4) Will both Obelisk Beach and Cobblers Beach be transferred to Mosman Council? (5) Why are sections of the Sydney Harbour National Park being given to local councils? (6) What renumeration is being received by the Government for the lease or sale of these beaches? (7) How many other areas of the national parks system are to be vested in local councils or other organisations? (8) Does he intend to privatise the national parks system? (9) Will he take immediate action to ensure that no areas of New South Wales national parks are privatised, leased or lent to local government or any other organisation? (10) If not, why not?
Answer -
(1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) No. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. See answer (4). (6) Not applicable. (7) None. (8) No. (9) Under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, lands within a national park may not be appropriated or resumed except by an Act of Parliament. (10) See answer (9).
REPORT ON OPAL FIELDS CAMPS
Mr Rogan asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, representing the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing -
(1) Was a report of the working group's inquiry into "Camp on Claims" at Lightning Ridge submitted to him and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and Minister for Mines before Christmas 1993? (2) What is the present status of this report? (3) When will a final determination be made on the subject matter of this report? (4) What is the Government's response to this report?
Answer -
I have been advised by the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing that the answers to the honourable member's questions are: (1) The report of the Working Group on Camps on the Opal Fields at Lightning Ridge was submitted to me on 22 December 1993. (2) The Ministers for Land and Water Conservation, Local Government and Co-operatives, and Mines have given, in principle, endorsement to the working group's recommendations and the public release of the report. (3) A final determination will be made shortly. (4) The report has, in principle, support from Government.
Page 6371
PORT KEMBLA SQUADRON, AUSTRALIAN VOLUNTEER COAST GUARD ASSOCIATION
Mr Sullivan asked the Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services -
(1) Will the NSW Government contribute funds to the Port Kembla squadron of the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard Association to purchase a new rescue vessel to replace the vessel which sank at its moorings in Port Kembla Harbour? (2) If not, why not?
Answer -
(1) No. (2) Section 48(1)(j) of the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act provides that the State Rescue Board make recommendations to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services on the level of Government support to volunteer organisations providing rescue services. As a matter of policy, the Government provides financial support to the executive of accredited volunteer organisations, i.e., the Volunteer Rescue Association of NSW Inc. (VRA), the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard (AVCG) and the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol (RVCP). The Government does not provide financial support under section 48(1)(j) of the Act to individual units of these volunteer organisations. In the light of Government policy, it is appropriate for the Port Kembla squadron to make arrangements with the executive of the AVCG to establish a funding priority with the AVCG to facilitate the purchase of a new rescue vessel.
LEGAL AID FUNDING
Mr Amery asked the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister Assisting the Minister for Roads, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport -
(1) In the 1993 budget, did the Government estimate some $500,000 would be spent for legal aid and witness expenses relating to the operations of the Building Disputes Tribunals, Consumer Claims Tribunals and the Commercial Tribunal? (2) (a) Why was only $235,000 allocated? (b) If so, what caused the drop from the 1993/94 estimate? (3) Will any of the 1994/95 estimate of $265,000 be allocated to assist building consumers arising out of changes to the Building Services Corporation legislation?
Answer -
(1) In 1993/94, a special allocation of $500,000 was provided to assist the Commercial Tribunal in dealing with a large number of applications lodged by credit providers pursuant to sections 85 and 86 of the Credit Act (i.e., seeking restoration of credit charges automatically forfeited for breaches of the disclosure provisions of the Act). (2) (a) and (b) The hearing of these matters is complex, frequently involves large amounts of documentary evidence and is subject to the unpredictability associated with any judicial process. Consequently, it was always envisaged that funds might not be fully expended during the financial year. Although only $235,000 was spent during 1993/94, Treasury approval was obtained to roll over the remaining $265,000 in 1994/95. (3) No. These funds have been entirely committed for the purpose outlined in answer (1).
STOCKTON RIFLE RANGE
Mr Martin asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation -
(1) Is it proposed to close Stockton Rifle Range? (2) If so, what alternative arrangements will be made? (3) What is proposed to be done with the land if the rifle range is closed? (4) Is the land earmarked for future housing in the proposed Fern Bay development of Howship Holdings? (5) Does the Hunter Coastal Urban Study indicate that 17,000 people will live in the vicinity of Fern Bay in the near future? (6) What arrangements will be made for the range shooters of the Hunter Valley should this range be closed?
Answer -
(1) Stockton Rifle Range is located within Lot 5 DP 233358 at Stockton "owned" by "The Commonwealth of Australia" and, as such, does not come under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. (5) Not applicable. (6) Not applicable.
AGENCY NURSE EMPLOYMENT IN PUBLIC HOSPITALS
Mr Mills asked the Minister for Health -
(1) What was the total sum of money spent on "agency" nurses in the public hospitals system in New South Wales in 1993/94? (2) What percentage of the total expenditure for nursing staff is spent on "outside" or "agency" nurses? (3) Why are there not more nurses employed directly in acute hospital services in place of agency nurses?
Page 6372
Answer -
(1) As the responsibility for the category of staff employed is devolved to area and district health services, the total amount of money expended on agency nurses in the public hospitals system is not able to be determined unless information is specifically sought from each hospital. (2) In 1993/94, total nursing salaries constituted 42 per cent of the total salaries and wages expenditure. The percentage spent on outside or agency nurses varies from facility to facility. Relevant data would need to be sought from individual hospitals. Across the State it would be expected that the percentage of the total expenditure for nursing staff spent on "agency nurses" would not exceed 2.5 per cent. (3) The category and number of all groups of staff employed in New South Wales public hospitals is a responsibility devolved to area and district health services. Final numbers are dependent on nurses applying for the positions advertised. The majority of nurses working through agencies choose this pattern of work as it suits their lifestyle.
ARTIFICIAL LIMB CENTRE
Mr Mills asked the Minister for Health -
(1) Are there any plans by the NSW Department of Health to privatise, restructure, or close the Artificial Limb Centre at Rankin Park Hospital after transfer of responsibility for artificial limbs from the Commonwealth to the State? (2) If so, what are the details?
Answer -
(1) and (2) I am advised by the Hunter Area Health Service that there are no plans to privatise, restructure or close the Artificial Limb Centre on the John Hunter Hospital campus.