21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY 65

LEGISLATIVEASSEMBLY

Thursday, 21 February, 1991

Mr Speaker (The Hon. Kevin Richard Rozzoli)took the chair at 10.30 a.m. Mr Speakeroffered the Prayer.

PHOTOGRAPHOF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY MrSpeaker announced that photographsof the sittingwould be taken for display by the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly and to allow individualmembers the opportunity to gain a record of this Parliament.

SENATEVACANCY Resignation of Senator the Honourable PeterBaume Motion by Mr Greineragreed to: That this House meet the Legislative Council for the purpose of sitting and voting together to choose a person to hold the place in the Senate rendered vacant by the resignation of Senator the Hon. Peter Baume.

Message Motion by Mr Greineragreed to: That the following message be sent to the Legislative Council: Mr President. the Leeislative" Assemblv having" resolved to meet the Leeislative- Council for the purpose of sitting and voting together to choosea person to hold the placein thesenaterendered vacant by the resignation of Senator the Hon. Peter Baume requests the Legislative Council to name the place and hour for such meeting.

SESSIONAL ORDERS Motion, by leave, by Mr Dowd, agreed to: That the sessional orders in identical terms to those adopted by this House on 17 August, 1988, and 22 February, 1990, be adopted in relation to the following subjects: Introduction of Public Bills Divisions and Quorums Private Members' Statements Days and Hours of Sitting Adjournment of the House Notice of Motions Time Limit of Speeches Personal Explanation-Debates of same session not to be alluded to Alternative Form of Amendment Divisions-Recording of Pairs Cognate Bills New Clauses and Schedules Preparation of Bills for Assent Suspension of Standing Orders 66 ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991

LEAVE OF ABSENCE Motion by Mr Phillips agreed to: That leave of absence for the present session be granted to John David Booth, member for Wakehulst,on account of absencefrom the State. Motion by Mr Beckroge agreed to: That leave of absence for the present session be granted to John Henry Murray, member for Drummoyne,on account of absence from the State. Motion by Mr Beck agreed to: That leave of absence for the present session be granted to Bruce Leslie Jeffery, member for Port Macquarie,and George Souris,member for Upper Hunter,on accountof absencefrom the State.

PETITIONS Aboriginal Land Rights Act Petitions praying that because of the many benefits brought by the Aboriginal Land Rights Act to the Koori people and to the wider community, the House will support the retention of the Act as amended and the three-tier land council structure, received from Mr Fahey, Mr Gibson,Miss Machin and Mr Markham.

Offences Against Children Petition praying that an investigation be made concerning claims that child sex offenders are being acquitted,and sentences of convicted child sex offendersbe reviewed to see whether they should be substantially increased, receivedfrom Mr Rumble.

Children's Care and Protection Legislation Petition praying that children be allowed to give evidence in court by means of video or audio tape, that child offenders be barred from contact with children involved in court proceedings, and that adults who do not report child sexual assault be deemed guilty of an offence, received from Mr Rumble.

Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Petition praying that support be given to the continuation without interference of the gay and lesbian mardi gras, received from Ms Moore.

Royal Agricultural Society Showground Petition praying that the House will prevent the sale by the Government of foreshore and public parklands, including the Royal Agricultural Society Showground, the E. S. Marks Athletic Field and part of Moore Park, and that residents be included on their administrative bodies, received fromMs Moore.

Rockdale-Banksia Traffic Petition praying that the House reject the proposals of the Roads and Traffic Authority for Rockdale and Banksia, received from Mr Unsworth. 21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY 67

Lidcombe Hospital Petition praying that the House reject any proposals to close down or cut back services or staffing at Lidcombe Hospital but instead support an increase in services and staffing at the hospital, received from Mr Nagle.

North Sydney Girls High School Petition praying that because the relocation of the North Sydney Girls High School to split sites is unworkable and because funding and facilities at the school are below acceptable standards, funds be made available immediately to refurbish and upgrade the school to appropriate standards, received from Ms Read.

F4 Freeway Petition praying that the House not proceedwith theimplementationof a tollway charge on any section of the western Sydney F4 Freeway, received from Mr Amery.

Pacific Highway Roadworks Petition praying that the House request the Minister for Roads to honour the promise to complete work on the Swansea S-bends by 1991, received from Mr Welsh.

Chullora High-Temperature Incinerators Petition praying that the House reject the proposal to construct two high-temperature incineratorsat 75 Anzac Street, Chullora, received from Mr Shedden.

Forestry Commission Petition praying that an inquiry be conducted into the administration, practices and policies of the New South Wales Forestry Commission with respect to long-term sustainability of timber resources and the protection of wildlife habitat, received from Ms Moore.

Beverage Containers Petition praying that because of the detrimental effect of throw-away packaging on the environment, legislation be introduced imposing a mandatory deposit on all beverage containers sold in New South Wales, received from Mr Keegan.

Crime Penalties Petition praying that penalties for crime be increased and that there should be no parole for life sentences, received from Mr Cruickshank.

Adult Leisure Learning Centres Petition praying that annual grants to adult leisure learning centres be maintained at least at 1990 levels, received from Mr Griffiths. 68 ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991

Northern Riverina County Council Petition praying that a full and open inquiry be held into the historical management of the Northern Riverina County Council,received from Mr Armstrong.

Technical and Further Education Petition praying that the House will continue to allow all people receiving social security benefits to be exempt from the payment of TAFE fees, that there be no increase in TAFE fees and that TAFE courses continue to be advertised, received from Mr J. J. Aquilina.

Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf Petition praying that public money not be wasted demolishing the structurally sound finger wharf and establishing a walkway on the western side of Woolloomooloo Bay but instead that basic renovations be carried out on the wharf and an integrated multimedia arts centre be established, received from Ms Moore.

Local Government Rating System Petition praying that the House determine a more equitable method of rating properties than that currently being used by municipal authorities, received from Mr McManus.

Wyong Shire Council Name Change Petition praying that the proposed nameofTuggerah Lakes City not beconferred upon Wyong Shire Council, received from Mr II. F. Moore.

Heritage Trains Petition praying that the Minister for Transport will allow the continued full operation of heritage trains in New South Wales, received from Mr Welsh.

Rockdale Police Station Petition praying that full police services be maintained at Rockdale police station, received from Mr Unsworth.

Port Kembla Sewage Petition praying that the Housewill not proceed with the proposal to divert Port Kembla effluent to the Shellharbour sewage treatment plant, received from Mr Harrison.

Breast Cancer Screening Petition praying that the Minister for Health will take urgent action to set up a breast cancer screening unit at Westmead hospital and provide screening vans for western and southwestern Sydney, received from Mrs Cohen. 21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY 69

Hardinge State Forest Petition praying that the House reverse its decision to dedicate land in the County of Hardinge as State forest, received from Mr Moss.

Wyong Railway Station Petition praying that before the final plans are approved for upgrading the Wyong railway station, consideration be given to the accessibility to platforms by the elderly, invalid and mothers with small children, received from Mr 13. F. Moore. [Tablingof Pnpers] Mr IIatton: On a point of order. It is absolutely impossible from the backbenches to hear one word that is being said. I do not know if other members can hear, but we on the backbench cannot. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I accept the point taken by the honourable member for South Coast. I have asked all members to co-operate and I expect their co-operation until the problem with the amplification systemis rectified.

INDEPENIIENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION Reports Mr Speaker, pursuant to section 78(1) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act, announced receipt of the following reports of the Independent Commission Against Corruption received by him during the adjournmentof the House: Investigation into Driver Licensing, Volumes 1 and 2, dated December 1990; Investigation into Harassing Telephone Calls made to Edgar Azzopardi, dated December 1990; Investigation relating to Stait, Dainford and Waverley council, dated January 1991;and Investigation into Sutherland Licensing Police, dated February 1991.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

RAILWAY RESIGNALLINGPROGRAM Mr CARR: My question without noticeis directed to the Minister for Transport, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Minister Assisting theTreasurer. Did the StateRail Authority managementofficially notify employees in a bulletin on 11th January that on a number of occasions Sydney's rail signalling system hasbroken down and only quick action by staff prevented a serious accident or collision? Mr BAIRD: Along with some of the great lies we have heard such as, "Thecheque is in the mail", and, "I am from the Government. I am here to help youR- [Interruption] 70 ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not wish to stem the flow of interjections that are made in the normal course of events. However, in view of the difficulties now being encountered with the sound system in the Chamber I ask members to show more than usual restraint.

Mr BAIRD: -we have heard a third and a fourth lie, and we now have a fifth-it all depends how one counts them-that Bob Carr cares, which is the heading that appears on all of his documents. If that is caring, so much for the Australian Labor Party. Last year the honourable member for Kogarah began a scare about signalling. Hewent around trying to create the impression that we had installed a third-rate system, when the realities are very far from that. In fact, the particular gentleman that the honourable member for Kogarah tried to quote made specific comments. He said:

Specific quotes were referenced from Mr Gunnar Hagelin of our sister company in Sweden, which essentially claimed the relay technology as specified as being obsolete. I do not know where the quotes were taken, or in what context, but this definitely does not reflect theview of EB Signals.

This proves that the company does not have any problems with the relay system. The company regards it as appropriate for the network. That was the last scare. The Opposition tried to create fear by smearing the signalling network. Next comes one of the great quotes. The company describes as totally and absolutely untrue the claims made now about the signalling system that the Government inherited. The signalling system was in bad disrepair. The Opposition had failed to do anything about rectifying it. The Government is spending $450 million in upgrading its signalling system. This will involve both solid state interlocking and relay technology. It is a mammoth task. Undoubtedly honourable members opposite feel guilty because their signalling system dated back to the last century. The whole of the industry supports the Government's technological updatingof the signalling system. I am sure the Oppositionwould like to perpetuate the myth that something is wrong. This Government is doing something about it. The Opposition totally ignored the signalling system in this State. The Government's $2.5 billion upgrading program is building a first-rate rail system and honourable members opposite know that well.

Later,

Mr BAIRD: Earlier the Leader of the Opposition asked me a questionabout an internal memorandum to State Rail Authority staff on 11th January. It should be highlighted that the staff notice related to an incident of human error, not of faulty equipment. The employee in the particular signalbox was watching the track indicator diagram. According to the diagram a train was scheduled to go into the Delecworkshop. Through lack of attention the employee did not notice that the train had left the main line to go into the workshop. When he looked again at the signals the train seemed to have disappeared and he thought that was due to a signal failure, so he called out a signal gang to check it. There was no unsafe situation. This incident occurred because of human error on this occasion. The point of the notice was to remind staff to be vigilant at all times; it is not an indictment of the system. Once again the Leader of the Opposition got it wrong. 21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY 71

ECONOMIC POLICIES

Mr GRIFFITIIS: My question without notice is directed to the Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. Has the Treasury analysed the comparative economic performanceand policies of the Labor States and, if so, how do they compare with New South Wales?

Mr GREINER:I would have thought it perfectlyobvious that the dominant issue in this State and nation is that we are in the middle of the worst recession in Australia in more than half a century. It amazes methat after a three-month breakthe Opposition has returned to this Parliament without asking a question about the recession. It does not ask a question about rural New South Wales and its associated problems. It does not ask a question about the progress of microeconomic reform. It does not ask a question about the labour market. The Opposition instead has asked an absolutely ludicrous and baseless question, one that the honourable member for Kogarah has already asked three times before. That is the contribution the Opposition has made to this Parliamentupon its resumption. The national recession to which I refer is the result of deliberate Federal Labor Party policy. It is indeed-to quote the immortal words of Mr Keating-the recession that he decided we had to have. That statementwas made after his denying for the better part of a year that there was a recession, although it was plain to everyone in Australia that throughout calendar 1990 we were exhibiting all the signs of a recession in the workplace. The difference about this recession is that it is the first time in all the business cycles, in all the downturns that we have had over the past 60 years since the Great Depression of the early 1930's-I cannot even hear myself.

[Interruption]

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

Mr GREINER: -this is the first recession in which there have been clear interstate differences. It is the first recession where the policies of different State governments have clearly, beyond any doubt, beyond any argument, led to dramatic differences in the quality of economic life and therefore in the quality of life of the different States. The Opposition knows that it has been disgraced by each and every Labor government,with the possible exception of that in Queensland, which has only recently been elected. It has been disgracedby the actions of the governments in Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania and Canberra. The Leader of the Opposition spends all his time dissociating himself from the Federal Labor Party. He says: "Oh, goodness gracious me, Iam not in that Labor Party. We have nothing to do with Mr Keating or Mr Hawke. That's them in Canberra. Don't take it out on us because of them". Let me quickly-and I mean quickly-go through the economic policies of the other Labor States. I start with Victoria. Only 18 months ago the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales said, "John Cain came to government by putting together a core of talented frontbenchers". This was reported in the Australian of 1st May, 1989, if honourable members wish to read the rest of the drivel that he would now like to get away from. He went on to say how the Victorian model was the sort of thing he would like to follow in New South Wales. ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991

I shall not bore the House by giving the litany. I shall not tell the House about the State Bank of Victoria, the Victorian Equity Trust, the Victorian Economic Development Corporation,the whole litany which everyone in Australia already knows. Suffice it to say that the net effect of the policies of John Cain, whom the Leader of the Opposition portrayed as a model Labor Premier, is a loss of about $3,000 million to the people of Victoria. Those people will have to pick up each and every red cent of that $3 billion. Let us see what happened after Mr Cain left. There was a change of government leader. MrsKirner is a nice lady. What have they done? They have started a privatisation policy. Honourable members will remember how this Government is rubbished every time it privatises or tries to privatise. This Government is told it is a terrible thing to do. The biggest attempt at a privatisation program in the history of this country has been undertaken by the Victorian Labor Government. Asset sales: the Opposition here has run rubbishy advertisements saying that this Government is running asset sales programs, selling assets in New South Wales. But Mrs Kirner has everything for sale. She has everything for sale: not surplus assets, not assets to fund new capital works. She is trying to flog everything she can in order to stay afloat. She now has the backing of Paul Keating.

[Interruption]

Mr GREINER: I shall come to South Australia. Paul Keating's adviceto all the Labor Premiers was to increase their asset sales programs, that that was the way out. Next the Labor Party had the asininity to write advertisements,trying to run a political campaign suggesting that a sensible asset sales program with the proceeds going to capital works is not a necessary part of an economic policy of any State. Of course it is. Mr Keating knows, Mrs Kirner knows, all the other Labor Premiers know, as indeed does the Liberal Premier and Chief Ministers of the two Territories. What elsehas Mrs Kirner done? She has increased fares by about 15 per cent. She has reduced teacher numbers. Let me tell honourable members about teacher numbers. We hear a lot about teacher numbers. The reduction in teacher numbers in New South Wales-the savings for which stayed in education-was 3 per cent. The reduction in teacher numbers in Victoria is 4 per cent. The reduction in teacher numbers in South Australia is 6 per cent-twice as many teachers have gone in SouthAustralia as compared with New South Wales. In Tasmania, under the Labor Government there,there has been a reduction of 12 per cent; four times as many teachers gone from that education system. That money has gone right out of education to fund the economic losses which are the result of the profligate policies of those governments.

Similar State comparisons canbe made about hospital expenditure. Victoria has actually cut hospital spending. The New South Wales Government is increasing expenditure on hospitals, year after year. Every comparison between this State and Victoria shows how that State is desperate to catch up with someof the sensibledecisions this Government made three years ago. But it is trying to do so in a panic, for the wrong reasons, and in an economicclimate where it cannot possibly get it right. I will not talk about the royal commission in Victoria. That will speak for itself. Royal commissions arebeing held in everyLabor State now. There is a Labor royal commission into a Labor government in Western Australia; a Labor royal commission into a Labor government 21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY 73 in South Australia; a Labor royal commission into a Labor government in Victoria and, lo and behold, there is a royal commission into something or other in Tasmania. That is a bad record.

In Western Australia the losses amounted to only $1 billion. I shall not go through the whole litany. Instead of Western Australia losing $3 billion it has lost only about $1 billion. That Government has been corporatising and privatising and has increased its taxes and charges so that they are higher than those levied in New South Wales. Recently, we learnt of the South Australian experience. After John Cain fell from favour the Leader of the Opposition needed someone else to praise as the model Premier. Who did he decide was the model Premier? He decided upon another John-John Bannon. Poor old John Cain had gone so he decided upon John Bannon. The truth is that John Bannon has for years been running a fraud in South Australia. At last the truth is starting to come out. Not only is the State Bank of South Australia in difficultybut also in trouble are, as has been conceded by John Bannon's commencing a royal commission, the State Government Insurance Commission and, I am afraid to say, the South Australian Financing Authority, which in my view has gone far beyond behaviour responsible for any State central borrowing agency. He may have to sell that agency, if he is not careful. South Australia has lost $1 billion aswell. The people of those States are not faring well. There have been losses of $3 billion in Victoria, $1 billion in Western Australia, and$1 billion in South Australia. Heaven only knows how much has been lost in Tasmania. It is really too bad to contemplate. The only State remaining on this Cook's tour is Queensland. It is fair to say that the Queensland Government inheriteda sound financial position from itspredecessor. It has been trying to change the efficiency of government. Recently the Leader of the Opposition in this State said that the moment he is elected to government hewill abolish the Cabinet Office in New South Wales.

[Intemption]

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

Mr GREINER: The Leader of the Opposition said that the Cabinet Office was a terrible idea; it represented jobs for the boys. Hesaid he would abolish the office and bring back a single government department, which is what the previous Government had. About two weeks after the Leader of the Opposition said that, which was his most public administration policy, I read the headlines, "Cabinet Officenew move for Goss". It is worthy of note that Mr Goss believes that the New South Wales Cabinet Office is this nation's most effective modelfor policy preparation and co-ordination. That is the same Cabinet Office that the Leader of the Opposition wants to abolish. I now wish to address an assessment of the actual economic performancesof the States. In Victoria there is a straight out, unprecedented creditsqueeze. Bank deposits are growing by only 6 per cent per annum. Bank loans are growing by 12 per cent. Western Australia is experiencing a money drop. Money is coming out of the system, and this has never happened in the past 50 or 60years.

[Intemption] 74 ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991

Mr GREINER: If members of the Opposition find this boring, I invitethem to ask the citizens of Geelongand of the suburbs of Perth whether they believe it is boring or irrelevant. I shall compare the figures that I have given for other Stateswith those that relate to New South Wales. In New South Wales bank deposits and loans have increased at about 18 per cent, which is well over the national average. In relation to demand, in December 1990 Victoria was the only State in Australia to actually record a fall. In real terms less was purchased before Christmasin Victoria last year than there had been purchased the year before. That occurred for the first time ever in that State. The figures are worse with regard to motor vehicle registrations, housing and non-residential buildings in relation to which fallswere registeredof the order of 38 per cent, 33 per cent and 51 per cent. Western Australia fared almost as badly. [Intemption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable memberfor Londonderryto order.

Mr GREINER: In contrast I am sure members of the Opposition would be pleased to hear that in New South Wales increaseswere recorded in retail sales, motor vehicle registrations and engineering constructionscommenced. The falls that were noted in residential and non-residential buildings were the smallest registeredof any in the other States of Australia. [Intemption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable memberfor Auburn to order.

Mr GREINER: I now refer to prices. [Intemption]

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

Mr GREINER: In the December quarter Sydney recorded the lowest increase in the consumer priceindex of any capital city in Australia. The increases recorded in every other capital city were considerably higher. With regard to government charges, in New South Wales over the past 12months the increase in local government and State government charges-

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. On the first day the Parliament has sat this session the Premier has taken up almost 14 minutes of question time. Is that the standard that will be applied in the future? Will you allow this arrogant Premier to dictate to you-

Mr SPEXKER: Order! The honourable member for Ashfield will come to his point of order.

Mr Whelan: If that is to be the standard, memberswill have time to ask only three questions during question time. Prior to the Christmas recess question time bordered on being farcical. It has now become a farce,having regard to the Premier's continual repetitionof matters. He has taken up 14 minutes of valuable time. It is the insult to you as Speaker that is the subject of my argument- 21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY 75

Mr SPMKER:Order! The honourable member forAshfield made his point of order early in his comments. He has debated it at some length, which may be said by some to be a waste of question time. The point of order of the honourable member for Ashfield is twofold. First, are the matters that have been raised or addressed by the Premier relevant to the question as it was kamed? Second, is the answer too lengthy? As memberswould know,there is no finite definitionabout the length of answersduring question time. Members would know also of my efforts to encourage the maximum number of questions during question time. I draw the attention of the Premier to the fact that at the time he was interrupted hehad been speaking for 14 minutes. I askhim to be mindful of that and of the desire ofothermembers toask questionsduringquestion time.

Mr GREINER: This matter, it seems to me, is the gut issue in this State and nation at this time,but Iwill draw my answer to a close. New South Wales has the lowest increases in the consumer priceindex and local and State government taxes and charges of any State in Australia. It also has the lowest unemployment level by a large margin. In December New South Wales created, each day, 723jobs. At the same time,Victoria lost 323jobs every single day. On the labour market front, the latest data on industrial disputes shows that there has been a drop in disputation in New South Wales by almost 16 per cent. In contrast, the other five States-all Labor States with so-called good industrial relations-showed an annual increase of 14.4 per cent in industrial disputation. The picture is one sided and clear cut. On as many as 15 indicators the New South Wales economy is outperformingthe economies of all States in Australia. In all matters that actually mean something to people-jobs, prices, economic opportunities-New South Wales is far outperformingeach and every other State in Australia.

[Interruption]

Mr GREINER: I shall ask the voters in due course, but I suspect I know what they will say. I conclude-

MrSPEAKER: Ordcr! I call the honourable member for Londonderry to order for the second time.

Mr GREINER: Just like his parliamentary career, the squash career of the honourable member for Londonderrywill be short. The Government intendsto follow precisely the path it has been following forthe past three years, which is the path that has brought it the commendation of each and every independent commentator and expert. New South Wales is leading Australia in terms of economicpolicy and in terms of public administration in general. We propose to continue those policies so that no matter how long the recession lasts-and it may well last throughout 1991 and even beyond-the people of New South Wales can be sure that they will continue to be far more protected from the impact of Mr Keating's policies than people living elsewhere in Australia. 76 ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991

MAWARTRAINING CENTRE ESCAPE Mr ANDERSON: I direct a question without noticeto the Attorney General, in his capacity representingthe Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Ten days ago in Malabar Training Centre was a 21-year-old prisoner held and raped by three murderers? Did the prisoner walk out of the gaol but return, within hours, with his mother? Has he now been charged with escaping and denied the highest level of protection? Will the Governmentwithdraw the charge against the prisoner of escaping from lawful custody? If not, why not? Mr DOWD: I thank the honourable member for his question. I will obtain information from the Minister responsible and advise the House as soon asI can. Later, Mr DOWD: Earlier I was asked a question by the honourable member for Liverpool and I wish to provide further supplementary informationto the House. The person- Mr Whelan: Do not say his name. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Attorney General has the call. Mr DOWD: The prisoner referred to was charged on 14th February with escaping from custody. The question asked whether the Government would withdraw the chargeagainst thevictim ofescapingfrom lawfulcustody and if not, why not. Ishould have thought that the honourable member for Liverpool, whowas formerly a Minister for Police, would know that governments neither prefer nor withdraw charges. At no stage does a member of the Executive or the Minister for Police have the power to withdraw a charge brought by the police; nor should they. It is appalling that the honourablemember implied that he thinks it is right for the Executive Government to interfere with the lawful processes of the police department. The question of whether or not police prefer a chargeis a matter for the police and for them alone, not for the Executive Government. As the honourable member for Ashfield would know, I hope, there is provision for the Director of Public Prosecutions to take over certainprosecutions, and in fact in this State that occurs. Under thelaws introduced by the former Labor Government and supported by the coalition parties,the Director of Public Prosecutionsis not subject to influence and makes his own independent decisions about whether a matter should proceed. Therefore it would be grossly improper for the Government, either through the Director of Public Prosecutions--except in the normal process of consultation-to discuss the matter or to give a direction to the Director of Public Prosecutionsnot to proceed. It would be improper forthe Governmentto direct that the police not proceed with a matter. The fact that the member raised the issue is a disappointment;as a former Minister either he never understood the duties of the Minister for Policeor does not understand them now or cynically wants to raise the matter for publicity purposes.

Mr Whelan: I seek to raise an important matter. It was probably an oversight that during the Attorney General's further answer to the House he mentioned the name of a person. I do not think it appropriate or proper for the Attorney Generalto have mentioned that name, becauseof the likelihood of revenge and other factors associated 21 February,1991 ASSEMBLY 77 with the conductof people in gaol. I do not know what power you haveto amendthe Hansard record,but I think it isa tragedythat the person's namewas referredto in the House. I should condemnthe Attorney General,but I hopeabove allhope that nothing will transpire andthe referenceto the name canbe expunged. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Under thesecircumstances any words canbe expunged from the recordwith the leave of the House.

Mr Dowd: I seek leave forthat name to be expungedbut I shouldsay that this matterwill comebefore acourt eventuallyand certain mattershave been attendedto in relationto it. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! Thereis no capacityto debate thematter.

Mr Dowd: If it is thoughtappropriate todo so, it is proper that thereference be expunged. Leave granted.

IIOMEFUNDLOANS Mr BOOKS: My questionwithout notice is directedto theMinister for Housing. Are the Government'sHomeFund loan figuresup on projected levels, followingthe downturnin the residential propertymarket? How much has now been advancedunder the HomeFundscheme'? Mr SCIIIPP: Iam pleased to respondto the questionasked by the honourable member for Parramatta. In doing so Iacknowledge his contributionto my housing committeeand hisconcern for those he representsin thewestern suburbs as well as the interesthe takes in their well-beingand in their becominghome owners. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourablemember for Wentworthvilleto order.

Mr SCIIIPP: It is a pleasureto be able to continuethe very positiveopening to this session ofParliament that was set out in the Governor's Speech.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourablemember for Wentworthvilleto orderfor the second time. Mr SCIIIPP: Yesterday,on theway to theother place, I am sure itdid not escape the notice of honourablemembers thatthe public across the streetwere calling out, "Goodon you, Nick",and therewas an odd call of, "Goodon you, Joe". I think that was from the HomeFundbuyers. Mr Gibson: That was your mother, andshe disguisedher voice. 78 ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991

Mr SCHIPP: No, my mother does not have a HomeFund loan. That was a HomeFundborrower; I can recognise aHomeFund borrower. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will reply to the question. Mr SCHIPP: On 6th February the forty thousandth home loan through the HomeFund system was granted to a borrower; and later this month I will make a presentation to that family to acknowledge that magnificent achievement which also chalked up $3 billion in loans through this Government'sHomeFund scheme. Following the theme the Premier just developed about what other States are doing, I add that all States now model their schemes on the New South Wales HomeFund scheme because of the obvious success of that scheme. Its success has been outstanding. It would not have escaped the notice of members opposite that the HomeFund scheme in its former mishmash of schemes,which people could not understand, startedin 1986. This Government hasremodelled it, refinedit and given it a great deal more impetus. Of the 40,000 loans, 32,500 havebeen granted by the Greiner Government. That is significant. About 81 per cent of the loans have been granted since we increased fundingfivefold; we have achieved a fivefoldincrease in loans. Of the $3billion provided under HomeFund,$2.53 billion has been provided by this Government. One can see from those figures that this Government has given a tremendous boost to the scheme. The question raised by the honourable member for Parramatta referred obviously to what has happenedwith the HomeFund scheme since the recession started to bite. I am pleased to announce that the last quarter of the last calendar year was a record for HomeFund. Borrowing was at a high rate. I recall some figures that I quoted recently, that in onemonth approvalsran at $146 millionand settlementsat $123million. Ifthose figures were multiplied to give an annual figure, it would represent a $1.8 billion program, and we have targeted a program of $1.5 billion for this year. For the half year to the end of last year, 8,169loans were granted to borrowers, representing a value of $675 million. To double that for the annual figure we would be running somewhat short of the figure of $1.5 billion,but we are close to it at about $1.35 billion. It is a pleasure to be able to announce that milestone in the history of HomeFund. With the drop in house prices people borrow less and, therefore, the servicing requirement is less. For that reason more loans will be available for eligible applicants. The present interest rate is 14.25 per cent and that is monitored to ensure it reflects market trends andthat borrowers are assisted. A safety net provision is also available. The latest figures I have show that the default level is verylow. Of the 21,000 loans monitored, only 11 were in serious default, and some were in a state of decline. Safetynet provisionsare availablefor those borrowers to allow them to reduce payments during periodsof disadvantage,or so that they can receive mortgage assistance to help them through such situations. Thebreakdown of HomeFundloan approvalsshows that country peopleare well served. The split between the Sydney metropolitan area and the country for this financial year so far shows that the Sydney metropolitan area has received 5,177loans, which is 63 per cent of the 8,169 loans provided, and the country received 37 per cent or 2,992. That is one importantaspect. Another importantfactor is that this Government is concerned about public tenants and 20 per cent of the loans have been granted either 21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY 79 to those in tenancies or on the waiting lists. That is a magnificent achievement to help those who had no hope under the former Labor Government. Under the former Government they were dumped. This Government has acknowledged that public tenants must be assisted; and I believe that, when the time comes, they will vote with their feet because of the help they have been given by this Government. In reply to the honourable member's question, the HomeFund scheme is on target. The loans are achieving successand the system is now considered to be the leading governmentloan system not only throughout Australia but throughout the world. We will continue to develop that scheme. The Governmentis establishing additionalpromotional systems within the Department of Housing to further increase the availability of loans and to make the public aware that loans are available for those at the lower end of the housing market. It is those people that the Governmentwishes to assist.

BALMAIN PENINSULADEVELOPMENT Ms NORI: I ask a question of the Minister for Local Governmentand Minister for Planning. Does an internal Caltex memorandum dated27 August, 1990, state that Ms Gabrielle Kibble, director of your department, told Mr Lindsay of Caltex that the Governmentdid not want a public inquiryinto the rezonings on the Balmain peninsula, even though it was an option under the Act, becausethe outcomemight be unfavourable to the developers. Did Ms Kibble ask MsJanet Thompson of Comrealty to choose a suitabletown planner to act as planningadministratorfor the Balmain peninsula? What was your role in this matter? [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for McKell will listen to the answer.

Mr ILAY: I suggest she does listen, Mr Speaker,because, first ofall, sheis quoting from what she alluded to as an internal memorandum, if such a memo does exist, which is a matterwhichwould be certainlywithinthe departmentitself and not for me. I would not- [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr IUY: This is a good indication of the difference between this Government and members oppositewhen they were in government. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable memberfor Londonderry to order for the third time. Mr IMY: Let me quote, in reference to the question raised by the member for McKell, from a memo from the former director of planning when the LRader of the Opposition was the Minister. [Intempion] Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Riverstone to order. 80 ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991

Mr HAY: This is a perfect indication ofthe way they operated. The memo from Mr Smyth refers to a meeting between the Leader of the Opposition and his colleague on his left. He is the aspiring Leader of the Opposition, Mr Anderson. Mr Smyth said in his memo that the two Ministers and he met over planning problemswith Byron and Sutherland councils. Can I just mention a couple of words from this? [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable memberfor Bankstownto order. Mr RAY: Mr Smyth's memorandumsaid: The problemswith ByronShire Council were discussed as well as the history of Byron's performancein administeringthe Environmental Planningand AssessmentAct. Onthe basis of the failure of Byron ShireCouncil to performadequately even afterthe Local GovernmentInspectors Report, theActing Ministerfor Local Government agreedto concurin the appointmentof a planning administratorfor Byron Shire. That was the way the former Government appointedplanning administrators. [Interruption] I Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Liverpoolto order. Mr HAY: That is how the Leader of the Opposition and the aspiring leader advised the council of the decision they had made to appoint a planning administrator, without giving any advice to the council or any opportunity for the council to get its house in order. They said as follows: It is recommendedthat the Ministeror alternativelyone of theMinister's senior officers phone theShire Presidentsor Shire Clerksand advisethem of the actionthe Ministerhas taken. That was the important part. They took the decision without even advisingthe councils beforehand. That is the kind of memorandums that circulated in their day. As I said, if such a memorandum exists, it is an internal one and I had no role in it.

ELECTRICITYCOMMISSION TRANSMISSION CENTRESTAFF Mr D. L PAGE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. Is he aware of concerns being expressed by Electricity Commission staff throughout the Stateabout threats to their employment, particularly those employed at transmission centres? What action will the Minister take to ensure that there are no retrenchments as a result of the proposed transfer of the 132 kV network to rural county councils? Mr PICURD: This is an important question because ofwhat is happening in the rural sector as a result of the deliberate recession based policy of the Federal Government underKeating about which honourable members have heard this morning. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order. Mr PICKARD: The economy in the western and rural regions has suffered a tremendous downturn. For that reason it is important to address this questionat this time. In 1989 an inquiry into tariffs recommended that the 132 kV assets of the Electricity Commission besold to county councils. The 132 kV voltage traditionallyis 21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY 81 regarded as a distributionvoltage rather than a bulk transmissionvoltage. Authorities all around the world regard voltagesof 145 kV and below as distribution lines and not major transmission lines. The recommendation was accepted and an asset transfer review committee established to negotiate with county councils and recommend the procedural arrangements for transferring the assets. The 132 kV system in the metropolitan area subsequently was transferred to the Shortland, Illawarra, Prospect and Sydney county councils, now knownas Sydney Electricity.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Kiama to order. Mr PICKARD: Cost savings are already being achieved by the elimination of that duplication. The Electricity Commissionestablished a working group to examine thesale to the rural countycouncils and suggested the formationof three regional groups of councils to operate and maintain the 132 kV system with a pooling of costs and benefits in each region. It was proposed that the lines be serviced and maintained by Electricity Commission employees,who would transfer to county councils or provide a service on a contractual basis. However, the severe recession in the ruralsector,brought about by the Federal Government andits economic policies, has posed a threat to the viability of the asset transfer. The prospect of reduced revenue from electricitysales by county councilsand the escalatingrate of unemployment incountry centres is of concern to the councils and to the Government. The Greiner Governmenthas worked hard to put this State on a sound financial basis, unlike that of other States. When this Government cameto office the Electricity Commission in this State had a $7 billion debt. In Victoria the debt of the electricity authority is almost $12 billion at present. That State cannot build power stations or meet the needs of consumers. That is where this State would have ended under a government of the type in which Opposition members participated. They left the State in a mess and this Government has cleaned it up.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Mr PICKARI):The debt of the commission is down to almost $5 billion. Prices have been reduced by 8 per cent in real terms since we came to office. Also the Government has given a rebate to the people of this State,as promised, for which they are thankful. I should add that not many members opposite have handed in the $75 rebate. They have big mouths and tight pockets. [Inremtplion]

Mr SI'EAK1312: Order! I call the honourable memberfor Smithfield to order for the second time.

Mr I'ICKARI): Dcspitc t hc long-term disadvantagecaused by the deep recession brought about by thc Fcdcral Governmcnt, New South Wales will not follow in theway of other States and has not donc so. I have placed a moratorium of up to threeyears on the proposed sale of this line to the county councils. The 132 kV rural assetswill remain for the time being with the Electricity Commission,which will have up to three years to make the transfer to county councils. That will take place, because the county councils 82 ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991 want it to occur. But they face difficult economic times and the Government will not put any further strain on them, nor will any jobs be placed in jeopardy at this stage. Maintenance work will be undertaken by the Electricity Commissionand the present staff will be kept on. As has been promised all the way down the line, there will be no sackingsin any of the major areas. That has been and remains the policy of the Electricity Commission. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable memberfor Kiama to order for the second time. Mr PICKARD: If the honourablemember stood on tiptoe he still would not be able to see over the table. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable memberfor Ashfield to order for the second time.

LEICIIIURDTMUNICIPAL COUNCILPLANNING POWERS Miss FRASER: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier, Treasurerand Ministerfor Ethnic Affairs. Does the Premier agreewith the findingthis week of Judges Kirby, Priestley and Handley that when the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Planning appointed a planning administrator to Leichhardt council he exceeded his powers? If so, what action doesthe Premier propose to take? Mr GREINER: I should say how delighted I am to get a question from a good representativeof the people of the inner city. Mr Gibson: On a point of ordcr. The Premier has alreadyanswered this question in his response to a question upon notice.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! As I understand the point of order, the honourable member for Londonderrysuggested that the Premier had answered this question in his reply to a question upon notice. Once a question placed on the notice paper has been answered the same question cannot be asked during the same session. As this is a new session the question is in ordcr. Another point that has been drawnto my attention by the Clerk is that this question relateddirectly to a matter that happened only in the past few days and thereforeseems to raise new issues to those that might have been raised in any question placed on the notice paper. Mr GREINER: As I was saying, I understand full well the efforts the honourable member for Balmain is making to reflect the views of what one suspects is the majority of people in the Balmain peninsula. I have seen the decision of the Court of Appeal on this matter. At face value, one would expect the Government to have some concerns about that decision. As a result, the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Planning has announced that he is seeking advice on this matter from the Attorney General, from Crown law officers and from people outside. I assure the honourable member for Balmain that though I understand her friend the honourable member for 21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY 83

McKell is trying to horn in, I will certainly advise her assoon asthe Government has received legal advice about the decision of the Court of Appeal. I will certainly let her know, before I let anyone elseknow, what the Government's intentions are.

LABOR PARTY HEALTH POLICY Mr CRUICKSHANK: Is the Minister for Health and Minister for Arts aware that the Opposition has recently launched what itcalls a health policy? If so, has the Minister been advised whether that policy would continue this Government's record capital works program and the provision of growth funds for hospitals? Mr COLLINS: I thank the honourable member for Murrumbidgee for his excellent question andfor his longstanding interest in healthissues. In recent time that interest has focused particularlyon Narrandera hospital but this question applies to the whole State. The rabble opposite are fleeing from the House rather thanstaying to hear what their health policy would do if they were ever given the opportunity to implement it. The Greiner Government,when in Opposition, promised that, if elected, it would maintain capital works funding at the same level as the then Government and index it by the consumerprice index. Instead, this Government hasdone much more. In its first two years health capital works expenditure has increasedby 63 per cent. This year it is budgeted to increase by a further 25 per cent. In contrast, the present Opposition has made no commitmentto maintain capitalworks expenditure. The Opposition, after leaving its health system with a $2 billion backlogof urgent capitalworks, does not even bother to mention capital works in its intended hospitalspolicy. Nothing could be more fundamental to the reconstruction of our public hospital system. The Opposition, in trying to get away with this charade, is exposed for what it is. The Opposition has made no commitmentto continue this Government's policy of upgrading Liverpooland Nepean hospitals to teaching hospital status. That is not surprising, given the attitude to teaching hospitals of the Opposition spokesman. He refers to them and regards them as super disease palaces. Honourable members can workout from that the fundingimplications. In private, the Opposition spokesmantells people that he disagrees with making Liverpool and Nepean hospitals teaching hospitals. Thepeople of Nepean, Liverpooland Penrithwill not have teaching hospitals if the Opposition has its way. The Opposition spokesmanknows that the people of western and southwestern Sydney want more specialist services, but he does not dare raise these views in public. This is all between the lines. If the Opposition spokesman for health matters were ever to be Minister there would be no commitment at the top to upgrade Liverpool and Nepean hospitals to teaching hospital status as soon as possible. From time to time the honourable member for Liverpool scans the Budget Papers to check whether the Government's commitmentto Liverpool Hospital is fully documented, but he has not asked his colleague to document in the Opposition's hospitals policy its commitment to Liverpool Hospital or any other hospital. No promise hasbeen made by the Oppositionto proceed with the new Albury hospital, the Port Macquarie hospital, the Hawkesbury hospital or the Coffs Harbour hospital. All these communities shouldrealise that their new hospitals would be under threat if ever there were another Labor government. Of course, this does not stop the Opposition spokesman rushing off to Tweed Heads, as he did recently, demanding that the 84 ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991

Government immediately commence work on a $73 million hospital. I remind honourable members that although the Opposition has made no commitment to any hospital anywhere in the State, the Opposition spokesman is saying that this Government should make commitments,as it is doing progressively and intelligently after it has determined that it can fund these long overdue projects. The electorate should not be fooled by the Opposition spokesman's off-the-cuff, uncosted commitments. Last year he told the Lithgow Mercury: Wewill have atleast thesame capital works budgetas the present Government. This same spokesman told the Daily Telegraph Mirror'sMalcolm Farr that he simply does not make any promises unlessthey are attached to a detailed list of qualifications. If people ever want to work out a way of getting out of promises they should look at the caveats, the exclusion clauses and the fine print in the Opposition healthspokesman's so-called promises. The people of New South Wales want to know whether the Opposition is willing to promise unequivocally to continue this Government's record capital works program. Unlessthe Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is absent from the Chamber, is willing to give a commitmentsimilar to that which I gave and list the hospitals I have listed, a questionmarkwill continue to hang over the redevelopment of Liverpool, Nepean, Albury, Hawkesbury, Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour hospitals, to name a few. Mr Schipp: And Wagga Wagga. Mr COLLINS: Wagga Wagga also has been mentioned. No such doubt surrounds the Opposition's attitude to the provision of growth funds for hospitals. Therewould be none. On page 2 of the Opposition's policy, which was released in 1990, is this clear statement: Theoverall policywill not be an additional burdento the budget. In otherwords,the Oppositionwould promise no extra funds for hospitals beyondwhat this Government has promised. It has not even made a matching commitment or guaranteed that it would continue this Government's record capitalworks program. The Opposition's hospitalspolicy simply is not worth the paper it has expended on it. No funds for new services would be provided such as the funds provided by this Government for new neonatal cots, community mental health teams, new maternity services and birthing centres, expanded cardiacsurgery, a new gynaecological oncology unit at the women's hospital, paediatric cochlear implantservices and a pancreas transplantation unit. This would have a disastrous effect on the resource allocation formula under which this Government provides additional funds to needy areas and areas which have an expanding population. Growth funds and productivity savings have been the source of new funds for needy areas such as the west and southwest of Sydney and the central and north coasts. The hospitals policy of the Australian Labor Party states that the productivity savings this Government has made, ploughed backinto the system and used to expand patient services, will be scrapped. Labor will have to slash services in the eastern, central and northern areas if it wishes to transfer funds to the needy areas. Labor will rip the guts out of these areas,as LaurieBrereton did. In other words, we wouldsimplyhavea return to Breretonism in health care. Years of experiencewill be lost and massive conflictwill be created. Services will be torn apartand discarded as they were under previous Labor 21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY 85 governments. The likely alternativeis that therewill be no new funds for needyareas-a repeat of the last four years of Labor government wheninsufficient funds were provided to the population growth areas of western and southwestern Sydney and the north and central coasts. This Government's policy is to enhance services in those areas with extra funds and productivity savings, while maintaining tertiary services in some of the older established areas as centres of excellence. In summary,the Governmenthas made, and will retain, health as its top priority. The Government has backed its commitment with greatly increased funding. If any memberswould like a glimpseof the future of health care under this Government, they should look in the parliamentary vestibuleat the exhibition of health capital works. I note that already a number of members are leaving the Chamber. Thevestibule may be where most of the members of the Opposition are going. It is interesting that when the exhibition was set up last week the Opposition's Wastewatch Committee-which I thought was some sort of society for the preservation of Peter Anderson-quickly issueda release saying that the exhibition represented a terrible waste; and how dare the Government mountan exhibition to show the people of New South Wales and their parliamentary representatives whatis happening with health. It may be news to members of the Opposition, but when major capital works are undertaken, architectural models are built. In past years those models were seen only by hospital administrators andby a few bureaucrats. However,I chose to display them and to allow the people and their representatives tosee them. This is all new to the Opposition. Members of the Opposition would not be expected to knowabout models of hospitals, because they did not build any hospitals. In their 12 years they could have held an exhibition of their models in a telephone box. They probably did. The people of this State-not only visitors to the parliamentary vestibule but also hundrcds of thousands of people at the forthcoming Royal Easter Show-will have the opportunity to see the magnitude of the Government's commitment to health services and to the reconstruction ofthe public hospital system, a system that the Opposition systematically destroyedduring its 12years in office. It is obvious that the Opposition's hospital policy is in tatters and would provide a second-rate alternativefor New South Wales patients.

TEMPORARY CIMIRMEN OF COMMITTEES

Mr Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 28~'nominated the following honourable members to act as Temporary Chairmenof Committees duringthe present session whenever requested to do so by or in the absence of the Chairman of Committees: John David Booth, Mervyn Leslie Hunter, John Hen~yMurray, Andrew Arnold Tink, and Roger Corfield Anson Wotton.

LAW OF EMDENCE BILL (pro fornza) Bill read a first time. 86 ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991

GOVERNOR'S SPEECH:ADDRESS IN REPLY First Day's Debate Mr SPEAKER: I have to report that the House on Wednesday, 20th February, attended the Governor in the Legislative Council Chamber, when His Excellencywas pleased to deliver an Opening Speech to both Houses of Parliament. For greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy, which I now lay upon the table of the House. I direct that the Speech be recorded in the Votesand Proceedings. Mr PACURD(The Hills) E11.451: I move: That the following Address in Reply to the Speech which His Excellency the Governor has addressed to both Houses of Parliament on opening this Session of the Parliament of New South Wales be now adopted by this House:

To Hir Excellency RearArlr~tiralPETER ROSS SINCLAIR, Oficer of the Order ofAusfralia, Governor of the State of New South Wales in the Cormnonwealth ofAustralia May it Please Your Excellency - We, Her Majesty's loyal and dutiful subjects, the Members of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our thanks for Your Excellency's Speech, and to affirm our sincere allegiance to Her Most Gracious Majesty. 2. We beg" to assure Your Exceflencv that our earnest consideration will be "given to the measures to besubmitted to us, that we will faithfully carryout the important duties entrusted to us by the people of New South Wales, and that the necessary provision for the Public Services will be made in due course. 3. We join Your Excellency in the hope that, under the guidance of Divine Providence, our labours may be so directed as to advance the best interests of all sections of the community. The Speech of His Excellency yesterday opening this the Fourth Session of the Forty-Ninth Parliament of New South Wales will form the cornerstone of the Government's program for New South Wales into the future. The program of restructuring, which began in 1988 and has been so successful,must continue. The key policy objectives of the Government duringthe past three years remain as fundamentals. They are, reduced State debt, a leaner and more effective public sector, a balanced budget, and a re-ordering of spending priorities to emphasise basic services such as health, law enforcement and education. On the matter of reduced State debt, it is interesting that while the Labor Party in its newspaper advertisement is accusing this Government of selling off cheaply this State's prime assets, the Treasurer in the Hawke Government, Paul Keating, is saying to Australia that the Labor Statesthat are in such diabolical financial trouble should undertake assetsales rather than increase the cost of government to the people. It is terrifying that the Federal Treasurer should recommend the use of asset sales to supply servicesrather than, as is the policy of this Government, to use the money to retire debt and force all departments to expend less money on administration while supplying increased qualityof services to the people. It is also a shame that Mr Keating has not taken any of his own medicine, because the increasing cost to the people of government at all levels is a very serious matter and must be addressed by all governments. Although the country is in deep recession, the New South Wales economy has to a large degree escaped the severe market downturn thatis being experiencedin other States. New South Wales has the lowest inflation rate and the lowest unemployment rate in Australia. This relatively stable position must be attributed to the prudent 21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY 87 management policies that the Greiner-Murray Government has actively pursued. The Governor in his Speech spoke of microeconomic reform, and how it is absolutely vital to restructure our nation to make it competitive in future. However, we will have to become serious, as some of the horror stories that keep coming out of negotiations between employers and employees lead me to believe that we still have not got the message. In the recent SPC negotiations 2.5 per cent of the wages bill of that company was reduced without the agreement having to be ratified by the Industrial Commission, because the 2.5 per cent saving was achieved simplyby the elimination of rorts. I share the Governor's sentiment that we have to make the Australian economy more competitive, but I worry about the comments of Mr Ferguson-who is supposedly, presumed to be, and indeed for the nation's good,should be a statesman-liketrade union leader. Upon hearing John Howard's very sensible suggestion that we consider going back to a 40-hour week Mr Ferguson said, "First he wants to drop the 17.5 per cent loading. Now he wants to go back to a 40-hour week. Next he will be taking us back to child labour". Let me tell you, Mr Ferguson, if it will achieve increased productivity, wewill drop the 17.5 per cent loading; we will get back to a 40-hour week or whatever it takes to get New South Wales competitive in this world, but there will be no child labour. With such intransigent attitudes so deeply seated in the Australian Council of Trade Unions can one possibly believe that we will ever become serious about microeconomic reform until we are backed so far up against the wall that weare forced to change whether we like it or not. In fact, in the current claim of the Australian Councilof Trade Unions Bill Kelty says, as if it were some mortal sin I might add, "real unit labour costs have returned to levels not recorded since the 1960s and are projected to decline further". Instead of taking credit that the cost of labour is under control'and we are becoming more and more competitive in the world, what is Bill Kelty's answer? His answer is a $12 a week flat across-the-board rise, regardless of whether the particular industry or small business has the capacity to pay, plus an extra 3 per cent superannuation payment.

I should like to share some figures with respect to the Holden dealership with which I am associated. The figure of 3 per cent, which has been granted already, is $35,000a year. An increase of 6 per cent would make it $70,000a year. Can honourable members imagine how many people are being kept out of the work force by imposing training levies and superannuation fees? This particular Holden business is not an enormous one and if 6 per cent is granted, that will cost $70,000 a year. The direction that has been taken by the New South Wales Government is correct. The best basis for arriving at a fair day's pay for a fair day's work is industry by industry, company by company, business by business. The Government is correct that the time has come for massive industrial reform in this State and in this nation.

The Government should be justly proud of its labour market reform strategy. On 25th January the enterprise agreement legislation was ratified by His hcellency the Governor. I should liketo compliment the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby for withdrawing her amendment to this legislation so that it can be put into place and form the basis for employer-employee relationships into the future in this State. I congratulate the Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Further Education, Training and Employment for his perseverance with this milestone legislation. It is interesting that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby was able to establish for herself that the position of the trade ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991 union movement is protected by this legislation. She said: "There is no doubt-and it has been admitted by the Oppositionand by the union movement-that lessthan 40 per cent of workers in this State are represented by unions. Obviouslythe work force in many businesses in New South Wales have no union representation". Why then do we live under this delusion that if Bill Kelty says it is right, it is right, regardless ofwhether anyone can afford the rises? The Government mustnot and will not bediverted fromthe promise that it made when it was elected, that the Greiner Government,regardless of what happens in every other State in the Commonwealth of Australia, will return democracy to New South Wales. The big question for the Parliament is whether the Democratshave the courage to join the Government in making it illegal in New South Wales for any worker to be discriminated against becausehe or she is not a member of atrade union. Surelyin 1991 the Parliament ofNewSouth Wales must be enlightenedenough to accept that it should be the democraticright of everyoneto decide whether or not they join a union. It should not be imposed to become a power base for powerbrokers and potentialgovernments. The Governor in his Speech reaffirms the Government's commitment to the administrationof justice in this State to protect its citizens. The Minister for Policeand Emergency Services has done an outstanding job and has fulfilled the Government's commitmentof having 1,600extra police in the force during this, its first term of office. As a bonus he has made the commitment that by the end of 1991,1,000police will be on the beat in 113 police patrols. He should be given full credit for this achievement. In conjunction with the Minister for CorrectiveServices, and Assistant Minister for Roads, 1,000 new prison work positions will be created in the prison system and 85 new prison industry staff,employed. The Lithgow Correctional Centre was opened in December 1990 and tenders have been called for the construction and managementof a 600-bed prison at Junee. Significant advances havebeen made and will continue to be made in the areas of corrective services and law and order. The Governorquite rightlysuggested that upgradingthe health systemcontinues to be the Government's top budget priority, and honourable members have just heard the Minister on the matter. I am pleased that the facilities are being constructedin areas of high population growth, namely the western region. A new and updated Public Health Act will be introduced into the Parliament in this session. Great credit should go to the honourable member for Miranda, chairmanof this particular government committee,for the hours of work that have gone into ensuring, by consultation with all affected groups, that the new Public Health Act reflects the needs and requirementsof consumers. Ishould also like to thank the Minister forHealth and Ministerfor Arts for the funds provided for the Castle Hill area healthfacility recently opened in The Hills electorate. I assure him that thc facility is being used seven days a week, day and night and is well supported by the people in our area. In his Speech the Governor spent sometime on education. It is obvious that the changes promisedby this Governmentare now coming to fruition. From the meetings that I have attended it is clear that parents are excited about their increasedrolein school education and the development of self-management skills. The Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs and her predecessor, the honourable member for Davidson, are to be congratulated on sticking to their guns against great odds in continuing the reform process in the education system. The State will be better for it. 21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY 89

However, the teaching part of the system is still another story. The figures that were highlighted by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby about trade union representationare no less relevant to the education debate. In fact, as late as yesterday the President of the State Industrial Commission threatened to cancel all hearings of the teachers' wage caseand has warned that he plans to issue an order to force the union to call off its proposed 24-hour strike on 14th March. Mr Justice Fisher accused the senior executives of the New South Wales Teachers Federation of deliberately misleadingits members-serious stuff. He told the federation that its decision to call a strike constituted a deliberate policy by the federation to incite its members to take on the commission. The commissioner said, "It is the view of the commission that the executive and council have deliberately misled the membership of the federation as to significant matters". What a disgrace. The article goes on to say, interestingly, that teachers throughout New South Wales held a two-hour stopwork meeting last week as part of a campaign to gain salary increases. There is no one in the press gallery, but that is absolute rubbish. It is this type of misleading, inaccurate reporting that is bringing the whole of the trade union movement into ill repute when many trade unions act responsibly with their employers and run good businesses. In fact, in my particular constituency I investigated two schools. In one of the schools only 17 out of the 67 teachers stopped work on that day. In the other school not one teacher stopped work or attended a stopwork meeting. It is absolutely incorrect for anyoneto say that all the teachers downed tools, and it is time the people of New South Wales were told about it.

Time after time we find that the facts are different from what the Teachers Federation would have us believe. I remind honourable members that it is mandatory for a teacher to be a member of the Teachers Federation to teach in this State. Teachers do not heed the directions of their leaders, and it is high time that those leaders got in step with their members. It is a disgrace that in this State one is not able to be a teacher without being a member of the federation. We must keep pushing to return democracy to New South Wales. If it were non-compulsory for teachers to be members of the Teachers Federation, it may be that the suggestions are correct and that 60 per cent of teachers in this State would leave the Teachers Federation, because the federation no longer represents their views. It would be remiss of me, while addressing school education, not to thank the Minister for her support for education in The Hills electorate. As promised, construction of the Glenhaven Public Schoolhas commenced. Last week a public meeting was held to inciude parents in the decision-making process ofwhether theCastle Hill Public Schoolshould be rebuilt on its present siteor relocated. The new technology high school being built at Cherrybrook is a joint venture between the Department of School Education and IBM Australia Limited. It is this merging of business and government, which is achievable only by a government in tune with the support of business, that will strengthen our position into the future.

The Governor in his Speech gave credit to the State Rail Authority under the leadership of the Hon. Bruce Baird. Mrs Nine Lugton, president of the West Pennant Hills branch of the Liberal Party-which I am delighted has voted in favour of joining The Hills branch should the redistribution proposals be implemented--describes the leadership of Bruce Baird as dynamic. I agree with that description. The view is shared also by the Governor. Bruce Baird has established reform initiatives that have enabled considerableproductivity gains,which will bring the State Rail system into the twentieth 90 ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991 century, after years of neglect. I recommend to honourable members that they investigate the road safety strategy to the year 2000, as it could well form the blueprint: for road safety into the next century. New South Wales could well lead the world with regard to road safety initiatives. Due credit must be given to the chairperson of the Staysafe Committee,Anne Cohen, who I believe understands clearly that saving lives is the issue of road safety. On behalf of the constituents of The Hills electorate I should like to thank the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, and Minister for Roads, the Hon. Wal Murray, for finally making available the money to set about fixing the roads in the electorate,which I assure honourable members is a significant issue. We all understand that roads cannot be fixed over night. However, my predecessor, Frederick Caterson, and I are grateful indeed for the support of the Roads and Traffic Authority and the speed and honesty with which its officers assist us to solve problems that we encounter from time to time. I am sure that throughout the next five years the road system in The Hills electorate will be upgraded, as it obviously should be. The constituents of The Hills support overwhelminglythe construction of the Castlereagh Expressway. It is their clear understanding that the Greiner-Murray Government promised them a freeway, and they will hold the Government accountable forit.

The Governor committed the Government to continued environmental protection, with special focus on the Blue Mountains, Illawarra and Hawkesbury-Nepeanareas. Heserved notice that the Governmentwill pursue stageone of the local government legislation review with regard to the functioning and powers of local councils. There is no one in Australia better qualified to have the carriage of that legislation than the Minister for Local Governmentand Minister for Planning, the Hon. David Hay. He is determined that local councils should be exposed to the same level of fundamentalchange with regard to integrity, accountability,and financial and operating management as has been introduced successfully at the State Government level. John Hewson, the Leader of the Opposition in the Federal Parliament, is committed to introducing thosemeasures when the Liberal Party, in coalition with the National Party, is elected to government federally at the next election. It is vital that the people of New SouthWales are released from theenormousburden of costs imposedon them to service the huge bureaucracy of State and local government. In the public service there are a significant number of highly-skilled, dedicated and extremely competent people. However, honourable members would be aware that among them are some who work in the public service because, as our Premier suggests, they are comfortable working in a sheltered workshop.

How is it fair that people should work for local councils under terms and conditions of employment that far exceed the terms and conditions of employment of those who pay their salaries? Over the years, by negotiation, they have manoeuvred themselves into a nine-day fortnight, commencing work at 9.30 a.m. and ceasing work at 4.0 p.m. They have surrounded themselves with a Utopia that is no longer relevant to today's economicclimate. The Government is committed to addressingthat anomaly. The difficulty is with a change in attitude. Fundamentally, if we are to break free from the constraints that have been imposed on society, attitudes must change. State and local governmentshave to get up to date and realise that the ratepayer or taxpayer is the customer and that they should be assisted by having matters attended to, and the general 21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY 91 public should notbe frustratedby governments makingit more difficult to achievegoals. State and local governments would have to adopt that attitudein private enterpriseif they wished to remain in business.

However, all public servantscannot be seen in the same light. Some are enormously talented, such as the officers of the Roads and Traffic Authority involved in the construction of the harbour tunnel. It is gratifyingindeed that the Government has theprivilege of beingable to employpeople with such talent. However,one question remains: are all people in local government willing to work that little bit harder, more efficiently, and to raise the quality of their work each day, rather than merely count the minutes to their next break? It is fundamental, and I should have thought obvious even to a child, that local councils should be responsible to their communities and not be obstructive, as theyhave a reputation for being. Given the expertise involved in the constructionof the harbour tunnel, it can no longer be said that Australia does not have the ability to get the job done. Regardlessof one's opinion of whether or not the tunnel should have been constructed,the engineering feat--carried out with Australian labour and technology-is to the credit of this State and nation. Unfortunately,however, we hear only the bad things about industrial relations. All the parties involved in the construction of the harbour tunnelagreed to workingconditions;they realised theywere all in it together. The result is that without any industrial confrontation this most magnificent structure is almost complete. It will be delivered by its builders, Transfield Kumagai, not only as a perfect construction piecebut also on time and on budget. The construction of the harbour tunnel proved beyond doubt that New South Wales is able to do as well, if not better, than any other State or nation throughout the world. Interestingly, as Sydney is built on sandstone it would be possible to build the most sophisticated underground rail and road system imaginable. In my view we should investigate the possibility of private enterprise building an underground road or rail system, or both for Sydney.

The next question I pose is whether New South Wales should have the number of local councils that it has, or indeed whether they can continue to be funded. His Excellencythe Governor paid credit, as well he should, to the Government's record for business and State development. The two Ministers responsible, the Hon. Gerry Peacocke and the Hon. John Hannaford, have much to be congratulated upon. The Government will continue down the track of deregulation and the reduction of unnecessary red tape, and it will ensure that the interests of businesses and consumers alike are taken into consideration equally in the process. I have a particular interest in small business. Indeed, there are a significant number of small businesses in The Hills electorate. Small businesses willneed enormous support from memberson both sides of the House. They have been decimated by the recession, and any assistance that can be given to them should be provided on a bipartisan basis. In this regard lamconcerned greatly about the effect inflation is having on rents for small businesses. Some rent increases in shopping centresare making it difficult for small businesses to survive. A code for leases to shopkeepers must be introduced. However, ownerswill need to moderate their rentdemands. I have heard of hundredsof caseswhere rent has increased in line with inflation each year-which has compounded to about 64 per cent in five years-but when leases expire shopping centres demand increases in rent, before leases are renewed, of anywherebetween 40 per cent and 100 per cent. 92 ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991

The trade unionmovement would bevilified if it demanded arise of 100per cent in labour costs in five years. However, smallbusinesses have had it forced on them and the more successful your shop is, the more rentyou will pay. It would be a tragedy, and I speak from first-hand experience,if we allowed small business to be annihilated because with that would go the very basis of the building of this great nation. It has been difficult enough forshopkeepers to cope with interest rates of about 20 per cent, but as interest rates start to come down it would be a disaster if they had to face 100 per cent increases in rent. I understand, as I think we all do, that all reforms must take into account the protection of those less fortunate people in society, and the future of communitysupport systems is in the very capable hands of the Hon. Robert Webster. Hehas made an outstanding success of ensuring that the humanity of this Government is maintained.

As I said at the outset, 1 am honoured to propose to the House the acceptance of the Governor's Speech;and I refer honourable membersto the Governor's closing remarks which, though brief, are among the highlights of the Speech. He referred to theNew South Wales tourism developmentstrategy. This blueprintfor change presents us as a State with the most significant opportunities. First, Australia is seen internationallyas a safe haven for tourists and, due to the marvellous work doneby Paul Hogan on behalf of the nation-and, I would have to say from personal experience, on behalf of the Variety Cluband I am sure to be continued by our idol Greg Norman, Australia is being recommended as a tourist venueto the world. I understand that this is a Federal initiative. However, as we all know, visitors to Australia visit Sydney. Presumably at some stage a group of politicians will have the guts to build the third runway---doubtful, unfortunately, itis that it will be this Government. However,we can live in hope.

Second, with the ongoing conflict in the Persian Gulf the most magnificent opportunity is presented to New South Wales for travellers, sightseers and holiday-makersto come here for holidays instead of going overseas. I am sure that the Premier and the Minister for Tourism, the Hon. Garry West, will continue their commitmentto make sure that Sydneygetsthe lion's share of the tourist trade,therefore boostingour economyand putting into the coffers of the New South Wales Government valuable export dollars, which are vital to reducing the cost of government services to the people of New South Wales. The Greiner-Murray Governmentis proud of making New South Wales the blueprint for successful government in Australia and will not be sidetracked in the rebuilding of this great State for the equity of its citizens, following years of neglect and mismanagement. The people of New South Wales are justly proud of their Stateand their Government. I am honoured anddelighted to have been offered the opportunity to propose that the Speech which His Excellency the Governor has addressed to both Houses of Parliament on openingthis session of the Parliament of New South Wales be now adopted by this House.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [12.13]: Honourable members of the fourth session of the forty-ninth Parliament, I second the motion by the honourable member for The Hills to adopt the Address in Reply to the Speech by His Excellency the Governor, Rear Admiral Peter Ross Sinclair, and I congratulate the honourable member for the manner in which he so moved the adoption. MadamDeputy-Speaker, this is an historic and memorableoccasion for me. It was with these simple ninewords 21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY 93 that Matt Singleton began his maiden speech in thisParliament on 9th August, 1971. This phrasesummarises so succinctlythe thoughts that arise in all honourable members speaking in this august Chamber for the first time. In preparing this, my maiden speech to Parliament, I became fully aware of the heavy, if not awesome, responsibilities that sit so heavily on our shoulders today. The economy is suffering a downturn of quite an horrendous nature. Inthe few short months in which I have been honoured to represent the 70,000 plus people who live in the electorate of Coffs Harbour, I have been emotionally burdened by the representations made to me covering the many facets of economic stagnation. I admit to sleepless nights. I admit to a degree of frustration because there is no magic in the political wand-there is no political wand. We live in the cruelty of reality, the necessity of the present. When we are elected to this Chamber we inherit the title "honourable". My wish is that my tenurejustifies the true meaning of the word "honourable". The Irish surgeon, senator and author, Oliver St John Gogarty wrote, "The politician has to strike an average; he has to deal with a cross section of the community". I do not cavil at that. Gogartywent on,"The politician has to make allowances;this means that he has to treat men as inferiors". Is this an honourable comment? I think not. To be honourable we must be the servant of the electorate. I believe that he who has but placed his foot on the lowest step of fortune's ladder is as fully entitled to our regard as hewho has attained the summit. Few would disagree withmy belief that Matt Singleton personified what is best in a local member. Whatever the political belief of any constituent,Matt Singleton gave them his best. I feel humble but honoured that the electorate has chosen me to carry on the work of Mr Singleton. Honourable members, I take this opportunity to thank all who supported me and worked tirelesslyprior to and during the by-election campaign,not only theNationa1 Party members but all within the Coffs Harbour electoratewho placed their confidence in me. Madam Deputy-Speaker, Australia is facing the most disturbing economiccrisis since the Great Depression. I believe that people, whatever their political views, are looking to us, their elected representatives,for leadership. It perhaps ill behoves me in this, my maiden speech, to plead to all honourable members, not only in this Chamber but in parliaments throughout the nation, to give leadership. Ours is not a world of them and us, where the good of the nation is sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. All three political parties are faced with very practical problems-growing unemployment, massive financial collapses in both big and small businesses, and the contingent liabilities that stem from these. Regardless of our political leanings, practical remediesmust be readily applied if we are convinced that these remedies will do more good than harm. Whether these remedies carry the label of the National Party, the Liberal Party or the Labor Party is of small moment. Today as politicians our emphasis must centre on the practical, and this might be seen by some diehards as being at the expense of a fundamental principle or principles. Now is not the time-when hardship stalks the tyranny of distance that is Australia-to engagein political thumb-nosing. Having saidthat, it must be recognised that the Greiner-Murray leadershipin New South Wales has avoided the near criminal excesses that have crippled other States. But this is no time for complacency in New South Wales. We are after all, and first of all, Australians. Should this Government, should this Parliament, set an example of success for others to follow, it is then that we, as members, will truly have earned the title "honourablen. ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991

As a student of political and economic history I regret to say that there is a lemming-like quality in Australia. If enough people tell us that things are crook, we believe them-not only believe them, but hasten our passage down that track. People are seeking confidence, people are looking for guidanceand for help. The still recent financial excesses of our major banks and some governments are deserving of condemnation. People are not mere digits on a God computer. The financial piracy that has been experienced is crippling the backbone of our great nation, the farmer and the small to medium businessman. They are the people being made to suffer for the extravagances of the boardroom barons-men of few morals and of less conscience. Government has a role to assist economically both the farmer and the small businessman. The recognised institutions are failing in that regard. A business or a farm that stops producing is a charge against all of us. A farm or business that is up and running is a living and viable economic entity. It is in times like these that those who deserve to be helped should be helped-low interest loans, taxation incentives and management guidance.

It is pleasing to know that the Government will grant on a dollar-for-dollarbasis $5,000 for management guidance to bninesses in financial difficulties. However, I suggest that by the time businesses require that help, it is too late. That money should be made available to all businessmen through business enterprise centres that are strategically placed throughout the State. I wonder whether accountants,who play such an important role in the guidance of business, particularly small business, have made their clients aware of the opportunity made available by the Government. Though $5,000 may not sound very much, to a small business-matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis-it could make the difference between viability and economic death. That is especially so in the areas of small business, which incorporate not only the one, two or three employee businesses, but also the farmer, grazier, banana grower and all rural industries. For too long, because of the necessity caused by high taxation, accountants have used their economic expertise to minimise taxation rather than to maximise economic opportunityfor their clientele. The $5,000 grant could provide the economic lifeblood ifaccountants made clients awarethat such assistance was available to industry. I commend those comments, brief as they are, to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

I doubt whether any electorate in Australia reflects in microcosm the nation as a whole as does Coffs Harbour. By any standard the electorate has big businesses, those who have had the foresight to decentralise. We have farmers and graziers, small business, and tourism. The Coffs Harbour electorate is a barometer of the nation. It incorporates rainforests, fertile plains, mountains, hills and dales. These conditions have enabled the growth of rural industries which, for many years, have been the heart of my electorate. During the past year the Norm Co-operative Limtied factory at Raleigh processed approximately 44 million litres of milk. The Mid Coast Meat Company Pty Limited at Macksville employs 400people, has a wages bill of $15 million per annum and is at present processing 80 million kilograms of livestock a year. Last year the banana industry had a turnover in excess of $20 million on the North Coast of New South Wales. For the year ended 30th June, 1990, the Coffs Harbour Fishermen's Co-operative received more than 667 thousand kilograms of fish with a sale value exceeding $3.5 million. 21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY 95

A near perfect climate and the vast spread of opportunities within these rural industries have attracted residents in their thousands. Those people comefrom every stratum of society. The electorate is one of the fastest growing in Australia. It is not enough to have a spread of business, commerce, farmingand the professions. Much of business, commerce and farming is contingent upon the financial help of other local enterprises. Lack of confidence can spread like a virus. At present Coffs Harbour lacks an economic heart. Tourism,which has contributed greatly to the local economy both in construction and employment,is not the lifeblood we all thought it was. It is important, but perhaps that importance was oversold. Frankly, the electorate does not have enough soundly based clean industries that pose no hazard to the environment. It needs more government agencies to cater for the population, a planned, sustainedand co-ordinated campaign from councils within the electorate,working hand-in-hand with this Government to attract economically viable industries. For some years the heart of the electorate of Coffs Harbour has been inadequately served by local government, a team, albeitone often riven by dissention, which has placed too much emphasis on the promotion of tourism to the cost of substantive industry. The lifeblood of any community is sustained economic development. The temples of recreation that have risen on the foreshores of the electorate contributeto the economy. But that definitely is not enough. No industry is more prone to economic chill than tourism. Whiletens of millions of dollars were being poured into tourism, the attraction of other industry was banished to the backburner. In the final draft of its publication City Goals of the Futllre, the Coffi Harbour City Council recognised belatedly what many of us have known for so long: Without a major "highemployment" industry base, our populationwilI continue to "age". Tourism isa fickle industry and cannotcontinue to be relied upon without major support industries.

The report says that primary industry such as forestryand timber, banana and other specialised agriculture, and fishing are not expected to experience any significant increase in employment in the short term. That statement is almost insulting in its degree of obviousness. Should there be one single event on the near horizon that will contribute much to guarantee the social, economic, commercial and agricultural viability of the region, it is the deeply exciting probability of the location of a campus for the University of New England in Coffs Harbour. That will incorporate a first for Australia; that is, a technical high school and a technical and further education college within the one campus. This construction will provide work for skilled and unskilled workmen-timber, bricks,concrete and houses will be needed and people will have to be fed. Thebenefits will be endless and little will have to be imported, unlikewhat would have to occur in many electorates.

There must be no role for the unscrupulous. The boom and bust developerswho in the past bled local subcontractors to near economic death are sure to have no role in this development. The University of New England's commitment to Coffs Harbour was reaffirmed by its board of governors in October 1990when the centre's status was altered to make it a constituent part of the University of New England network. The opportunity for the development of a new campus has been addressed enthusiastically by the local community and through the city council's attention to the provision of a campus site. Teaching began at Coffs Harbour at the beginning of 1989 with an enrolment of 48 students in the courses for degrees of Bachelor of Financial 96 ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991

Administration and Bachelor of Economics. A further 16 students began similar programs in July. In 1990 the teaching of second year courses in those degrees and an intake of 100new students raised enrolments to 150. With students progressing to third year and a further intakein 1991, the total numberswill increase to about 300.

Doctor Susan Bambrick has been appointed as the first directorof the University of New England, Coffs Harbour. There are 10resident academic staff. When library, administrativestaff and part-time tutors are included, 30 staff members are involved with the University of New England at Coffs Harbour. The proposed capital program for Coffs Harbour is scheduled to begin in 1993and should grow to a total of $77 million by the year 2004 when the campus is expected to accommodateup to 5,000 students. By then academic and administrative staff should number over 1,000, with a weekly payroll in excess of $500,000. Governments past and present-particularly the present Government-have realised the strategic importanceof the Coffs Harbour electorate and have poured millions of dollars into the infrastructure. Though the growth and development of this campus will attract even more people to the electorate of Coffs Harbour, wemust ensure balanced development continues within the electorate.

I appreciate that, over the past 100 years, the farming community and government agencies involved in forestry and agriculture have maintained a high standard of environmental protection. It is interesting to note that in excess of 50 per cent of the electorate of Coffs Harbour is still covered by State-owned forests and national parks. This figure speaks for itself. Forests produced 1,895,000cubic metres of timber in 1989-90 and, contrary to belief in certain areas, this has not meant the decimationof our natural forests. This illustrates that these forests can be managed and they still provide 293 direct employmentopportunities formy electorate. Though these figures may have dropped slightly over recent years, industries contingent upon this industry have created greateremployment. All primary industrymust not be looked at in isolation. The advent of mechanical aids has diminished, to a degree, direct employment on the farm, in the forests and in the banana plantations. However, a spin-off from this has been the creation of employmentin other areas.

Agriculture and aquacultureare of great concern to me. Both industries rely on our estuaries. I suggest that our Governmentshould co-ordinatethe total management of all river systems in New South Wales from the upper reaches to the river mouths. I believe the days of confrontation between various interested parties should end. Now is the time for all groups-farmers, fishermen, landownersand government-to meet and discuss what, in effect, is of benefit to all. Let there be no confrontation. Let us recognise various interests and discuss those interests. The farmer is as important as the fisherman and the catch is as important as the harvest. For too long singleinterest groups have looked at rivers in isolation rather than to the benefit of all who draw life from them. I commend this thought to the Minister for Environment, the Hon. Tim Moore, and to the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Water Resources, the Hon. Ian Causley, and to the Minister for Agricultureand Rural Affairs, theHon.Ian Armstrong. Perhaps past isolationist attitudes have not benefited the best use of our rivers. There must be a co-ordinated and sustained plan which covers all matters concerning the environment. 21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY

For too long small but vocal people have condemned the value of natural resources to the economicbackburner whilejustifying their own beliefs. I do not cavil with some of their beliefs but I believe that an interchange of ideas across a table is preferable to confrontation. For too long confrontation,no matter how sincere the beliefs of individuals concerned, has been contrary to the overall needs of the community. With the advent of the population increase-which ishappening and will continueto happen within the Coffs Harbour electorate-it is pleasing to note that our Government is providing sustained growth in housing, education and health. I commend to this Parliament the initiative of HomeFund which, as His Excellency the Governor mentioned in his Speech, is likely to rise to $1.5 billion in New South Wales this year. This program gives all Australians the opportunity to attain that great Australian dream-a home of their own.

Health care within the Coffs Harbour electorate has been substantial but obviously some areas need further funding. As recently as two weeks ago I was instrumental in arranging for the executive officer of the Minister for Health and Minister for Arts to visit Coffs Harbour and examine at firsthand the problems we are facing within our health system. This Governmenthas already allocated $216,000 for the improvement of dental serviceswithin the electorate and$497,00Ofor the upgrading of the accident and emergency unit at the Coffs Harbour and District Hospital. Avalue management studyhas been undertaken. lam confident that from this the much needed redevelopment of the Coffs Harbour and District Hospital will be completed.

Much criticism has been levelled at the state of the Pacific Highway. MyFederal colleague Mr Nehl has been most outspoken on the problems concerningthis vital link. However, I call the attention of all honourable members to those 3 x 3 blue and white signs. Through my predecessor, MrMatt Singleton,this simple3 x3program has poured millions of dollars into the upgrading of our roads. I trust his foresight willlead in the future not only to safer roads but also to less fatalities. The Government is to be applauded that the funds raised through this levy go to the betterment of our roads and not just into the public purse. It is pleasing that the DeputyPremier, Ministerfor Public Works, and Ministcr for Roads, the Hon. Wal Murray, is at present overseeing a record roads program which will lead in the 1990-91 financial yearto $16.2 million beingspent on road projects, maintenanceand traffic safety measures in my electorate. This is 30 per cent more than thelast Labor Government spenton thewholeofthePacificHighway in 1987-88. Honourablemembers will have noted from His &ceIIency the Governor's Speech that a total of $1.7 billion will be spent within the roads portfolio. The Government will continue to pursue road safety initiatives aimed at cutting the road toll. Despitetwo horrendous accidentson the North Coast, the toll on our roads is now the lowest since 1957. I trust the people in my electorate will take the initiative in informing either me or the Roads and Traffic Authority of ways of improving the so-called black spotsso the toll can be further reduced in line with the Road Safety 2000 strategy.

I bring to the attention of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, the Hon. Ted Pickering, the growing need forlaw enforcementwithin the electorate due to the rapidly increasing population. It is appreciated that, in the near future, the city of Coffs Harbour will receive an extra seven beat police. Due to the explosion of our population at holiday times we need a bolstering of law and order services during these 98 ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991 periods. I also suggest that there is a great need within the electorate fora police-citizens youth club. The people of the electorate haveraised $70,000 to contribute towards this project. I believe the completion of such a facility would not only increase the police profile but also go a long way towards solving many youth associated problems in the electorate. Court facilities in an electorate as large as Coffs Harbour are inadequate. The need for improved court facilities is a matter of some urgency. I bring to the attention of the Attorney General what I believe areunnecessary delays in the backlog of District Court hearings. An improvement in these facilities would go a long way towards easingthe situation. As I have previouslystated, Coffs Harbour is a microcosm of the Australian economic climate andall its manifestations. The Greiner-Murray Government has an enviable record not only in my electorate but also in all other electorates. This Government's approach to problems has placed New South Wales in a unique position to show leadership to all Australians. I trust and pray that every honourable member of this House is first of all an Australian. Our present economic climate is not one that calls for boundaries, either philosophicor political. We, as members of this House, have a unique opportunityto show leadership. It is time for us to be honourable members. Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Nori.

SENATEVACANCY Resignation of Senator the Honourable PeterBaume Madam DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Legislative Council, having taken into considerationthe Legislative Assembly's message dated 21 February, agreesto meet the Assembly for the purpose of sitting and voting together to choose a person to hold the place in the Senaterendered vacant by the resignation of Senatorthe Hon. PeterBaume, in the Legislative Council's Chamber today at 3 p.m. Upon the ringing of one long bell at 2.56 p.m. the House shall proceed to the Legislative Council Chamber at 3 p.m. for this purpose. It is customary at joint sittings for members of the Legislative Assembly to sit on the correspondingbenches of the Legislative Council Chamber. [MadantDeputy-Speaker lej? the chair at 12 42p.n~.The House resumed at 2.15p.m.I

BILLS:SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS Mr DOWD (Lane Cove), Attorney General [2.15]: I move: That so much of the standing ordersbe suspended as would preclude theConstitution (LegislativeCouncil) AmendmentBill and the Constitution (Referendum)Bill, notice of which was given todayfor tomorrow, being brought in andproceededwith uptoand including theMinister's second readingspeech during the currencyof the Address-in-Reply debate. It is obvious that this matter should be dealt with as soon as possible. It is desirable that Opposition membershave the maximum opportunity to examine the matter before the debate. Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [2.16]: Nothing could be further from the truth about how long the Opposition will have to debate two very important pieces of legislation. In March last year the Government introducedsimilar legislation. Let me say briefly that when the Labor Party was in government, and indeed in March last year during the 21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY 99 first discussion on that legislation, the Leader of the Opposition indicated clearly that the Opposition would agree with the Government's proposal to reduce the number of members in the upper House and a reduction in the terms of its members.

Mr Dowd: You would abolish the upper House.

Mr WHELAN: That was tried in 1956. Many times people have said to me that the former Premier of Queensland had an advantage all of his own in that he did not have an upper House in Queensland. However, there are no guarantees inherent in what the Attorney General said about having a bona fide debate on any matter in this Parliament. Honourable members know what happened in November and December last year during the last three or four days of the Parliament when debate after debate was gagged, which was an absolute waste of the time of this House. Some 15 to 20 bills were passed through the Parliament and not one member of the Government spokeon any of the issues involved in them or defended the interests of members of ethnic communities in the reform of constitutional parliamentaryelections.

Mr Dowd: On a point of order. The motion before the House is specific. The honourable member for Ashfield is now canvassing debates of a previous Parliament. He is in fact making allegations that are not true in that he has generalised by saying that Government supporters did not contribute to the debates. Indeed, the general thrust of what he is saying is incorrect becausewe had so little work we did not even have to sit on the Friday. We finished all the work on the Thursday, if I recollect correctly. If we had been under pressure we would have sat Friday.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I draw to the attention of the honourable member for Ashfield that the matters he is now canvassing are not the subject of the suspension motion. He should address his remarks to why standing orders shouldor should not be suspended for the purpose of discussing the two bills, and nothing more.

Mr WIIELAN: I acknowledge that. Following that 33-hour session some members of the Opposition thought they were in government and some members of the Government thought they were in opposition. That is how much confusion reigned. Passing this motion will take away from the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to have fully debated, after consultation with the Parliamentary Counsel, his very real suggestion that there be a fixed date for an election, as in America, whether it be the third Saturday in March-

Mr Dowd: On what boundaries?

Mr WIIELAN: On the boundaries that have already been decreed as part of legislation that has gone through this Parliament.

Mr Dowd: The boundaries have not been fixed yet.

Mr WHELAN: The Government's automatic trigger legislation provides that there will be an automatic redistribution of boundaries within 12 months after this next State election and that is what all this legislation is about. The Government wishes to say to the people of New South Wales that by having less members of the upper House and shorter terms there will be great savings in costs. ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991

Mr Dowd: On a point of order. I think the shadow Minister means fewer people rather than less, but the question before the Chair is not the substance of the bills, whatever they may contain. The point here is the suspension of standing orders to enable the bills to be introduced today. It has nothing to do with the substance of the bills and nothing to do with what time is involved. The effect of the matter is to enable the second reading speech to come on earlier. It is absolutely appalling that the honourable member thinks that he can talk about the substance of the bills when, whatever theymay be, we are debating a procedural motion.

Mr Whelan: On the point of order. Clearly I am in order in raising matters that indicate the difficulties the Opposition,a member of the Opposition or, in this case, the Leader of the Opposition has in raising matters of a like kind. The precis of the notice of motion outlines the general purpose of the legislation. Theattitude of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition to this matter is public knowledge. I emphasise that there is no urgency for this legislation. I know why the Attorney General is so sensitive, but if he kept his sensitivity to himself it would enable this debate to conclude as quickly as possible. On day one of this session the Government is suspending standing orders to enable debate on a very important piece of legislation that will control the destiny and future of the New South Wales Parliament.

Mr SPEAKl3R: Order! Has the member for Ashfield finished addressing the point of order?

Mr Whelan: Yes.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I draw to the attention of the member for Ashfield that his concluding remarks addressed the suspension of standing orders in the way in which it should be addressed. His earlier comments, as the Attorney General pointed out, were more applicable to the substantive motion or whatever the legislation may contain when it is introduced. I ask the member to confine his remaining remarksto the types of remarks he was making on the point of order.

Mr WHELAN: Certainly. The other point I wished to make is that the Attorney Generalis out of stepwith what is happening in the redistribution process. TheAttorney General has mentioned that the timing is important. Everyoneacknowledges that the timing is important. There are no guarantees in the motion that this Parliament will have any time, let alone one minute, to debate the matters. We are now talking about suspension of standing orders that would enable the Attorney General to bring in this legislation, gag debate and have it proceeded with without any discussion in this Parliament.

The Attorney suggests that the matter is urgent, yet counsel assisting the commissioner hearingsubmissions with regard to the redistribution of electorates, and the Liberal Party hack in charge of the matter, have said that the open hearings will not conclude until 15th March. Former Judge Lincoln, the commissioner, announced yesterday that he will receive submissions until 15th March. That means that the judge and his two learned assistants have decided that the timetable of the Government is not their timetable. 21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY 101

Mr Dowd: On a point oforder. The bill has nothing to do with the redistribution of electorates. The motion seeks the suspension of standing orders to give the honourable member for Ashfield the opportunity to read the bill, which may-and this would be contrary to his past contributions-enable him to make a useful contribution to debate. The honourable member is seeking to attack or make imputations against the commissioner. The only matter relevant is whether honourable members should have the opportunity to read the bill this afternoon or next Tuesday afternoon. That would ensure that honourable members receive the bill sooner than they would normally, no matter when an election is tobe held. It is inappropriate forthe honourable member to refer to matters relating to the redistribution of electorates.

Mr Whelm: I was about to conclude my remarks with regard to the point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Generally I uphold thepoint of order. The only item of business that is before the House otherwise is the Address in Reply, and the only matter that can be debated is whether that debate should be set aside.

Mr WIELAN: I did wish to speak to the matter of whether standing orders should be suspended. That is the reason for my being on my feet. If the intentionof the Attorney Generalwere in any way bona fide, he would hand over to members of the Opposition a copy of the bill rather than seek to suspend standingorders to gag debate on this most important legislation.

Mr Dowd: I shall hand you a copy.

Mr WZIELAN: Why does the Attorney General not makea copy of the bill available nowinstead of placing the sword of Damocles overthe Opposition? We must have open and proper debateon this matter. TheAttorney General shouldallow proper debate on the matter and give some guarantees. The Opposition opposes the suspension. On behalf of the Opposition I give notice to the Government, as I did in November last year, that unless the business of this House is conducted on a proper basis, and unless members of the Opposition aretreated like members of Parliament and not schoolchildren, and unless the Attorney General's demeaning attitude improves, the next one, two, five, or 10 days or weeks until the election-whatever that time may be-will be vigorous. The Opposition will not continue to be beaten into submission or co-operation to suit the agenda of the Government. The Government has steadfastly refused to abide by the laws and standing orders of this Parliament. It is obvious that the Governmentno longer has confidencein Commissioner Lincoln,and that was my reason for readingout the matters about which he was informed yesterday.

Question-That standing orders be suspended-put.

The House divided. 102 ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991

Ayes, 50 Mr Andrews Mr Hay Mr Roberts Mr Armstrong Mr Keegan Mr Schipp Mr Baird Mr Kerr Mr Schultz Mr Berry Mr Longley Mr Small Mr Books Miss Machin Mr Smith Mr Chappell Mr Matheson Mr Tink Mr Cochran Mr Merton Mr Turner Mrs Cohen Mr T. J. Moore Mr Webster Mr Collins Mr Morris Mr West Mr Cruickshank Mr W. T. J. Murray Mr White Mr Dowd Mr Packard Mr Wotton Mr Downy Mr D. L. Page Mr Yabsley Mr Fahey Mr Petch Mr Yeomans Mr Glachan Mr Photios Mr Zammit Mr Graham Mr Pickard Tellers, Mr Greiner Ms Read Mr Beck Mr Griffiths Mr Rixon Mr Phillips Noes, 45 Ms Allan Mr Irwin Mr Primrose Mr Arnery Mr Knight Dr Refshauge Mr Anderson Mr Knowles Mr Rogan Mr A. S. Aquilina Mr Langton Mr Rumble Mr J. J. Aquilina Mr Lovelee Mr Scully Mr ~rkell- Mr McManus Mr Shedden Mr Cleary Mr Markham Mr Unsworth Mr Davoren Mr Mills Mr Walsh Mr Doyle Mr H. F. Moore Mr Welsh Mr Face Ms Moore Mr Whelan Miss Fraser Mr Moss Mr Yeadon Mr Gibson Mr Nagle Mrs Grusovin Mr Newman Mr Harrison Ms Nori Tellers, Mr Hatton Mr E. T. Page Mr Beckroge Mr Hunter Mr Price Mr Christie Pairs Mr Booth Mr Carr Mr Hartcher Mr Martin Mr Park Mr J. H. Murray Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion for suspensionof standing orders agreed to.

CONSTITUTION (IXGISIATIVE COUNCIL) AMENDMENT BILL Bill introduced and read a first time. 21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY

Second Reading Mr DOWD (Lane Cove), Attorney General,on behalf of Mr Greiner [2.37]: I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Constitution (Legislative Council)Amendment Bill has two main purposes. First, it will reduce the number of members in the Legislative Council from 45 to 42 and also reduce their maximum term of office from 12 years to eight years. Second, the bill will provide for casual vacancies in the Legislative Council to be filled in the same manner as applies in the Senate. The reduction in the number of members of the Legislative Council and the reduction in terms of office are complementaryto the measures already taken to reduce the size of the Legislative Assembly. The proposal for the reduction in the number of politicians in the State was a well publicised and integral part of the Government's pre-electionplatform.

[InterruptionJ Mr SPEAKER: Order! Thereis too much audibleconversation in the Chamber. Those members wishing to converse should do so outside the Chamber,otherwise they may be leaving by some other mechanism. Mr DOWD: The Governmenthas a clearand unequivocal mandateto introduce these measures and I am confidentthat the people of New South Waleswill endorse the terms of the bill now introduced. Under the provisions of the bill the Legislative Council will comprise 42 members with 21 members to be elected at each general election. Members will serve for two terms of the Legislative Assembly. The bill provides also for the legislation to commence immediately upon assent. Honourable members will be aware that the bill is required to be submitted to a referendum and approvedby a majority of electors in the State prior to assent being given. After discussions with the Australian Democrats and theCall to Australia group, the Government has agreedto hold the referendum for thisbill in conjunctionwith the general election. Once the bill is assented to, the Legislative Council will be reconstituted immediately to comprise 42 members, who may be divided into two groups of 21. The first group, whose term will be due to expire in the year 2000, will comprise the 15 members electedjust prior to the commencement of the bill, and the first six members elected at the 1988 generalelection. The second group, whoseterm will be due to expire in 1996, hill comprise the last nine members elected at the 1988 general electionand the first 12members electedat the 1984general election. The remaining threemembers elected at the 1984 general electionwill be non-continuingmembers. This means that immediatelyupon the commencement ofthe bill their terms will expire. The Government considers rhat this is the most fair and equitable manner for nominating continuingmembers and non-continuing memberson the reconstitutionof the Council. This method will ensure that those members who have the longest unexpired terms left to serve will be nominated to continue in office, in preference to those who would be due to retire earlier. In addition, members have been nominated by reference to the order in which they were declared elected. This is considered to be the most equitable andjustifiable choice and eliminates any suggestionof arbitrariness. Clearly those who were declared elected on first preferences shouldbe preferred over 104 ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991 those members whowere subsequently electedby virtue of distributedpreferences. The bill provides also for the repeal ofsection22c of the Constitution Act. This will remove the "next in the group" method of filling casual vacancies occurring in the Legislative Council. The method currently provided forin section 22c does not guarantee that casual vacancies will be filled by a person of the same political party as the politician originally chosen by the people. Our democraticsystem of government demands that such a guarantee shouldexist, and for this reason the list system of fillingcasualvacancies is not considered fairor appropriate. The repeal of section 22c will result in all casual vacancies being filled by a joint sitting of both Housesof Parliament to elect a member. Strict safeguardsare already in place to ensure that the member elected by the joint sitting is a member of the appropriate party. The method of filling casual vacancies will then be consistent with the method of filling casual Senatevacancies in the Parliament of the Commonwealth. The bill also contains a number of consequential amendments aimed at removing obsolete provisions relating to the holding of the first Legislative Council general election after the reconstitution of the Council in 1978. The bill will also increase the minimum numberof candidates for whom voters at the general election will be required tovote,from a minimum of10 to a minimum of 15. This is to takeaccountof the increase in the number of members to be elected at each general election. As I stated earlier, the bill is required to be submitted to a referendum and must be approved by a majority of electors before it is presented to the Governor. It is the Government's intention to submit the bill to the electorsat the next generalelection. Iam confident that the people of New South Wales will support these measures at a referendum. I commendthe bill to the House. Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Wheian.

CONSTITUTION (REFERENDUM)BILL Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading Mr DOWD (Lane Cove), Attorney General,on behalf of Mr Greiner [2.43]: I move: That thisbill be now read asecond time. Undersection7~ofthe ConstitutionAct it is necessaryforthe Constitution (Legislative Council) Amendment Bill 1991 to be submitted to a referendum and approved by a majority of the electors of the State before the bill may be presented to the Governor for assent. This bill provides for the referendum to be held on the day of the next general election. The Government agreed, when it introduced legislationto reduce the size of the Legislative Council last year, to minimisethe costs incurredby holding a referendum. Obviously the holding of a referendum concurrently with ageneral election will significantly reduce the costs which would otherwise be incurred. The bill provides also that the vote of the electors at the referendum is to be taken in accordance with the Constitution Further Amendment (Referendum)Act 1930. That Act contains general provisions as to the manner in which referendums on proposed constitutional laws 21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY 105 should be conducted. It applies the provisions of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 to a referendum as if it were an election. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned on motion by MrWhelan.

SENATEVACANCY Election of Senator At 2.56 p.m. the House proceeded to the Legislative Council Chamber to attend a sitting to choose a Senator in the place of Senator the Hon. Peter Baume, resigned. The House having reassembledat 3.1 5p.m, Mr Speaker reported that at a Joint Sitting this day John William Tierney had been chosen as Senator in the place of Senator the Hon. Peter Baume, resigned. Mr Speaker laid upon the table the Minutes of Proceedings of the Joint Sitting. Ordered to be printed.

GOVERNOR'S SPEECE ADDRESS IN REPLY First Day's Debate Debate resumed from an earlier hour. Ms NORI (McKell) [3.17]: I congratulate the honourable member for Coffs Harbour on his maiden speech today. Though I do not agree with evelything he said, I understand the thoughts that would have been running through his mind when making his maiden speech. Yesterday I listenedwith interest to the Governor's Speech about the Government's commitmentto the environment and the urban environment. Mr Dowd: You should go swimmingat Bondi. Ms NORI: I would be more impressed if the Attorney General brought on a bill about- Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Attorney General will cease interjecting. Ms NORI: I was interested to hear about the possible future of the Land and Environment Court and the alternative ways of resolving disputes relating to planning matters. However, it surprised me because I do not believe the sorts of comments made in that speech fit very well with the Government's previous record of behaviour in matters of urban planning and development. Of course, I am referring to the Balmain peninsula. It is well known in this House that right from the beginning I have been involved in the case for the residents. In my view what the Government was trying to do on the Balmain peninsula was really only a forerunner for the rest of the inner city. It is very much a case of Balmain today and the rest of the inner city tomorrow. I have spoken about this on a number of occasions and I have placed many questions on the notice paper, only one of which unfortunately has been answered. I am concerned about this issue because of the special planning needs of the inner city. Only in the inner city do we have the dense population, the narrow streets,the parking and traffic problems, 106 ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991 the lack of open space and the lack of freeways. Occasionally in the inner city we get the rare opportunity for urban renewal. At this point we have a rare opportunity on the Balmain peninsula as five industrial sites on extremely valuable land are being offered for redevelopment.

It is important for the Government to recognise that the planning problems of the inner city are quite different from the problems of metropolitan Sydney. The demands of the twentieth centuryare being madeon an infrastructurethat was laid down last century or even earlier. Onlyin the inner city do we have industrial sites rightin the middle of residential areas, which is typified in the Balmain case. Only in the inner city do we have narrow streets and traffic problems. Valuable land is being offered for redevelopment. Developerswanting to redevelop these inner city sites to maximisetheir profits are putting forward intensively developed proposals. For some time I have accused the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Planning of being crassly pro-developer. In my view he has been determined, at all costs, to help his developer mates. This Balmain case exemplifies his attitude. Recent actions in the Land and Environment Court and the Court of Appeal confirm my view. Unfortunately, my views are mild compared with the reality that was revealed in those courts. During the Land and Environment Court hearing it became quite clear just what unfettered access developers had not only to the Minister but also to his department, and it became quite clear what assistance developers were being afforded. It became quite clear in an affidavit presented to the hnd and Environment Court by Mr Staveiley, on behalf of the Minister, that prior to the directive of 15th June and prior to the appointment of an administrator developers had been meeting and consulting with the Minister on a regular basis to work out a way of maximising- Mr Dowd: That did not happen under your Government?

Ms NORI: I was not a member of any previous government. At the same time there was no such access for residents who were clamouring for a public hearingand for an opportunity to put their special case to the Minister. There have been protest meetings, petitions, submissions, unprecedented communityactivity and unanimity in the Balmain area. It speaks volumes that it was revealed in the Land and Environment Court case that one of the developers was able, at 9 p.m., to give the Minister in Cairns the latest update of what had happened at Leichhardt council that night. That speaks volumes about the level of intimacy between the Minister and developers. In this Chamber and elsewhere the Minister declared that he had to intervene in Leichhardt council because of all the complaints he had received. I challenged the Minister in this House and, in response, he confirmed that he had received many complaints from residents. When this whole issue is examined in the light of freedom of information documents relating to this case, it is seen that no such complaintsexist. This Minister had dealings only with the developers involved in the Balmain case. In my view, the Minister clearly misled this House. Mr Dowd: On a point of order. I do not say that this subject-matter is not pertinent to the Address-in-Reply debate, but an allegation of a Minister misleading the Houseisa serious matter and should bedealt with byway ofsubstantivemotion; itshould not be raised during the Address-in-Reply debate, which should be restricted to general matters. 21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY 107

Ms Nori: On the point of order. I made this allegationprior to Christmas; I am merely covering old ground. I am quite dismayed that questions on this subject on the notice paper have not been answered. The allegation is serious and I am entitled, as are the people of New South Wales, to an answer and for the matter to be dealt with. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have available clear precedent to assist me in this matter. Speaker Ellis in Parliamentary Debates, session 1967-68, page 100, and Deputy-SpeakerCahill in ParliamentaryDebates, session1976-77-78,page 239, said that the Address-in-Reply debate should not be used for making a personal attack against another member. That restriction applies to the Address-in-Reply debate. Other rulings of the House are to the effect that a member seeking to make a substantial attack on a member must do so by way of substantive motion. A further ruling of Deputy-Speaker Cahill in Parliamentary Debates, session 1976-77-78, at pages 241 and 242, stated that criticism of the administration of an individual department is not appropriatein the Address-in-Reply debate, and that an amendment expressing regret that His Excellency's Speech did not includeany reference to the conduct of theAttorney "Generalin not proceeding with an indictment of a parliamentary colleagueshould be disallowed. On the basis of those precedents of the House I have some reservation whether in the Address-in-Reply debate I can allow the honourable member for McKell to continuewith the specific matter she has raised. This debateis in reply to the Governor's Speech and should deal with matters of broad policy raised in that Speech. The Governor's Speech does not deal with matters of individual or day-to-day administration. If the honourable member for McKell wishes to discuss policy administration of the Department of Planning, she must couch any criticisms within those guidelines. If I were to allow the honourable member to continue with what amounts to an attack on another member of the Parliament-in this case a Minister and his conduct in relation to a matter that is specific to the administration of a particular government department-I would be ruling contrary to precedent. Ms NORI: In keeping with the spirit of the Address-in-Reply debate, and inview of the Government's intention to consider the whole problem of dispute resolution and the nature of the Land and Environment Court and planning disputes, my further contribution to the debate will be within those guidelines. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for McKell appears to be canvassingmy ruling. By way of explanation I repeat that she may discuss disputesettling procedures that apply as a matter of policy within the Department of Planning. She may not speak in great detail about a particular aspect of the department's administration; nor may she make a personal attack on a member. In ruling that way today I have followed the guidelines and the long-established parameters for the Address-in-Reply debate as laid down by previous Speakers from both sides of politics. Ms NORI: I am pleased that the Government will look at different ways of resolving planning disputes,because on many occasions residents have had difficulties with their local council, with developers or with their neighbours. Therefore it is timely that this matter should be considered. However, I hope that the Government is not planning to institute a system of dispute resolution that would be contrary to the residents' wishes. Rather, I hope that the system will make it easier for residents. My 108 ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991 experiencehas been that many residents and community groups give up because of the cost of proceeding in the Land and Environment Court. The Balmain residents took proceedings to the Court of Appeal. The cost of Queen's Counsel and barristerswould have been an enormous financial burden if they had not been successful with those proceedings. The system is not good, because itdeters people from taking up their legal rights, simplybecause they cannot afford to do so. It is important to realise that if residents cannot afford access to the courts, governments perhaps will be able to proceed with developmentsthat might not otherwise have been approved. In the Balmain instance, I firmly believe thathad it not been for the court case, a modus operandi would have been established whereby the Minister could, as he did with Leichhardt council, give a council what I describeas a mission impossible. The Minister gave the council five weeksto complete complex local environmental plans. When the council was unable to comply, the Minister, under the ruse of calling the council inept, appointeda planning administrator. Therefore,I hope that thesort of thing outlined in the speech will beavoided in future.Thedifficulty faced by the people of Balmain and Leichhardt councilwas that they did not have the benefit of a traffic management plan. That made it almost impossible to complete the local environmental plans. If it had not been for the courage, fund-raisingand hard work in taking this matter to court, the people of Balmain would have been stuck withthis impossible development. Honourable members know fi-om the Governor's Speechthat the Government wishes to make sure that this State is managed properlyand fairly. That is an admirable goal. There is plenty of room for improvement, given the current state of affairs. I wish to refer to some internal memoranda fromCaltex in which it is clear that senior officers of Caltex havebeen meeting with the Minister for LocalGovernment and Minister for Planning inwhich there was collusion, I believe, between the two. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for McKell is now straying directly into the area I warned her about. The parameters that have been set for the Address-in-Reply debate have been in existencein this House for many years. I am merely applying them. They are not my parameters; I have no convictions one way or the other about the subject-matterof the member's speech. However,I cannot allow her to go into matters that amount to an attack on a member. Ms NORI: Much has bcen made in the Governor's Speech about proper administration, commitment tothe environment, commitment to the urban environment. That is admirable because in my experience there have been many incidents recentlythat need to be cleared up and they highlight why this document is so important. I am merely drawing to the attention of the House that there has been a great derelictionof duty by this Minister borderingon collusion. Mr SPEAKER: Order! By her own words "derelictionof a duty by this Minister", the honourablemember is attacking a Minister. I have read to the honourable member the precedents drawn from rulings of Speaker Ellis and Deputy-Speaker Cahillin past Address-in-Reply debates. I must follow those rulings otherwise the Address-in-Reply debate will become a completely differentdebate from that which was intended. The Address in Reply is a debateon the Governor's opening Speechand not a generaldebate in which a member may raise any matter. 21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY 109

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. I was listening in my room to rulings that you, Mr Speaker, made earlier. With great respect,the honourablememberhas been in order because on page 8 of his Speech His Excellencythe Governor takes great pains to refer to certain matters. His Excellency refers to the rational resolution ofconflicts about land use and natural resources, the duplication of environmentalprotection functions, the step towards developingcoherent andco-ordinated environmental policies, and that the Government's directionpolicy will be the new Environmental ProtectionAgency. The Government obviously feelsa great deal of pride in these matters.

The honourable member is in order because at page 9 the Governor indicated there will be fundamental reform of local government. The honourable member for McKell is indicating that reform is needed. She is portraying the difficulties sheand her constituents have been experiencing because ofa fault in the law. His Excellency the Governor has said that the Governmentwill amend the law. In fact, on the Friday that the decision of the court was brought down,the Premiersaidthat he was not particularly happy with the role of local government. Every precedent going back to Speaker Weaver indicates that with some limitations the Address in Reply is a wide-ranging debate. If these rulings continue to be implemented,a member will be gagged merely for making a criticism. I agree that the honourable member has no right to criticise a Minister or member under the guise of the Address-in-Reply debate. The honourable memberfor McKell can be excused for that one mistake, but in all other respects she is well in order in her remarks relatingto pages 8 and 9 of the Governor's Speech.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is the last point of order I intend to take on this matter. I have been very tolerant in accepting the various submissions. The honourable member for Ashfield is correct in asserting that the member for McKell is in order in referring to certain matters.There is no restriction on the member for McKell criticising the formulas by which current disputeresolutions areadministered and sayingthat there should be reform. The challenge that she faces is containing her speech within the parameters of the guidelines that have been laid down by former Speakers, for the Address-in-Replydebate. In the Address-in-Replydebate a member may not attack a member of Parliament and must not become involved in criticismof specific matters of administration. The honourable member for McKell may discuss general matters of administration but not particular matters. Therefore, I cannot allow her to continue along her present line. She must confine her criticism to a criticism of the dispute resolution in principle and not make a specific attack on a Minister. There are other forms of the House that provide for her to take that course but she cannot do that in the Address-in-Reply debate.

Ms NORI: I hope that in future-when inner city sites similar to those of the Balmain peninsula come up for redevelopment-the ideasand potential improvements in the Governor's Speech proveto be advantageous to inner city residents. In Balmain the five sites, 23 hectares-already on an overcrowded peninsula-were contaminated with polychlorinatedbyphenyls, dioxins,all types of incredibly nastycarcinogenic toxins. The sites were to be rezoned without even the benefit of a section 35 clearance fromthe State Pollution Control Commission. I hope that the policies the Government is seeking to introducewill ensure that will not happen again. Balmain, becauseof current densities of population,has the problem of lack of open space.The density of population in the Balmain peninsula is approximately 110 persons per hectare, as estimated by the 110 ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991

Town Planner, Mr Coker, of Leichhardt council. When one considers that the Sydney average is 49.28-less than one half that of the Balmain peninsula-then one begins to appreciate why the people of Balmain have been so frustrated in being asked to consolidate even further when the rest of Sydney has at least a 100 per cent lesser population density. The Balmain association received a letter from the town clerk informing them that they were formally exempted from the urban consolidation program. Of course, this does not sit well- Mr Baird: On a point of order. The honourable member for McKell is again flouting your ruling, Mr Speaker. Duringthis Address-in-Replydebate the honourable member has only talked about the issue of Balmain. She has the opportunity to discuss a whole gamut of Government administration in New South Wales, but instead she returns to the same theme, Balmain. I know that she is in trouble with her seat- Mr SPEAKEX: Order! That remark is not within the parameters of a point of order. I do not uphold the specific point of order of the Minister for Transport. Although the debate is broad-ranging-and mention was made earlier of Speaker Weaver, who said discussion on the Address-in-Reply debate should be on broad questions of policy-there is nothing to stop a member concentratingon one item of policy throughout the whole of his or her contribution. The fact that a member is returning to one issue and is illustrating that against the background of concern for a particular part of New South Wales, does not in itself take that member's speech outside the parameters of the Address-in-Reply debate. The only restriction I placeon the honourable member for McKell is not to make an attack on a Minister and to go into details of specific matters of administration. Ms NORI: A further matter of concern for the residents of Balmain is the lack of availability of open space, and the need for improvements to the legislation that will ensure they are never again subjected to the type of developmentthey have experienced. The inner city has few areas of regional open space, and specific precincts have fewer areas of local open space. For example, Ku-ring-gaihas 6.10 hectares of open space per 1,000 head of population; Mosman has 5.15 hectares; and Manly, with its beaches, 3.31 hectares. However,Leichhardt municipality has only 1.67 hectares of open space per 1,000 head of population, andBalmain peninsula has even less. The latter two have no regional open space and experience significant problems with regard to traffic. The Governmentmust improveits environmentalpolicies to protect the urbanenvironment. It must take into account the problems encountered by inner city areas. Often those who live in the inner city are portrayed as selfish yuppies who want only open space. The inner city lifestyle offers manyadvantages but also it hasmany disadvantages. The area is a drawcard for metropolitan Sydney. It is not unreasonable for innercity residents to ask for compensation for the fact that freeways, which take motorists acrossthe city, encroach on their residential areas. Victoria Road and Parramatta Road,which bring a vast amount of traffic to the city from the west, cut across inner city residential areas. The residents of Balmain were disappointedwith the procedures adoptedin the recent redevelopment and rezoning of Balmain peninsula. I trust that when the Government introduces its future planning program itwill guarantee that thehead of the Department of Planning will not meet only with developers seeking input about which town planners should be appointed as administrators to Leichhardt council, as was revealed in a document I read recently. In the past the Government advised 21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY 111 developers to inform the residents of Balmain that the Government would step up its commitment in theirarea as a ruse to get residents to agree to overintense residential developments as an offset for getting rid of oil refinery processes that were in operation in that locality. I hope also that decisions are not made in future similar to that made by the Government and the Minister responsible with regardto Caltex-that the Governmentwould not undertake a public inquiry as it was entitled to do under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, merely because developers wouldnot be treated favourably. I hope that thelegislation to be introduced and the policies that were outlined here in good spirit by the Governorwill ensure that that type of activity will never again be possible. It is not in the Government's best interests to engage in that type of behaviour. Such activity could cause one to think the Governmentis acting improperlyor ineptly or that at least moral corruptionis involved. If the legislation that the Government intends to introduce ensuresthat such activity does not recur, it will be a good thing. The Government and the Minister have left themselves wideopen to attack. They havebeen inept and have taken the State intothe courts. Court costs have been awardedagainst the Minister- Mr SPUKER: Order! Again I restrain the honourable memberfor McKell. She may continue but not in that vein. Ms Nori: What can I say? Mr Baird: Just sit down and apologise. Ms Nori: I will not apologisefor the rubbish that has taken place here. Mr SPENCER: Order! I have explained the parameters within which the honourable member for McKell may confine her remarks. Although there are few members in the Chamber at the moment, I urge all members to read carefully page 3 of the publication Decisionsfromthe Chair. An examination of and an adherence to those rules will avoid my having to interrupt members during their contributions, which I regret having done in this instance. However, I remind the member for McKell that I must uphold the precedents and rulings of the Parliament. Ms NORI: I was pleased when I heard His Excellency read the matters set out on page 9 of his Spcech. I hope that those measures will avoid the debacle that my constituents, the residents of Leichhardt municipality, endured in the past 12 months. I now wish to refer to housing. I was concerned when I heardthe Governor outline the policies the Government will implement with regard to housing. That outline ignored reference to action that is necessary to ameliorate the lot of public housing tenants. I wish to relate to honourable members an incidentthat occurred during last week that shocked me,given this Government's supposedsupport for public housing tenants. As the local member, I organisemeetings with my public housing tenants on a regular basis to discuss their problems and needs. Usuallya member of local governmentattends the meeting to discuss the problems of tenants directly. I organised one such meeting for the Glebe estateonly tofind out three or four hours before the meetingthat theMinister for Housing had instruclcd his departmental officers to not attend the meeting with tenants. I regarded thatas an attack on my privilege,as a member ofparliament,to carry out my duty to keep my constituents intouchwith officers of the DepartmentofHousing. It is absolutely scandalousthat the Minister for Housing shouldissue such a directive. 112 ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member's time for speaking has expired. MrBERRY (Bathurst) [3.47]: It iswithgreatpleasure that Ispeak to theAddress in Reply to the first Speech to this Parliament of His Excellency, Rear Admiral Peter Sinclair. I wish our new Governor well in the challengeshe will face in the futurein the administration of his high office. There is no doubt the Government has already provided ample evidence of his dedication and that of his wifeto the people of this State. During his relatively short time in office he has met with the residents of Bathurst on two occasions. Those meetings werewell received by the community. The Governor in his Address outlinedthe legislative and financial proposals forthe fourth session of the Forty-ninth Parliament. Indeed,the first priority of the Government is to provide competent and prudent managementof the resources and finances of the State. The Greiner Government haspursued this ideal in a manner unequalledby any government in Australia today. The State's financial direction is positive and clearly defined. It is a plan of management that extends well into the future rather than stumbling fromyear toyear in ill-defined, bungling fashion,as was the case prior to the change of government in 1988. The Government has plotted a course of financial management that is being followed, almost to a T, by other State governments throughout Australia. The key directionsin that course,which were plotted almostthree years ago, remain today, and, as the Governmenthas said,are fundamentallyimportant fortheyears ahead. The three basic objectivesare and will be: first, a reductionof the State debt; second, the provision of a leaner and more effective public sector; and, third, the provision of a balanced budget.

Mr Beckroge: On a point of order. I direct your attention, Mr Speaker,to the fact that the honourablemember for Bathurst is reading from a typewritten script rather than using copious notes,which I bclieve to be contrary to a direction given previously.

Mr SPEAKER:Order! Iwas about to intervene, though Ihad to leave sufficient time to satisfy myself that the honourable member was reading his speech. The member for Bathurst has now been in the House for three years. I consider all memberswho have been here for that amount of time to be able to make a speech without reading it. It is permissible for the member to refer to copious notes but not to read his speech verbatim. With that direction, the member may continue.

Mr BERRY: Finally, I refer to the re-ordering of spending priorities to emphasisebasic services such as health, law enforcement andeducation. The pursuit of these ideals has produced greatbenefits for the people of New South Wales. To succeed in these objectives the Government has implemented a budget process particularlyin relation to forward estimates-and I will have to read this---of recurrent expenditureon a three-year rollingcycle. I refer to my copious notes. This processallows for the very first time the presentation of the bigger picture of the State's financesto the people of New South Wales and has demonstratedhow the Government plans to meet the goal of zero real growth in recurrent expenditure for its first term of office. In my opinion this open approach to the effective management of the State's finances is to be applauded. This approach hasprovided and instilled confidencein the administration of this State where none existed before. No other State commands the high level of confidence that this Government does. 21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY 113

All economic indicators demonstrate that New South Wales is performing in every respect in a manner far superior to that of any other State in Australia. Unemploymentin this country hasreached its highest leveland in January26,800people joined the unemployment queue,which now totals 718,700 Australia-wide, or 8.4 per cent. The unemployment tide createdby the Federal Governmentis being held backin New South Wales. In December 1990,22,400more people found jobs in New South Wales in contrast to Victoria where there was a fall in employment of approximately 10,000 positions, and in Queensland, where 3,600 jobs were lost. Other economic indicators provideevidence that New South Wales is firmly on the right track. Retail sales in New South Wales have outperformed the five-state average in growth of sales. New South Wales has outperformed other States so far as motor vehicle registrations are concerned. In this Stateregistrations declined by 2.4 per cent comparedwith a fall of about 12per cent in other States. Buildingapprovals in this State roseby 8.9 per cent against a 10.6 per cent declinein the other five-state averages. Other indicators confirm the direction set by this State in prudent financial management. There is no doubt that New South Wales is leading the way in fiscal management. Other shocks have been felt throughout the nation, particularly in Western Australia, Victoria,and in South Australia withthe recent debacle concerningthe State Bank of South Australia. The common denominator is inept State Labor administrations. The respective leaders of these Stateshave at different timesbeen the messiahs of the Labor rnovcment. For each an imagewas created that in no way reflected the substance of the respective governments. The disaster concerningthe State Bank of SouthAustralia is a reprehensibleact and in my opinion the Federal Treasurershould share the blame. He cannot distance himself effectivelyfrom the disasters that have occurred in South Australia, in Victoria and in Western Australia. Ibelieve the Federal Government is to blame on at least two counts. First, itspolicy of virtual rape, plunder and pillage of State budgets has resulted in each State government having to turn to trading enterprises to provide more finances to meet plannedbudgets. In effect this has exerted more pressure on trading enterprisesto perform. I believe that the pressure the South Australian Government exerted on the State Bank, the higher expectations sought of the bank, together with ineffective scrutinyof the bank's performance in day-to-day operations, led to the $1 billion debt, which could escalate to somethingof the order of $2.5 billion,which in turn will have to be repaid by the good people of South Australia. The second reason I believe the Federal Treasurershould bear the blame for the unmitigated mess that he has created in fiscal management of the entire nation is that the deregulation of the banking industry occurred on an ad hoc basis. The introduction of new bankingoperationsinto this countrywas designed to increase competitionamong the banks. That has not occurred. New banks have concentrated in certain areas, and that mayappear to be collusion,with the result that customers have gained no advantage from increased competition. Big banks have bccome bigger and small banks seem to pick up only the crumbs that are left after the refusal or rejection by the bigger banks of loan proposals. Thishigher risk accepted by the smaller banks hasexposed them to the rigours of the financial recession inwhich we find ourselves today. The responsibility for the economic failures that have occurred in South Australia, in Victoria and in Western Australia restsin the hands of the respectiveState premiers and treasurers who have allowed financial institutions to operate in a manner that has left them basically ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1993 unaccountableto government. I have read newspaper reports to the effect that though the South Australian Premier was sent briefings, he denied knowledge of unofficial companies or arms of the State Bank operating with his consent. There seems to be a cover-up and I am sure we will all take an interest in the royal commissions that investigate the circumstancesof the bank failures in South Australia, in Victoria and in Western Australia. The Western Australian inquiry is producing some interesting results. In New South Wales prudent economic management of the economy has alleviated to a large extent the recession pressures that exist nationally. Nevertheless it is the job of this Government to be ever-diligent in screening the financial affairs of this State. ThisState's budgetary processeswill produce results for the people of New South Wales. Health is one area in which I have maintained an interest. Opportunitiesexist to improve significantly productivity levelsin hospitals throughout New South Wales. This Government, on coming to office, inherited about $2 billion of capital works projects that simply were not done. The backlog was enormous. Infrastructurewas run down. In many cases health had a high recurrent budget to support inefficient infrastructure leftby the former Government.

A process that may be explored to provide medium-termproductivity savingsin recurrent expenditureof a significant magnitude is to allow recurrent expenditureto be devoted to loans or revenue raising to finance those loans. That would augment the present capital renewal program, the asset sales and renewal of assets. Many health institutions simply substitute labour for inefficient, badly designed-in 1990 terms-buildings and structures in public hospitals. If Treasury could relax the purse strings a little to allow recurrent expenditure andthe freedom that would exist after the renewal process, the extra productivity gained from staff wouldleave a surplus that could be applied to loan repayments. This morning I was interested to note the comment by the Minister for Health about the Opposition's new health policy. I mentioned previously the backlog of some $2 billion worth of works that needed to be done but cannotbe undertaken as quickly as the Governmentwould like under its presentbudget. Another matter to note in this prospective government'shealth policy is the lack of any capital works program.

The Opposition's policy was put together somemonths ago when thespokesman on health matters mentioned that, if it came to office, a Labor government would allocate funds to provide for a second opinion for patients in public hospitals. That was dealt with adequatelyby the Minister for Health this morning. The Minister's second opinion is that the Opposition policy on health is a failure,and that is in linewith public opinion about the Opposition's future. In the reform of the industrial relations system the Government has embarked upon a course that has produced enterprise bargaining, one of the most significant advancesin freeing up industrial and labour relations in this State. That system will provide many opportunities for people in country areas to understand the concept of enterprise bargaining. It is well known that the labour work force in country areas is stable and reliable. Because of these virtues and the inherent skills in country regions advantage can be taken of the enterprise bargaining legislation to provide a more secure, real and wide-ranging opportunity for businesses that suffer from low productivity in city areas, high staff turnover and poor labourrelations by relocating in the country. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and the 21 February, 1991 ASSEMBLY

Minister for State Development have encouraging packages that will allow for relocation and development of businesses in provincial cities and country areasof New South Wales. Coupled with the enterprisebargaining legislationand the policies that flow from it real opportunitiesare available in country New South Wales for people to provide more efficient and productivework forces. This Government's reform of education is undergoing a period of consolidation. Acertain amount of stress and strain has been associated withthe process. Thestresses and strains are being relieved dramaticallynow. The fruits of the reform are being experienced by schools throughout New South Wales. In particular I should refer to small countryschools. The policies of special fitnessappointments, promotion on merit systems and other innovations have resulted in small schools undergoing arevival. They now have the luxury of choosing staff, whereas in the past more often than not it was not possible to secure staff for senior positions and country schools hadto wait months for staff to arrive. Small schools such as Ungarie have an opportunity to select senior staff from a wide range of applicants. That part of the Government's reform program has been fruitful. It has led to a renewal in community interest in schools. In my electorate the concept of school councils has been emphasised strongly. Parents and citizens' associations and school communities are grateful for having the ability to participate in the direction and implementation of policy. Decentralisation and devolution of authority are fine principles and are increasingly becoming a reality. School communities are learning to cope and enjoying the fact that they have an influence on the management and direction of schools.

Improved roads in rural New South Wales havebeen soughtafter formany years. This year's allocation of $1.708 billion to the Roads andTraffic Authoritywill allow the process of improvement and reconstructionof roads to continue. In the Bathurst electorate a significant amounthas been spent on road reconstructionand renewal. In particular three major projects are under way. One is the Cox's River deviationwhich will remove a windy scction of roadway between Lithgow and Bathurst. The Lee Street-RabaulStrcct reconstruction in the heart ofLithgowwillmake thegoodburghers of Lithgow extremely happy. The bridge over the Macquarie Riveris almost completed and the commencement of the approaches to that bridge are anxiously awaited. The increased allocation to the Roads and Traffic Authority is welcomed and appreciated by the Bathurst electorate. That will enable the provision of an amenity in the communityto allow for easier contactbetween the principal provincial cities of Bathurst, Orangeand Lithgow. Travel times between the major metropolitan areasof Sydneywill be shortened. In the future the challenge for legislators and leaders of all the Stateshas been clearly defined by the rationalisation of State and Federal relations. Some of the traditional millstones around financial relations have had to be removed to enable efficient and effective deliveryof government services.

The dominating idcology for the 1990s is pragmatism. Today, because of financial disasters and because of the financial quagmire we find ourselves in, we as legislators and the people of Australia do not have the luxury of being able to pursue a particular ideolo~yin an attempt to solve the problems confrontingus at present and the problems which will confront us in the future. The pragmatic approach is probably the only way to go. Let me give the Federal Govcrnment its due. We have seen a drift away from basic Labor philosophy. Some of the sacred cows of the Labor Party, such as 116 ASSEMBLY 21 February, 1991 the privatisation of the CommonwealthBank and Qantas, are now being addressed. It is commendablethat the Federal Governmentis shrugging off some of the shackles it has borne for many years. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, the Federal Government has been slow in achieving things that have needed doing, such as asset sales. Some things that needed doingat a national level simply havenot been done. The ideological dependence of the Cain Government was instrumental in PremierCain's downfall. No doubt at the next election we will see the fall of the Kirner premiership and Government. Victoria is but one example of fiscallyirresponsible governmentsin Australia, particularly Western Australia and South Australia, the last head to go on the chopping block. It is pleasing that the Greiner Government in New South Wales is succeedingin its financial management. The goals and directions outlinedfor this State are being achieved. In the ensuingyear the overriding goal ofproviding zero growth in real recurrent expenditurewill be achieved. In almost every area of State and Federal relationshipsthere is a blurring of the delineation of our authority and the rationalisation of systems and policies. Our State Premier, Mr Greiner, should be congratulated for the positive way in which he has tackled these problems. In almost every area of service provision,particularly health, education and children's services,there is a delineationof authority,power broking and empire building. Basically, children's earlyintervention services are financed by the Federal Government, but the State Government has an influence on this program. If we stood back and objectively asked whether the State Government or the Federal Government shouldfinance that program the answer would be that theprogram should be provided, integrated into the education system and administered by the State Government rather than the Federal Government. A lot of confusion exists about the provision of services and various programs run by the Department of Family and Community Services. The Federal Government,which has a significant finger in the pie, is implementing at a national level policies that probably do not suit the needs of every community. State governments are better placed to provide a lot of these services. The Federal Governmentshould not continuallytry to dictate policy through the applicationof tied grants. In many respects Federal Ministers have a dual role. They operate in a national senseand also try to direct policies and take over the job of State Ministers. It must be difficult for them. The pragmatic approach should be taken. Areas of authority and control should be clearly defined. That will be one of the challenges for Premiers, for the Prime Minister and for those involved in the rationalisation of Federal and State relations. The Governor outlinedthe legislative financial proposalsfacing this Government. Theseproposals arepart of thestep-by-step process being implementedby this Government to extricate New South Wales from the economic ruinleft by the previous Labor Government.Wecannot question the integrity and purpose of the Premier in the pursuit of these goals. I am sure that these goals will be achieved and implementedin fine style. Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Davoren.

House adjourned at 4.16 p.m.