Legislative Assembly

5123

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Tuesday 18 November 2003 ______

Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Joseph Aquilina) took the chair at 2.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

PETITIONS

Gaming Machine Tax

Petition supporting the increase in gaming machine taxes and welcoming the fact that all extra revenue will be spent on the health system, received from Miss Cherie Burton.

Department of Education and Training Restructure

Petition requesting a delay to the proposed restructure of the Department of Education and Training, received from Mr Russell Turner.

Gaming Machine Tax

Petitions opposing the decision to increase poker machine tax, received from Ms Gladys Berejiklian, Mr Thomas George, Ms Katrina Hodgkinson, Mrs Judy Hopwood, Mr Malcolm Kerr, Mr Wayne Merton, Mr Steven Pringle, Mr Andrew Tink and Mr John Turner.

White City Site Rezoning Proposal

Petition praying that any rezoning of the White City site be opposed, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Water Police Pyrmont Site

Petition opposing development of the current Water Police Pyrmont site, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Lane Cove Rotary Athletics Field

Petition opposing the use of the car park at Rotary Athletics Field, Lane Cove, as a construction storage site, received from Ms Gladys Berejiklian.

Coffs Harbour Pacific Highway Bypass

Petition requesting the construction of a Pacific Highway bypass for the coastal plain of Coffs Harbour, received from Mr Andrew Fraser.

Windsor Road Traffic Arrangements

Petitions requesting a right turn bay on Windsor Road at Acres Road, received from Mr Wayne Merton and Mr Michael Richardson.

The Spit Bridge Traffic Arrangements

Petition opposing the proposal to add a two-lane drawbridge next to The Spit Bridge, and calling for a responsible and holistic solution to the transport, traffic, and freight needs of the area, received from Mrs Jillian Skinner.

CountryLink Rail Services

Petitions opposing the abolition of CountryLink rail services and their replacement with buses in rural and regional New South Wales, received from Mr Greg Aplin, Mr Peter Draper, Ms Katrina Hodgkinson, Mr Tony McGrane, Mr John Turner and Mr Russell Turner. 5124 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003

Redfern and Surry Hills Bus Services

Petition requesting improved bus services in Redfern and Surry Hills, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Public Transport

Petition requesting the development of a transport blueprint for public transport as an alternative to private vehicle use, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Bus Service 311

Petition praying that the Government urgently improve bus service 311 to make it more frequent and more reliable, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Casino to Murwillumbah Branch Rail Line

Petition requesting the extension of the Casino to Murwillumbah branch line to south-east Queensland, received from Mr Donald Page.

Tamworth and Armidale Rail Services

Petition opposing the proposed cut to the CountryLink rail service between Tamworth and Armidale, received from Mr Richard Torbay.

Dunoon Dam

Petition requesting the fast-tracking of plans to build a dam at Dunoon, received from Mr Thomas George.

Social Program Policy Subsidy

Petition requesting that the social program policy subsidy be extended to residents in the Hawkesbury local government area, received from Mr Steven Pringle.

Local Government Amalgamation

Petition requesting that the Urana Shire Council be retained as a separate local governing authority, and that it not be amalgamated with any other council or dissolved by any other means, including boundary alterations, received from Mr Adrian Piccoli.

Circus Animals

Petition praying that the House end the unnecessary suffering of wild animals and their use in circuses, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Sow Stall Ban

Petition requesting the total ban of sow stalls, received from Ms Clover Moore.

LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Report

Mr Collier, as Chairman, tabled, pursuant to section 10 of the Legislation Review Act 1987, the report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No 6 of 2003", dated 18 November 2003.

Ordered to be printed. 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5125

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

______

FORMER MACARTHUR HEALTH SERVICE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MS JENNIFER COLLINS

Mr JOHN BROGDEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, and Minister for Natural Resources. Does the Minister continue to stand by his answer in the Parliament last week that he did not slam his fist on the table and threaten whistleblower nurses when they raised allegations about Camden and Campbelltown hospitals and Jennifer Collins? Yes or no?

Mr CRAIG KNOWLES: I confirm the answer I gave to the Parliament last week. I simply add: Is it any wonder that this man is running backwards in the polls? He is a joke. I confirm what I said last week.

CLYDE WASTE TRANSFER TERMINAL

Mr STEVE WHAN: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier. What is the Government's response to the recent Land and Environment Court decision on the Clyde waste transfer station and its impact on workers' entitlements in Goulburn?

Mr BOB CARR: In 1998 Denehurst Ltd, the operators of the Woodlawn mine, 40 kilometres south of Goulburn, went into voluntary administration. The mine closed down, leaving 158 workers without jobs. They not only lost their jobs; they lost $4.9 million in workers entitlements—money they worked long and hard for. That is a story we have heard all too often: companies going out of business and leaving workers short-changed. That is, of course, unless one's brother happens to be the Prime Minister, and then it is a different story. Some of these workers have had trouble finding new jobs. They were depending on their entitlements to pay their mortgages. This is one story that had a happy ending.

In August last year I had the honour of travelling to Goulburn and meeting with the Woodlawn miners and their families. I went in good faith and with good news, because we had found a new use for Woodlawn as an environmentally sustainable waste disposal site that would generate electricity from the methane gas produced by decomposing waste. The good news was that Woodlawn's new proponents, Collex Pty Ltd, agreed to pay the miners' outstanding entitlements. I do not think I have seen a group of workers more happy. The sums they were getting were considerable—$70,000, $100,000, from memory.

A central element of the Woodlawn project was the development of a waste transfer station at Clyde in Sydney's west. Waste from Sydney would be trucked to Clyde to be compacted and then shipped in containers by rail to the mine. The Clyde proposal was approved only after exhaustive independent assessment. It came with nearly 140 consent conditions on noise and air emissions, traffic, water quality and land contamination. It was approved independently of the agreement between Collex and the miners to pay any outstanding entitlements. But these plans were derailed on 7 November when the Land and Environment Court overturned the planning consent for Clyde. I acknowledge the concern over local amenity that led the plaintiffs to bring this action in the Land and Environment Court.

However, in doing what they thought best, they have imperilled about 40 jobs, placed Sydney's waste management future in question and put the $4.9 million of miners entitlements in jeopardy. I received an urgent letter yesterday from Goulburn city mayor, Max Hadlow, expressing the council's deep concern over this decision. I would not be doing my job as a responsible Premier if I did not do all I could to save the Woodlawn project. That is why I said last Friday that I want this sorted out, and if that means special legislation, so be it. We have done it before: the Bengalla coal mine in 1995, the Port Kembla copper smelter in 1997, the Port Waratah c oal terminal, Newcastle, in 1997, the Walsh Bay redevelopment in 1999—

Mr Andrew Stoner: The Cadia gold and copper mine.

Mr BOB CARR: —and, as the Leader of The Nationals says, the Cadia gold and copper mine. I thank him for his constructive contribution. The Coalition now has a great opportunity to show support by ensuring that such legislation moves through the Parliament. I remind the honourable member for Burrinjuck that as the local member of Parliament of the Woodlawn miners she has a special duty to lobby her—

Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: Point of order: My point of order is that this is a ministerial statement— 5126 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume her seat. The honourable member should familiarise herself with the standing orders before taking a point of order such as that.

Mr BOB CARR: I was asked a question; the House would expect me to answer it honestly. The Coalition has a great opportunity to demonstrate, as it did to its great credit on other special legislation— Bengalla, Port Kembla, Cadia, the Port Waratah coal terminal, and the Walsh Bay redevelopment in 1999— bipartisan support for industry and for jobs. I remind the honourable member for Burrinjuck that as the local member of Parliament of the Woodlawn miners—indeed, if I recall correctly, she was there in August at the Goulburn Workers Club when we brought that good news to those miners and their families—that she has what I would describe as—

Mr John Brogden: Point of order: The Premier has our support.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr BOB CARR: That makes no difference one way or the other, but it is nice to know. The Coalition is going through a certain phase. The party director has been looking at the dismal polling and has told members opposite they have to be positive. The electorate is saying they are carping and negative and they have to seize every opportunity to give Carr credit when they can. That is the phase of the moon we are now in. We will test them on a few other things, but it is a good strategy to try to be positive when one can, and we will encourage them as far as we can. The honourable member for Burrinjuck has to stand up for the Goulburn community. As I said, I know these miners. I know how much they are counting on this money, their entitlements, and I would like to think that the House would do nothing that wipes away those smiles, imperils the future of Sydney's waste management or threatens the new jobs being lined up at Woodlawn. Keeping faith with the Goulburn miners, the Government has today introduced special legislation into the upper House to approve the transfer station at Clyde.

FORMER MACARTHUR HEALTH SERVICE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MS JENNIFER COLLINS

Mr JOHN BROGDEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning. In light of his previous answer, how can he explain a statutory declaration from the second nurse present at the November 2002 meeting that states he became angry, said "Jennifer Collins is a friend of mine" and that one of the nurses could lose her home or career, proving that he misled Parliament last week?

Mr CRAIG KNOWLES: The Leader of the Opposition can waste his question if he likes, but I have answered those questions last week.

BULK-BILLING

Ms NOREEN HAY: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Health. What is the latest information on the decline in bulk-billing and the provision of health services in New South Wales?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The honourable member for Wollongong has asked an important question. Last Friday the September quarter bulk-billing figures were released. They highlighted yet again the plunge in the availability of bulk-billing general practitioner [GP] services in New South Wales. That is why the Commonwealth has been forced to revisit its package, leading to today's announcement, which I will come to in a moment. The September 2003 quarter for bulk-billing showed just 67.4 per cent of GP services being bulk- billed nationally. This was down from 68.5 per cent for the June quarter and a drop from 71.2 per cent just four months ago. This is the lowest national figure for bulk-billing in 14 years. That is why the States have, ever since the first package in April, always insisted that it simply was not enough. Along with the decline of bulk- billing we have seen, for example, chronic shortages of GPs on the Central Coast.

Mr Chris Hartcher: And nurses, and Ambulance Service support staff. They are all short and you are doing nothing about it.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The honourable member for Gosford might be referring to Ken Ticehurst, the Federal member for Dobell. He was the one who sent out that survey to his constituents saying, "Write to Bob Carr about the state of Gosford and Wyong hospitals." They all wrote back saying, "Hang on a second, no 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5127 doctor on the Central Coast bulk-bills anymore. Can you help us, Ken?" Yes, we all remember Ken Ticehurst. The Commonwealth response in April was the first Medicare package: a $918 million package designed to try to improve bulk-billing. The funding for that Medicare package in April was taken straight out of the health care agreement for our hospitals. That package was to be funded by a cut to our public hospitals.

That was the first attempt by the hapless former Minister Kay Patterson. Throughout all of the debate that took place over the next four months, we heard not one word from the Opposition and we saw not one act in support of the State of New South Wales as we all went about the job of trying to get a fairer funding deal for our hospitals. The Opposition never said a word, never took any action—not even a phone call to John Howard or Peter Costello telling them that they should put more money into the health care agreement as more support for our public hospitals.

Since April we have seen the continued collapse of bulk-billing and the Commonwealth's refusal—the refusal of Peter Costello, John Howard and Kay Patterson—to face up to the facts. Bulk-billing is in crisis and Medicare is slowly dying. Urgent action needs to be taken to restore universality to Medicare, to restore bulk- billing, to take pressure off our public hospitals and to have those measures funded by extra money, not by taking the money out of the health care agreement, out of our public hospitals. A health care agreement was forced on the States. Everybody signed because they had to, not because they wanted to. The penalties for not signing were too great and, with a gun held at every State's head, no-one could afford not to sign up.

We now have a new health Minister. The hapless Kay Patterson has gone and Tony Abbot has arrived. He has a clear understanding of the areas that need reform—and bulk-billing is one but not the only area of reform—and a genuine desire to make changes. Today we have seen the next instalment: fairer Medicare mark two or, as he has called it, MedicarePlus. What was announced today is a vast improvement on what Kay Patterson and John Howard trotted out back in April. Tony Abbott's first effort is a vast improvement, but it does not solve the problem; more needs to be done. But it is an improvement.

As I said last week, at the State level we want Tony Abbott to succeed. We want this package to succeed. If the Federal Government is fair dinkum, it will get 100 per cent support from me. If the Federal Government is fair dinkum and continues on this path, it will get 100 per cent support from us. Returning the rates of bulk-billing is one leg of the table. Other areas also need improvement. Peter Costello and John Howard have to revisit the funding formula that is the basis of the five-year health care agreement. They have to put more resources into our public hospitals, not less. The work force initiatives announced today are a vast improvement. The initiatives announced as part of today's Medicare package are also a vast improvement on what was announced in April, a vast improvement on New South Wales getting only a miserable extra 50 nursing places over the next four years.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Willoughby will come to order. There is too much audible conversation on both Government and Opposition benches.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The challenge for the Commonwealth is this: if it can fund 1,600 nursing positions for general practice then it can fund an equivalent amount of places through our universities so that we get 1,600 extra nurses into our hospitals.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: If the Commonwealth can fund 1,600 nurses for general practice—

[Interruption]

Opposition members do not want to hear this because they simply do not want to pick up the phone to John Howard and say, "You have got to do more."

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Commonwealth gets a big tick for 1,600 nursing positions for general practice, but if it can do that for general practice, it can do it for the hospitals, and it ought to be doing it for the hospitals. That is the message. That is the challenge for Tony Abbott.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: Mr Speaker, may I invite you to follow the rulings of your predecessor, Speaker Murray, when answers have gone on too long, as this has now for 11 minutes, and invite 5128 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003 the Minister to draw his answer to a conclusion. Speaker Murray was following the rulings of Speaker Rozzoli. You have an excellent opportunity to walk in the footsteps of Speaker Murray, one of this House's great Speakers. I invite you to follow him.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford will resume his seat. There is no point of order. The honourable member seems to be better at speaking than he is at mathematics, because my detailed calculation shows that the Minister for Health spoke for nothing like 11 minutes. Has the Minister completed his response?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes, I have.

PACIFIC HIGHWAY POLICE PATROLS

Mr ANDREW STONER: I ask the Minister for Police to answer this question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair would like to hear the question.

Mr ANDREW STONER: In view of the continuing high road toll on the Pacific Highway north of Newcastle and calls by the Staysafe committee chairman for more police on this highway, why does Operation Nightsafe consist of just one highway patrol car for the entire length of highway between Hawkesbury and the Tweed for only four nights per week?

Mr JOHN WATKINS: NSW Police takes the issue of the road toll exceedingly seriously.

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

Mr JOHN WATKINS: The loss of lives and the injury and damage done on our roads do great harm to our community. We will continue to provide the Highway Patrol teams that operate throughout Sydney and the State with the resources that are necessary to assist in driving down the road toll. There are Highway Patrol teams throughout this State—on the Pacific Highway, the Princes Highway, the Hume Highway and here in Sydney. We will continue to provide highway patrol resources where they are needed.

BAIL LAW REFORM

Mr ALLAN SHEARAN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police. What is the latest information on the Government's proposed changes to the Bail Act involving repeat offenders?

Mr JOHN WATKINS: Over recent years the Carr Government has made several major improvements to bail laws. Earlier this year we honoured an election commitment to strengthen bail laws in cases where an offender is charged with a serious offence involving personal violence and where that person has a history of violence offences. Last year we restricted bail access to certain groups of repeat offenders and those who reoffend while on bail. We want to go further. The Government's bail changes are always underpinned by the principle that the more serious the offences—or the more prolific the offender—the more difficult it should be for the offender to secure bail. So now we will get even tougher on gun offenders and property criminals involved in offences such as burglary and car theft. Last week I advised the House of a range of prohibited weapons offences that will soon attract a presumption against bail. They include possession or use of a prohibited firearm and stealing a firearm. Our new drive-by shooting law will also be included. All such offences will carry a presumption against bail. However, police have advised me that we need to take further action against those identified as repeat property offenders.

The Government is committed to strategically improving the law to target those who are most likely to reoffend. Clearly a category of offenders continue to take advantage of bail laws. We are going to take them out of circulation. That is why there will be a presumption against bail for a person identified as a repeat property offender. A repeat property offender will be defined as a person who has one conviction in the past two years for a specified property offence and who comes before the court charged with two further offences. The relevant offences include robbery or stealing from a person, armed robbery of a person, armed robbery and wounding, demanding money with menaces, breaking and entering with intent to commit an offence or with intent to commit a serious indictable offence, motor vehicle theft, and car-jacking. It is estimated that this latest restriction of bail will affect hundreds of repeat offenders every year. That is what our community wants. 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5129

Failure to appear at court also remains an issue of concern to police. That is why we will also provide greater penalties for people who fail to keep their bail undertakings—by taking away an exemption now granted by the courts. Courts currently cannot forfeit the bail money of those who fail to appear if the person is charged with an offence heard summarily and the case is heard in the offender's absence. We will take away that exemption to ensure that more people face their charges in court or lose their cash. This prohibition was based on a concept that a person had received punishment for their failure to appear by being convicted of their substantive offence. In a civil society we expect people to turn up to court. Once a person is convicted a court orders the issue of a warrant for that person's arrest and to bring them before the court so a sentence may be imposed. This warrant is commonly called a conviction warrant.

Mr Andrew Tink: Point of order: Why is the Minister only talking about a presumption against bail—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! What is your point of order?

Mr Andrew Tink: —when the Premier promised in the election campaign no bail for repeat offenders?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Epping to order. He will resume his seat, and he should note that he is on a call to order.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: Changes will be made so that a person arrested on a conviction warrant may not be released on bail before he or she is brought before the court for sentencing. This will ensure that people are dealt with by the court as soon as possible. The Government will continue to take the advice of police and to take whatever measures are necessary to put away that small number of people who are involved in a large proportion of crimes.

TINGHA MULTIPURPOSE SERVICE PROGRAM

Mr RICHARD TORBAY: I direct my question to the Minister for Health. The Commonwealth Government has now committed to funding aged care beds in Tingha. What will the State Government do to ensure the development of a multipurpose service program [MSP] in that town, as promised?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I thank the honourable member for his question and congratulate the Tingha community on its outstanding win after a tremendous fight. I understand that the town is home to Nathan Blacklock of the Dragons. Last night the Commonwealth Government relented and announced that it would fund eight aged care places in Tingha—four high-care beds and four low-care beds.

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Although that falls short of the community's call for 10 beds, it provides some relief. The genesis of the multipurpose service program [MSP] was the Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair's Ministerial Report on Health Services in Smaller Towns. Mr Sinclair identified that rural communities have one thing in common: they are all different. That is a very good comment. Mr Sinclair promoted models of care that were flexible enough to meet the needs of individual communities. As of today 17 smaller hospitals have been totally developed, five more projects are in progress and 14 more are scheduled for redevelopment. By the time all three phases are complete, well in excess of $200 million will have been spent redeveloping 36 small hospitals in rural New South Wales. The honourable member for Northern Tablelands and his community have had an extraordin ary win.

The Tingha community lies 400 kilometres north-east of Sydney on land belonging to traditional owners—the Anaiwan group of the Murri people. In the late 1800s it was a boom town in the middle of the largest tin-producing district in the State with thousands of people working the mines. Times have changed and Tingha is now home to fewer than 900 people, and its health needs have changed. The community has many remarkable characteristics, but two of them are immediately obvious: first, it has a relatively young population with 18 per cent of its residents aged under nine; and, secondly, it has a significant Aboriginal population, constituting about one-quarter of the total population. These features create enormous need for primary health services, such as child and family care, Aboriginal health services, chronic and complex care, alcohol and other drug services and mental health services.

Given that the Commonwealth has announced its funding commitment, the community and the area health service will now work on refining the plan already developed. The quantum of funding announced by the 5130 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003

Commonwealth will have to be assessed to ensure that it is sufficient. The service plan will have to be revisited to encompass the aged care element along with the primary health care services. The community will also need to make decisions about site selection and architectural plans. The State Government will then be in a position to allocate capital funding to the project to ensure that the community gets a health facility that will appropriately accommodate its new health service. This will be an exciting time for the community. Like many other communities that have benefited as a result of the Government's commitment to rebuilding rural health, it will soon have new life breathed into its health services. The State Government will meet its responsibilities and will rebuild the service by providing the accommodation for aged and primary care services that is desperately needed by that community.

REGIONAL TOURISM

Mr PETER BLACK: I direct my question to the Minister for Tourism.

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

Mr PETER BLACK: What is the latest information on the Deni Ute Muster Play on the Plains Festival and other regional tourism initiatives?

Ms SANDRA NORI: I thank the honourable member for his question and his interest in and support of the tourism industry, not only in his electorate but also throughout regional New South Wales. It is not automatic that every region or town in the bush has the natural attributes and attractions that would make it an instant tourism success. In that sense, it is much easier for a coastal town or region to develop a thriving tourism industry. I will take the House through a couple of examples. If ever there were a textbook case of a town or region developing a thriving tourism industry, it would be the town of Tamworth. James Treloar, the Mayor of Tamworth, summed it up well when he said, "We don't have a harbour, an Opera House, a Sydney Harbour Bridge or snowfields, so we have to work at it." That is exactly what Tamworth has done.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford will come to order.

Ms SANDRA NORI: It has leveraged beautifully off the Tamworth Country Music Festival, which started very modestly in 1972. As a result of careful planning and value adding, the people of Tamworth, the council and local industry now have the most popular regional festival in New South Wales, and probably in the Southern Hemisphere. They have cleverly complemented that festival by adding the Annual National Cutting Horse Association Futurity and the Hats Off To Country Festival in June to increase the number of people visiting the region throughout the year. Tamworth and its council, with the support of the State Government and, after a long wait, the Federal Government, have improved the local infrastructure of the area, including the building of the trek, to enable it to host major events. The cutting horse event is now thriving. I am pleased to say that is due in part to the significant funding the State Government has provided through the Regional Flagship Events Program.

An even better example of a town that has created something out of nothing is Deniliquin and its Deni Ute Muster Play on the Plains Festival. It has had a meteoric rise and brings about $6 million into the region each year. It started because a group of people were determined to put Deniliquin on the map. They worked hard, did extensive research and decided to focus on an Australian icon. They settled on that quintessentially Australian icon, the ute. Their first formal market research into the potential of the festival was done when the town applied for the triennial version of the flagship funding, which granted $30,000 a year for the three years. The festival has received $107,000 in funding from the State Government since 1999, when it received $17,000 as a one-off grant.

The $30,000 it has received each year from 2000 to 2002 to get it up and running has been used for marketing. Between 1999 and 2003 the number of visitors during the festival has grown from 15,000 to 35,000. This symbolises what the Government is trying to do with the Regional Flagship Events Program. The process of applying for the funding has focused the organisers on sound market research and business planning that has resulted in such a successful festival. It is now the second biggest regional festival in New South Wales after the Tamworth Country Music Festival. One knows that a festival held in regional New South Wales has made it when people from Balmain think that it may be worth visiting. The ute muster is well and truly on the map.

The Government will continue to support the event to ensure that it attracts even more visitors. I would like the event to be held over a longer period. When the Tamworth Country Music Festival commenced it was 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5131 held over a couple of days, and it now lasts two weeks. There may be other things we can do in Deniliquin to ensure that its festival is even more successful. The Government would like honourable members representing rural electorates to tell community groups that are applying for funding under the Regional Flagship Events Program to request funding for events that have the potential to grow in the same way as the Tamworth and Deniliquin festivals.

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

Ms SANDRA NORI: I draw to the attention of honourable members that the ute muster has received international recognition. The muster and its marketing team won silver in the Travel and Hospitality (Transportation) category at the 2003 International Direct Marketing Association Echo Awards in New York for the most successful and innovative interactive marketing campaign in 2002-03. For an event conceived and built around the humble Aussie ute, this is a great achievement. I commend the organisers and everyone involved in the Deni Ute Muster, and I wish them all the best in the future.

The Regional Flagship Program is only one of the ways in which we support regional tourism, and I am pleased to say that our programs are working extremely well. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Bureau of Tourism and Research tells us that the New South Wales domestic market share is the best in Australia. It is the only State to show an increase in the total number of domestic visitors choosing to stay overnight in 2002. The New South Wales market share of total holiday leisure visitors was 35 per cent during the year ended 31 December 2002, compared with 34 per cent during the previous year. So we are taking market share from the other States. As at the end of March this year the New South Wales market share of visitors was 37 per cent. Our closest competitors were Victoria, with 24 per cent, and Queensland with 22 per cent. That tells me that our strategies are working.

Members may have noted in the last couple of weeks a number of announcements about our future plans for tourism in regional New South Wales. The first was the announcement that we have arranged a package whereby more than 600,000 people who are eligible for the Seniors Card will also be sent simultaneously a package of drive holidays in regional New South Wales specifically tailored to that age demographic. In the words of Oscar Wilde, there can be no more sincere form of flattery than imitation. On the very night of that announcement I was pleased to join at the rugby Rhodri Morgan, the First Minister of Wales, and a good friend of New South Wales. Rhodri Morgan said to me in that most magnificent Welsh lilt—

Mr Andrew Humpherson: Point of order: I draw your attention to Decisions from the Chair, page 82. In 1988 a previous Speaker said that a Minister's reply having proceeded for more than 10 minutes, he can be asked to complete his answer as soon as possible. The Minister has been speaking for almost that length of time. I ask you to direct the Minister to terminate the answer.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has been speaking for nothing like 10 minutes. The honourable member for Davidson will resume his seat.

Ms SANDRA NORI: Rhodri Morgan said to me, "I would like to implement this in Wales. Will you send me all the material about it; it is a damn good idea." It is pleasing to know that what we come up with here in New South Wales will possibly be implemented in Wales.

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

Ms SANDRA NORI: Another initiative that members should have noted, because it was splashed across the pages of the Sunday press a couple of weeks ago, is the promotion we are doing now, in November, pre-Christmas, when people are planning their Christmas holiday: We are giving away $100,000 worth of prizes to encourage people to stay in New South Wales.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Lane Cove to order for the second time. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour will cease interjecting.

STAMP DUTY

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Small Business. In view of the Minister's responsibility to promote regional development and assist small business, how can he justify Labor's stamp duty grab on businesses with associated property, and the removal of the workers compensation premium exemption for business, which will ensure a reduction in traineeships in this State of up to 40 per cent? 5132 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I can advise the House that the Carr Labor Government has worked hard with the business community to build a more competitive economy, create new jobs, and attract more investment. Small business owners will benefit from the changes to stamp duty introduced by this Government. The changes to transfer duties mean that the sale of genuine small businesses will not attract the stamp duty they might otherwise have attracted. This means potentially tens of thousands of dollars less in stamp duty. The changes mean that purchasers of New South Wales small businesses which have a land component under $2 million will not be affected by the "land rich" provisions. Ensuring that the changes do not impact unfairly on small business is further acknowledgment of the important contribution that small businesses make in New South Wales. This Government believes in small business; we have supported it in our first two terms, and we will continue to support it in this term.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: I ask a supplementary question. In light of the Minister's answer, I ask him to inform the House how the stamp duty grabs will affect traineeships in the future. The Minister did not specifically address traineeships in his answer.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a supplementary question; it does not arise from the Minister's answer.

COALMINE SUBSIDENCE

Mr JEFF HUNTER: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Mineral Resources. What is the latest information on the management of subsidence in underground coalmines in New South Wales?

Mr KERRY HICKEY: Coalmining makes an undeniable contribution to our economic and social wellbeing, but the industry still bears the significant legacy of past mining practices and policies. Mining communities no longer expect—and should not expect—that their local environment and amenity will significantly diminish as a direct result of mining. The Carr Government is committed to a sustainable coalmining industry. To deliver this goal we must balance present-day needs without compromising the future of our children. We have a clear responsibility to future generations, and a duty to protect our environment, while maintaining a strong, diverse economic base. Minimising the impact of underground coalmining will help guarantee the future of our coal industry and the communities it supports. When coal is extracted from underground, the surface above can sink, or subside. This can impact on the surface features, such as cliffs, rivers, watercourses, and some buildings.

Members will be interested to hear about a more streamlined approvals process for underground coalmining in cases where there could be subsidence. Subsidence management plans will be a condition of all new and existing coalmine leases. This cohesive approach will allow companies to undertake subsidence planning at the same time as they draw up mine plans. Companies will be able to plan two to seven years ahead. This will avoid costly delays, workers being stood down, and expensive machinery sitting idle. Plans will be based on a full land use description and impact assessment. Physical land forms and surface infrastructure will be addressed, along with ecosystems and items of potential heritage or archaeological significance. Subsidence management plans require comprehensive consultation with all groups and individuals affected by mining proposals. An interagency committee will review draft plans, provide advice on approval conditions and monitor cases of subsidence. Plan management will come under the enforcement powers of the Mining Act 1992.

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

Mr KERRY HICKEY: Subsidence management plans improve but do not replace the existing approval process for mining. All coalmining proposals are fully assessed and approved under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Development consent remains the Government's principal method of regulating the impact of mining. Sound, thorough subsidence management plans will provide greater certainty to both the coal industry and mining communities. The Carr Labor Government recognises the important employment and economic benefits of coalmining. Representatives of both the coal industry and the peak environmental groups have worked hard with us to develop a way forward that will better protect local communities, our environment and the future of the coalmining industry.

Questions without notice concluded. 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5133

MINISTERS ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Privilege

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [3.10 p.m.]: I wish to raise a matter of privilege concerning answers via the Questions and Answers paper. I asked a Minister a question and he advised me that it was a matter for one of his colleagues. I then asked that particular colleague precisely the same question and he advised me that it was a matter for the original Minister.

Mr Carl Scully: Point of order: The Leader of The Nationals is making a habit of this. This reflects on his ability to be a member of Parliament. He is abusing the forms of the House. He should be called to order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the Leader of The Nationals of a ruling I gave last week in relation to privilege. The Chair cannot direct a Minister how to answer a question or, indeed, whether the question should be answered. Although matters relating to the answering of questions can be taken up by members with the Ministers concerned, they are not matters of privilege.

[Interruption]

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

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the honourable member for Murrumbidgee on three calls to order. Whether a Minister chooses to answer a question or, indeed, how a Minister answers a question does not impinge upon the way in which a member is able to perform his functions in the House. There is no point of privilege.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Precedence of Business: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Roads, and Minister for Housing) [3.15 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow Government business to have precedence of all other business at this sitting.

A lot has been said by the Opposition—much of it misleading—about the guillotine, notice given last Friday. I am pleased to inform the House that at least some semblance of sense has prevailed in the Legislative Council. A short time ago I was informed that, after the Government made an approach to the Opposition in the upper House, the cut-off date for bills has been extended, by agreement, to Thursday at noon. Therefore, I will not move the guillotine tonight, as I would have been forced to do. On Friday I put on the record, at length, why the Government had no choice but to give notice of the guillotine. In fact, culpability sits entirely with the other side of the House. I appreciate that Opposition members have finally listened. In fact, they are embarrassed by the charge, trial and conviction of hypocrisy. On the weekend the honourable member for Epping said, "That nasty Labor Government is trampling on our rights. Here we are, poor innocent members of Parliament." The honourable member for Murrumbidgee is wondering, "Why are we all here? What does it all mean?"

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

Mr CARL SCULLY: The Government agrees with the Opposition: Legislation should not be rushed through Parliament. I agree with that. The record speaks for itself. The guillotine is rarely used.

[Interruption]

Someone yelled out, "This is a backflip." Opposition members are complaining that the Government is not giving them the opportunity to discuss legislation. The Government went to the Opposition in the upper House and said, "In the lower House we would like to provide your colleagues with the opportunity of speaking. Could you please extend the cut-off so that we can give them the opportunity?" The Opposition is telling us that this is a backflip. That is a bit rich when it has been the cause of this problem. A person does not have to be a mathematician to work out that there is an opportunity for about 50 hours discussion on legislation, as we have 5134 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003 four sitting days this week and four sitting days the next sitting week. Eleven bills are subject to the guillotine. There will now be an opportunity for four to five hours discussion per bill. That is pretty good.

The Hon. Malcolm Jones moved this motion in the upper House and it was passed with the full support of the Opposition. The Government opposed it. I acknowledge the support of Opposition members, who finally allowed sense to prevail. They can go into their party room and say, "We looked in the mirror this morning and saw the cause of the problem: ourselves." When the Leader of the Opposition looked in the mirror, he said, "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the unfairest of them all?" The mirror said, "Barry O'Farrell." He said, "Maybe today when we talk to the Government we might go, cap in hand, and say, 'We apologise. We have truncated debate. We have gone through this sneaky little deal in the upper House that has trampled on the rights of the Legislative Assembly. Maybe we might be able to work out a deal'".

I am pleased to say that a deal has been constructed, at our request. The Government went to the Opposition; it did not come to us. It is appropriate that we have full discussion on bills. I agree with the democratic process. As part of the deal, the Opposition asked that the Civil Liability Amendment Bill and the Natural Resources Commission Bill not be debated today because it wants more time to consider them. That is appropriate. They are important pieces of legislation. The Government will not bring those bills on until tomorrow morning, so the Opposition has ample time to consider them. Let us have no more hypocrisy in this House.

Mr JOHN BROGDEN (Pittwater—Leader of the Opposition) [3.18 p.m.]: In moving this motion the Government has denied the Opposition the opportunity to read into Hansard a crucial statutory declaration from one of the two nurses that the Government, through the former Minister for Health, Craig Knowles, sought to—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition that if he proceeds to try to read the statutory declaration into Hansard during the course of this debate he will be grossly out of order.

Mr JOHN BROGDEN: You are going to have to throw me out if you do not let me read this! You are a watchdog for the Labor Party. You are a disgrace! I have not even started reading the document. It says:

On November 5 2002, I attended a meeting with the Hon. Craig Knowles in his Ingleburn Office.

We spoke to Mr Knowles about poor medical and nursing practices, failure to resuscitate patients, poor medical cover through the hospitals, especially in the Intensive care unit—

Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Roads, and Minister for Housing) [3.19 p.m.]: I move:

That the honourable member for Pittwater be not further heard.

The House divided.

[In division]

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Ayes, 52

Ms Allan Ms Hay Mr Pearce Mr Amery Mr Hickey Mrs Perry Ms Andrews Mr Hunter Mr Price Mr Bartlett Mr Iemma Dr Refshauge Ms Beamer Ms Judge Ms Saliba Mr Black Ms Keneally Mr Sartor Mr Brown Mr Knowles Mr Scully Ms Burney Mr Lynch Mr Shearan Miss Burton Mr McBride Mr Stewart Mr Campbell Mr McLeay Mr Tripodi Mr Collier Ms Meagher Mr Watkins Mr Corrigan Ms Megarrity Mr West Mr Crittenden Mr Mills Mr Whan Ms D'Amore Mr Morris Mr Yeadon Mr Debus Mr Newell Mr Gaudry Ms Nori Tellers, Mr Gibson Mr Orkopoulos Mr Ashton Mr Greene Mrs Paluzzano Mr Martin 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5135

Noes, 36

Mr Aplin Ms Hodgkinson Ms Seaton Mr Armstrong Mrs Hopwood Mrs Skinner Mr Barr Mr Humpherson Mr Slack-Smith Ms Berejiklian Mr Kerr Mr Souris Mr Brogden Mr McGrane Mr Stoner Mr Cansdell Mr Merton Mr Tink Mr Constance Mr Oakeshott Mr Torbay Mr Debnam Mr O'Farrell Mr J. H. Turner Mr Draper Mr Page Mr Fraser Mr Piccoli Mrs Hancock Mr Pringle Tellers, Mr Hartcher Mr Richardson Mr George Mr Hazzard Mr Roberts Mr Maguire

Pair

Ms Gadiel Mr R. W. Turner

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 52

Noes, 36

Pair

Ms Gadiel Mr R. W. Turner

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT (INSURANCE REFORM) BILL

Second Reading

Deferred division

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will now proceed with the deferred division on the question, That the word stand.

The House divided.

Ayes, 52

Noes, 36

Mr Aplin Ms Hodgkinson Ms Seaton Mr Armstrong Mrs Hopwood Mrs Skinner Mr Barr Mr Humpherson Mr Slack-Smith Ms Berejiklian Mr Kerr Mr Souris Mr Brogden Mr McGrane Mr Stoner Mr Cansdell Mr Merton Mr Tink Mr Constance Mr Oakeshott Mr Torbay Mr Debnam Mr O'Farrell Mr J. H. Turner Mr Draper Mr Page Tellers, Mr Fraser Mr Piccoli Mr George Mrs Hancock Mr Pringle Mr Maguire Mr Hartcher Mr Richardson Mr Hazzard Mr Roberts

Pair

Ms Gadiel Mr R. W. Turner

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time. 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5137

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [3.40 p.m.]: I move the following Opposition amendment:

Page 4, schedule 1. Proposed section 154B, lines 19-22. Omit all words on those lines.

The amendment omits subsection (5) of proposed section 154B, which provides:

The liabilities of the Nominal Insurer as insurer under a policy of insurance can only be satisfied from the Insurance Fund and are not liabilities of the State, the Authority or any authority of the State.

Quite extraordinarily, the employers of the State are required by the Government to pay money into the fund, and the Government says by statute that it will administer that fund, yet though it administers the fund the Government accepts no responsibility for it. The Government says it is setting up the fund, making people pay money into it, and it is going to manage and control it, yet it is not its responsibility. Whose responsibility is it? One has to go back to the 1987 Act to find out that responsibility rests nowhere, because it is not clear from the 1987 Act as to who is responsible for the fund.

The Auditor-General and the Solicitor General have both at various times drawn attention to the fact that nobody accepts responsibility for the fund or its failure. That leads to the Government having a fund, which, if it cannot meet its responsibilities, the Government is not responsible for, yet the Government retains the power, under the 1987 Act, to levy the employers, that is those people who hold premiums for workers compensation insurance, with any deficit. The purpose of this proposed subsection is to reinforce the idea that the employers of New South Wales have to pay money for workers compensation insurance, have no control as to how the premiums are calculated, have no control over the management or administration of the fund, yet at the end of the day they will be saddled with the bill if the fund goes broke.

The Government needs to assess who is going to accept responsibility for workers compensation. We are not trying to amend the 1987 Act—that would be outside the leave of the bill—so the Government will retain the power to impose levies on employers. The purpose of this amendment is to draw attention to the fact that the time has come to work out who is responsible for the fund. If the Government has an answer, let it say so. The Solicitor General gave an opinion; the Auditor-General gave an opinion. The purpose of this subsection is to reinforce that opinion. Payments are made into this fund for thousands of workers employed by the private sector and the public sector. The Government is saying that if the fund goes broke it will not accept any responsibility. Proposed section 154B says that the liabilities of the fund can only be met from the fund, and, if the fund is in deficit, they are not liabilities of the State, the authority or any authority of the State.

The Government is walking away from accepting any responsibility at all. It wants all the power, all the money, but none of the responsibility. That is simply not good enough. It flies in the face of all economic and corporate responsibility. No corporation would be allowed to set up a fund and walk away from responsibility for it. We have laws that make directors liable for recklessly incurred expenses. That is why the authorities have attempted to extradite and prosecute Christopher Skase and other people, because they were responsible for organisations but ran them and their finances into the ground. The Government can run this fund into the ground but, according to the Act, it has no liability.

Everybody in this State needs to be conscious of the implications of this provision. There has not been a lot of debate about it, because the legislation is being rushed through Parliament. Standing orders have been suspended, not once but twice, to force it to debate, and there was another suspension of standing orders a few minutes ago. The Government is arrogantly determined to ensure that Parliament does not subject this legislation to proper scrutiny.

When I sit down the Parliamentary Secretary will simply read out a response supplied to him, saying that the Government does not agree with the amendment, that the fund is self-sustaining, that the Government has done wonderful things with workers compensation premiums, and that according to some actuarial reports it has brought down the deficit. A lot of figures are always thrown about when one debates workers compensation, but the bottom line is that the Government wants to control the employers' money but it will not accept any responsibility for it. Sheree Martin wrote to me:

On November 5 2002, I attended a meeting with the Hon. Craig Knowles in his Ingleburn office.

We spoke to Mr Knowles about poor medical and nursing practices, failure to resuscitate patients, poor medical cover through the hospitals— 5138 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003

The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): Order! I remind the honourable member for Gosford that the Committee is dealing with an amendment to workers compensation legislation. Attempting to read a statutory declaration into Hansard is out of order. I ask the honourable member for Gosford to return to the subject of his amendment.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I am, Mr Chairman, because I am relating the experience of a worker in this State who has workers compensation.

When Ms Fraser mentioned Jennifer Collins … Mr Knowles became angry—

Ms Marianne Saliba: Point of order—

The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): Order! The honourable member for Gosford will resume his seat.

Ms Marianne Saliba: What the honourable member is doing is not relevant to the debate. The Chairman should expel him from the Chamber.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): Order! The point of order is upheld.

Mr Carl Scully: That was grossly out of order.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: To hear the Leader of the House—

The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): Order! The honourable member for Gosford will return to his amendment.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I am only too pleased to return to my amendment. The honourable member for Illawarra is yelling out remarks and the entire gang—the honourable member for Bathurst, the Leader of the House, and the honourable member for East Hills—are all standing there like spear carriers ready to throw their spear. Employers are leaving this State, they are pulling their money out of New South Wales.

Mr Carl Scully: Back to the bill, are we?

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I was always on the bill. I was talking about workers compensation. Employers are leaving this State because they cannot afford the premiums. In the border areas near Queensland there are examples of people relocating from Kingscliff to the Gold Coast to get the benefit of the far lower premium structure in Queensland. Similarly on the Victorian border, employers are doing the same from Albury to Wodonga. Employers proposing to invest in this State will walk away from their investment proposals when they see the enormous cost of workers compensation premiums.

I have previously given the example of the coal industry. It estimates that it is paying an extra $1 a tonne because of workers compensation premiums in this State. This greatly adds to the competition problems it faces from Queensland, Indonesia or South America coal and trying to maintain its markets in Japan and, to a lesser extent, China. All these costs impose massively on industry in this State; they are a burden and reflect the Government's failure to administer workers compensation. It is extraordinary that the Government wants to take the money off people and yet deny those very people the benefit of having any say in the administration of the fund. That is why I have moved the amendment, which we will divide on.

Mr GRAHAM WEST (Campbelltown—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.51 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment, which would undermine a fundamental tenet of the bill. The bill establishes a Nominal Insurer to enable a seamless transition from the current managed fund insurers to a more efficient, centralised scheme for the provision of workers compensation while minimising disruption to the employers and workers of this State. The Nominal Insurer is not merely some fictitious entity devised by the Government; the Nominal Insurer is an integral component of the goal of the bill, to allow the scheme funds to be centralised into a single fund to enable the most effective investments of the scheme funds and the performance of the insurance functions under the scheme.

The Workers Compensation Act 1987 provides for insurers to hold scheme funds in trust, an arrangement that directly corresponds with that proposed in the bill. Section 196 (3) of the Act provides that scheme funds cannot be applied to the Consolidated Fund. Subsection (2) provides that insurers have no beneficial interests in scheme funds, which are held in trust by insurers for the purposes for which the scheme is established, that is, for the benefit of employers and workers. 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5139

The bill preserves this arrangement. The Workers Compensation Insurance Fund, to be held by the Nominal Insurer, is also a purpose trust and the bill provides that scheme funds cannot be applied to the Consolidated Fund. The bill expressly states that scheme funds are to be held by the Nominal Insurer for the purposes for which the scheme is established, that is, for the benefit of employers and workers. The Nominal Insurer will simply step into the shoes of the current managed fund insurers, while the consolidation of scheme funds and the establishment of a single entity will allow the scheme to be managed more efficiently. The amendment proposed by the Opposition is without merit.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.53 p.m.]: I acknowledge the Parliamentary Secretary's reply and I continue to support the arguments advanced by the honourable member for Gosford. But the Opposition remains concerned that it can be said, "slander and she could lose her home or career"—

The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease reading from the statutory declaration and resume his seat. I direct the attention of the honourable member for Davidson, who now has the call, to the amendment moved by his colleague the honourable member for Gosford. I remind him that strict rules of debate apply in Committee.

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [3.54 p.m.]: This is a matter that the former Auditor- General, Tony Harris, has referred to on a number of occasions. The deficit in the WorkCover scheme has been regarded by the current Government over a number of years as a deficit that is the responsibility of the employers of this State. Effectively it is a burden on employers and employees. But the fact is that it is the Government that actually manages and has total responsibility for the scheme. It is the Government that should carry responsibility for the deficit. It should be shown on the balance sheets of the Government. The most recent Auditor-General has been silent on it but for the purposes of good accounting, transparent and open accounting, it should be shown as a deficit, a debt in a whole-of-government sense.

The $2.98 billion deficit or debt should properly and appropriately be shown on the balance books of this State. When the Treasurer issues his accounts and his statements with the budget every year it should be shown as a deficit against the Government. Yet it is a debt that has been placed against employers. So potentially and very readily those employers, should the Government want to clear some or all of that deficit, would be paying, which would impact very directly and substantially on employees and employment. If we are going to have proper and transparent and appropriate accounting, proper transparency in every respect, this amendment should be supported. It is not appropriate to very deliberately, by way of this amendment to proposed section 154B—

Mr Alan Ashton: Lines 19 to 22.

Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: Correct, subsection (5), which we are seeking to excise from the bill. It is not appropriate for it to be retained. In recent years we have argued that as long as the Government has the responsibility for managing the scheme, the deficit and debts that relate to it should be shown as part of the public sector accounts. They have not been. Tony Harris indicated that very strongly and has reasserted that ever since he became Auditor-General. In terms of transparent and appropriate accounting it has to be the case. We supported transparency. When the following comments were made—"Mr Knowles said he would launch an investigation. When I left, however, I felt very worried about his relationship to Jennifer Collins"—it is clear from that statutory declaration that there were concerns about the transparency of government accounting in this State.

Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order. This has nothing to do with the bill being considered by the Committee. I ask you to direct the honourable member to bring his remarks back to the amendment before the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): Order! I uphold the point of order. The honourable member for Davidson is using the same tactic as the two previous speakers. He is well aware that members who speak in Committee should debate only the amendment under consideration by the Committee.

[Interruption]

The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): Order! I will direct the honourable member for Davidson to resume his seat if he continues. 5140 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003

[Interruption]

The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): Order! The honourable member for Davidson will resume his seat.

[Interruption]

The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): All members will resume their seats.

[Interruption]

The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): I call the honourable member for Davidson to order for the second time.

Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Roads, and Minister for Housing) [3.59 p.m.]: I move:

That the honourable member for Davidson be not further heard.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 50

Ms Allan Ms Hay Mr Pearce Mr Amery Mr Hickey Mrs Perry Ms Andrews Mr Hunter Mr Price Mr Bartlett Mr Iemma Dr Refshauge Mr Black Ms Judge Ms Saliba Mr Brown Ms Keneally Mr Sartor Ms Burney Mr Knowles Mr Scully Miss Burton Mr Lynch Mr Shearan Mr Campbell Mr McBride Mr Stewart Mr Collier Mr McLeay Mr Tripodi Mr Corrigan Ms Meagher Mr Watkins Mr Crittenden Ms Megarrity Mr West Ms D'Amore Mr Morris Mr Whan Mr Debus Mr Newell Mr Yeadon Mr Gaudry Ms Nori Tellers, Mr Gibson Mr Orkopoulos Mr Ashton Mr Greene Mrs Paluzzano Mr Martin

Noes, 35

Mr Aplin Ms Hodgkinson Mr Roberts Mr Armstrong Mrs Hopwood Ms Seaton Mr Barr Mr Humpherson Mrs Skinner Ms Berejiklian Mr Kerr Mr Slack-Smith Mr Cansdell Mr McGrane Mr Souris Mr Constance Mr Merton Mr Stoner Mr Debnam Mr Oakeshott Mr Tink Mr Draper Mr O'Farrell Mr Torbay Mr Fraser Mr Page Mr J. H. Turner Mrs Hancock Mr Piccoli Tellers, Mr Hartcher Mr Pringle Mr George Mr Hazzard Mr Richardson Mr Maguire

Pair

Ms Gadiel Mr R. W. Turner

Question resolved in the affirmative. 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5141

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [4.05 p.m.]: The Parliamentary Secretary did not address the fundamental issue before the Committee: who is to accept responsibility for the fund's liability? According to the Government's figures, the fund is in deficit to the tune of $2.9 billion. It was in deficit to the tune of $3.2 billion, but the Government claims that that figure has been reduced. The fund is $2.9 billion in deficit and the Government is not prepared to do anything about it, other than to say it is the employers' responsibility. The proposed section is designed simply to reinforce the fact that the Government is refusing to accept responsibility, and the Parliamentary Secretary has declined to address that salient point.

Every employer in this State needs to know whether he faces further levies by WorkCover under the 1987 Act, which requires the employer to make good the deficit of $2.9 billion. It hangs like a gigantic black cloud over the people of New South Wales. As the member for Lachlan, with his classical education, has said, it is like the sword of Damocles, which hung by a thread according to the Greek myth. I will not speak about Greek my ths: I will talk about important matters such as the statutory declaration.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): I call the honourable member for Gosford to order. He will resume his seat.

Question—That the words stand—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 50

Noes, 34

Mr Aplin Ms Hodgkinson Mr Roberts Mr Armstrong Mrs Hopwood Ms Seaton Mr Barr Mr Humpherson Mr Slack-Smith Ms Berejiklian Mr Kerr Mr Souris Mr Cansdell Mr McGrane Mr Stoner Mr Constance Mr Merton Mr Tink Mr Debnam Mr Oakeshott Mr Torbay Mr Draper Mr O'Farrell Mr J. H. Turner Mr Fraser Mr Page Mrs Hancock Mr Piccoli Tellers, Mr Hartcher Mr Pringle Mr George Mr Hazzard Mr Richardson Mr Maguire

Pair

Ms Gadiel Mr R.W. Turner

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages. 5142 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003

MOTOR ACCIDENTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Deferred division

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The House will now proceed with the deferred division on the question, That this bill be now read a second time.

The House divided.

Ayes, 51

Ms Allan Mr Hickey Mrs Perry Mr Amery Mr Hunter Mr Price Ms Andrews Mr Iemma Dr Refshauge Mr Bartlett Ms Judge Ms Saliba Mr Black Ms Keneally Mr Sartor Mr Brown Mr Knowles Mr Scully Ms Burney Mr Lynch Mr Shearan Miss Burton Mr McBride Mr Stewart Mr Campbell Mr McLeay Mr Tripodi Mr Collier Ms Meagher Mr Watkins Mr Corrigan Ms Megarrity Mr West Mr Crittenden Mr Mills Mr Whan Ms D'Amore Mr Morris Mr Yeadon Mr Debus Mr Newell Tellers, Mr Gaudry Ms Nori Mr Ashton Mr Gibson Mr Orkopoulos Mr Martin Mr Greene Mrs Paluzzano Ms Hay Mr Pearce

Noes, 33

Mr Aplin Ms Hodgkinson Mr Roberts Mr Armstrong Mrs Hopwood Ms Seaton Mr Barr Mr Humpherson Mr Slack-Smith Ms Berejiklian Mr Kerr Mr Souris Mr Cansdell Mr McGrane Mr Tink Mr Constance Mr Merton Mr Torbay Mr Debnam Mr Oakeshott Mr J. H. Turner Mr Draper Mr O'Farrell Tellers, Mr Fraser Mr Page Mr George Mrs Hancock Mr Piccoli Mr Maguire Mr Hartcher Mr Pringle Mr Hazzard Mr Richardson

Pair

Ms Gadiel Mrs R. W. Turner

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time. 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5143

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [4.27 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

No. 1 Page 4, schedule 1. Lines 13 to 17 [Part 12]. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 2 Page 6, schedule 2. Lines 22 to 26. Omit all words on those lines.

The bill is not opposed by the Coalition. While we are unhappy with it and while we reserve our position on it, we are conscious of the need to rationalise various aspects of workers compensation insurance. Both amendments relate to the same issue, which is the retrospective provisions in the bill. We find the lack of appropriate consultation especially repugnant. That is why we called a division on the second reading; that is why we have reserved our position for the Legislative Council. The Law Society has serious misgivings. I put those on the record during the second reading debate and I will not repeat them.

As I have said, the amendments relate to the retrospectivity provisions in the bill, which will commence from 5 December 2002. On that date the Hon. John Della Bosca made a ministerial statement in the Legislative Council in which he said that the Government intended to amend the legislation to prevent claims that should be made, according to him, under the Workers Compensation Act being made under the Motor Accidents Act. The change was to commence on 5 December 2002. However, the Minister made no attempt to ensure that the community of New South Wales was aware of his ministerial statement. It was not advertised or circulated to the legal profession of this State.

The Labor Council of this State was not advised, nor was an attempt made to ensure that the people in this State were aware of the removal of their statutory rights from 5 December. There was only the Minister's short statement. If people are to be denied their rights, they need to be informed. Government cannot simply operate by ministerial press release or ministerial statement. Proper communication and advice is needed. That did not happen in this case and, accordingly, lawyers and trade unions continued to advise their members of their capacity to make claims under the Motor Accidents Act instead of the Workers Compensation Act, the Motor Accidents Act being more beneficial in that the threshold for impairment is 10 per cent whereas the threshold for impairment under the Workers Compensation Act is 15 per cent. Some hundreds of claims were made and those claims are now in the court lists awaiting determination.

The bill will invalidate those claims and prevent them from proceeding. That will expose each injured worker to legal costs incurred in making and discontinuing the claim. That is against the ordinary principles of justice. People will lose their rights by legislative fiat and will have no recourse to compensation. Those who will lose these rights are workers who have been injured in the course of their employment—injured workers will suffer. The introduction by the Australian Labor Party of legislation that retrospectively deprives injured workers of their rights says a great deal about it in the year 2003. These workers are not rich or powerful people; they are ordinary citizens who are represented by every member of this House. In particular, they come from the Hunter, Central Coast and South Coast regions. They have been injured at work and have made claims on legal or trade union advice under the Motor Accidents Act.

They are now being told that those claims made after 5 December 2002 will be invalidated and they will lose the costs incurred in making those claims. The Australian Labor Party and the Carr Labor Government should be condemned for this anti-worker and anti injured worker legislation. Any fair-minded person would find it repugnant. The Coalition and will insist upon the Committee dividing on the amendments. That will enable the vote of each member of this House to be recorded in relation to whether they are willing to give injured workers a fair go or retrospectively deprive them. I am amazed that the Government has introduced legislation of this nature and that Labor members support it.

Most people regard retrospective legislation as undesirable. There are extreme circumstances in which retrospective legislation can be justified, but a strong argument must be made in support of it. A strong case was advanced for retrospectivity in respect of bottom of the harbour schemes because of the massive losses of taxation revenue to the Australian people. Everybody knew they were rorts. However, it is not a rort for an injured worker, acting on legal or trade union advice, to bring a claim that he or she is entitled to make under the Motor Accidents Act. The Government cannot equate the retrospective provisions of this legislation with the retrospective provisions of other legislation that may have been passed in Canberra relating to taxation matters. 5144 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003

The Carr Labor Government needs to be exposed, although it may not be. Attention may not be given to this matter, lost as it is in the end-of-year-rush and because the media tends not to pay a great deal of attention to matters involving workers compensation, which it regards as somewhat difficult to explain.

At the end of the day, we should not pass legislation that I am advised will affect several hundred claims. I hope the Law Society will have those figures when the matter is before the Legislative Council. Honourable members can be assured that these amendments will be moved in the Legislative Council, where there is a greater chance of them being agreed to. Members who vote against the amendments can have no sense of pride, especially those who claim to be from the left wing of the Australian Labor Party, the so-called conscience of the Labor Party. To vote against the amendments is to vote against the very trade union members they purport to represent. This legislation affects injured workers, no-one else, and imposes upon those workers potential liability for significant legal costs. I conclude on that point, but I advise the Committee that the Opposition will insist upon the amendments.

Mr GRAHAM WEST (Campbelltown—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.37 p.m.]: I reiterate that the intention to bring forward this legislation was clearly made by the Hon. John Della Bosca in a ministerial statement made on 5 December 2002. In that statement the Minister clearly indicated that the legislation would be backdated to commence from the date of the ministerial statement. He clearly stated that the decision in Pender would be addressed by legislation and that the legislation would commence from 5 December 2002. The statement essentially put the legal profession and all parties concerned on notice that the law would change and that any relevant claims made after 5 December 2002 could be affected by that legislative change.

The bill does not seek to remove every motor accident claim from the motor accidents legislation and put it under the workers compensation legislation. Indeed, if an accident occurs at work and a registered vehicle is involved, or an accident occurs on a public road or road-related area, there is no question that those matters will proceed under the motor accidents legislation. It is only in the limited circumstances identified by the Supreme Court in Pender that a work injury case will proceed under workers compensation legislation.

The Opposition argued that there had been little or no consultation in the development of the bill. The Government has engaged in a great deal of consultation. Contrary to the spurious allegations made by the Opposition, extensive discussions have taken place with the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [CFMEU] and the Minerals Council. In addition, the Workers Compensation and Workplace Occupational Health and Safety Council has been fully briefed and given every opportunity to discuss and comment on the bill. The council comprises representatives from all major employer and employee groups, including the Labor Council of New South Wales, the CFMEU, the Australian Workers Union, the Transport Workers Union, Employers First, the Australian Industry Group and Australian Business Ltd. To represent the interests of legal professionals, the council also has a member of the personal injuries committee of the Law Society as a member.

Therefore, the allegation that there was no consultation undertaken on the bill, particularly with the Law Society, is absolutely baseless. The council was sent a draft bill and briefing note in early September 2003—some 2½ months ago. The consultation process has been thorough. The time it has taken to get this bill to Parliament reflects the degree of consultation that has taken place, and the Government will not apologise for that. Contrary to the Opposition's contention, in Pender there was no confusion as to which scheme would bear the costs of the matter. The workers compensation insurer would be liable despite the matter proceeding through the motor accidents claims procedures.

The bill makes it clear that when there is no insurer on risk under the motor accidents legislation, the matter should be dealt with under the workers compensation scheme. In Pender the parties got to the final stage of determining a workers compensation matter before the court ruled that they were in fact involved in a motor accidents matter. It was not until the last moment in the Pender proceedings that anyone even recognised the possibility that the motor accidents legislation might have any relevance. It is this waste in time and resources that this legislation addresses. It will make the delineation between motor accidents matters and workers compensation matters that much clearer for work injury matters.

I also note that there was some confusion in the minds of Opposition members as to the respective thresholds for non-economic loss under both the motor accidents legislation and the workers compensation legislation. Under workers compensation, non-economic loss is still determined under the statutory scheme. There are two components to non-economic loss: compensation for permanent impairment, and compensation for pain and suffering. If the injury is a physical one, as opposed to a psychological injury, there is no threshold for permanent impairment under workers compensation. In relation to pain and suffering, there is a threshold of 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5145

10 per cent whole person impairment. Therefore, with respect to physical injuries, the thresholds are either equal to or less than those provided for under the motor accidents legislation. Only psychological injuries have a 15 per cent threshold with respect to non-economic loss. By contributing to this debate, the Opposition is adding nothing but confusion to a situation that this bill is trying to clarify.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [4.42 p.m.]: The Parliamentary Secretary said that the workers compensation advisory council was notified in September. On the advisory council are representatives of illustrious bodies such as the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [CFMEU], the Transport Workers Union, the Australian Workers Union, the Law Society's personal injury committee and various employee groups. However, the advice I received from the advisory council was contrary to the advice it gave to the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not dispute the Parliamentary Secretary's integrity. He was simply reading to the Committee the notes that had been written for him. The advisory council was not consulted about this legislation. It was notified of the Minister's statement on 5 December 2002, but it was not given an opportunity to discuss the statement or to make submissions to the Minister.

The Minister simply set it out as a fiat. There has been no consultation with the workers compensation advisory council. I am advised also that there has been no consultation with the New South Wales Labor Council. If honourable members wish to check that, they should ring the Labor Council and ask whether it has been consulted or notified about this legislation. The only union the Government alluded to was the CFMEU. The Government said it had discussed the issue with the CFMEU when it made its reply last Friday. There has been no indication of the views of the Australian Workers Union, the Transport Workers Union or any other relevant union.

Mr Alan Ashton: They were mentioned.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: They were mentioned as being members of the advisory council; they were not mentioned as having been given the opportunity to express a view. So the sheer—

Mr Milton Orkopoulos: Sophistry!

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: —sophistry of the Government—I am indebted to the honourable member for Swansea, with his Greek background, who knows the meaning of the word "sophistry"—is to pretend that it told the council. These are representatives of the council, whether or not they are there, whether or not they had an opportunity to discuss the legislation, and whether or not they were involved in the matter. To simply claim that they were notified about the legislation does not mean that they were consulted and were aware of it, and that the hundreds of people who acted on legal and trade union advice and filed their claims were aware that their claims would be retrospectively invalidated and they would incur considerable legal costs for which they would be responsible. If the Government is happy to rely on notification to the advisory council and pretend that that amounts to consultation, when it knows that hundreds of people have filed claims and that they will now be up for a lot of money, then it is deluding itself. Injured workers in this State—and the Government has not denied this—will lose because the Carr Labor Government is passing retrospective legislation to deny them the rights they had and will continue to have right up until this bill is passed.

Question—That the words stand—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 47

Ms Allan Mr Greene Mrs Paluzzano Mr Amery Ms Hay Mr Pearce Ms Andrews Mr Hickey Mrs Perry Mr Bartlett Mr Hunter Ms Saliba Mr Black Mr Iemma Mr Sartor Mr Brown Ms Judge Mr Scully Ms Burney Ms Keneally Mr Shearan Miss Burton Mr Lynch Mr Stewart Mr Campbell Mr McBride Mr Tripodi Mr Collier Mr McLeay Mr Watkins Mr Corrigan Ms Meagher Mr West Mr Crittenden Ms Megarrity Mr Whan Ms D'Amore Mr Mills Mr Yeadon Mr Debus Mr Morris Tellers, Mr Gaudry Mr Newell Mr Ashton Mr Gibson Mr Orkopoulos Mr Martin 5146 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003

Noes, 33

Mr Aplin Mrs Hopwood Ms Seaton Mr Barr Mr Humpherson Mr Slack-Smith Ms Berejiklian Mr Kerr Mr Souris Mr Cansdell Mr McGrane Mr Stoner Mr Constance Mr Merton Mr Tink Mr Debnam Mr Oakeshott Mr Torbay Mr Draper Mr O'Farrell Mr J. H. Turner Mr Fraser Mr Page Tellers, Mrs Hancock Mr Piccoli Mr George Mr Hartcher Mr Pringle Mr Maguire Mr Hazzard Mr Richardson Ms Hodgkinson Mr Roberts

Pairs

Ms Beamer Mr Armstrong Ms Gadiel Mrs Skinner Ms Nori Mr R.W. Turner

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments negatived.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.

STATE REVENUE LEGISLATION FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 November.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby) [4.56 p.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose the State Revenue Legislation Further Amendment Bill. The bill makes a number of changes to State revenue legislation to close a number of loopholes and anomalies that have been identified in the past six months. The major changes included in the bill are as follows. Two specific amendments are proposed to the Duties Act. The first is to impose transfer duty on the statutory vesting of land. Properties transferred through a statutory instrument are currently not liable for duty. This mainly relates to some mergers, particularly of two international companies that are not caught by other provisions in the Duties Act. According to Treasury, there have been only three of these transactions in the past two years. The other amendment is to impose transfer duty on lease premiums. Upfront payments at the beginning of leases will be liable for duty, to be paid at the transfer duty rate, rather than the leases duty rate—up to 5.5 per cent, depending on the value, rather than 0.35 per cent.

In relation to the first home owners grant, the bill will clarify that first home owners must live in the property for at least six months, starting within 12 months of the date of purchase. Discretion is allowed in some circumstances. The principal place of residence exemption from land tax will be rewritten, closing a number of loopholes. This provision extends and confirms concessions for the principal place of residence exemption. Most significantly, persons who own property and then move to a rented property—that is, move interstate or overseas—do not have to pay land tax on that property for six years so long as they do not rent out their property for more than six months per year. The bill will enable New South Wales to tax earnings for work partly performed in New South Wales that is not liable for payroll tax under laws in other States. This relates to people who are paid overseas, work in New South Wales part of the time and do not pay payroll tax in New South Wales or in any other State. For instance, if employees work in New South Wales more than 50 per cent of the time they already have to pay payroll tax in New South Wales. As I said at the outset, this bill addresses such anomalies, and closes loopholes in current State revenue legislation. The Coalition will not oppose it. 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5147

Mr GRAHAM WEST (Campbelltown—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.00 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Willoughby for her contribution and for drawing out many of the positive changes that the bill will make, especially the exemption for people who are buying a new home while trying to sell the old one, the changes for first home buyers, and the changes to lease duties and transfer duties—a comprehensive range of changes. I thank the honourable member for her support.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

DUTIES AMENDMENT (LAND RICH) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 November.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby) [5.01 p.m.]: The Opposition will oppose the Duties Amendment (Land Rich) Bill. It raises taxes and it is yet another impost on business. New South Wales is already the highest-taxed State in the nation, but even the present massive level of taxation is not enough for this Government. The bill is clear evidence of one thing: the Carr Government is addicted to raising revenue. It has turned an anti-avoidance provision into yet another source of revenue for the Government. The difference between Labor and the Coalition is clear: the Coalition has given notice of a bill to reduce stamp duty; the Government has introduced a bill to extend stamp duty. This bill addresses the land-rich test for stamp duty. Currently when a company or trust is sold the entity that buys it is liable to pay stamp duty only if more than 80 per cent of the value of the entity that is being bought is land.

The land-rich test was originally introduced as an anti-avoidance provision. It was introduced to stop people avoiding duty by having a company or trust with the single purpose of owning a property, and transferring the company, which is not liable for duty, rather than the property, which is liable for duty. To engage in these kinds of tax avoidance practices is clearly wrong, and has been treated as such for many years. The bill seeks to extend the land-rich test beyond its original purpose as an anti-avoidance provision. In the process the land-rich provisions will now catch many small and medium-size businesses that are not engaging in tax avoidance. It will force more businesses to pay stamp duty. This bill extends the land-rich test in a number of ways. The major changes introduced by the bill are, firstly, that the level at which the land-rich test applies will drop from 80 per cent to 60 per cent of the value of the company—previously only companies whose assets were more than 80 per cent land were liable for duty if the company was sold. Under the bill that level will drop to 60 per cent.

Secondly, the threshold for the value of land before duty is charged will be increased from $1 million to $2 million—previously the value of land had to be more than $1 million before duty was liable under the land- rich test. The bill increases that to $2 million. Given that the land-rich test was introduced in 1986 and that the threshold has not changed since then, this is not much of a concession. In fact, it does not even catch up to the increase in property prices, which have increased by more than 100 per cent in the last eight years of this Labor Government alone. Thirdly, the acquisition threshold will be reduced—the threshold before duty is liable under the land-rich test will be changed from more than 50 per cent to 50 per cent or more for companies and wholesale trusts, and 20 per cent or more for units in private unit trusts.

Fourthly, public unit trusts are exempt from the land-rich test. The bill tightens the definition of "public unit trusts", increasing the number of investors required to qualify as a public unit trust from 50 to 300. Public unit trusts listed on the stock exchange, either in Australia or overseas, are exempt from the land-rich test. Fifthly, there is a primary production exemption for farmers. The land-rich test will remain at 80 per cent for a company or trust whose activity is wholly or predominantly primary production. These provisions were flagged in the 2003-04 budget and were expected to raise $24 million per annum. However, as I understand it, after discussions with the office of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday the Treasury is now unable—or, of more concern, unwilling—to estimate the amount of revenue to be raised by the bill. It simply does not know how many businesses will be caught by this tax grab. No-one in this Parliament supports businesses avoiding paying the tax they are liable to pay.

However, that is not what this bill is about; it is a tax grab. The bill will introduce a significant level of double taxation for many businesses. Take the example of a manufacturing business that buys the land on which 5148 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003 its factory sits. The land might be worth $2 million, which for many businesses would be more than 60 per cent of the assets of the business. When it buys the property it will pay $95,490 in stamp duty on the purchase. If the business changes ownership the next day, the Government will rip out another $95,490 in stamp duty. The point is this: at the 60 per cent threshold this bill will catch many absolutely legitimate businesses in the tax net. This is yet another tax impost on business, which has been the hallmark of this Government. The Coalition has made a commitment—it has given notice of a bill—to cut stamp duty. This bill tries to extend the stamp duty base. On that basis we will not be voting for this bill.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [5.07 p.m.]: In speaking to the Duties Amendment (Land Rich) Bill I will refer particularly to the mining industry because the bill will have a significant impact on quite a few mining operations throughout New South Wales. This raises the question of whether the Government takes mining seriously. This bill comes on top of workers compensation increases and the myriad of other significant impacts on the mining industry. We should be facilitating investment. That includes allowing companies to be transferred to other companies or even individuals that will maximise the productive capacity of mining sites and mining leases. Companies should be able to transfer shares between companies, if properties are owned by unit trusts or whatever the process.

The whole idea is to facilitate business, to allow assets—including land and mining leases—to go to the people or organisations that will make maximum use of them. This bill will excessively tax those transfers and restrict the transfer of land and mining leases, which will result in less productivity. That is why I questioned whether the Government takes mining seriously. If it did, it would see the implications of the bill on the mining industry. Opposition members have had correspondence from the State Chamber of Commerce and the New South Wales Minerals Council raising these concerns. The very same concerns have been raised with the Government but it has refused to do anything.

The bill is a further tax grab by the Government. It does not care whom it impacts upon. We have seen the stamp duty grab from first home buyers and other home buyers, particularly in Sydney, and the clubs tax. This is another tax grab. Initially the bill was expected to raise an additional $24 million but now, as the honourable member for Willoughby said, the Treasury is unable to ascertain exactly how much additional revenue will be raised. When will this Government stop worrying about raising revenue and start supporting businesses in New South Wales that create jobs, particularly the coalmining industry in the Hunter and the Illawarra? The coalmining jobs in those areas are essential to New South Wales, and the future of mining should be a priority for the Premier because of its potential production.

Queensland is very aggressive in its support of its mining industry, and the New South Wales Government should take a leaf out of its book. The Queenslanders know that attracting industry means more jobs and that supporting the coalmining industry means creating more jobs. The Premier and the Minister for Natural Resources should go to Queensland, talk to their counterparts, and get their advice. The Queenslanders are certainly doing the right thing. Every time a mining operation is established in Queensland it means more jobs for Queensland and fewer for New South Wales. If this Government continues its grab for cash and fails to support the State's biggest export industry we will continue to see jobs and investment migrating from New South Wales.

This legislation is another grab for cash. When the Government came to power in 1995, the State's annual revenue was about $22 billion. It is now $34 billion, and since the election the Government has introduced this bill, the club tax legislation, and an increase in court fees, and stamp duty is constantly on the rise. How much money can this Government take out of the New South Wales economy? That is an important question. Where has that additional $12 billion gone? Just yesterday I had a meeting with representatives of the Tocumwal and Finley preschools, which have had their funding frozen since 1987. The Tocumwal preschool wants an extra $10,000 a year and the Finley preschool wants an extra $20,000. Why has that money not been forthcoming? This Government has raised a huge amount of extra money but we do not know where it is going.

The Government should look at waste in government departments. The Opposition has highlighted a few areas of waste, such as the Millennium trains, the Sydney Water billing service, and so on. There is a litany of waste in government departments, and it is time the Government re-examined its expenditure and stopped wasting taxpayers' money. As a result of its wasteful activities it has been forced to introduce bills such as this, which will rip millions of dollars out of the New South Wales economy.

Mining companies looking to purchase land-rich companies in this State will discover that, instead of paying the normal percentage of stamp duty on the transfer of shares, they will be required to pay 5.5 per cent. 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5149

They will consider purchasing land-rich mining companies that have pretty good assets that could be mined efficiently and effectively, but the 5.5 per cent transfer tax will deter them. Potential investment will be lost, along with thousands of jobs. Coalmining is a global industry. Companies like BHP Billiton and Xstrata have global operations that they wish to expand by investing in effective and efficient operations, but this additional impost in New South Wales will encourage them to look elsewhere. I ask the Government to reconsider this legislation because of the impact it will have on mining in New South Wales.

Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [5.16 p.m.]: I understand that the definition of "land rich" will now relate to 60 per cent, rather than 80 per cent or more, of the unencumbered value of a property. It will therefore catch a significantly larger number of people. It is true that the unencumbered value of land will be increased from $1 million to $2 million. However, I am concerned that this will catch a significant number of small businesses that have private company or trust arrangements for which property is a major asset. I particularly note this morning's comment by the Chief Executive of the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce, Margy Osmond, that this proposal will make many businesses less attractive to potential buyers. It will have a knock-on effect throughout the small business world in respect of lending, the value of businesses, their component parts, and many other aspects.

It was claimed that the bill would earn the Government $24 million a year. However, I understand that that can no longer be confirmed. As the honourable member for Willoughby said, the Leader of the Opposition's office has found that it is now not possible for the Opposition to be told how many businesses will be caught by this tax grab and how much it will raise. If it is not possible to provide that information, it is obviously not possible to say what the consequences will be.

Given that we have just had a slight interest rate increase—we probably have not seen the last of it if the head of the Reserve Bank's comments are to be taken literally—and that the modelling calculations are apparently incomplete, this is a real concern. This issue could affect a range of small and medium businesses. As has been indicated publicly already, people in fruit and vegetable warehouse businesses, engineering firms, and so on, in which the business property is included as an asset will be affected. Every honourable member has small businesses in his or her electorate that will be affected by this legislation. Like honourable members who have spoken previously in this debate, I have real concerns about this aspect of the legislation and I cannot support it. Given that it has come after other stamp duty pressures have been imposed by this Government, it will have a significant negative impact, directly and indirectly, on economic growth in this State.

The State does not need this legislation at this time in the economic cycle. Rather than screwing down small businesses to extract more tax by moving the goalposts on existing assets, the Government should be easing up a little to allow productivity and wealth to grow. We need our common wealth to grow so that we can benefit from the extra tax revenue generated as a result of economic growth. If you screw down on existing assets and property transactions, you run the real risk of killing or, at the very least, severely retarding that wealth-creating base which is the basis of true economic growth and a true source of taxation revenue. Generating tax revenue in that way simply screws down on things and does not allow them to grow. It is a step in the wrong direction, and it will have a potentially adverse effect on small businesses.

The comments of the President of the State Chamber of Commerce, Margy Osmond, are of particular concern. I know how well briefed the State Chamber of Commerce is through all its constituent groups. Like every member of this Parliament, I have some very active chambers of commerce in my electorate. I know that those chambers have regular dealings with the State Chamber of Commerce, and I am very confident that they are passing on intelligence about the impact of this tax, which is the basis of Ms Osmond's comments in this morning's newspaper. I suspect that Ms Osmond's comments are a significant reflection of the concern of small business across the State. For all those reasons I oppose the bill.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [5.21 p.m.]: I support my colleagues and express my alarm at the Carr Government's constant grab for taxes, particularly by way of stamp duty increases. I also register the alarm of the business community and the wider community in my electorate at the imposition of taxes under the Carr Government. Indeed, since it came to power the Carr Government has raked in something like $1.5 billion a year in extra taxes and charges.

Last week during a debate in this House I referred to the report of our good friend the Auditor-General, which is wonderful night-time reading that I commend to all members. The report highlights the waste and mismanagement the Government has presided over, and hence the reason for it to increase taxes and squeeze every last cent out of businesses. In fact, it is getting to the stage where I think the Government will visit 5150 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003 business with a scalpel and demand blood. The waste and mismanagement the Carr Government has presided over needs to be highlighted in a much wider form. I am surprised the media have not picked up on some of the numbers that have been crunched through this place in the last week. The Duties Amendment (Land Rich) Bill will simply increase the amount of revenue the Treasurer will rake in—which he will claim he is spending wisely.

I want to place on record just some of the blow-outs that the Carr Government has presided over. Examples of the Government's waste include a $117 million blow-out on the Liverpool-Parramatta transitway; a $102 million blow-out on the North West bus transitways; a $104.3 million blow-out on the Millennium trains; $17.4 million in wages last year for public servants without jobs; $32 million lost by the Infringement Processing Bureau because it could not send out its fines within six months; a $78 million blow-out in the cost of the new Hunter and outer suburban rail carriages; $43 million in transport consultants and legal fees—even Michael Costa said he was disgusted by that; and a $93 million loss on the sale of the Intercontinental Hotel site. I cite those examples of waste for the edification of members and the information of the wider public, because I am sure that publishing them will change people's concern to alarm. The Auditor-General's report contains page after page of criticism of the Carr Government, yet this bill will rake in more cash for the Treasurer, which he will duly waste.

As I said, concern in the business community has turned to alarm. As a former President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Wagga Wagga, and also an affiliate member of the State Chamber of Commerce, I have some background in these areas. The State Chamber of Commerce, the New South Wales Minerals Council, the Property Council of Australia, the Retailers Association of New South Wales, of which I was a member for some 23 years, and the New South Wales Farmers Association have written to me to express their concerns about the proposed major stamp duty increases, which will cost New South Wales businesses billions of dollars in additional taxes. They say that individually many businesses will face a minimum of $40,000 in extra stamp duty, and that others will pay much more. They also say:

Changes were foreshadowed to strengthen anti-avoidance provisions to protect the State's revenue base in the 2003-04. Changes now being considered far exceed the scope of anti-avoidance. Far from protecting the State's revenue base, they will cast a much wider stamp duty net, impact thousands of new stakeholders, and reap many millions of dollars from New South Wales businesses.

This is a tax grab, not the closure of loopholes.

Under a plan, purchasers of businesses will be forced to pay stamp duty at a rate of 5.5 per cent on property worth over $1 million, no matter how incidental that property is to the overall operations. Currently a purchaser only pays stamp duty if the business being purchased is land rich, ie, more than 80 per cent of its assets are in property.

The land rich provisions exist to exempt purchasers of businesses from paying stamp duty on the underlying property of the business. Under this proposal, 80 per cent of the land rich test to zero for businesses sold as trusts and 60 per cent for businesses sold as companies. In addition, investors will be taxed for taking a mere 20 per cent stake in a trust.

The changes are major. If adopted—

Given the Government's numbers, it appears that it will be adopted—

thousands of businesses across New South Wales will be swept up in a new tougher stamp duty regime. Attached are some examples of how the tougher provisions would affect businesses across New South Wales.

The letter continues, but I want to get to the substance of the information that has been provided to me by way of example. I believe that is the best way of demonstrating the real effect of the stamp duty increases on businesses, many of whom have supported the Carr Labor Government. I will cite a couple of examples. The first is headed "Struggling businesses hit with new $68,000 tax bill", and it reads:

Andrew owns and operates a small carpentry factory in Botany, in Sydney's south, which makes outdoor furniture. Andrew bought his factory less than three years ago when he took over the business, which he bought as a company.

The land his factory is built on has jumped in value to be worth $1.5 million, while his ageing machinery and equipment has shrunk in value to just $400,000. Goodwill makes up about $100,000.

A downturn in demand hits Andrew's business hard. Rather than sell a stake on more debt, Andrew invites a mate, Dave, to invest as a silent partner. Dave takes up the offer, and buys a 20 per cent stake in the business worth $500,000.

Impact of stamp duty charges? Basically a new tax. Dave's 20 per cent silent stake in the business will cost him $60,480 in stamp duty. Currently, Dave would pay no stamp duty because the company was not deemed to be land rich, and now it is. 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5151

That is an example of a cost that will impinge that business and deny people access to employment. That money could be spent creating jobs. Another example that has been sent to me relates to retail developments. The document reads:

A medium-size shopping centre in Newcastle is owned by a superannuation trust worth $40 million. Built back in the early eighties, the centre needs modernising and upgrading to maintain its attractiveness and competitiveness, and there are also plans to expand it to accommodate more shops—

That means jobs—

The superannuation trust does not have enough funds to pay for the upgrade on its own, so it invites interests from other investors. In the end, three new investors are found—another superannuation trust, a life-insurance company, and a private investor. None of these investors are vested in controlling the trust, hence each of them buys just 20 per cent of the units.

The impact? Each investor is taxed $490,000 in stamp duty. Currently none is paid. If their fellow investors decide to leave, either by selling or redeeming their units, all investors will be hit with more stamp duty.

They are two examples, and the list goes on and on. They are the realities of this tax. The outcome will be that job opportunities for people in New South Wales will be limited. The money that should be going to investment and creating an atmosphere in which employers will create jobs and wealth for this State will be affected. Already it is on record that we are the highest taxed State in Australia. That is clear; it has been demonstrated many times. We have the highest payroll tax in Australia. We have the highest workers compensation premiums in Australia. One can stand here all evening and give examples of the taxes and charges that are making us totally uncompetitive with other States.

It can be seen from a comparison of the economic data of job creations, et cetera, that New South Wales is faring worse than other States, the reason being that companies that are close to the borders, particularly with Victoria and Queensland, choose to operate in other States because of the tax regime this Government has presided over. Rural and regional cities are struggling against drought and they are struggling against a city-centric Government. These costs, taxes and charges impact on those businesses far greater. Their opportunities to make profits and to create jobs are limited by the amounts of funds they have to give the Treasurer for the Ministers to waste and to mismanage. For example, the waste and mismanagement that the Minister for Transport has presided over are horrendous. Now we see reviews that show that pensioners are being hard done by and facing the possibility of losing transport services in some regional and rural towns because of the Government's waste and mismanagement. And what does the Government do? It finds sneaky ways to raise more taxes and more charges for the Treasurer to spend and, ultimately, blow.

I guarantee that there will be another appropriation bill introduced to seek more money to cover up unforeseen circumstances and unexpected costs within this Government's budget. I can safely say that I do not believe there is one project for which this Government could claim credit for effectively managing and bringing in on budget. The Government can say that it has effectively managed projects but when it comes to getting proof from the Treasury, the Ministers or the bureaucrats it is mighty hard. I place on record my extreme concern with this bill and the concern of the region that I represent. Businesses have a right to be concerned because there are many more examples of the human face of this tax grab that members on the other side of the House will experience from businesses that will be impacted by this bill. The people who are affected will remember that this is a Carr Government tax grab, and I would encourage them to remember it on polling day.

Mr WAYNE MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [5.32 p.m.]: I support what my colleagues have said about the Duties Amendment (Land Rich) Bill. This bill will introduce a fairly important stamp duty change. For many years, when a company or a trust was sold, stamp duty was payable only if more than 80 per cent of the value of the entity bought was land. In other words, as I understand the situation, if 80 per cent of the sale price of a company's shares represented a land content or land value, it attracted stamp duty, as opposed to the stamp duty that would normally be paid on the sale of company shares.

However, this bill seeks to change that land component from 80 per cent to 60 per cent. In other words, if the land value represents 60 per cent of the sale price of a company, duty is paid, as is scheduled here, at 5.5 per cent—whereas before there would be no duty payable unless the land content exceeded 80 per cent of the sale price. That means that, in a large number of transactions, because of the escalating price of property in New South Wales, not only in the metropolitan area but also in regional areas, companies might find that the value of their land could be more than 60 per cent of their sale price. Therefore, many more companies will attract stamp duty at the rate of 5.5 per cent. 5152 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003

While it is true that the threshold attracting this amended land rich test has been increased for companies that have increased in value from $1 million to $2 million before the tax is applicable, it is also fair to say that the increase to $2 million is of little comfort to people buying companies on the present market because the reality is that under the land rich test, which was introduced in 1986, the amount was fixed at $1 million before duty was liable but the price of land has since skyrocketed quite dramatically. It is probably true to say that land prices have increased by more than 100 per cent. So the increase in the threshold from $1 million to $2 million is probably in line with inflation over the past 17 years, whereas the land price variation would have increased about 100 per cent. So that is of concern to many businesses. We talk about $2 million as being a lot of money. It always has been a lot of money and it will always be a lot of money but, as I said, there has been a substantial increase in the value of real estate, particularly for industrial land, on which many of these businesses would be operating, not just in metropolitan areas but in regional New South Wales.

There is a further change to what is called the acquisition threshold. As I understand it, the acquisition threshold was introduced to determine what constituted a transfer of shares in a way that would attract the land rich threshold stamp duty provisions. As drafted, the bill requires stamp duty to be paid on a majority interest, which is, of course, an entitlement to more than 50 per cent of the property of a private corporation, in the event of distribution of all the property of the private corporation, if that amounts to a significant interest in the land- holder.

A significant interest is an entitlement, in the event of a distribution of all of the property of the land- holder, to 20 per cent or more of the property in the case of a private unit trust scheme or 50 per cent or more of the property in the case of a wholesale unit trust scheme or private company. Liability for duty is incurred when a person makes a relevant acquisition in a land-holder. A relevant acquisition is made when a person acquires a significant interest in a land-holder, or an interest which, when aggregated with interests of the person or associated persons, amounts to a significant interest, or an interest which, when aggregated with other interests acquired by the person or other persons acting under transactions that comprised substantially one arrangement between the acquirers, amounts to a significant interest.

A relevant acquisition is also made when a person who has a significant interest in a land-holder, or an interest which, when aggregated with interests of the person or associated persons, amounts to a significant interest, acquires a further interest in the land-holder. Those measures have changed the duty with respect to all arrangements and obligations. Many people involved in small business have assets of more than $2 million and this bill will impact adversely on them. Border towns such as Albury-Wodonga—

Mr Thomas George: Or Lismore

Mr WAYNE MERTON: Or Tweed Heads or Lismore—as the honourable member for Lismore, an outstanding member, says—will experience difficulty in attracting new business compared to their counterparts in Coolangatta or on the Gold Coast. The Opposition has grave concerns and cannot support this measure. The bill seeks to impose a duty on top of the record sum of $1 billion in stamp duty already raked in by the Government over the past 12 months. This duty is unnecessary and the Government should not be dependent upon it. Businesses should be encouraged not only to come to New South Wales but to remain here, and this bill will not help to achieve that. The exact amount of the additional revenue to be generated is unclear, but a preliminary assessment is in the order of $24 million. The figure may not be reached. However, this is a further extension of the stamp duty tax base at a time of community pressure to reduce stamp duty. In effect, this bill introduces a new form of tax on the sale of businesses.

Businesses are income producing and provide significant employment: they have multiplier effect. Many businesses move to other States because the workers compensation premiums in New South Wales are the highest in Australia. This transfer has an adverse effect on other feeder companies, such as contractors, subcontractors and suppliers. The Opposition supports small business and believes the bill is unnecessary, particularly as the Government is receiving record amounts of stamp duty revenue from the sale of property. Although the bill includes some concessions, such as primary production exemption and increasing the threshold from $1 million to $2 million, those concessions are negated by increases in land prices, which have surged more than 100 per cent in the past 17 years. Indeed, that is a conservative figure because in many areas the figure is much higher. The Opposition opposes the bill because it is not in the interests of the State or of small business.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [5.46 p.m.]: I support the comments of my colleagues the honourable member for Willoughby, the honourable member for Wagga Wagga, the honourable member for 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5153

Epping and the honourable member for Baulkham Hills, who highlighted this bill as another Government attack on small business. The bill raises taxes; it provides for another impost on businesses, which already pay the highest payroll tax and workers compensation premiums in Australia. It is another tax grab by the Government, which seeks to hit small businesses by an additional $24 million. Small business cannot sustain these taxes. The Coalition has introduced a bill to reduce stamp duty while the Government, through this bill, seeks to extend it. That demonstrates the difference between Labor and the Coalition.

The bill addresses the land rich test for stamp duty. The threshold for the unencumbered value of land before duty is charged will increase from $1 million to $2 million. The proportion of the total land holdings of a land-holder to the unencumbered value of all its property will be reduced from 80 per cent to 60 per cent. Previously, the value of the land had to be more than $1 million before duty was liable under the land rich test. That is being increased to $2 million. The acquisition threshold has been reduced. The threshold before duty is liable under the land rich test will change from more than 50 per cent to 50 per cent or more for companies and wholesale trusts, and 20 per cent or more for units in private unit trusts. Public unit trusts are exempt from the land rich test. The bill tightens the definition of public unit trusts and increases the number of investors required to qualify as a public unit trust from 50 to 300. The bill provides an exemption for farmers in that the land rich test will remain at 80 per cent for a company or trust whose activity is wholly or predominantly primary production.

I shall give the example of a cotton farmer in Moree who owns his farm through a company. The company owns all of the land, which is valued at $2 million. The cotton farmer rents harvesting equipment and other machinery. In total, the land represents about 70 per cent of the total assets of the company. His neighbour owns a similar parcel of land but as he is having financial difficulties, he suggests that rather than sell up, the two neighbours run the properties together to reduce costs and share efficiencies. They agree and the neighbour's land, which is worth $2 million, is transferred to the company in return for a 50 per cent share in the company. The stamp duty impact will be a double whammy. The stamp duty bill for both properties would be $190,980, double the amount they would pay under the current law. They would be taxed $95,490 on the transfer of one farm and an extra $95,490 for merging the two farms. Can anyone show me how that is not an impost on small businesses or on the farming community?

I was given another example of a family in Strathfield that owns a property worth $1 million which it decides to develop into a child care facility. The property is held in a trust, having been acquired in a trust less than three years before on the advice of their accountant. The property needs to be modified and refurbished to operate as a child care facility. The family bank agrees to lend them some of the money for the refurbishment but requires other funding to be raised through equity capital injection into the trust. Two independent investors agree to provide funding for the child care centre by subscribing for units in the trust, each obtaining a 22 per cent interest. The stamp duty impact is a huge disincentive for investment. The people who invested in the trust would both have to pay $7,645 in stamp duty, no matter how small their investment in the business. Currently, no stamp duty is paid unless they own more than half of the business.

Those are just some examples; there are plenty more examples that I am happy to give to the Government. The industry is supplying examples from everywhere. At the 60 per cent threshold, this bill will catch many legitimate businesses in the tax net. Once again I highlight that this bill is another tax impost on businesses by the Carr Government. The property industry is unhappy about this legislation. It believes that the changes are not anti-avoidance measures but a major extension of the tax base. The property industry also believes that this is double taxation. The Carr Government collects tax once when the property is bought and again when the company that bought the property is sold.

The changes to the majority interest test are a major concern, making legitimate structures liable for stamp duty. The industry believes that the revenue raised will be much more than the $24 million predicted by Treasury. The State Chamber of Commerce has certainly made known its feelings about this legislation. Everyone is unhappy about it, but again the Carr Government is hitting small businesses with another impost. As already noted in the House, the Coalition has made a commitment, and has a bill before the House, to cut stamp duty. The Government's bill extends the stamp duty base. The Opposition will not vote for this bill.

Mr GRAHAM WEST (Campbelltown—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.53 p.m.], in reply: The honourable member for Willoughby rightly identifies that this bill aims to protect the State's revenue from avoidance. Let us be clear about this. Not only do we need to make changes to protect our tax base, we will also be penalised by the Commonwealth Grants Commission—that is a Federal Government body—if we do not make changes in regard to unit trusts. The Minister in his second reading speech said that last year grants to 5154 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003

New South Wales were cut by $26.2 million because the Commonwealth Grants Commission found that we had above-average capacity in transfer duty on unit trusts, that is, New South Wales is paying the penalty for revenue that it is not even raising. The bill is necessary not only to prevent tax avoidance but to avoid Commonwealth penalties.

In regard to a number of observations by the Opposition, I remind honourable members that land rich provisions have applied since 1986. They apply now—that is, today—to mining companies, small businesses and many other entities. They are not new. The only change is to the threshold. The increase in the threshold to $2 million will assist to take many small businesses out of the base. The reduction in the percentage of land is designed to stop avoidance by including intangible assets in the calculation of the land rich test. Many of the examples used by the Opposition refer to the draft bill and do not reflect changes that have been made in this bill. However, if members opposite have detailed examples I will gladly forward them to the Office of State Revenue so a more detailed answer can be provided.

In drafting this bill, the Government has looked at other jurisdictions and consulted bodies such as the Property Council and the New South Wales Farmers Association. On the 80 per cent land rich test, I remind honourable members that it will remain at 80 per cent for primary production trusts and companies when the land is used for primary production for at least five years. I draw the attention of honourable members to a news release from the New South Wales Farmers Association, in which the chair of the association's business, economics and trade committee, Charles Armstrong, said:

The Association has been working closely with Country Labour to ensure that these changes—aimed at stopping tax avoidance— did not have a much broader impact on farmers.

Mr Armstrong singled out MLC Tony Catanzariti, himself an Association member and farmer from Griffith, for thanks.

Tony made several representations to Treasurer Michael Egan's office on our behalf, and farmers in the Griffith area and from all over the State appreciate his efforts …

That shows that the Farmers Association is happy with the changes being made. Doubling the land rich threshold from $1 million to $2 million means that many small businesses will pay less stamp duty. I remind honourable members that, as the Treasurer said, our primary aim in this legislation is to prevent businesses that are land rich from using company and private trust structures to avoid paying appropriate stamp duty.

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

The House divided.

Ayes, 48

Ms Allan Mr Hickey Mr Price Mr Amery Mr Hunter Dr Refshauge Ms Andrews Mr Iemma Ms Saliba Mr Bartlett Ms Judge Mr Sartor Mr Black Ms Keneally Mr Scully Mr Brown Mr Lynch Mr Shearan Ms Burney Mr McBride Mr Stewart Miss Burton Mr McLeay Mr Tripodi Mr Collier Ms Meagher Mr Watkins Mr Corrigan Ms Megarrity Mr West Mr Crittenden Mr Mills Mr Whan Ms D'Amore Mr Morris Mr Yeadon Mr Debus Mr Newell Mr Gaudry Mr Orkopoulos Mr Gibson Mrs Paluzzano Tellers, Mr Greene Mr Pearce Mr Ashton Ms Hay Mrs Perry Mr Martin 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5155

Noes, 34

Mr Aplin Mrs Hopwood Ms Seaton Mr Barr Mr Humpherson Mrs Skinner Ms Berejiklian Mr Kerr Mr Slack-Smith Mr Cansdell Mr McGrane Mr Souris Mr Constance Mr Merton Mr Stoner Mr Debnam Mr Oakeshott Mr Tink Mr Draper Mr O'Farrell Mr Torbay Mr Fraser Mr Page Mr J. H. Turner Mrs Hancock Mr Piccoli Mr Hartcher Mr Pringle Tellers, Mr Hazzard Mr Richardson Mr George Ms Hodgkinson Mr Roberts Mr Maguire

Pairs

Ms Beamer Mr Armstrong Ms Gadiel Mr Brogden Ms Nori Mr R.W. Turner

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

[Mr Speaker left the chair at 6.05 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

BILL RETURNED

The following bill was returned from the Legislative Council without amendment:

Coroners Amendment Bill.

MARKETING OF PRIMARY PRODUCTS AMENDMENT (RICE MARKETING) BILL

Bill received and read a first time.

Second reading ordered to stand as an order of the day.

STATUTE LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL (No 2)

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 November.

Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [7.31 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose this bill, whose objects are to make minor amendments to various Acts and statutory rules, to amend certain other Acts and instruments for the purpose of effecting statute law revision, to repeal certain Acts and provisions of Acts, and to make other provisions of a consequential or ancillary nature. The bill has been circularised to shadow Ministers and no issues of concern arise. However, I would like to comment on some parts of the bill. Schedule 1.6 [1] inserts a new subsection into the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998. The subsection deals with mandatory reporting. It refers to a description that is sufficient to identify all the children who constitute the class and, in particular, the grounds for suspecting that the children of that class are at risk of harm. I understand the sense in that, but I offer a slight word of warning.

In being able to identify a class it is important not to overlook particular children within that class who might need special mandatory reporting or attention of an individual nature. I take it on good faith that the intention of all involved in the bill is, in effect, to open up a range of possibilities for reporting agencies. The word of warning is that in relation to notifying a class, many tragic examples have been brought up in 5156 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003

Parliament of children who should have been the subject of notification or were not the subject of sufficient notification. That creates a problem with regard to the adequacy of individual notifications.

The next point I want to refer to relates to the amendment to the Crimes (Local Courts Appeal and Review) Act in items [1] and [2] of schedule 1.11 to the bill. Amendments are proposed in relation to convictions and appeals as of right. The explanatory note, which reads as follows, caught my eye:

The Crimes (Local Courts Appeal and Review) Act 2001 … was intended, among other things, to "restate the laws with respect to appeals … in relation to criminal proceedings in Local Courts" …

In restating the provisions of sections 120 and 123 of the Justices Act 1902, the Act inadvertently included a provision requiring a person who was convicted in a Local Court in the person's absence, or after a plea of guilty, to obtain the leave of a higher Court … to appeal …

The proposed amendments reinstate, as from the commencement of the Act, the right of the person to appeal without first obtaining … leave …

The good news is that this problem has been picked up, and that is what the amendments are all about. The bad news is that a mistake of this nature was made in the first place. It is an important fundamental point: the right of appeal as distinct from leave to appeal. Mistakes like that should not happen. In future, those involved in putting legislation before Parliament have to be extremely careful to avoid these sorts of mistakes being made. With the sort of stress the legal system is under at present and with public debate raging about a range of issues, technical errors do not strengthen the confidence of the public in the legal system generally. For judicial officers, who are often placed in difficult situations, it is just that much harder when Parliament, on the basis of legislation put forward by the Government, has misstated the law on such a fundamental issue as whether an appeal is by right or a matter of leave. There is room for significant improvement.

Schedule 1.22 amends the Parliamentary Electorate and Elections Act in relation to the death of a candidate The amendment deals with the tragic situation, apparently without precedent in the State, of the death of a candidate on polling day. I mention in passing that that was the former member for Londonderry, Jim Anderson. It is fair to say that all honourable members remember Jim with significant affection, and this amendment is a little reminder of him and the role he played in this House. I thought it was timely to raise that in the con text of the amendment.

The last provision I wish to mention is item [1] of schedule 1.23, which amends the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act. There is a problem in my electorate at the moment. The amendment in this bill talks about giving power to an authorised officer to open any locked cupboard, drawer, container or other form of storage found at the premises of a second-hand dealer, and may require a person apparently in charge of the premises to open any form of storage, including a safe that is locked. There is a business called the Treasure House at Beecroft in my electorate. It deals in second-hand goods and is subject to this legislation. It is ironic that in the past few years some draconian measures have been put in place. There is some concern about whether, on a cost-benefit analysis, these arrangements warrant all the effort that these small businesspeople have to go through to comply with them. At the same time they are faced with horrific armed hold-ups. Recently the Treasure House was held up at about 10.30 on a Saturday morning, in broad daylight, and about $1 million worth of second-hand costume jewellery and estate jewellery was stolen.

Even though the Treasure House complied with all these rules it was subject to a massive armed hold- up. It is not the only business in the area that has been subject to armed hold-ups recently. Many people wonder whether they are getting attention at the appropriate level—in responding to and deterring armed hold-ups—and whether all the effort is being front ended into bookkeeping and record keeping, which really does not matter a fig when somebody comes in armed and takes $1 million worth of jewellery in about 15 minutes in broad daylight on a Saturday morning. We do not oppose the bill, but I put on the record the frustration many second- hand dealers have in facing a rising rate of armed hold-ups. Far from getting any effective law enforcement response that helps them deal with the main crime problem—blatant daylight armed hold-ups—the "help" that they are getting is more forms to fill out, more powers to authorised officers to come in and inspect all the goods, and that type of thing. They would rather see more effort put into deterring armed hold-ups. The Opposition does not oppose the bill. I thank Davina Langton for her help. The bill was provided in a timely way, as usual. If she were running more of this place we would do better.

Ms SANDRA NORI (Port Jackson—Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation, and Minister for Women) [7.41 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Epping for his contribution to the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages. 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5157

CITY TATTERSALL'S CLUB AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 November.

Mr GEORGE SOURIS (Upper Hunter) [7.42 p.m.]: I have pleasure to lead on behalf of the Liberal Party and The Nationals in relation to the City Tattersall's Club Amendment Bill. The Liberal Party and The Nationals will not oppose the bill because it updates the Act relating to the City Tattersall's Club and removes the considerable hardship faced by the club under the present legislation. In particular, the club will be able to borrow or expend amounts up to $1.5 million without the need to convene a general meeting of members to obtain authority. The present limit is $1,000. That provision was part of the City Tattersall's Club Act 1912. Whilst $1,000 might have built some pretty serious extensions at that time, it certainly would not do anything in 2003 and beyond. The bill will alleviate the considerable disadvantage and hardship faced by the club with the present limit. I was particularly interested in the amendment pertaining to section 13 whereby the Government, in summary, is seeking to eventually expire this Act and bring the club under the general auspices of the Registered Clubs Act, which governs all the other registered clubs. Historically, certain clubs had their own Act. I think principally of the Australian Jockey Club. To be sure that this aspect of the bill would not offset the inconvenience of having to convene members to approve expenditure of more than $1,000, I contacted the club and received a reply that stated:

As we understand the proposed new section 13, what you have referred to as the "the terminating provision 3112.05" can not apply until after the property and liabilities of the Club are vested in another entity—even if that occurs some time after 31 December 2005.

As the club supports the bill the Liberal Party and The Nationals ought not oppose it. The letter goes on to state:

On that basis, we have not objected to the proposed new section 13, support the City Tattersalls Club Act Amendment Bill 2003, and seek your support for its urgent passage through both Houses of Parliament.

I am pleased to offer the support of the Liberal Party and The Nationals for the bill. In closing, I say that the club historically is an integral part of and an institution in clubland and racing in Sydney. This prestigious club is an icon and an ornament to this city and this State. I have great pleasure in supporting the bill. I commend it to the House.

Ms MARIANNE SALIBA (Illawarra) [7.47 p.m.]: I support the City Tattersall's Club Amendment Bill. I am pleased to hear that the Opposition supports it. I am pleased to be able to speak on the bill tonight as a snooker player and somebody who enjoys—

Mr George Souris: Who, me?

Ms MARIANNE SALIBA: No, I enjoy that sport. Section 6 of the club's Act imposes a requirement on the club to convene a special general meeting of the club each time the club's committee wishes to borrow money or dispose of money, regardless of the value of the transaction. This constraint is onerous and unrealistic in today's market, and is not imposed on other registered clubs. Hence section 6 of the Act will be amended to reflect current market realities. The club will be required to convene a special general meeting only if the amount in question exceeds $1.5 million. This amount was proposed by the club, and was approved by members at a special general meeting held by the club on 14 October 2003. The amendment also requires the club to convene a special general meeting if it proposes to increase its interest-bearing liabilities, but only if the amount in question exceeds $5.5 million. This limit was also proposed by the club, and approved at the special general meeting held on 14 October 2003.

Section 7 of the club's Act limits the amount of money that may be expended by the club's Committee in the name of the chairman to $1,000. To spend more than this amount requires the approval of the members at a special general meeting. This effectively means the club is required to hold a special general meeting for each occasion when expenditure in excess of $1,000 for any form of building work on the club's properties is required. Various general resolutions of the club gradually increased the amount that the committee was authorised to spend to $1.5 million. However, legal advice recently obtained by the club's committee has raised doubts about the validity of these resolutions. The requirement on the club to hold a special general meeting is onerous and unrealistic, and it is not imposed on other clubs. It is appropriate to support this amendment bill so that the club's committee is authorised to spend $1.5 million without the approval of a special meeting. The amount was proposed by the club and was approved at the general meeting held on 14 October. 5158 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003

As a general rule, government policy does not support the continuance of outdated Acts such as the City Tattersall's Act. The Act places outdated requirements on the operation of the club and its repeal is in the interests of the club and its members. Of course, club representatives have been consulted and it was agreed that there was no need for an Act that applied to it exclusively. The club also agreed to the sunset date of 31 December 2005. Although it will be a complex procedure, the two years transition before the repeal of the Act will allow more than enough time for the club to institute the necessary changes to form the club into a company. It is a general requirement of the Registered Clubs Act that clubs are either a company or a co- operative. City Tattersall's Club will then operate in the same way as any other club that has been granted a certificate of registration under the Registered Clubs Act. These amendments will allow the club to operate in line with other clubs in New South Wales. Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting the bill.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [7.53 p.m.]: I support the City Tattersall's Club Amendment Bill. The bill amends the City Tattersall's Club Act 1912, which has been virtually unchanged since its enactment. As the honourable member for Upper Hunter said, any borrowing or disposal of money or goods and chattels must be approved by a majority of club members at a special general meeting and any expenditure by the club's committee cannot exceed $1,000 without the approval of a majority of members. That is an onerous requirement and the Act should be amended to impose a limit of $1.5 million before the club needs approval for borrowing or expenditure. The bill will also provide for the repeal of the Act in two years. The City Tattersall's Club supports these amendments, which it has been seeking for some time. This bill is worthy of support and The Nationals support it.

Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance—Minister for Gaming and Racing) [7.54 p.m.], in reply: I acknowledge the contribution of the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Upper Hunter, and his usual forensic attention to detail in his scrutiny of the bill. I am starting to adjust to that level of oversight. I also acknowledge the contributions of the honourable member for Illawarra and the honourable member for Burrinjuck. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

REGISTERED CLUBS AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 November.

Mr GEORGE SOURIS (Upper Hunter) [7.57 p.m.]: I have pleasure on behalf of the Liberal Party and The Nationals to lead in this debate on the Registered Clubs Amendment Bill. This bill is not the product of natural causes, nor has it come about in the normal course of business. It has been introduced because this Government is doing everything it can to persecute and harass the club industry of New South Wales. This bill is a direct response to the campaign justifiably mounted by the club movement in New South Wales against the pernicious tax that this Government intends to impose next year and that will step up dramatically over the next seven years. As a result, many clubs will go broke. Any honourable member arguing in support of this bill would be doing so only as an act of faith in his or her political philosophy. This bill is the product of a sequence of leaks and careful seeding, particularly in the media, to create scandal after scandal and revelation after revelation about club managers and directors, their salaries and other dealings.

Generally speaking, the Government's campaign has been directed at clubs at the big end of the scale, especially rugby leagues clubs. It has been attempting to create a climate over the past three or four weeks that would facilitate the introduction of a bill of this nature and to raise the stakes with regard to the club movement. This is the Government's return volley in response to the club movement's opposition to these dreadful taxes and its campaign against them. What a dreadful way to do business. This bill has not come to this place in the normal course of the business of government; it represents the Government's continued campaign to introduce the proposed taxation regime. On the surface, many of these amendments relate to accountability measures, elimination of potential conflicts of interest and the creation of a greater level of disclosure. Prima facie they represent an era of governance that, because of their history, clubs would not necessarily find comfortable. I say that not because I am arguing the case on behalf of chief executives but in an attempt to get the Government to see reason. 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5159

Directors of licensed clubs in New South Wales are, in main, voluntary, elected office bearers and many are retirees. They generally do not have training in accountancy, finance, Corporations Law or general governance of businesses of this nature. There is little doubt that this bill will usher in a revolution in the approach taken by members of boards of licensed clubs throughout New South Wales. This bill creates a bind for the clubs because, unlike corporations in which replacement board members or incoming directors are selected as a result of examination of the composition of the board and the skills it needs, their boards are membership and community based. Club board members offer their services on a voluntary basis and are elected by the membership at large. They do not put their name on a ballot paper and list as their credentials membership of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, the Chartered Secretaries of Australia Inc., the Institute of Chartered Accounts, the Australian Institute of Management or any other qualifications, such as a Bachelor of Business or even a history in business.

Such a requirement would impose too great a burden on the directors of clubs, particularly those at the smaller end of the scale. Some of the current requirements are simply unjustifiable. In the case of small clubs, a director or directors may also have business with the club. For example, the only butcher in a small town may also have offered service on the club's board. In fact, one of the newspapers recently reported the example of a director who had been supplying services or goods to the club for a large number of years but only in recent years had offered his services as a director of the club, by way of offering voluntary service to put something into the club. This was deemed in some way as an improper or suspicious practice.

I believe we will see a flight of directors from clubs, particularly the smaller clubs. No club director who has any business dealings with the club would want his or her integrity questioned. Club directors who are in business may be able to bring a higher level of business skills to the board. I believe that such directors will be unable to continue as board members if they have any business dealings with the club. Regardless of how much above board those directors are, and how careful or at arm's length their transactions are, being on the board becomes an examinable aspect. Their dealings would be publicised throughout the town, and they would be reported in various ways. Regrettably, very good people who have served as directors of licensed clubs for many years and have given of their services for the benefit of the club and the community will find it impossible to continue as club directors.

I ask the Minister to consider what can be done to address this issue, particularly with regard to small clubs. I ask him, at the very least, to provide in his reply an undertaking on the issue, possibly even by way of amendment to the bill. The Opposition is considering what aspects it could introduce by way of amendment in the other place to ameliorate those unintended but dire consequences of the bill for small clubs in small communities. I ask the Government to take on board the extent to which directors of small clubs will feel uncomfortable about continuing as directors, and in extreme cases will feel persecuted. The ultimate result of this bill would be that very good people who have served their clubs for many years, completely at arm's length, would leave the industry, and that would be very much to the detriment of the relevant clubs. I foreshadow that the Opposition does not intend to oppose the bill. However, we are considering moving amendments to it in the other place to address the problem I have referred to.

A further problem is that although some clubs have found benefit from amalgamations—particularly the amalgamation of a small club with a large club—the bill represents a significant impediment to future amalgamations. Given the exposure that that would create in all the provisions of the bill, it may be not worth the trouble for a large club to take on a smaller club to assist in its recovery, or even its rescue. It may not be worth the large club complying with all the requirements contained in the bill. Consequently, I am sure that many potential future amalgamations will not take place. The speed with which this bill was introduced and second read, and the urgency with which it is now being rammed through the Parliament, belies the need for far greater consideration of the implications to governance than has been given. There has been insufficient time to consult with the industry.

I realise that a task force has been involved, but there has not been any time for particularly the Opposition to consult with stakeholders. I do not believe that the Government has invited sufficient general consultation from the affected stakeholders. For example, I do not think that the Government has had the benefit of hearing from local government leaders in the smaller communities that may be affected. Indeed, I am fairly certain that most local government leaders and community leaders would not even be aware that their local communities are about to be hit by this bill, which would affect the operations of relatively small clubs, if not the only club, in their communities. There has been insufficient time to get feedback from the general community. What is the great rush? Is this a time-critical bill? Is it necessary to pass the bill in the next week or two? 5160 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003

Mr Anthony Roberts: Of course not.

Mr GEORGE SOURIS: Of course not. It can wait until February; there is ample time. The implications of this bill are so great, so long term and so all-invasive of the club movement that there ought to be sufficient time to consider the consequences of it. Undoubtedly, the clubs and members of the community will consider the bill and come up with other issues that I have not had the opportunity to consider. I have not had the opportunity to even consider what might be further consequences of it. I have hardly had the time to consult with the industry over the weekend. Ultimately the bill will result in imperfect legislation and bad government. Indeed, this is evidence of a huge stick that the Government is waving at the club movement for having the audacity to defend clubs, their communities, and the many organisations and sports they support.

A rugby league test match was played a couple of nights ago. Where does the Government think the funding for rugby league comes from? There are so many implications attaching to this bill, yet there is far too much haste surrounding it, particularly for the communities that will be so adversely affected. I understand that stage two of the bill is yet to come. We again ask: What is the rush? Why cannot stage one and stage two be presented in a single bill? After all, is there only one task force at work? Is there such an urgency about it that there is no time for consultation with the general community—not just the direct contact between the Government, the union and representatives of the association, but the sort of consultation that members who will speak in support of the Opposition's position will raise as this debate continues? The Government ought to take a far better approach and path to this legislation. It should not lock out the valuable opinions of the community and the club movement, which would ultimately lead to a better bill.

As I said, what is the rush? Why cannot the Government present stages one and two simultaneously? There is no need for there to be stages one and two, it simply ought to be the outcome of the task force after a genuine period of consultation. That would allow sufficient time for the Government to negotiate with the Opposition, and the Opposition sufficient time to consult with the industry and the stakeholders. That is how to achieve good legislation—not by ramming legislation through in such great haste. The presentation of this bill is arrogance personified; it is characteristic of this Government—and not just of late, it has been building up. This flurry of legislation, particularly this bill, is evidence of a government that cares little about the opinion of the community, or about the role that many volunteers—especially the directors I referred to earlier—play in the community. The Government does not care whatsoever about the fabric of our community and the way it is so intertwined with our voluntary organisations in particular but also with our community and sporting organisations. The Government does not care about the valuable relationship between the community and the licensed clubs.

The Government is not interested in any of that. The Government is delivering this king hit to the clubs because the clubs have had the hide to be vocal about the Government's approach to taxation. The ultimate result will be that many clubs will go out of business and the remaining clubs will hardly be able to continue the level of community support we have not only become accustomed to but also completely rely upon. The Government has no intention of replacing the community support provided by clubs with any other form of direct taxation benefit or funding from the Consolidated Fund.

This bill represents another hit on the club movement to justify—at least in the Government's twisted moral judgement—its approach, which is to take vital funding from local communities and transfer it to the Consolidated Fund. All the volunteers, community groups and sporting organisations can whistle in the wind as far as this Government is concerned. That is bad government. The Government ought to be ashamed of the way it has introduced this type of legislation. It ought to be ashamed of itself for using this legislation to bash the clubs for having the hide to defend themselves against the Government's proposed taxation regime.

I do not understand how Government members who have clubs in their electorates can sit there and smirk and giggle and dream up some kind of reply to the points I am making. They are not defending their communities, they are not helping them, they are not representing them. What are those members going to say to all the organisations that depend so much on funding from clubs? They can only tell them straight out that they have let them down. In a very brief, cheap and nasty little moment in caucus 34 Government members purportedly made a statement. Hours later in this Chamber when the same question was put to the vote, each and every one of the Government members gutlessly stayed on that side and supported the Government and the Premier. They said, "Don't blame me. I'm not the Treasurer. This is a money thing. Don't blame me." The Minister for Gaming and Racing says, "How relieved I am." There he is, scribbling a few little notes, minding his own business. 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5161

This bill does not worry him; it was imposed directly by the Treasurer; he is off the hook. But he is the Minister; he sits at the Cabinet table; he tows the line every time the Premier or the Treasurer offers a dictum. Government members are just dictum servers, each and every one of them. Defend their communities! No way! Not one of them, absolutely none of them! When the bugle goes, the Labor Party heads for the regimental aid post. That is all it is good for. I am sorry to say that this legislation is a mask, a disguise, for Government members' utter gutlessness.

Mr TONY STEWART (Bankstown—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.14 p.m.]: Despite the bizarre performance of the member for Upper Hunter, I am very pleased to support this bill. I am a little confused and perplexed by his comments because although he said he supports the bill and that the Opposition is to be supportive, he seems to be confused about the aims of the bill. Let me say very succinctly that the bill is a reflection of community standards. It is a reflection of the need for accountability and transparency, which clubs and the community want to uphold. It is good to see that the member for Upper Hunter has suddenly discovered clubs in his electorate. We might wonder why but, nevertheless, the fact is that Clubs NSW—the wonderful peak body that represents clubs in this State—supports these amendments. The club industry as a whole supports the amendments because it wants to go forward, in partnership with this Government. It recognises the need to do that by meeting the community's expectations about accountability and transparency. That is what this bill will achieve through its amendments.

It needs to be stated very strongly that the process has been consultative. In fact, the Minister for Gaming and Racing was part of committees that oversaw the consultative process going back some time ago— 1997 the Minister informs me. That is how long this consultative process has been conducted, in partnership with the club industry: negotiating with, talking to, and getting substance from the stakeholders. As a result, we have been able to arrive at the amendments in this bill. I am very pleased to report that the club industry has grown very significantly in this State for over half a century. And why shouldn't it? The club industry was really born in New South Wales, basically born out, I am pleased to report, of the great Australian Labor Party in this State. There are more than 1,500 registered clubs premises in New South Wales, with approximately 2½ million members.

Honourable members would be aware that these clubs range from small voluntarily run clubs such as small local bowling clubs, right through to very large clubs such as the magnificent Bankstown District Sports Club, which has many thousands of members and provides many focal community opportunities in that district. It has been an absolute asset in the Bankstown region for the past 50 years or so. That is what clubs are about: supporting their communities and working to meet community expectations. And that is what this bill will deliver. As we all know, the club industry is a major employer. The major clubs in my electorate would probably be the second major employer in the Bankstown region. That is very important in my electorate and in many other electorates throughout New South Wales.

In this environment of clubs growing rapidly and successfully because they are in tune with community expectations and needs, the clubs and the Government recognise that club directors and managers need to formally demonstrate that they are transparent and accountable in how they fashion their objectives and their focuses. I reiterate: That is what this bill will achieve. It will do it in partnership and in collaboration with the club industry. It is an important initiative supported by the clubs, and Clubs NSW has worked to achieve that end. Progressive and professional club managers realise the need to overcome community perceptions and the concerns of a very small but vocal minority that wants to press some negativities about the club industry. I can proudly announce to this House that the club industry has held its head up, and, by supporting these amendments, will continue to achieve the successes that historically it has achieved in this State.

The standards and governance of the club industry will be formally examined, in consultation with the relevant parties. The Government shares the club industry's concerns and will review its future direction. The establishment of the club industry task force will encourage the industry and the Government to work in partnership to develop a framework to enable an understanding of each other's needs and policy requirements. The task force will provide an excellent vehicle to progress the club industry into the future. Clubs presently need assistance with their future directions and the task force will be a tangible means to achieve that, and I applaud the Minister on its establishment. It will encourage a working partnership between the Government and the club industry. The task force will ensure that industry meets the highest standards of governance and adheres to strict standards of probity and accountability. To date the process has been rigorous, frank and robust, and it has achieved results. 5162 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003

The honourable member for Upper Hunter referred to the various stages of the process and ensuring that it is effective. That is the aim of the club industry, and the bill will deliver it. Stage two will provide a method of dealing with corrupt conduct, debt servicing payments, remuneration of directors, improved transparency of accounting standards—something the clubs are keen to achieve—expanded reporting requirements, and other miscellaneous matters. It will also consider club amalgamations, codes of practice, clubs community service obligations, financial reporting and accountability, along with industry performance and benchmarking.

I repeat that it is the wish of clubs to meet the benchmark of community expectations with respect to transparency and accountancy, and the bill achieves that aim. I applaud the Minister and ClubsNSW for their leadership. The Chief Executive Officer of ClubsNSW, David Costello, and the Chairman, Pat Rogan, are working hard to achieve a modern direction for the club industry. They have worked with the community and clubs to achieve a positive focus for the future needs of the club industry.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.22 p.m.]: I participate somewhat surprisingly in this debate because, as asides across the table suggest, the North Shore is not exactly the club heartland of New South Wales. My electorate is characterised more by small bowling clubs rather than the larger clubs we see in other parts of Sydney or, indeed, by the Hornsby RSL to the north of my electorate. Indeed, my largest clubs are probably the North Turramurra Bowling Club and the Roseville Memorial Services Club. However, each club is important in its own way. I have said before that three years ago when the Warrawee Bowling Club, where I often attend Rotary meetings, removed its poker machines, its takings increased because the patrons enjoyed an atmosphere in which they could hear themselves talk.

Equally, the Roseville Memorial Services Club and the North Turramurra Bowling Club, among others, through their poker machines proceeds, support their local communities. I can understand why the Government seeks to address governance, transparency and accountability. Picking up on the comments of the honourable member for Bankstown, if the club movement did arise out of the Labor Party, I can understand why members of the Randwick Labor Club would look for greater transparency, accountability and better governance from the club and its directors. I can understand why those who were once members of the Cronulla Workers Club, where a former director ran that club into the ground only to rise again years later as the Treasurer of this State, would have welcomed these sorts of regulations. I can appreciate why not that long ago members of the Henry Lawson Club might have looked for similar improvements in governance, transparency and accountability before a member of Parliament named Aquilina—not the Speaker—took them for a ride.

I am speaking to the bill because accountability, transparency and improved governance are important. In saying that, I acknowledge the concerns raised by the honourable member for Upper Hunter in his sterling contribution, particularly in regard to those issues upon which my colleagues the members of The Nationals know best, that is, the impact of these prospective changes on the club movement outside the Newcastle, Sydney, Wollongong conurbation.

I bring to the attention of the House the example of a serving director of a club, who in August 2001 was appointed as a director of a company that had an involvement with that club. At about the same time this director was appointed as the chair of a subcommittee in which the company to which he had been appointed had a direct interest. In dealing with that subcommittee this director raised questions that were of interest, if not of benefit, to his company, to the detriment of other companies that were competing with his company. At no stage during that process did this director declare an interest or say, "By the way, as well as being a director of this club, I am a director of this company." Indeed, it went beyond that. This director arranged meetings to introduce his company to the club's executive, the people who ran the club, again without declaring an interest.

The Minister, the honourable member for Swansea, and others would be horrified by that situation, which they would argue is the very thing that this bill seeks to address. To a degree it is a reflection of community standards that that behaviour was clearly inappropriate. There was clearly a huge conflict of interest, a non-disclosure of a salient interest, a commercial benefit to that director because he was being paid as a director of the company for which he was opening doors, asking questions, and doing its bidding while he was a member of the club committee.

That is an outrage and to some extent this bill seeks to address that issue, as the Minister will no doubt tell me. However, I am disappointed that the standard proposed to be applied by the bill is not the same standard that applies in this place. Electors—maybe a small minority but a sufficiently large minority to cause us damage—will perceive us as hypocrites if we impose upon them standards that we do not apply to ourselves. I 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5163 see that the honourable member for Liverpool is on to me because the example I have outlined to this House involves the member for Wentworthville. Clearly, what disturbs me about this bill—

Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order: The comments of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have nothing to do with the leave of the bill. We are talking about clubs and governance, which has nothing to do with the honourable member for Wentworthville. I ask that you rule him out of order and bring him back to the leave of the bill.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! The point of order has some validity. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition cannot legitimately refer to the member for Wentworthville and allegations relating to her in this debate.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I am not canvassing your ruling, Mr Acting-Speaker. I would never do that to you. However, the briefing note on this bill provided by the Australian Labor Party states:

Members of the governing body of a registered club, and the top five (5) highest paid employees at each separate premises of the registered club, will be required to disclose in the annual report to members of the registered club— and this is my point—

any income or payments or any non-financial benefit to the value of $500.00 or more received from any affiliated clubs, subsidiary companies or any other body, which are in receipt of grants or subsidies from the registered club.

In raising general support for better governance and greater transparency and accountability, it is within my leave as the member for Ku-ring-gai, as a member of this place, to talk about the unbounded hypocrisy of a government that is prepared to introduce rules for club directors that it will not apply to its own backbenchers. The honourable member for Wentworthville should have declared $97,000 a year in director fees, yet she is not required to.

Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order: What the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai is saying has nothing to do with the leave of the bill. Mr Acting-Speaker ruled that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was not to discuss the honourable member for Wentworthville. This is the second time he has raised that matter. He is taking advantage of the fact that Mr Acting-Speaker Lynch has left the chair and that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are now in the chair.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I assume the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is making a passing reference only to that matter and will now return to the leave of the bill.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I will actually return to other members of Parliament.

Mr Alan Ashton: We will start talking about one of yours in a minute.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I am happy for you to do so. However, for the benefit of the honourable member for East Hills, the point I am making is that we are imposing on directors a standard that the Government will not impose on us. Earlier the Minister for Gaming and Racing indicated that he was once a director of a club on the Central Coast. The reality is that if he were still a club director the standards imposed on him by this legislation would be more stringent than the standards applied to members of Parliament. Is the honourable member for East Hills arguing that there is a difference between the public interest and the faith in an institution? If the difference is trying to ensure greater faith in the legislative powers and operations of this place, frankly, I would put that above governance, transparency and accountability in clubs.

But that is not my argument. My argument is that we are being hypocritical. We are applying one set of standards to club directors—that would have included the Minister for Gaming and Racing when he was a director of a club on the Central Coast, and now includes a number of members of Parliament—in this bill that are not applied to members of Parliament when they fill out their disclosure form each year as required by the Constitution Act. We are required to list sources of income but we are not required to list amounts. Therefore the honourable member for Wentworthville can receive $97,000 a year but does not have to stipulate the amount.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will return to the leave of the bill. 5164 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I am happy for you to throw me out if you want to defend the honourable member for Wentworthville. My point is that it is within my rights as a member of Parliament to raise the double standards involved in this legislation—legislation that almost mirrors the pecuniary interest return that members of Parliament must fill out each year. It mirrors the process for club directors but sets a standard that is substantially higher. I understand why it is happening. The Government is embarrassed about what is happening. As long as Labor members of Parliament are directors and do not declare their income from directorships, and as long as they are engaged in the sorts of commercial activities club directors will not be allowed to engage in under this legislation, the charge of hypocrisy will continue.

I am speaking on this bill simply to point out again the Government's hypocrisy. At the outset I told a story about a member of Parliament who was also a director of a club who then took a commercial directorship that subsequently was in conflict with her club directorship. When I referred to conflict of interest, the failure to honour public trust, and the lack of transparency and accountability, members opposite nodded their heads. However, as soon as I dropped the penny and members opposite realised I was talking about one of their colleagues, suddenly they got on the defensive. We are hypocrites on this issue, and undoubtedly other issues are important. We should seek to raise public trust but what we require of others should be, foremost, what we require of ourselves. We are not prepared to do so with this legislation. I look forward to the Minister explaining why the honourable member for Wentworthville can get $97,000 a year and not declare it but directors and chief executive officers of clubs cannot do so.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wants to launch an attack on a member of this House he should do so by way of substantive motion.

Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [8.34 p.m.]: In the 4½ years I have been in Parliament I have never seen a more animated performance from the honourable member for Upper Hunter. We can take that as some kind of leadership speech. The performances of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the past couple of weeks in various forums—not always in the Parliament—indicate that he is making his move again. He has made the same move about four times since I have been here. The Government benches were very controlled when he started throwing mud. As honourable members know, the Leader of the Opposition has bigger questions to answer than the honourable member for Wentworthville in terms of taking money on spurious issues. I might leave that matter there because Mr Speaker has already ruled such references out of order.

I am a patron of four clubs in my electorate: Revesby Workers Club, which is a very large club; Bankstown trotting and recreational club, which is a medium size club; Revesby Bowling club; and Padstow RSL club. As a fan and supporter of the club movement, I make the point that it is not the trendy people from Mosman, the nouveau riche from parts thereof of the North Shore, or people in the electorate of Wentworth who have not yet been approached to join the Liberal party who started the club movement; the Labor Party began the club movement, and it began in New South Wales.

Mr Wayne Merton: It is destroying it, too.

Mr ALAN ASHTON: Labor is not destroying it. This bill will not destroy the club movement, as my good friend the honourable member for Baulkham Hills suggests. This amendment to the Registered Clubs Act is simply an attempt to get greater governance of directors and staff of clubs, especially those at the level of secretary-manager. Clubs are no longer small clubs with maybe 300 or 400 members. Recently, I sponsored a bowls day at the Picnic Point Bowling Club, which has 150 members. Compare that with Revesby Workers Club, which has nearly 30,000 members. Revesby Workers Club and Bankstown Sports Club are very big clubs. The point is that the club movement is happy to support this legislation.

The Minister for Gaming and Racing established a task force that involved all sorts of clubs—big, small and those in between. Parliamentarians had input into the task force, which had the signature of the Chairman of ClubsNSW, Pat Rogan, who is the previous member for East Hills. The task force came to the view that the proposal was no threat to clubs and, indeed, would give them greater credibility in the community.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition talked about the hypocrisy of parliamentarians not having the same kind of scrutiny. Indeed, we have a great deal of scrutiny. Not only do the electorates scrutinise us every four years—we stand or fall at elections, as club directors do—but we also have the scrutiny of our pecuniary interests form, which was introduced by the Wran Labor Government back in the 1980s. That form was viciously and violently opposed by the powers that be who wanted to hide their family trusts, bury their money, secrete their farm assets, go on the dole, and pursue superphosphate boundaries and the like. When Neville 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5165

Wran was running the show, members on this side of the Chamber said, "Let us have a pecuniary interests register. Let us know what you are voting on and what pecuniary interests you might be trying to hide." That is where the form came from.

Let us remember that when we talk about declaring interests this Government has done more than any other Government to bring such matters into the open than we would ever have got from the Liberal Party. How would one ever have done a financial audit on Sir Robert Askin? How many brown paper bags would one have had to count to work out just what he owned and where the money went? When he died $10 million went to a cat home. Let us not be hypocrites. We had one bloke stand up tonight and be the greatest hypocrite one could expect. Robert Askin was a legend in his own lunchtime with everybody in New South Wales when the truth came out. Bags and bags of money were being driven around in a parliamentary car, and he never had a problem with that. When he died, and his wife finally passed away, all the money went to a cat home.

Mr Andrew Constance: Point of order: I ask you to ask the honourable member for East Hills to come back to the bill, instead of making spurious comments.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order! I uphold the point of order. The honourable member for East Hills should return to the subject matter of the bill.

Mr ALAN ASHTON: As I said, the club industry supports these amendments. As a patron of four clubs and a member of a couple of others and as a person who has supported clubs throughout my political life, I have no doubt they are happy to support the bill, which will make directors accountable. They are accountable in any event: they are elected every two years, although they used to be elected every year. In the clubs I am involved with there will be occasional ballots. Those ballots are run strictly in accordance with company law. Different clubs have different rules about directors and the fees they receive. Some have reasonable fees and some have small fees. In some small clubs directors might serve alcohol behind the bar because they cannot afford to pay staff. The club industry is an amorphous group and it cannot be put into one category.

I want to focus on two aspects of the legislation. I refer first to proposed section 41O. In the past few years the involvement of private entrepreneurial interests in the management of registered clubs has increased. They are no longer managed by someone who knows a little bit about the club industry and gets the job as secretary-manager. Smaller clubs often suffer from financial difficulties, particularly those in country areas that are losing people to the city. In some areas the only thing that has survived is the club, so it is important that the appointments to the board of the club and the appointments of the secretary-manager or general manager are subject to probity considerations.

There are concerns that under contractual arrangements private entrepreneurs may be able to gain control over the operation and management of a club and exploit it for their own advantage. It is especially concerning if the ultimate aim of such arrangements is to obtain ownership of the club's assets. Often, the only things the club has left are the assets—the buildings, the poker machine licences, and the like—all of which are transferable to some extent. Despite steps being taken to address these issues, some individuals and organisations are becoming more inventive and creative in their attempts to gain control over club operations.

Another major concern for club members is that the governing body of a club or its executives may sometimes be in a position to dispose of the club's major assets and premises without the involvement—and sometimes even without the consent—of our members. As I said, not all clubs have the same strict rules about annual general meetings, elections and report-back nights as most of the clubs I know. Some clubs, just like some organisations, can have a large number of members but not a large turnout of voters. That has given rise to a concern that a minority of club members could dispose of a club's major assets at less than their market value. Clearly, that would be undesirable and of considerable detriment to the interests of all club members.

To address these undesirable practices, the bill provides that certain contracts be declared controlled contracts. The Director of Liquor and Gaming will have certain powers over such contracts, including the power of termination, and will be able to intervene in the interests of club members. The bill also provides for the involvement of all club members in any sale of major club assets. That will be done by means of a requirement for the approval of such disposal at a general meeting of club members. The controlled contract provisions will be of clear benefit to club members and their local communities.

I refer also to proposed section 41L, which relates to a prohibition on clubs entering into contracts with companies controlled by the chief executive officers or secretary managers. Once again, that provision has been 5166 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003 signed off by the task force on clubs, which was set up by the Minister for Gaming and Racing, who knows a fair bit about clubs from working in them and being a director. Some clubs have entered into contracts with companies that supply goods and services to the clubs, and the club's chief executive officers or secretary- managers have had a controlling interest in those companies. That interest may be direct or because of a close family connection. It is the view of the Government that such deals are not in the best interests of clubs and their members. It is not considered appropriate that an employee of a club should deal directly, as a routine part of his or her responsibilities as a club employee, with the company in which that employee has a controlling interest.

I am not talking about some of the old clubs in a country town where there may be only one butcher, and that butcher provides the meat to the clubs. If there is only one place in town where the club can buy a lawnmower to mow the club's greens, it is reasonable that the club will receive a tender from the owner of the lawnmower shop. We are talking about opportunities to make many millions of dollars by dealing directly with organisations that provide services to clubs. I am not suggesting that those arrangements are inherently corrupt or dishonest, but they certainly foster a belief among some club members—and recently the media—that the general community needs to be reassured that senior employees of clubs and members of their families do not receive special or favourable treatment from the clubs of which they might be the secretary-manager, president or director and therefore gain significant financial benefits for members of their families. The bill will prohibit such arrangements. Those provisions will make it clear to club members that the club industry will not accept deals that may be motivated by blatant self-interest on the part of senior employees. They will also provide for greater transparency of any arrangements between clubs and their senior employees.

The club industry has evolved from the 1950s. At times the industry has been ignored; at times there has been a focus on how the Registered Clubs Act operates. There is greater scrutiny of clubs. No longer does a bowling or golf club have only a couple of hundred members and the vast greens it owns, which might be the subject of a peppercorn lease from the State or Federal government, as its only asset. Poker machines were made possible by this Government, and by the Coalition when it was in government. But that was a long time ago. I taught ancient history, and if I ever teach history again I will be able to refer to the last time a Coalition government was in office in New South Wales. It will be one of my first lessons. Kids will wonder whether there has been a Coalition government.

One club in my electorate has a bigger disposable income than Bankstown City Council, so it is only fair that the directors and general managers be subject to probity considerations. Councillors and members of Parliament already have to fill in pecuniary interest declarations, so it is only fair and reasonable that directors of clubs, and particularly the secretary-manager, do so. It is also fair that the club members know what salary is earned by the top five executives in a club. Everybody here knows what the Premier earns and what a backbencher earns. They know that backbenchers on this side of the House are worth what they earn and that the lot opposite are not. There is a way that members opposite can learn more about clubs. They should get out amongst them—and not only to the ones in the eastern suburbs with Peter King and Malcolm Turnbull. They should visit ordinary clubs, talk to ordinary directors and see that they are happy to have this legislation. It has been approved by everybody.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order! There are far too many interjections.

Mr ALAN ASHTON: I did not hear any of them. I was about to finish, but I will use my last 14 seconds to continue to rubbish members of the Opposition. They have no ideas and no policies. They have run up the white flag.

Ms PETA SEATON (Southern Highlands) [8.49 p.m.]: Most fair-minded people would support appropriate and reasonable moves towards greater transparency, whether it be in the club industry, in business or in politics. But I reject completely any adverse or negative implications or aspersions by the Government on the directors of clubs. All of the clubs in my area are run by the most amazing group of volunteers. They work for hours and hours with no personal benefit to them except the satisfaction that they have in knowing that they are contributing something worthwhile to the community. Directors in my local clubs include ex-servicemen, retired people, sportspeople, and people who also contribute on other volunteer organisations such as sports clubs and volunteer rescue organisations. They include local businesspeople who bring a valuable management perspective to the running of clubs. These people are involved in working bees and all sorts of volunteer activities on weekends. They are decent, honest, hard-working people who care about their communities.

There are a number of excellent clubs in my local area. They include the Kangaroo Valley Bowling Club, the Bundanoon Club, the Mittagong RSL Club and the Moss Vale Services Club. Recently we were sad 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5167 about the demise of the Moss Vale Bowling Club, which had done an enormous amount of community work. Other clubs are the Bowral Golf Club, the Bowral Bowling Club, the Bargo Sports Club, the Picton Bowling Club and the Oakdale Workers Club. All those clubs are anchors in their respective communities. I was recently involved in a meeting chaired by Rod Desborough, the General Manager of the Mittagong RSL Club, the largest club in my electorate. He brought together directors and volunteer members of most of the clubs in my area to talk about the fear they have about the prospect of the Carr Government's club tax.

They brought to me an extremely well put together presentation which set out with no emotion— simply a merit-based presentation—the impact that they anticipate will occur on our local clubs. They fear that there will be a loss of jobs in clubs because the additional tax impact will mean that somewhere or other the clubs will have to make adjustments. They will perhaps have to lay off staff in clubs. They talked about the impact on future capital works. I am sure my colleagues, particularly those from country areas, will agree that often clubs provide the only venue the community can use for sports awards or public meetings. Not long ago the Mittagong RSL Club brought together 700 people for a conference on childhood autism. No other venue in the Southern Highlands could have coped with that many people.

Mr Anthony Roberts: And there will not be.

Ms PETA SEATON: And there will not be. Absolutely. It will be gone. Future works will be cut back and the effect on builders and suppliers and job seekers in our areas as a result of this cutback in construction work will be immense. Many clubs have already invested in new works, particularly at Mittagong and Moss Vale. They will be struggling to pay the debt that they have planned for, not knowing that this truck would hit them in the face after the Carr Government was re-elected. They are concerned about the impact on the donations they can make to local organisations. What will happen if those local donations from clubs stop? Who will the organisations that benefit from those donations go to next? They will go to local councils. And how many councils have excess money to put into running local surf clubs, volunteer rescue organisations, providing the odd piece of sports equipment or facility, rebuilding a canteen or something like that?

No money is available in local government to do this. As soon as the Carr Government's tax takes effect everybody in the community will be knocking on the door of local government. And there will be no money there. So communities will suffer. I bring to the attention of the House some statistics about our local clubs. In the seat of Southern Highlands there are 13 clubs. The estimate of the additional tax in Southern Highlands is $3 million. So the Carr Government will be moving $3 million extra out of our local clubs. That is $3 million less for building new facilities, for contributing to local volunteer organisations.

Mr Anthony Roberts: It is a disgrace.

Ms PETA SEATON: It is an absolute disgrace. A moment ago the honourable member for East Hills exhorted all of us to visit clubs in other areas. I can tell him that I have done this. The Leader of the Opposition and I attended a meeting in Wollongong. We met with Lord Mayor Alex Darling, the President of the Illawarra Steelers Club, Mr Peter Newell, and the General Manager of the club, and representatives of the Western Suburbs Leagues Club at Thirroul, the Dapto Leagues Club , the Shellharbour Workers Club, the Illawarra Leagues Club in Wollongong, the Woonona-Bulli RSL Club, and the Wollongong Ex-servicemen's Club. As I mentioned, we were hosted by the Illawarra Steelers Club.

Mr Anthony Roberts: Were there any Government members there?

Ms PETA SEATON: Funnily enough, the only Government member I saw was when we walked into the Illawarra Steelers Club. There was a poster on the wall with a picture of the honourable member for Keira. It had a message on it. I would blush to tell you what the message was. I would not want to say it here.

Mr Wayne Merton: Was it a nice message?

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order! Members of the Opposition will cease prompting the honourable member for Southern Highlands.

Ms PETA SEATON: The purpose of the meeting was so that clubs in the Illawarra could brief the Leader of the Opposition and me as the shadow Minister for the Illawarra on the impact that Illawarra clubs fear will occur as a result of the Carr Government's tax. In Wollongong there are 21 clubs with gaming. The estimate of additional tax in the electorate of Wollongong is $21 million. There are 14 clubs in the electorate of Kiama 5168 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003 and the estimate of additional tax is $12 million. In the electorate of Illawarra there are six clubs and the estimate of extra tax is $6 million. In the electorate of Keira—the member for Keira, of course, is the Minister for the Illawarra—there are 15 clubs and the estimate of extra tax is $5 million. There are nine clubs in the electorate of Heathcote and the extra tax is estimated at $3 million. Let us not forget Camden, where there are six clubs and the estimate of extra tax is $2 million.

I was grateful to have the opportunity to hear from these clubs what the anticipated impact will be on them. The Illawarra Steelers is expecting to have to pay an extra $4.75 million with the new Carr Government tax. Recently this club has put a lot of effort into upgrading its facilities. It spent $5 million on renovations for new cafe facilities and other community facilities. The club was proud to host the media centre for the Rugby World Cup, with two games being played at Wollongong WIN Stadium. The club is facing a difficult decision because it has a debt to pay off. It has a looming $4.75 million of additional tax and is wondering how it will pay the gap, as indeed all clubs in the Illawarra are wondering. It is looking at all the theoretical options—letting staff go, reducing services to members, reducing meals, reducing the use of club facilities provided at a reduced rate or no cost, and cutting back on community contributions to local organisations.

It is worth bringing to the attention of the House the annual report for 2003 of the Western Suburbs Leagues Club Illawarra. On the front page is a picture of the Westpac lifesaver rescue helicopter. Photographs down the front under the banner "Supporting the Community" depict Wests Illawarra Hockey Club, Wests Illawarra Rugby League Football Club, Wests Illawarra Soccer Club, Wests Illawarra Fishing Club and Wests Illawarra Golf Club. I am sure this will be of interest to you, Madam Acting-Speaker, as the member for Illawarra. On the back of the publication many community organisations and registered charities and sporting groups supported by Wests Illawarra are listed. There are too many for me to go through because there are simply dozens. They range from sporting clubs to neighbourhood centres to counselling services and include the Illawarra Toy Library and the South Coast Rescue Association.

As the mayor correctly said, if the clubs have to tell these organisations that they can no longer provide funding, that will be the end. The clubs will then go to local government for support in providing these essential services. The total contribution from Wests Illawarra during 2003 was $759,000, which is about four times the amount it is obliged to contribute to the community. It is not simply discharging its obligations as required; it is going above and beyond the call of duty. I am looking forward to hearing from members representing the Illawarra about what they are doing to prevent the implementation of this tax. The Minister for the Illawarra was at the Cabinet meeting that made the decision to impose this tax, and he needs to account for that.

I admire the volunteer directors of local clubs, who give so much time to and expend so much effort in the community. Most members on this side of the Chamber know that during the bushfires in my electorate two years ago and again last year the clubs were at the centre of many community responses to the crisis. The Oakdale Workers Club was a gathering point for all the emergency services and it organised meals. The Mittagong RSL Club provided facilities for the Department of Community Services and other organisations to deliver services to people made homeless by evacuation or the loss of property. Every club in my area at some time or another plays an equivalent role in the community. I reject any adverse inferences the Government makes about the commitment and ethics of our local club directors. They are a fine group of people and we are extremely lucky to have them doing the job they are doing.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [9.03 p.m.]: Let us make no mistake about the fact that this bill is the result of a sustained media campaign inspired by Government leaks concentrating on the salaries and contractual arrangements of certain large clubs and individuals. The way the Government has dealt with those fine men and women who work so hard to provide many services to New South Wales is a disgrace. The bill is purely and simply the result of thuggish behaviour on the part of the Carr Labor Government because the clubs will not go along with the iniquitous tax that will destroy many of our clubs. This is the traditional stick waved by the Labor Government—

Mr Wayne Merton: It is a standover tactic.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: The honourable member for Baulkham Hills, a fine and outstanding member who supports his local clubs, is correct. This thuggish behaviour has not gone down well in the electorate. The Opposition has no intention of opposing any bill that improves accountability and disclosure. However, we will not tolerate the hypocrisy displayed by the Government. If honourable members want accountability, we should talk about the blow-out of $117 million on the Liverpool to Parramatta transitway; the blow-out of $102 million on the north-west bus transitway; the blow-out of $104 million on the Millennium 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5169 train, a project that is out of control; the payment last year of almost $17.5 million to public servants who do not have jobs; the loss of $32 million by the Infringement Processing Bureau when it somehow lost its fines for six months; the blow-out of $78 million on the new Hunter and suburban rail carriages; and the $43 million lost on consultants and legal fees in the transport portfolio. Even the Hon. Michael Costa said he was disgusted about that. Somehow $93 million was lost on the sale of the InterContinental Hotel site.

The Government talks about accountability but it would not know accountability if it dropped from a great height and proceeded to dance in front of it. If the same level of accountability were demonstrated by clubs as is demonstrated by the Government they would not be around today servicing more than 2.5 million members. Clubs in the Lane Cove electorate are disgusted by the Labor Party's attitude. Australia is lucky to have the club movement. It was started more than 50 years ago and forms a cornerstone of our society. They are wonderful places for people to go and they provide a great deal of assistance for many community groups.

In my electorate there is the Gladesville Bowling and Sports Club, run by John Barris, who works long and hard to keep the club going; the Gladesville RSL and Community Club, run by hardworking president, Chris Coady; the Hunters Hill Club, run by Max Miles; the Lane Cove Club, run by secretary-manager Reinhardt Volger; the Lane Cove County Club, run by secretary-manager John Donahue; the Lane Cove West Bowling and Recreation Club, which is well served by Alfred Tower, who has been the chairman for many years and has contributed a large amount of his own money, as have many other members, to keep the club alive; the North Ryde RSL, run by President Barry Herbert and the General Manager Chris Jones, who has provided great leadership for local clubs in the fight against this ridiculous tax that will destroy the clubs; the Ryde City Bowling Club, run by Secretary-Manager John Dowling; the Ryde Ex-services Memorial Bowling Club; and the North Ryde Golf Club, run by General Manager Alan Smith.

The need to provide services and financial assistance to many community groups brings these clubs together. They provide financial assistance to hospitals, local sporting groups and for medical research to benefit children. Those who run the clubs are bound by common values of ethics and decency. This bill is a club being wielded by the Government to beat the remaining elements of the New South Wales club movement, or so it thinks. That will not happen because the clubs are ably led by Pat Rogan. They have marshalled their forces. A recent meeting attended by one of my colleagues was also attended by the sons of Federal members of Parliament.

Mr Wayne Merton: Who?

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: Anthony Brereton circulated a petition dealing with unionists who stand to lose their jobs as a result of this ridiculous tax. This bill is a grubby attempt to besmirch the names of good people in the club industry. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Those who run our clubs often work long hours for no money. If the Government wants them to comply with a raft of requirements and regulations, the same should apply to parliamentarians. This legislation is being rushed through using bullyboy tactics. It has been introduced in great haste and is being rushed through this House, like many other pieces legislation, because the Government is out of control.

There is a great man in this country by the name of Father Chris Riley. Recently Father Riley attended an axe-the-tax rally speech that I, together with many of my Opposition colleagues, also attended. I did not see any Labor Party members there. Often I see my club members, and I am welcomed there. But it puzzles me, as it puzzled the honourable member for Southern Highlands, when we see posters of Labor Party members, including the Treasurer. I will not mention in the House the wording on the posters; it would be inappropriate for me to do so. To be quite honest, this Government stinks. One can go into any club—

Mr Gerard Martin: That's unparliamentary. You should withdraw that.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: I am merely voicing the opinions of many club members about the Government. I have been very subtle about it, because I do not want to unduly upset members. They obviously receive this sort of feedback in their electorates, and I would hate to see them more unduly upset by the general feeling within the community. I never see any Labor Party members in the clubs at all.

[Interruption] 5170 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003

How did the honourable member for Bathurst vote? Why does he not tell us how he voted? He voted to shut down the clubs. He did not have the guts to take the lead of the honourable member for Strathfield to vote down this unfair and disgraceful tax. Father Chris Riley said:

I have a message for the Carr government: Go and find the 99 per cent who contribute nothing to the community. Leave the community and leave the registered clubs alone.

I want to thank three registered clubs in particular which contribute large amounts of money to Youth Off The Streets.

The Canterbury Hurlstone Park RSL; the Campbelltown Catholic Club and the Bankstown Sports Club.

The concern of Father Chris Riley—who deals with many troubled youth and does a fantastic job—is that that money is going to dry up. As the honourable member for Southern Highlands said earlier, where will clubs go for the money? They cannot get it from councils, and they will not get it from the State Government. Father Chris Riley went on to say:

Many of those charities will lose valuable donations once Michael Egan's tax is introduced next year as clubs reduce community support to stay in business …

Unfortunately many clubs will be forced out of business, so those mandatory community support payments will disappear completely.

The charitable sector implores the NSW government to please reconsider its clubs tax for the sake of the state's charitable sector, which will suffer a huge cut back in resources.

This tax shows how uncharitable and arrogant the Government is. The people of New South Wales have to wait only a short time before they get the opportunity to boot the Government out of the State, and they are certainly looking forward to it. I draw members' attention to the main findings of the Allen Consulting Group study. The study found that the tax will deprive local communities of hundreds of millions of dollars. In other words, men and women and their families, old people and young people will be deprived of hundreds of millions of dollars. The study also found that the Egan tax and the scrapping of the GST rebate will take $1.5 billion from clubs. We had to drag the Government, kicking and screaming, to sign off on a letter to the Federal Treasurer. Who did that? It was not Michael Egan. John Brogden had to show the leadership that is lacking from the Government's side to the GST rebate back.

Mr Grant McBride: We'd already applied for it.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: You would not sign the letter. Earlier the question was asked: What about the hospitals? As I said, there is $500 million in waste that could go into the hospital system if the Government could get its act together and govern this State. But it cannot get its act together, and that is the problem. Although the Opposition does not oppose the bill, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The Government shows hypocrisy It is hypocritical for the Government to push through the bill without making the State comply with it. We all know that it will go down in history as nothing but another bullyboy tactic of the New South Wales Labor Party. If they had not stood up to the Government, it would not be trying this type of bullyboy tactic.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [9.15 p.m.]: I do not intend to speak to the Registered Clubs Amendment Bill at great length, but I wish to raise a few matters. My colleagues and I are obviously concerned about the fact that the bill has been rammed through the Parliament. We must ask: What is the hurry? It would have been valuable to have the benefit of community opinion on the bill and the opportunity to discuss it with our constituents. It is a clear demonstration of the Government's arrogance and disregard for the community.. The bill is the result of the task force which comprised the New South Wales club industry and other important groups. Directors and top executives of clubs will be required to declare any income or payments from any affiliated clubs or subsidiary companies.

Directors and top executives will also be required to establish a register of pecuniary interests. It will be an offence for a club to provide a loan to a director. The board of a club will need to approve the total remuneration packages of the top five executives of the club. Any declared conflicts of interest must be approved by the governing body and reported in the club's annual report. Any contract between the club and any organisation in which the top five executives have a financial interest must be approved by the club board and disclosed in the annual report. The bill ensures greater disclosure in club annual reports—for example, of the salaries of the five highest-paid employees earning in excess of $100,000 per annum and details of overseas travel. This information must be included in any summary of the annual report given to members. 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5171

Clubs will be required to disclose details of individual consultancies worth more than $300,000. The top five executives of a club and members of the governing body must declare the employment by a club of an immediate family member. Like the honourable member for Southern Highlands I, too, will not tolerate any aspersions being cast upon club directors. I have regular contact with all registered clubs in my electorate, and I certainly take great offence at any aspersions cast upon their directors. I place on record that the Club Managers Association, to its great credit, has set up an emergency services roster for clubs volunteering their services in the case of disasters and local emergencies. Terry Condon has had a lot to do with the implementation of the project. It is a fantastic initiative, and the association is to be commended for its efforts.

During the fires last December the clubs in my electorate, particularly Hornsby RSL Club and Club Berowra, opened up their clubs for four days and provided food for not only the people who sought refuge from the fires but also the hardworking emergency services personnel. The clubs of my electorate are to be commended for that effort. These clubs care about their communities. I know that other clubs, including Asquith Rugby Leagues Club, also provided in-kind support to the community during that disaster and many emergencies. Although the Opposition acts in the interest of transparency and accountability and will not oppose the bill, it has serious concerns about the Government's motive of hurrying the bill through the Parliament and about its casting aspersions upon clubs.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [9.19 p.m.]: Many honourable members are concerned about corporate governance and the way in which certain industries are able to ensure that good corporate governance practices are in play throughout their sector. I would like to see greater consistency from the Government, particularly from Ministers, in the application of good corporate governance practices. I refer not only to the Government putting this onto the club movement; there would have to be a question over the thousand-plus boards throughout New South Wales and the degree of good corporate governance that is practised there. Good corporate governance practice on the part of some honourable members is something that should be noted and no doubt debated. For example, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the honourable member for Wentworthville.

Obviously, no honourable member is going to reject sound corporate governance being applied to a sector. However, in an area such as the electorate of Bega, where there are many clubs—for example, the Bega RSL—the main concern is that many directors are volunteers or elected senior citizens without the necessary knowledge of accounting and corporate governance. They provide great service on the boards of these clubs in a voluntary capacity. The application of this bill in such circumstances is highly questionable. In many instances, particularly in regional areas, people will no longer be attracted to go onto those boards. That is a downside of the bill and something that needs to be looked at closely. Legislation is being pushed through this place incredibly quickly, and we need to reflect on the regional impacts.

The bill contains some sensible measures—particularly in relation to club governance, probity and accountability—that no doubt will be welcomed by all honourable members. However, where the bill has come from and the intentions of the Minister—bearing in mind the timing of it and the many pressures currently on the club movement—must be questioned. We need to question the Government's motives. In the application of good corporate governance in New South Wales, the Government could head down the path of many areas before attacking the club movement. The club movement is continuing to battle the Government in relation to the $1.6 billion tax grab that was part of this year's budget. Many clubs in the electorate of Bega are concerned about that tax and the impact it will have as it moves forward.

I refer to the earlier comments of the Minister for Gaming and Racing in relation to the GST exemption. I want it noted that the leadership of John Brogden secured the GST exemption—he liaised with the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. We know for a fact that the Minister for Gaming and Racing was missing in action [MIA] in relation to that issue, and he continues to be MIA in relation to this issue. He is busily screaming and interjecting in the Chamber this evening, but he is not listening to the screaming of the club movement in New South Wales in relation to the taxation measures he is pushing through. As a result of the clubs tax $11½ million will be taken out of the electorate of Bega, a regional community—revenue supposedly earmarked for health.

Mr Grant McBride: Have you moved into your electorate yet?

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: Yes, I have moved into my electorate. It is a bit rich for the Minister for Gaming and Racing to say that—Frank Sartor is on the front bench. The Minister makes jokes about this issue. In reality, whenever he is asked a question in relation to clubs he refers it to the Treasurer, who is 5172 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003 supposedly earmarking this revenue for health. I want a Government commitment that it will put $11½ million into the hospitals in the Bega electorate. The Minister for Health should take the time to come to the electorate and see those hospitals. I am glad the honourable member for Monaro in the Chamber—he knows some of the fundamental issues facing many clubs in Queanbeyan, but he hides away from them. He sits in caucus and gets himself in the Daily Telegraph, but when it comes to coming into this House and voting he is missing in action.

[Interruption]

I am a Sydney boy. These guys have a complete and utter disregard for the election results in Bega. I might start talking about election results. Why not put it on the record tonight? What has happened to the former member for South Coast? He is no longer a member of the Labor Party as of today. Wayne Smith is no longer a member of the Labor Party because his mates did not look after him.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order! There are far too many interjections. The honourable member for Bega will confine his remarks to the subject matter of the bill.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE: The tax revenue that will be torn out of the electorate of Bega should go back into community organisations, such as the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol. When 80 per cent of its revenue disappears and it can no longer afford to exist, how will the State Government fund it? Typically, we will see the cost shift to local government. To that end, it will not be a great outcome for my local community. In trying to improve corporate governance and the club sector, I wish the Minister would try to improve the taxation arrangements for the club sector throughout New South Wales. While it is important for the House to address corporate governance, I would hope that it would scrutinise the public sector and some members of this House, such as the honourable member for Wentworthville.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [9.27 p.m.]: The club movement in New South Wales is one of the oldest co-operatives we will ever see. The club movement has supported local communities not just as clubs but as supporters of community organisations. For example, in the past week the combined clubs in the Coffs Harbour electorate donated $35,000 to an appeal to establish the Westpac lifesaving helicopter in the area. Clubs can do that at the moment. Since the election the Government has told many lies. It told the Registered Clubs Association that it would not increase taxes. If honourable members do not believe that they should talk to Pat Rogan, the former member for East Hills. He is a great man. I am told that he was in Parliament House this evening. On the weekend Pat was in my electorate talking to and supporting the clubs. He played golf at the Urunga Golf Club, which is in the electorate of the Leader of The Nationals. Pat spent many years—

Mr Wayne Merton: A man of the people.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: As the honourable member for Baulkham Hills said, he is a man of the people. For many years he has supported this great industry. My father, Gordon Fraser, was President of the Newcastle District Cricket Association and President of the Newcastle Bowling Association. For many years he worked as a volunteer for many clubs. He was a life member of many clubs, including the Belmont Sporting Club, in the electorate of the honourable member for Swansea. He was the foundation president and a life member of the Kahibah Bowling Club, which has named a green after him. The greatest thing dad ever said was, "In the club movement you'll always be welcome and feel that you belong." This Government has deserted the club movement because of its greedy grab for cash. David Doyle, President of the Coffs Harbour Ex- Services Club and Vice-President of the Registered Clubs Association of New South Wales, has produced a coaster with the name of the club on one side and on the other side the following words:

The MEAN EGAN TAX $3.70 a Schooner Old Tax $3.00 Member's Price $2.70

The Government is bleeding the clubs' facilities and destroying their co-operative approach by not removing this tax. Not many members in this Chamber would forget the cartoon in the Daily Telegraph that depicts the Premier with his arm around a representative of the Australian Hotels Association and saying "Your shout. Who's paying?" The cartoon depicts people quaffing beers at one end of the bar while the poor old registered clubs, that great community organisation, exhibit real stress at the other end. Bowling clubs and golf clubs in my electorate are barely making a profit because of huge maintenance costs and they will probably not survive this additional tax. 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5173

Clubs employ many local people and they are suffering under the Treasurer, Premier and Minister for Gaming and Racing, who do not care about employment, the social activities or the village green atmosphere of these country and regional clubs. My old friend Pat Rogan, a former member for East Hills, was a far better local member than the current member, who voted for this insidious tax. I support Pat Rogan in his great job for my electorate and all clubs in New South Wales. I draw to the attention of the House a fantastic petition, which is fairly simple in its intent and should be read onto the record. The petition states:

The petition of residents of the State of New South Wales.

Brings to the attention of the House that the increase in Poker Machine Tax (to be effective as from 1st September 2004) will have a deleterious effect on the people and residents of NSW, ranging from lost employment, loss of business to industry and suppliers, loss of Junior and Senior Sporting facilities, decreased support for Senior Citizens, the aged and infirm—all of whom rely on Clubs for employment, income, entertainment, social activity, sporting facilities, meeting venues, support for the aged, infrastructure for emergency services and ongoing community welfare and safety.

The undersigned petitioners therefore ask the Legislative Assembly to seriously reconsider the decision to increase Poker Machine Tax and that the status quo in relation to existing Poker Machine Tax and GST arrangements remain in place.

That is clear evidence that the people of regional New South Wales do not support the Government. This insidious bill has been introduced to blackmail and scare club directors and others. Imagine the situation where the only butcher in Dorrigo or Werris Creek may be a director of a club. The Government's threats to expose them for having a contract with the club will mean they will probably resign from the board of directors. Their expertise of running a successful small business over the years will be withdrawn from the club. The actions of the Government in forcing this bill through the House will result in embarrassment or members being castigated by their local community. Clubs in regional New South Wales are the lifeblood of the community.

I put on record that I am extremely disappointed in the Mayor of Coffs Harbour City Council, Jenny Bonfield, and others who accompanied her to Albury last weekend. Because of their Labor affiliation they voted for this tax and voted against the clubs. They failed to acknowledge the contribution clubs make to their community. Clubs save local councils a fortune and assist them to provide essential services to sporting clubs and other organisations that would not otherwise receive the necessary funding. This insidious tax will hang around the necks of Labor Party members like the fabled albatross.

Clubs have had to defer community projects because of this bill. Jobs will be lost and golf and bowling clubs that provide recreation to all levels of the community will be forced to close. That albatross will be around the neck of this Government come the 2007 election and traditional Labor Party supporters will support the Coalition, which has stood up for them in this debate and will continue to do so. The Opposition wants clubs to continue to support their communities by way of donations, direct or indirect, jobs and services. This bill is a payback from the Treasurer. It is a nasty attack on directors because they do not support the tax. I support the Registered Clubs Association and the many clubs and directors in my electorate. On previous occasions Labor Party members have not supported legislation and motions with respect to the tax. It will be interesting to see the way those members vote tonight.

Mr WAYNE MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [9.37 p.m.]: The Registered Clubs Amendment Bill will go down in history as the Carr Government's revenge or payback on the club movement. Clearly, this bill is designed to force clubs to undertake substantial changes. No-one would oppose good corporate governance. Indeed, the Coalition is the champion of good corporate governance. However, what might be appropriate for the larger clubs may not be appropriate for smaller clubs in country towns or, indeed, metropolitan Sydney. These clubs have been hit by massive increases in tax and their futures are at stake. Charities, sporting groups and community organisations that clubs support will also find their very existence threatened. The Government now must radically undertake a review of the operations of those clubs. Everyone would encourage propriety and transparency, but many of those measures do not apply to smaller clubs.

In many country towns and regional areas small clubs often provide the only venue for entertainment and social intercourse. Club support keeps alive numerous local sporting groups. They also contribute towards charity groups and local hospitals. Yet the Carr Labor Government, a government with a mandate to look after ordinary, working-class people—not the high fliers or the wealthy—is undermining the very movement set up to help these people. I do not think the situation contemplated by the Government will work. Indeed, tragically, many clubs may not survive, and the real losers will be communities, groups that the clubs support and, in particular, ordinary Australians who rely on clubs as a form of enjoyment and entertainment.

We have a number of very good clubs in my electorate of Baulkham Hills. Northmead Bowling, Recreation and Sporting Club is a well-established club that is concerned. Baulkham Hills Sports Club is in 5174 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003 association with Bankstown Sports Club. Baulkham Hills Sports Club has plans for extensive and substantial renovations to make it a great place for the people of Baulkham Hills, but the alterations and extensions are now under threat. Indeed, they may not proceed because of fear of the effect that the club tax will have on the club. Bear in mind that the club tax is based not on profit but on revenue, which is a completely artificial and unrealistic basis for a tax.

Dural Country Club has an excellent reputation in the Hills area and provides wonderful facilities. Recently, Castle Hill RSL Club undertook substantial renovations and building works to make it an establishment of pride in the Hills area. Baulkham Hills Bowling Club is just down the road from my electorate office. Only this week I visited that club, which, together with other clubs, gave about $111,000 to community groups as part of a program it has been running for three years. All these things are at risk. If members opposite think this applies only in the Baulkham Hills electorate they are obviously mistaken. Recently I met with people at Granville RSL club. What would I be doing at Granville RSL club? I am an old Merrylands boy and I went to school at Granville and I met with people from Granville RSL club and Guilford Bowling club.

Mr Alan Ashton: Did you go to Granville Boys?

Mr WAYNE MERTON: Granville South and Fairfield High School. I met with representatives of clubs at Granville, Guilford and Merrylands who are concerned about this legislation. Granville RSL club, which is located in an old but beautiful building, does a great job. People go there for entertainment and value- plus meals. That is what clubs are all about. I cannot understand why the Government is imposing this additional tax, which will put all that at risk. There simply will not be a venue or a means of replacing that.

Let us look beyond the local clubs. North Shore Heart Research, the Prostate Cancer Institute of Australia, Careflight, the Cure Cancer Australia Foundation and the world-leading microsurgery group Microsearch Foundation are dedicated to finding cures for diseases, seeking better treatments for illnesses, and transporting our sick children to hospital. Careflight is in danger of losing about $630,000. Indeed. all those groups are at risk because of the Government's tax grab. What we are saying is this: It is unrealistic, unfair, and almost unAustralian, because ordinary Australians will be the real victims of this tax grab.

This legislation will reform corporate governance. We do not oppose that. However, our simple message to the Government is that what might be appropriate for a very large club is not necessarily appropriate for a small club. For example, in some clubs there are three, four or five directors who are retirees who do the job because no-one else will do it. If one of them runs a local shop such as a butcher's shop he will be prohibited from providing the meat trays. That is what this is all about. The Opposition is of the view that the Government is rushing the legislation through and that the Government should look carefully at the effect of the legislation on small clubs.

Above all, we should axe the tax. Let us join the majority of Australians who have taken to the streets and expressed their dismay and concern that the Labor Party—a party that once stood for ordinary Australians— has stabbed in the back many Australians who not only attend clubs but are the beneficiaries of the clubs' largesse. The number of people who receive benefits from clubs is unbelievable. Clubs in New South Wales maintain 1,700 bowling greens, 300 golf courses, 260 playing fields, 89 gymnasiums and 50 swimming pools. These sports facilities help young Australians not only to have a healthy lifestyle but to become Olympic champions. The Government is putting all this at risk. It is plain unAustralian and unfair, to say the least.

Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [9.45 p.m.]: This bill has all the hallmarks of a knee-jerk reaction to unwelcome developments. What would those unwelcome developments be? The reaction of the club movement to the unwelcome tax to be imposed. And the Government's reaction is to say, "We will punish them even further. We will find ways of niggling them. We will hassle them and bring in extra bills to further compound the difficulties." I ask: Is this bill necessary? Must it be hurried through from Friday last week and debated so quickly? Is it absolutely necessary to introduce the legislation this year? The history teacher, the honourable member for East Hills, reminded us that the club movement sprang out of the Labour Party. Well may he remind us, because I can tell him that his party is no longer welcome in the club movement because of the attitude displayed by this Government.

One definition of a "club" is "an association of people united by a common interest; a body of persons united for social, sporting or other purposes and having premises for the members' use". Another definition is "a heavy stick with one thick end used as a weapon". Does that describe the legislation introduced by the Treasurer? The honourable member for Coffs Harbour said that ClubsNSW held its conference in Albury 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5175 recently, followed by the Local Government Association conference just over a week ago. Albury council proposed a motion supporting clubs in their opposition to the poker machine tax. It was interesting to note that councils refused to support the motion, presumably for fear of opposing the Labor Party guidelines on the issue or possibly because they were blatantly ignorant of the social and economic havoc that could be inflicted on communities.

Indeed, the general manager of the Albury Soldiers, Sailors and Airmens Club, Mr Terry, said that in the first year alone of the new tax system his club would have to pay an additional $300,000 in gaming taxes— taxes that cannot be passed on to poker machine players, as people so falsely believe, because the return-to- player parameters are legislated. Mr Terry said further that the tax must be obtained from non-gaming revenue services such as food, bar, and other facilities that attract a user-pays requirement. He said that with the rise in interest rates and other variables, such as wage costs and insurance, it was unlikely that the taxes could be paid without a severe reduction in services or staff, or massive price increases. In simple terms, something has to go. Indeed, the impact on communities could be immense. Councils could see the physical effects of the tax when community groups start to come to the their reception counters looking for handouts. Only then will councils realise the severity and harshness of this tax, but by then it will be too late.

Let us look at some of the services the clubs provide and in which I have recently been involved. Last Sunday the Commercial Club of Albury, one of the finest clubs in the State, was the host of the State Council of National Servicemen's Associations Victorian State Executive. This speaks volumes. The venue for this auspicious meeting was provided by the club free of charge, and there was a tourism benefit, because the Victorians held their meeting here in New South Wales, in some cases stayed the whole weekend and spent their money here, thanks to the Commercial Club. As well as providing them with the venue, the club provided them with a souvenir of their stay in New South Wales.

The Lavington Panthers club is to host Summerjam, a huge event to be held in Albury on 13 December, involving bands such as INXS, Diesel and Waikiki. I mention Waikiki, a fine young Australian band, because my son happens to play in it. I am looking forward to welcoming him home to Albury and to the oval that will be provided by the Lavington Panthers. That event will mark the entry of Dean Jones and his team as they walk from Sydney to Melbourne raising funds for cancer research and the leukaemia group.

The Henty Bowling Club is yet another club in my area, on a much smaller scale than the previous two I mentioned. Last Friday night it was the venue for a massive fund-raising auction for the new Henty multipurpose centre, which will be the new hospital in Henty. It is being built at a cost of just over $5 million but it still requires the community to raise funds for equipment. Where do they hold their fund--raising auction at the Henty Bowling Club, which is the venue for all major events and gatherings in Henty.

Unfortunately, in country areas clubs are having to merge in order to survive. The Commercial Club has taken over Albury Golf Club. Perhaps if it had known of the tax to come it would not have ventured along that path. Corowa RSL is taking over the Sports and Citizens Club to provide facilities, to keep those magnificent bowling greens in the hands of Corowa citizens and provide for people from New South Wales and Victoria. The Liverpool Catholic Club is taking over the Thurgoona Golf Club, a magnificent country retreat that has a golf course, tennis courts, great club premises and a motel. So it goes on. But with bills such as this and all this extra regulation that the Government seems intent on imposing, I am concerned that ultimately clubs will have to merge and form super clubs along the same lines as councils are being required to form super councils?

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [9.52 p.m.]: I have no issue with transparency, as many honourable members will know. Many times I have called the Government to account on its financial dealings. I find it hypocritical that the Government is prepared to impose legislation on an industry but in its own administration it does not comply with the provisions of that legislation. I point to a comment by the Auditor- General. I have cited the Auditor-General several times in the past couple of weeks, because his comments are relevant. He said in volume 5 of his 2002 report:

Taxpayers have the right to expect governments to spend their tax dollars efficiently and effectively. They have the right to expect governments to be accountable.

After becoming Auditor-General, I grew increasingly concerned that the Government and its agencies were not meeting that accountability expectation. Because of this, I decided two years ago that Auditor-General's Reports to Parliament should cover more than simply financial issues. 5176 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003

The point I am making is that while the Carr administration is more than prepared to introduce legislation that imposes certain requirements on others, it is reluctant to meet those same requirements. This legislation will require transparency in the arrangements of managers of clubs, et cetera. As I said before, I have no objection to transparency, but I object to the way the Government has managed this process and, in particular, the clubs tax it has implemented. I want to put on record correspondence I have received from just one of my clubs, the South Wagga Sports and Bowling Club Ltd. The president of the club wrote to me on 11 August:

As President of the South Wagga Sports and Bowling Club Ltd I feel it is my responsibility to convey to you the concerns of the Club in the proposed Tax changes to be implemented in 2004.

It is ironic that during 2004 the Club celebrates its 75th Birthday and at the same time has to devise strategies to survive the proposed Tax increases...

The South Wagga Sports and Bowling Club has provided financial assistance to Sporting, Youth and Community Groups for 75 years and although that commitment is still strong, the financial realities are a different story.

Over the last eight years despite the hard work and initiative of the Club's Board, profit has been attained only three times, a testament to the precarious situation of small Clubs.

On behalf of the Club I ask you to convey to the Government our situation and thank you for your concern for the Club Industry within our community. Attached please find signed Petition Forms as requested.

I have been presenting these petition forms along with other members of the Coalition, who share the concerns of the South Wagga Sports and Bowling Club, the other clubs in my region and the clubs in their regions. I also received an open letter to all members of Parliament from R. G. Maher on the Central Coast, the area represented by my good friend the honourable member for Gosford. It states:

OPEN LETTER TO ALL STATE MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

On behalf of my Club may I thank all those members of State Parliament who have responded to my previous correspondence …

Thanks also to the ministers who wrote to me and were sympathetic to clubs but were restrained from supporting them.

It goes on:

I am attaching for your information and consideration a recent survey by Cumberland Newspapers which has 29 newspapers circulating on the Central Coast, Sydney and metropolitan regions.

The findings, to which this club did not contribute, are self explanatory.

I also attach some background information as to the benefit the Central Coast community has gained because of this Club which I founded almost 50 years ago. See extracts from last year's annual report …

Perhaps some of you can provide me with a constructive and possible solution to my Club's plight which can be summarised in the following terms:

• At 30 June, 2003 the Central Coast Leagues Club had a bank debt of $10.8 million. The Club made a profit of $1.3 million after playing poker machine tax of $3.2 million.

• Providing the Club can maintain its existing turnover after allowing for increasing operating costs, the clubs poker machine tax will increase by $500,000 each year (cumulative) for the next seven years when it will reach $6 8 million. Our financial advisers tell me our Club will be losing money within 3 years.

This Club cannot follow the premier's advice "all clubs have to do is remove a waterfall from their foyers to pay the tax", because my Club does not have one.

Like many other clubs my Club has a problem which it is unable to solve.

That correspondence reflects the situation in clubs in the Wagga Wagga area. I point to some smaller clubs that are dependent on the income derived from poker machines, gaming, alcohol sales, and other functions they hold. Some clubs in the smaller centres are the cultural centres of the town; they are all they have. It was put to me when this issue was first raised that one club had a total profit of $4,000. With the implementation of this new tax it would have been $8,000 behind. I understand that has now been resolved because of the GST rebate.

RSL board members to whom I spoke recently told me that their profit was around $800,000 but that with the implementation of this tax it will decrease by more than $400,000. The director of the board could 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5177 name, off the top of his head, without referring to a list or a document, where $100,000 had been contributed to the community, but those contributions will be in jeopardy. ClubsNSW wrote to me and said:

As you are more than aware, the increase in taxation rates for registered clubs, as announced by Treasurer Egan in the recent NSW Budget, is causing great concern to clubs and communities alike.

Our initial concerns have been vindicated by The Allen Consulting Group which has prepared a document titled, "Economic and Distributional Impacts of New Gaming Taxes on NSW Clubs", a copy of which is enclosed for your perusal.

I will lay a copy of this letter on the table for the edification of members. It contains an interesting analysis backing the clubs' claims. ClubsNSW also sent a note to members of Parliament. I imagine that all members would have received it. I kept mine and filed it because I knew that at some time it would have to be raised in this House. The letter continues:

There has been considerable debate on the real effects of the increase in club gaming machine tax since it was announced by the Treasurer in the 24 June Budget.

Now, finally, he has admitted that the tax will damage NSW clubs and the communities they support. His statement in yesterday's SMH, "if that (the increased tax) means that we have to forgo some bigger or perhaps small clubs, so be it" provides a clear message to the people of NSW that he doesn't care if their community clubs shut down. By extension, he doesn't care if people working in clubs lose their jobs.

It is likely that clubs in my community will be shut down. If the analysis of the most profitable club I mentioned, the RSL, were transposed onto other clubs which are not as profitable, they would be behind the eight ball and, in time to come, as predicted in all these reports and the one that I have just tabled, they will be in a dire financial position. The letter continues:

THE REPORT BY THE ALLEN CONSULTING GROUP ON THE TAX IMPACT

The Allen Consulting Group, one of Australia's leading economic and public policy consulting firms, was commissioned by ClubsNSW to determine the impact of the tax using comprehensive club data collected as part of a major study in the year 2000.

The letter also states:

Nearly half of all clubs will be unviable…

The tax absorbs most club operating profits…

For some clubs the tax exceeds expected profits…

The increased tax will have serious social and economic consequences…

The Treasurer has repeatedly stated that NSW clubs should be able to pay the same tax as those in other States and Territories. He is not telling the full story and he is not comparing apples with apples.

There is other correspondence from people who are respected within the club industry and, importantly, within the community. I turn to a magazine that I keep on my coffee table in my office—I am sure members receive it. It is entitled "ClubsNSW Official publication, Club Life". I imagine that Opposition members would keep a copy of it to read, along with the Land, that other important publication that we refer to. The Chairman of ClubsNSW, Pat Rogan, is a well-respected citizen and a former member of this place. He wrote:

It is only a month since I wrote my first column for Club Life's, 'Directors' Corner', but it has been possibly the most challenging one in my time as chairman, with the promise of more of the same to come.

Last month I spoke of our efforts to work with the Government on the poker machine tax review. We were gearing up for a review which we believed was to take place in 2004, laying the groundwork with the commissioning of the second Socio- Economic Impact Study to give an accurate and up-to-date picture of the economic position of member clubs.

It was with some initial surprise, then that CEO, David Costello and I were called to a meeting at Parliament House the day before the Budget announcement. Surprise when the Treasurer, Michael Egan, assured us in this meeting that he felt, in his "heart of hearts, we would be happy with the outcome of the Budget". When I questioned him about the proposed review, his reply was succinct, "This is my review". This surprise quickly became despair, and then outright anger, when we discovered the detail of the changes. In attending the many meetings we have called around the State since the announcement, I have not seen too many smiling faces.

I have openly described the Treasurer as "arrogant, and out of touch". His claim to the media that only a small percentage of large clubs would be affected by the proposed scale of tax increases is completely false. It does not take into account the removal of the GST rebate which small clubs have been receiving, which will mean a rise of 9.09 per cent in tax for such clubs, or an extra tax burden of approximately $18,000.

All clubs will be affected by this savage impost, as well as associated suppliers, entertainers, charity and community groups... 5178 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003

At page 6 of the magazine the CEO states:

The announcement on Tuesday 24th June 2003 by Treasurer Michael Egan, of massive tax increases for clubs over the seven years from 2004 to 2010 has ripped the heart out of many thousands of club staff and directors all over NSW.

Many are still in shock, trying to come to terms firstly, with the back down on a promised tax review, and secondly, the savagery of the increases.

In every walk of life, individuals and companies have to share the tax burden; however, in every civilised country, the tax system is designed to provide fairness and allow for survival and growth, through reinvestment in business.

It appears that Michael Egan has sent a number of clear messages to the NSW club industry, namely: he does not want a strong and successful club industry beyond 2010, and he believes that clubs generally are awash with profits, a belief that we will prove incorrect over the next few months.

Although the club industry is understandably angry and disillusioned following the announcement on 24th June, we should stop and think whether there are other messages contained in the tax decision.

Although no specific public messages have been conveyed regarding dissatisfaction within our industry, it is clear that the Carr Government does not have the level of respect for the club industry it once did.

Heartland being ignored, heartland being taxed, and workers out of jobs. The CEO continues:

Apart from the obvious and significant challenge to convince the Government that the industry does not have the capacity to endure the tax increases, we also have the very significant responsibility of rebuilding the increasing respect of Government.

I do not believe that the Government is at all interested in building its respect for the industry. This Government is intent on taxing the heart out of clubs and not listening to the very people that have been its support base. Clubs in my community will suffer. I guarantee that before this tax is finished, many clubs across New South Wales will close. Although some are forecasting that that will be in the near future, it will surely occur by 2010. As I said before, transparency is one issue, and the Government needs to live up to that, but this tax it is detrimental to New South Wales.

Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [10.07 p.m.]: The speech by the honourable member for Wagga Wagga was excellent. He certainly laid out the issues before the House. He quoted the former member for East Hills writing in Club Life.

Mr Daryl Maguire: A great magazine.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: It is a great magazine. Every member of this House would read it.

Mr Daryl Maguire: Give the article to Minister McBride.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: You have hit the bull's-eye. The honourable member for Wagga Wagga spoke about taxing the heart out of the heartland. That is what this bill is all about. Nobody would argue against transparency, but that is precisely what there has not been. One of the features of this year in Parliament has been the work of the Legislation Review Committee, at no small expense to taxpayers. The committee is chaired by the honourable member for Miranda. The latest edition of the committee's Legislation Review Digest is the sixth for 2003. No doubt members would have eagerly opened the table of contents and thought that it was wonderful, knowing they would be able to read about this bill.

I hope that no members of this House with weak hearts opened the table of contents because the shock would have been profound when they found that it did not contain this bill. We are being required to navigate the course of this debate unassisted by the Legislation Review Committee. This is an important piece of legislation. No doubt the clubs in my electorate and those in the electorate of the honourable member for Miranda would have liked a copy of the digest so that they could examine the review of the bill. Unfortunately, it is not there. It is not there because the Government has rushed the legislation through. It has not seen fit to pause to allow consideration of the bill by its own review committee, a review that would have assisted the public—

Mr Geoff Corrigan: It is a joint review committee. You are a member.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: Yes. We are members of the Opposition and we are here to help. 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5179

[Interruption]

Trust is something that has not been evidenced by the club movement. I am pleased to see the honourable member for East Hills has returned to the Chamber. I hope he has listened to his predecessor, the former member for East Hills.

Mr Geoff Corrigan: What former member for East Hills?

Mr MALCOLM KERR: Mr Pat Rogan. He is a wonderful bloke.

Mr Alan Ashton: He was here tonight.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: I am not surprised. He is a great guy. His comments are very relevant. He said that he had openly described the Treasurer as arrogant and out of touch and that the Treasurer's claim to the media that only a small percentage of large clubs would be affected by the proposed scale of tax increases was completely false. However, in his budget reply speech his successor referred to "our beloved Treasurer". I know that the course of true love never runs smooth, but it has certainly hit a rough patch in East Hills for the beloved Treasurer.

Mr Alan Ashton: That was satire.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: I advise him not to satirise the Treasurer if he knows what is good for him. Look at what happened to the Cronulla Workers Club!

Mr Alan Ashton: We are the best of mates.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: The former member for East Hills or the Treasurer?

Mr Alan Ashton: Both.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: The honourable member for East Hills is the Kissinger of caucus. It is remarkable the warring parties he can bring together. If he were to visit his clubs he might see a picture of his beloved Treasurer in the foyers. The comments about transparency in the second reading speech are pure hypocrisy on the part of the Government. As the honourable member for Wagga Wagga pointed out, the Auditor-General, a former member of the Labor Party—

Mr Geoff Corrigan: Is he a former member?

Mr MALCOLM KERR: Yes. The honourable member for Camden might not have been at the same branch meetings. It was some time ago.

Mr Geoff Corrigan: How long ago?

Mr MALCOLM KERR: Mr Deputy-Speaker, I will return to the leave of the bill.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that Government members refrain from interjecting and allow the honourable member to continue his speech and address the bill, if there is time.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: I hope there will be, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is only your inspiration that has prevented me being seduced from the course of the bill.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Cronulla will confine his remarks to the bill.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: I will ignore the sirens opposite. It will not be necessary to strap me to the table to do that because I want to return—

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I am sure there is nothing in the bill about being strapped to the table. I would be delighted if the honourable member for Cronulla were to return to the leave of the bill. 5180 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003

Mr MALCOLM KERR: The object of the bill is the governance of clubs and transparency. I was talking about the Auditor-General's comment that after being appointed he became increasingly concerned that the Government and its agencies were not meeting accountability expectations. He said that taxpayers have a right to expect the Government to spend their tax dollars efficiently and effectively and that governments will be accountable. I will interpose some words that are relevant to this bill. Club members have a right to expect club boards to spend their revenue efficiently and effectively.

Mr Alan Ashton: Hear! Hear!

Mr MALCOLM KERR: The honourable member for East Hills says, "Hear! Hear!" They also have a right to expect club boards to be accountable. The Government purports to lay down standards for clubs in this legislation that its own Auditor-General says it does not live up to. There is one rule for the clubs and another rule for the Carr Government. Shame! Honourable members opposite agreed with every proposition before I came to that conclusion. I wanted to be fair by putting the propositions to members opposite for approval before drawing the conclusion I drew. The Government has been waging war on the club movement and has suddenly said that it wants to do something for the membership and governance of clubs. It will be bad luck if clubs have to close down as a result of the taxes imposed and if this legislation does not apply to clubs in five years because they have ceased to exist.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Wasn't Pat Rogan a member of the Government?

Mr MALCOLM KERR: Yes, I mentioned that earlier.

Mr Brad Hazzard: A very fine local member.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: As the honourable member for Wakehurst said, he is becoming more and more effective as a member of the community than he was in his former role. We all agreed with him, particularly when he said that all clubs would be affected by this savage impost. It will also affect associated suppliers, entertainers, charity and community groups and club patrons. Last Saturday morning I accompanied the honourable member for Cook, Mr Bruce Baird, to Sutherland Trade Union Club for breakfast, at which Nick Farr-Jones spoke.

Mr Geoff Corrigan: The honourable member for Heathcote was with you, surely?

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Government members will allow the honourable member for Cronulla to complete his speech without interjection.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: The Sutherland Trade Union Club does not find the honourable member for Heathcote particularly relevant in relation to this problem.

Mr Geoff Corrigan: Nor the member for Cronulla.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: No, the honourable member for Camden is quite wrong. I received a thank you letter from Sutherland Trade Union Club—

Mr Alan Ashton: Only one?

Mr MALCOLM KERR: Only one. I received the thank you letter for the assistance I have provided in relation to getting some justice for the club movement.

Mr Geoff Corrigan: What year was it dated, 1988?

Mr MALCOLM KERR: No, it was this year. It related to legislation introduced by the Government. I am sorry that the honourable member for Miranda has not contributed to this debate, because Miranda RSL Club has supplied figures on the problems that the tax increases will create for members of the club, who are constituents of the honourable member's electorate. While the Opposition does not oppose the legislation, it would have been far better if members and the public had had a copy of the analysis of the Legislation Review Committee of the bill. Even the honourable member for Camden—who is no doubt an avid reader of the Legislation Review Digest— 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5181

Mr Geoff Corrigan: Like yourself.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: Yes, like me.

Mr Geoff Corrigan: And the Land newspaper.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: You do not get a copy of the Land newspaper when you open up the Legislation Review Digest.

Mr Geoff Corrigan: You should.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: The honourable member for Camden can take that up with the honourable member for Miranda. The next time he comes into this Chamber he can say, "I table a copy of the Legislation Review Digest together with a free copy of the Land newspaper." I will pass it on to the honourable member for Miranda that members opposite want that supplement included in Legislation Review Digest No 7. As I said, this is important legislation, and the legislation would have benefited from the contributions of the public and all members of this House—

Mr Geoff Corrigan: You've been magnificent. You've got 15 seconds to summarise it.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: I still believe it would be better if Government members were to contribute to the debate. I place on record that the honourable member for Camden thinks that my contribution has been magnificent. But even that magnificence does not negate the need for other members to speak to the bill.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [10.22 p.m.]: The objects of the Registered Clubs Amendment Bill are:

(a) to require the appointment of managers for premises of a registered club at which the secretary of the club is not in attendance (with certain exceptions), and

(b) to require the disclosure of certain interests held by, and gifts given to, members of the governing body and employees of a registered club, and

(d) to require certain matters to be reported annually to members of registered clubs including, for example, loans to employees of registered clubs and amounts paid to consultants, and

(e) to prohibit, or place controls on, certain contracts and arrangements entered into by registered clubs, and

(f) to enable the Director of Liquor and Gaming to take action in relation to contracts that do not comply with the new requirements, and

(g) to make the secretary and members of the governing body of a registered club liable (with certain defences available) if the club enters into a contract in contravention of the new requirements.

The bill provides a comprehensive and prescriptive list of requirements for the board and management of clubs to uphold. It is almost like the Government is claiming that clubs are some sort of public service agency. These are the sorts of requirements one might expect of employees under the Public Sector Management Act, for example, or, indeed, the Parliament itself, with pecuniary interest disclosures and the like. It is certainly a massive intervention by the Government in the normal management of clubs.

The bill is unique in the sense that its list of requirements applies to registered clubs. We do not see the same level of legislative prescription applying to other non-government organisations, for example, private sector organisations, and small, medium and large businesses. The bill appears to be unique in terms of government intervention and prescription in relation to registered clubs. The question arises: Why does the Government want to control and regulate clubs in the way the bill prescribes? One has only to go back to some of the debate that has taken place over the past few months, both in this place and in the public arena, in relation to registered clubs in New South Wales to find the answer.

If one harks back to the Treasurer's announcement in the context of the State budget, there has been a massive tax grab by the Government. This is a government that has ridden high on the back of massive stamp duty windfalls. On average, up to $1 billion a year above the estimated revenue has come the Government's way, courtesy of the property boom and stamp duty. The Government has been raking in massive amounts of 5182 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003 stamp duty revenue on the back of an unprecedented property boom. The Treasurer and the Government know that that revenue windfall will not continue forever. Recently the Reserve Bank announced an interest rate increase of 0.25 per cent, and the property market has cooled. However, the Treasurer, who is a past member of the board of Cronulla Workers Club, knows that there are some dollars in clubs, particularly in gaming revenues. So he looks towards poker machines and ramps up the tax.

What have the clubs done in response to this new tax grab? The Treasurer realises that his revenue stream is drying up and that he has spent the money. Indeed, he has gone into recurrent expenditure based on a windfall gain. If there is a windfall gain, which is a one-off, and that is committed to recurrent expenditure, it has to be replaced. That is precisely what the Treasurer is seeking to do with the clubs tax. The Treasurer estimates that the Government will reap $1.5 billion per annum in increased tax from the club movement by the time the incremental rises in the clubs tax reach their zenith in 2010. Simply put, the Treasurer sees the clubs as a cash cow. The clubs have not taken this lying down. I suspect that if they had taken it lying down and they had said, "Yes, Mr Treasurer, we will give you another $1.5 billion from our coffers," legislation such as this would not be before the House.

The Government would not be sticking its bib into the daily affairs, management and operation of clubs in the way it is seeking to do with the Registered Clubs Amendment Bill, otherwise known in the industry as the Roger Cowan bill. The Government is imposing a payback on clubs because they have not taken the increased tax lying down. The clubs have fought these tax increases simply because they know they are unaffordable. The Treasurer and the Government have simply looked at the gross gaming revenue; they have not looked at the surplus profits of clubs after expenses such as employees' wages and the cost of extensions or upgrades, nor the contributions that clubs make to the community.

The figures I have seen certainly indicate that the mandated community contributions, the community developments support expenditure contributions, are well and truly exceeded by clubs in this State. That will no longer be the case if this tax goes ahead. That is why clubs and their communities have rebelled against this tax increase. Regional communities in particular know that up to $250 million per annum will disappear from regional and rural New South Wales and go into the Treasurer's pocket with no guarantee that one cent will come back. We have heard the Government say that this money will go into health services and hospitals. That is fine, but we have got the most effective delivery mechanism for this revenue to local communities by local communities because clubs are made up of their local communities. That is all that club boards and management are: people from the local community. If they get a modest surplus they contribute that back into their communities. But the Government says, "No, we do not trust you to do that. We are going to do that for you. We are going to take that extra $1½ billion per annum from the State's 1,400 registered clubs and we are going to redistribute it".

If the people in country New South Wales, or in any area where there are clubs, are asked, "Do you trust the Government to return those dollars back to your local community", the answer will be a resounding "No". That is why the communities and the clubs have fought this tax. They have called it a mean and nasty tax and they have fought at all the way because they know it will be bad for their local communities. That is why we believe this is a punitive bill that is trying to paint clubs in a bad light. It is trying to say that clubs cannot be trusted, and that is why the big brother Government has to come in and impose legislation which tells clubs what they can and cannot do. It is an extraordinary set of prescriptions for the running of clubs.

If the Government and its members were to live up to the provisions of the bill and declare their interests in consultancies and the like, the bill might be acceptable but time and time again we have seen that current members and past Ministers of the Government do not uphold the same sort of transparency and standards that they now espouse for clubs. The hypocrisy of this legislation is breathtaking. The Nationals have particular concerns about some aspects of the legislation. For example, a member of the community, a businessperson with the sorts of skills that are desired of club board members, might be a member of the board and might also operate a business which supplies goods or services to that club, being the only such business in the town. Where else is the club to go? Under this legislation there will be a forced public disclosure of those sorts of arrangements. That businessperson will be faced with the publication of their business dealings with the club. Such people will simply say, "I do not want that sort of taint over my business. I do not want the suggestion that there is some sort of corruption going on here. I will simply step down from the board of the club". Where will that leave the club?

I suggest that if this legislation is passed club board members will walk away from their clubs in vast numbers because their businesses will be disadvantaged. That is especially the case in country towns throughout 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5183

New South Wales. Surely the Minister for Gaming and Racing would want the highest qualifications, the best experience and the best level expertise for club board members. This bill works against that by placing restrictions on members of the community—those who may have businesses—from participating in the management of their club at a board membership level.

An extraordinary level of prescription is proposed for registered clubs. It is not proposed for other sections of the community, be it the private sector or other community organisations. The bill has its genesis in the fight over the gaming machine tax, which has simply been developed to fill a projected black hole in the Treasurer's budget. Rather than engage in responsible financial management and stop the waste and mismanagement of the Government, the Treasurer has treated the clubs as a cash cow. Because they have not simply bowed to this and accepted it and said, "Yes, Mr Treasurer, we will give you another $1.5 million", they get this punitive legislation, which is designed to taint clubs and the members of club boards. That is what this legislation is all about.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (The Hills) [10.35 p.m.]: I must say that the debate has been a bit one-sided but I have listened to it with an amount of interest. There is obviously a great deal of concern by members on this side of the House about the proposals contained in this legislation. I listened in particular to what some of the country members—the honourable member for Albury, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, the honourable member for Wagga Wagga and the Leader of The Nationals—had to say about what this bill means to the clubs in their electorates. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour pointed out that clubs are the lifeblood of many local communities. They are the places where people go to drink, to meet, to socialise, and to do business. It is no different in many electorates. It is certainly no different in my electorate. In my electorate clubs still perform all of those vital functions, and some other functions besides. I cannot imagine what The Hills would be like without registered clubs where my constituents can get together for a drink or a game of bowls or, in the case of Castle Hill RSL, just about every sport imaginable. It is the same at West Pennant Hills Sports Club.

The Government seems to want to emasculate the club movement. It wants to drain the club movement of the money that keeps it going. It wants to destroy a large proportion of the facilities that our communities not only desire but need because the Government is not providing them. Last Saturday I was privileged to attend the opening of the new $14 million C2K sports facility at Castle Hill RSL Club. It was opened by the Federal Minister for the Arts and Sport, Senator Rod Kemp. In his speech he said that he had asked the Federal member for Mitchell, Alan Cadman, how much money the Federal Government and the State Government had put into the club. The answer was nothing—zero. That facility was built by the club and, therefore, it was built by the community. What a fantastic facility it is! It has swimming pools, an enormous gymnasium with an extraordinary array of sophisticated equipment, and a second-to-none gymnastics facility with a sprung floor built to Olympic training standards. This is where future Olympic champions will be made. Future Olympic champions will be made not because the State Government has allocated money to Castle Hill RSL Club but despite the fact that the State Government has taken money from it.

Only a few weeks ago I expressed concern about the impact of the Government's club tax on Castle Hill RSL Club. I will recap the figures that I cited then as honourable members should understand my grave concerns about the financial future of this club as a consequence of the Government's actions. The club has an annual turnover of about $15.5 million and last year it made a profit of $1.7 million. All the money—every last dollar—that did not go to the community was spent on extensions to the club. The poker machine tax impost for Castle Hill RSL will climb from $2.6 million this year to $6.3 million in 2010. That is an increase of $3.7 million, and the club made a profit of only $1.7 million last year. One does not have to be a mathematical genius to work out that the tax will put the club at least $2 million dollars in the red. As I said, the club has built a magnificent $14 million sporting facility. It had intended originally to install additional poker machines as part of its extension. However, there was a poker machine freeze so its plans could not proceed. The club is now facing this enormous additional tax impost. It is a double whammy for Castle Hill RSL Club.

At the opening of the new facility I talked at some length to the club's treasurer, Robbie Duncan, who said that at present the club gives about double the amount of money that it is required to provide under the Clubs Community Development Support Expenditure Program. He said that the poker machine tax will force the club to cut that funding to the amount required by legislation, to raise food and beer prices and to charge room hire to service organisations that presently hire rooms free of charge. This means that significantly less money will be available for community service activities in our area. I have very real concerns about that when I see the list of activities that the Castle Hill RSL Club has been supporting. These include the Baulkham Hills Rotary Club's Christmas function for elderly and disabled people; the Sir David Martin Foundation; homeless 5184 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003 and abused youth; accommodation care and counselling to the tune of $4,500 last year; the Victor Chang cardiac research project; the Spastic Centre; and St Gabriel's School for Hearing Impaired Children, which does an outstanding job. The Castle Hill RSL Club donated $3,300 to the Council of the Shire of Baulkham Hills Orange Blossom Festival, which celebrates community life in The Hills. It supports Baulkham Hills High School, Castle Hill High School, The Hills Grammar School, William Clarke College, Crestwood High School, Cherrybrook Technology High School, Oakhill College, Gilroy College and an enormous number of other local schools. The club also supports a pipe band.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! In accordance with the rulings of former Speakers, the honourable member for The Hills is required to identify any documents from which he is reading. I ask him to inform the House from which document he is reading.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: I am reading from a speech I made that was reported in Hansard on 17 October. The club supports the Castle Hill RSL Pipe Band, which was formerly known as the Epping and District Scottish Society pipe band. This outstanding group performs regularly, including of course on Anzac Day. The club also supports an enormous number of sporting groups—barely a week goes by when I do not attend some function or other at Castle Hill RSL—that will suffer as a consequence of the Government's club tax.

Not all clubs in my electorate are the same size as the Castle Hill RSL Club. The legislation seems to be oriented very much towards the big end of town—the larger end of the club movement. Next door to Castle Hill RSL Club is the little Castle Hill Bowling Club, and many people to whom I have spoken prefer the more intimate atmosphere of that club. My good friend Bill Eichhorn recently became president of the club. He told me that he became president because—

Mr Geoff Corrigan: He had the numbers!

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: Yes, he obviously had the numbers.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! There are too many interjections. I invite the honourable member for The Hills to make some passing reference to the legislation under consideration. This is the second reading debate but it seems that the honourable member is speaking to the appropriations bills rather than to the Registered Clubs Amendment Bill.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: Bill told me that he became president of the club because its members asked him to and because there is not as much expertise within that club as there would be within a larger organisation. I make this comment in the context of proposed section 41H, "Annual reporting requirements", which I was just getting to. There is no question that the reporting requirements in this legislation are clearly oriented towards the larger end of the club movement. The proposed section refers to:

… the number of top executives of the club … whose total remuneration … falls within each successive $10,000 band commencing at $100,000.

The honourable member for Coffs Harbour referred to little clubs in his electorate that keep going essentially through volunteer labour. Yet this legislation refers to people who earn at least $100,000. The proposed section refers also to:

… details … of any overseas travel during the reporting period by a member of the governing body of the club or an employee of the club in the person's capacity as a member of the governing body or an employee, including the costs wholly or partly met by the club for the member of the governing body …

…. details of any loan made during the reporting period to an employee of the club if the amount of the loan … is more than $1,000 …

… details of any contract approved during the reporting period …

And so it goes on. Those issues do not concern the smaller end of the club movement. Small clubs may be struggling to survive. For example, West Pennant Hills Sports Club recently took over the Epping Bowling Club thus allowing its members to continue their sporting pursuits. That is happening more and more. We cannot equate a club that is struggling for financial survival with an organisation such as Penrith Panthers. They are chalk and cheese. Yet so far as I can tell the legislation does not consider the differences between the two ends of the spectrum. It seems designed to be one-size-fits-all legislation but it does not fit all sizes. There is an enormous difference between the miniature clubs that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour mentioned and some of the larger city and country clubs. 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5185

The Opposition will not oppose the bill, although members on this side of the House have expressed manifest concerns about it during the debate. I just wonder why the same concerns are not being expressed by members on the other side of the House. I would have thought that any number of Labor members would also have similar concerns about this legislation. Why they did not mention it in caucus is a real conundrum. These issues will be addressed in the future by the club movement, which will continue to oppose the punitive poker tax regime, which the Government is using to single-handedly destroy the great club movement of New South Wales.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [10.50 p.m.]: The Registered Clubs Amendment Bill and the poker machine tax introduced during the budget session this year makes me pose one question to be Government: Why does the Government hate registered clubs? Why in the last six months has the Government introduced two pieces of legislation that will make life difficult, and in many cases impossible, for the many clubs? Why is the Government seeking to disadvantage and, again in many cases, destroy registered clubs, which have traditionally supported the Australian Labor Party?

Yesterday I attended an afternoon tea with the Country Women's Association [CWA] at Berrigan, which is usually not a hot bed of political intrigue. The number one concern of that wonderful bunch of women was the future of the Berrigan Bowling and Golf Club, which is the one place in Berrigan where weddings and functions can be held and where people can have a counter meal. It is the heart and soul of Berrigan. I ask on behalf of the Berrigan CWA: Why does the Labor Government hate clubs? Why is it seeking to disadvantage clubs such as the Berrigan Bowling and Golf Club, and other clubs, including leagues clubs, ex-servicemen clubs and RSL clubs?

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! The honourable member for Camden will cease interjecting.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: Those clubs have traditionally, although not totally, supported the Labor Party. Is it because they did not donate enough money to the Government prior to the last election campaign? I know that many Government members do not agree with what the Premier and the Treasurer have done. We heard about the caucus meeting a couple of months ago and the vote of 43-all. They continue to be steamrolled by the Premier and the Treasurer. None of them has the guts to say in Parliament that they do not agree with the Premier or the Treasurer. They are all running scared. I am confident when I say that had this bill been introduced last year when the Minister for Gaming and Racing was still a backbencher he would not have supported it. He may even have voted against it in caucus. But this is the price one pays when one becomes a Minister in a Labor government. One has to sell one's soul.

I know that many members of the Labor Party have had to sell their souls on this key issue. In this House they are meek and mild; they utter not one word of dissent about the poker machine tax or this legislation. Despite the fact that clubs in their electorates will be adversely impacted upon by the poker machine tax, not one of them has had the guts to say a single thing in opposition to it. This Chamber presents its members with an opportunity to put their views on the record, in Hansard. It is one thing for them to go into the boardrooms of their local clubs and say that the Premier and Treasurer are no good and that they do not agree with the tax. But it is another thing for them to come into this Chamber, which was built for this very purpose, and have the terrific people from Hansard put their opposition on the record. When given the opportunity to speak they say nothing. They agree with everything Caesar—the Premier—says because they know that their future is tied to him.

They regard their future with the Labor Party as being more important than the future of their local clubs. On those occasions when members of the Government have had the opportunity to vote against the club tax they have chosen to put their political careers ahead of clubs in their electorates. That is the great failure of this Government. That is why clubs across the length and breadth of New South Wales know that the Government is perpetrating a fraud. And that is why people are so angry. That is why members of the Government get dirty looks from people in the street and are shunned when they go to their local clubs. Clubs want to know why the Government hates them. Why is the Government instituting the tax? Why is the Government instituting this public media campaign?

Mr Geoff Corrigan: Point of order: The honourable member has moved right away from the point. I ask you to draw him back to the bill before the House.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! I uphold the point of order. I ask the honourable member for Murrumbidgee to address the bill. 5186 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: This legislation will impose additional burdens on clubs—additional burdens to the poker machine tax that the Government introduced a few months ago. I want to know why the Labor Government hates registered clubs.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [10.56 p.m.]: I note that this bill is called the Registered Clubs Amendment Bill, but it might be more appropriately called the "Get Even Bill" because that is what this bill is all about. It is about the Carr Government trying to get even with the club movement for being prepared to stand up and fight the Government over a crazy set of taxes to be imposed on the club movement without proper consultation. The Treasurer, the Premier and now the honourable member for Camden seem to think that if one cannot get the clubs by taxing them to death, one can get them by ensuring that they are strangled by red tape. Governments should be about reducing red tape, not increasing it. Unless there are some very productive outcomes, governments should stay out of private enterprise. They absolutely should stay out of the business of clubs unless there are very good reasons for interfering.

Mr Geoff Corrigan: Clubs aren't private enterprise.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: We have just heard from the honourable member for Camden who is not prepared to defend clubs in his electorate.

Mr Geoff Corrigan: They wouldn't exist except for legislation.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: We hear again from the honourable member for Camden. Anything else?

Mr Geoff Corrigan: No, go ahead.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: We are enjoying it.

Mr Geoff Corrigan: I am enjoying your speech too.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: And if you listen, you might learn something. Actually, clubs in the Camden area have been the cornerstone and backbone of development of that region.

Mr Geoff Corrigan: That's how much you know about Camden.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: What was that?

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! The honourable member for Camden will cease interjecting. If he wishes to contribute to the debate, he should seek the call when the honourable member for Wakehurst has completed his contribution. The honourable member for Wakehurst should cease conducting a one-on-one conversation across the Chamber and address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Given the half-witted comments and inane interjections of the honourable member for Camden, one should not be surprised about his lack of preparedness to defend clubs in the Camden area and more broadly. Past Labor members of Parliament have not been so reluctant.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! The Leader of the House will cease interjecting.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: I note that the former member for East Hills is now the chairman of Clubs New South Wales. I have read with interest in the Club Life newsletter the comments made by Pat Rogan over the past six months. In August 2003 Mr Rogan is quoted in the newsletter as saying:

It was with some initial surprise that the CEO, David Costello, and I were called to a meeting at Parliament House the day before the budget announcement … surprised when the Treasurer Michael Egan assured us in this meeting that he felt in his "heart of hearts" we would be happy with the outcome of the budget.

When I questioned him about the proposed review, his reply was succinct: "This is my review." This surprise quickly became despair and then outright anger when we discovered the detail of the changes … I have openly described the Treasurer as "arrogant and out of touch".

Mr Rogan has had some months to work with the Government. While he was busy working on the taxation issues, Mr Egan and the Premier, rather than addressing the taxation issues that will make it difficult for clubs, were busy creating the get-even bill, the Registered Clubs Amendment Bill. While discussions took place, and 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5187 while every effort was made by ClubsNSW, it appeared that the Government continued not to listen. It is interesting then to note that in the September edition of the Clubs New South Wales newsletter the chairman stated:

… Treasurer Egan was, as expected, completely intransigent and totally unprepared to concede the damage his tax increases would cause the club industry. For our part, despite the contemptible attempts by Treasurer Egan to discredit the Allen report... Clubs NSW stands firmly behind the Allen Group's findings.

Later in the same editorial he said:

There is a good old saying: "There is none so blind, as he who will not see". This can be aptly applied to Treasurer Egan, who seems incapable, or unwilling to accept the damage his tax will cause to clubs.

By September, while the Government was busy cobbling together this get-even bill, Pat Rogan was still being highly critical of the Government of which he had previously been a member. The discussions taking place in the club industry had not tempered at all by September. Indeed, I note that the chairman, Pat Rogan, said:

The hallmark of good government is consultation: arrogance is its antithesis. It is a manifestation of bad government, and invariably leads, bit by bit, to the demise of political administrations.

A cursory glance at the political landscape will reveal the corpses of political leaders who have failed to take heed of this political axiom—arrogance is death.

This bill is personification of the arrogance that the chairman talked about. It is a clear indication that the Government is not prepared to listen to the concerns of the club industry or those who benefit from the club industry. As I have said in this House before, the Carr Labor Government seems to have a profound lack of understanding about the role of the club movement. Clubs often form the central focus throughout New South Wales, particularly in remote communities. They form the focus, the centre point, at which communities meet and come together. The local bowling club in Wilcannia is a good example. I am sure the Minister for Roads, and Minister for Housing has been to Wilcannia on many occasions. He has probably had a number of beers in the Wilcannia bowling club. If he has not, he should go there because, like many other members opposite, he would learn more about the people of New South Wales and their needs.

The club movement needs the Government's support, whether it be Labor or the Coalition. It does not need to be hounded into oblivion, which is what this legislation will do. There should also be recognition that for years many club directors have done vast amounts of work for either no payment or little recompense at all. Those directors are honourable men and women who deserve the Government's support. They certainly have the support of the Liberal Party and The Nationals. However, when I visit these clubs and talk to the directors, what I hear is total frustration with the Government.

Mr Geoff Corrigan: When was the last time you were at Wilcannia?

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: About 12 months ago. The Minister for Roads, and Minister for Housing has just handed me a vital message which indicates that he would like this debate to continue because he is one of 34 Labor members who support the club movement in caucus. I gather that is what the message says, or have I misread it?

Mr Carl Scully: It says, "shut up".

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: I will leave that out.

Mr Carl Scully: If you continue I will cut my wrists.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: That offer is too good to refuse! On behalf of the people of New South Wales, I accept that offer. The problem is that the Government has collectively slashed the wrists of those who rely on the club movement in New South Wales. This matter should not be treated lightly by the Carr Government, even at this late hour, because we have a right to raise these issues on behalf of local clubs and on behalf of many people throughout New South Wales who are concerned about this bill and about what the Government is doing to clubs. As I said, this bill is the get-even bill. Much of what is required is commonsense. Imposing additional requirements on companies in relation to directors may achieve absolutely nought except additional red tape, which will strangle our clubs. Clearly, I am concerned about what the Government is doing to our clubs. I ask the Carr Government to revisit this issue, to get Mr Egan to take a long walk somewhere and a cold shower and come back with a sensible approach to and some support for clubs in New South Wales. 5188 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 18 November 2003

Mr STEVEN PRINGLE (Hawkesbury) [11.07 p.m.]: I support the comments made by the honourable member for The Hills, who correctly identified the vital role of one club that, although not in the Hawkesbury, is vital to Hawkesbury residents. That club is the Castle Hill RSL Club. Among the many attributes of that club, the honourable member glossed over the fact that the gymnasium is terrific and the gymnastics program is of a world-class standard. Australia needs a world-class standard gymnastics team for the next Olympics. Ironically, one unintended consequence of the Registered Clubs Amendment Bill will be to force clubs to increase their reliance on gaming revenue. Another unintended consequence is the fact that this legislation and the increased tax will encourage home gaming and all the associated problems of that for our children. It will also force a lot of gambling overseas, taking jobs away from Australians and affecting our economy overall. The clubs in my electorate were particularly strong on the issue of the Windsor RSL club. They wanted to build a new club, at a cost of some $10 million. However, that project is now on hold because of the increased poker machine tax. The club has been working for that for years.

The Kellyville Country Club, forced out of its current premises because of the massive expansion in the north-west sector, also is having to put on hold much of its plans. The North Richmond Panthers—which is now on its feet, but previously had major difficulties—is having to curtail its community organisations funding as well. The San Miguel Family Centre benefits from that funding to the tune of $10,000. Also benefiting is the Kurrajong Nursing Home. And the local Legacy club, which desperately needs Panthers North Richmond funding, is suffering severely. But I particularly want to mention the Richmond Club. In 2010 it is predicted to pay a whopping $1.2 million in tax. One of its great supporting roles is for the Rural Fire Service. Recently the club donated $89,000 to the Bilpin Rural Fire Service. I know Government members will be interested in the great job that the Bilpin Rural Fire Service has done. Its first-class computer system now enables all residents in the Bilpin area to be adequately warned of any potential danger. Whether aerial or local brigades, they are able to get to the scene of the fire in a timely manner.

Mr Grant McBride: And with new equipment and new appliances provided by the State Government.

Mr STEVEN PRINGLE: Yes, admittedly, it has new equipment—thanks to a good local member.

Mr Grant McBride: And new appliances supplied by the State Government.

Mr STEVEN PRINGLE: Thanks to pushing from me—but courtesy of a good local member and, of course, previous Coalition governments. The Government has said that this tax will affect only the big clubs. That is not true. The smaller clubs in my electorate, such as the Glenorie Club—

Mr Geoff Corrigan: Point of order: We are not debating poker machine tax; we are debating the Registered Clubs Amendment Bill. The honourable member should return to addressing the bill and not talk about poker machine taxes.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! The honourable member for Hawkesbury will address the bill.

Mr STEVEN PRINGLE: As has been said earlier, the Coalition does not oppose many of the reforms proposed by this bill, but we continue to be concerned about growing attacks on the club movement. The Glenorie Club has been affected by a tax increase from $18,000 to $70,000, and the Windsor Country Golf Club has been similarly affected by a tax increase. Rising costs are forcing those clubs out of business. I call on the Government to reconsider its actions regarding poker machine tax and to listen to caucus: 34 caucus members cannot be wrong.

Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance—Minister for Gaming and Racing) [11.12 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who participated in the debate.

Mr Thomas George: Name them!

Mr GRANT McBRIDE: I particularly acknowledge the positive and significant contributions of Government members. However, to identify all who contributed would not be fair because, although some members made significant contributions, others made rather pathetic contributions. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages. 18 November 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5189

BILLS RETURNED

The following bills were returned from the Legislative Council without amendment:

Appropriation (Health Super-Growth Fund) Bill Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Amendment Bill Independent Commission Against Corruption Amendment (Ethics Committee) Bill Police Legislation Amendment (Civil Liability) Bill Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Family Law) Bill.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Mr Carl Scully agreed to:

That the House at its rising this day do adjourn until Wednesday 19 November 2003 at 10.00 a.m.

The House adjourned at 11.15 p.m. until Wednesday 19 November 2003 at 10.00 a.m. ______