464
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Thursday 8 May 2003 ______
The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.
The President offered the Prayers.
PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Presentation
The PRESIDENT: I have to report that on Wednesday 7 May 2003 the Legislative Council went to Government House, where I informed the Governor that following a vacancy in the office of President, the Legislative Council, in the exercise of its lawful right, had proceeded to the election of their President and that the choice had fallen upon me as their independent and impartial representative. I presented myself to Her Excellency as their President, and Her Excellency was pleased to offer to me her congratulations.
Then, in the name and on behalf of the House, I laid claim to all their undoubted rights and privileges, particularly to freedom of speech in debate, and to free access to Her Excellency when occasion should require, and asked that the most favourable construction should, on all occasions, be put upon their language and the proceedings; to all of which the Governor readily assented.
LIVERPOOL CROWN LAND DEVELOPMENT
Report of Independent Arbiter
Motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce agreed to:
(1) That the report of the Independent Legal Arbiter Sir Laurence Street dated 6 January 2003 on the disputed claim of privilege on papers on the development of Crown land (Woodward Park) be laid upon the table by the Clerk.
(2) That, on tabling, the report is authorised to be published.
The Deputy Clerk announced, pursuant to the resolution of the House, the receipt of the report of the Independent Legal Arbiter Sir Laurence Street dated 6 January 2003 on the disputed claim of privilege on papers on the development of Crown land (Woodward Park).
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Withdrawal of Business
Private Members' Business item No. 17 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by Mr Ian Cohen.
JOINT LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Establishment
Motion, by leave, by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:
That the resolution of the House of 7 May appointing the Legislation Review Committee be amended by omitting paragraph 2 and inserting instead:
2. That, under section 5 (1) A of the Legislation Review Act 1987, Mr Obeid, one member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition and one member nominated by the crossbench members be appointed to serve on the committee as members of the Legislative Council. 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 465
STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE
Establishment
Motion, by leave, by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:
1. That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the standing orders, the Standing Orders Committee for the present session consists of the following members: the President, Mr. Egan, Mr John Della Bosca, Mr Kelly, Mr Macdonald, Mr Primrose, Mr Gallacher, Mr Gay, Mr Harwin, Mr Jones and Reverend Mr Nile.
2. That the committee have leave to sit during any adjournment of the House and have authority to confer with any similar committee appointed by the Legislative Assembly.
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORATES AND ELECTIONS AMENDMENT (JOINT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE) BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.10 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This private member's bill seeks to establish a joint parliamentary committee to oversee the functions of the State Electoral Office [SEO]. The objects of the bill are twofold. Under the bill the Committee on the State Electoral Office will, first, have the power to veto the proposed appointment of a person as Electoral Commissioner and, second, monitor and review the exercise by the Electoral Commissioner of the commissioner's functions under the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 and any other Act. At this point I emphasise that the committee is not a witch-hunt committee; the wording of both objects of the bill refer not simply to the electoral commissioner of the day but to the State Electoral Office as a whole. The proposed committee structure is based primarily on other joint parliamentary standing committees established by legislation. Presently, the State Electoral Office is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the same way as other agencies, including the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the NSW Ombudsman, the Police Integrity Commission, the Commission for Children and Young People, and the Health Care Complaints Commission.
The Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and the Police Integrity Commission was constituted under the Ombudsman Act 1974, the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption was constituted under part 7 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, and the Committee on Children and Young People was constituted under part 6 of the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998. As I said, the SEO remains without an independent oversight committee. The Opposition believes that a joint parliamentary committee, enshrined in legislation, is needed for a whole variety of reasons—not the least of which is to provide a champion for that office, something it lacks at present. The overall staffing and resource levels of the SEO need to be examined. In an opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald of 17 April the ABC's electoral analyst, Antony Green, said:
Despite being the largest State in the Commonwealth, NSW has proportionally the smallest electoral office in the country. Yet this tiny office has to conduct one of the most complex elections in the country, with the most antiquated electoral act and in the shortest timeframe. It is also provided with the smallest budget for research and public education in the country.
The budget papers show that the total expenses of the SEO for 2002-03 are approximately $45.3 million, and that it has equivalent full-time staffing of 21. By comparison, for 2002-03 the Electoral Commission of Queensland has $8.2 million expenditure and equivalent full-time staffing of 40. For 2001-02 the Victorian Electoral Commission had expenditure of $21.5 million and a staff of 77. Those two State offices have similar functions to our SEO, but they have smaller electoral enrolments and more staff. I am not demeaning the work of staff of the SEO; I am certain they do their best with the resources and funding they are given. But we need to determine whether the new SEO needs more funding and better resources to conduct State and local government elections.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Investigations.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Exactly. This is an important point in the lead-up to the now deferred local government elections, especially as legislative changes will result in local government elections being 466 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003 conducted more in line with Legislative Council elections. The changes will mean that many local government ballots will be counted in the same way as Legislative Council ballots, which were data-entered and processed. We need to examine whether there is a demonstrated need for additional funding and resources for the SEO— we need to get it right! The Federal Parliament has in place a joint standing committee on electoral matters that conducts inquiries following each Federal election to ascertain whether there were problems and whether anomalies were observed in any of the processes. That committee reports on inquiries and suggests how to resolve the problems. The committee can also examine other electoral matters. The integrity of the electoral roll is one such inquiry that the committee has conducted in the past couple of years.
I proposed that the New South Wales joint parliamentary committee have a similar brief: to look at the conduct of elections and other electoral matters. I repeat: this will not be a witch-hunt committee; it will seriously examine the administration of the electoral system in this State to try to improve it. It is entirely appropriate that the State Electoral Office have an oversight body, that is, a joint committee that has the ability to scrutinise the functions of the office and the conduct of elections, whether they be State or local government, in New South Wales. I give a couple of examples to explain why I believe a joint parliamentary committee is needed. Members—especially those who stood for election on 22 March—would be well aware of the problems that plagued the count for the 2003 Legislative Council election.
The problems that beset the computerised accounting systems of the State Electoral Office need to be examined. Why did they happen? Why were the problems not identified earlier? What can be done to ensure that such problems do not occur again? Does the SEO need more funding, or a change in procedures, to ensure that the problems do not arise again when the button is pressed for the 2007 Legislative Council election? That is one issue, and there are many others.
I have a copy of an advertisement that appeared in newspapers across the Murray-Darling electorate advising of the candidates and polling places for the election. One could imagine the surprise of the National Party candidate, Marsha Isbester, and her hardworking campaign team upon discovering that her name and that of one other candidate had been left out of an official State Electoral Office advertisement.
The Hon. Rick Colless: It happened to Michael Richardson, the honourable member for The Hills, too.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am told it happened in The Hills, and it may have happened in other areas. We need to know why this breach of process occurred, where the processes fell apart, and whether it happened elsewhere. We need to make sure that the process is changed to ensure that such mistakes do not occur again. At present there is no process to investigate these inadvertent mistakes—mistakes that have quite dramatic effects on the candidates concerned. There is no place where these grievances can be heard and where problems can be dealt with to make sure they do not happen again.
I have had reports of multiple ballot papers being sent out to voters in the form of postal votes. I have had reports of many other issues that may be seen as relatively minor in isolation but which, when taken in their entirety, are a cause for concern. That is why we need a joint parliamentary committee to examine the conduct of elections. We need a committee that is able to inquire into and report on other aspects of the SEO. I said earlier that our SEO has a relatively small staff compared with the offices in other jurisdictions. I am sure that the staff of the SEO do their level best with what they are given, but the question remains: could they do better with more? This committee would be able to look at electoral issues.
Proposed section 190 sets out the functions of the proposed committee. As I said, the committee model is based on the structures adopted for other oversight committees, and there are no hidden secrets in the bill. It proposes a nine-member committee—five appointed by the Legislative Assembly and four appointed by the Legislative Council. Again, this is consistent with the structures adopted for other joint parliamentary committees established by legislation.
Proposed section 21AA details the proposed appointment of the Electoral Commissioner. Again this is not a new measure; it is found in other parliamentary committee enabling legislation. It is extremely rare that a joint parliamentary committee would have cause to veto the appointment of any commissioner, be it the ICAC Commissioner, the Commissioner for Children and Young People or, in this case, the Electoral Commissioner. Nonetheless, this is an important safeguard to maintain.
I do not intend to go through the bill clause by clause, because that would take an inordinate amount of time, and because the majority of the bill is of a mechanical nature as found in other legislation establishing 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 467 joint parliamentary committees. I strongly urge members from all sides to give due consideration to the bill. As I said, this is not a witch-hunt; rather, the aim is to provide a champion for the agency. This is not a committee to pursue the electoral commissioner of the day. It will examine a whole range of issues relating to the New South Wales electoral process and formulate recommendations to improve that process. It will be an important tool for the electoral process. I will conclude with another quote from Antony Green. The closing paragraph of the article I cited earlier states:
For too long, an opaque process dominated by the Government of the day, an inadequately funded Electoral Office and an Electoral Commissioner given limited input into the legislative process has stifled sensible electoral change. For the sake of public trust in the electoral process, some form of public inquiry needs to occur.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Ian West.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Motion by the Hon. Don Harwin agreed to:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the moving of a motion forthwith that Private Member's Business item No. 29 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the achievement of Patrick Johnson, be called on forthwith.
Order of Business
Motion by the Hon. Don Harwin agreed to:
That Private Members Business item No. 29 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.
TRIBUTE TO PATRICK JOHNSON
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [11.24 a.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(a) notes the achievement of Patrick Johnson, the Australian athlete of indigenous heritage, in being the first Australian to run 100 metres in under 10 seconds.
(b) congratulates Patrick Johnson on his achievement.
Today I congratulate Patrick Johnson on his achievement this week of becoming the first Australian man to break the magical 10-second barrier for the 100 metres. One feels very humble but proud to read about Patrick Johnson's career, background and great achievements. In an article headed "Our 9.93 second flash" in the Daily Telegraph on Wednesday 7 May, Michelle Cazzulino wrote:
The world's fastest sprinter was raised in Queensland on an 11 m mackerel trawler, is fluent in five languages and has ambitions of one day becoming a diplomat.
He is 30-year-old Patrick Johnson from Canberra, and his meteoric rise to the top of Australian athletics is matched only by what fellow champion sprinter Raelene Boyle has described as the "movie script life" that preceded it.
Patrick Johnson's early life was tragic when his mother, Pearl Ella Marrot, an Aboriginal Australian, was killed in a car accident. His father, also named Patrick, was Irish. The article speaks about Pearl's death and continues:
After her death, Mr Johnson, who migrated to Australia from Ireland on his own aged 17, was faced with the task of caring for Patrick and Patrick's younger brother, nine months old Ryan.
Pearl's sudden passing marked the end of life as the family had known it until then, and the beginning of the adventure of a lifetime for the boys, particularly Patrick, who was then just shy of his second birthday.
Mr Johnson decided to keep Patrick with him, but deliver Ryan to the custody of his wife's family who lived in the remote Upila Aboriginal settlement near the Lockhart River in northern Queensland.
"I know it sounds cruel, but I didn't want to jeopardise two kids' futures, so I said, 'I'll leave one kid with the in-laws and I'll take the other kid because he's the firstborn'," Mr Johnson said yesterday. "But the boys are quite close—we all are. I rang Ryan up the other day, so he's going well and everybody is happy." 468 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003
For the next 14 years, Mr Johnson raised Patrick on a mackerel trawler off the north Queensland coast, with Patrick attending Cooktown Primary School and a number of other schools along the way. They were thrilling times, but not necessarily always easy ones—the rigours of life on the boat requiring that both father and son remain in peak physical condition.
In 2000, when both Mr Johnson and Patrick were interviewed on the ABC's Australian Story, Patrick recalled the sometimes torrid conditions at sea, and being forced to tackle them head-on.
"I was responsible for dropping anchor or steering the boat to an island and my dad would sleep on the bunk for maybe five hours. I was responsible for my dad's life and also my own," he said.
"We used to get caught in some of the storms and I had to learn if the boat tipped over or capsized then swim towards the shore and hopefully survive. They were life-and-death situations."
But speaking yesterday, Mr Johnson said they were also character-building, insisting that he always placed greater emphasis on his son's schooling.
"I brought him up as best I could."
"I always tried to give him a good moral education and a good outlook on life."
He also taught his son to play chess and, when he stopped being able to beat his less experienced opponent, would pit Patrick's skills against those of other drinkers in dockside pubs. Elsewhere, Patrick was an avid student who displayed a talent for picking up the local Aboriginal dialects. He later became fluent in Indonesian, Cantonese and Japanese and reportedly speaks some Mandarin. Patrick's athletic abilities were evident from early on, although he only raced competitively for the first time in 1996 at the Australian University Games in Canberra.
He won the 100m wearing a pair of borrowed spikes that were several sizes too big.
He also showed a similar aptitude for rugby league and was offered contracts by the Canberra Raiders and Queensland Cowboys. But he chose athletics.
Patrick is completing a degree in Asian studies, politics and human rights.
He plans to become a diplomat. Ray Chesterton put Johnson's times in perspective. He said:
For Johnson, his performance is the entry key to the most exclusive athletics club in the world—the sub-10 second men.
Currently, he does not have a sponsorship, not even a shoe deal. Chesterton further stated:
Johnson's stunning run of 9.93 sec would have earned him a medal at every world championships except Tokyo in 1991, and a silver medal at the Sydney Olympics behind American Maurice Greene's 9.87 sec.
He would have beaten both Carl Lewis (9.99) at the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles and Longford Christie (9.96) at the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona for gold...
Johnson said on radio from Japan that running 9.93 had widened his perspective. "For me personally, it's making sure we keep on the right path," he said. "My own philosophy is that there are no limitations in life. It all comes down to what you put in."
Johnson is a remarkable role model for us all. In today's paper Mike Hurst, the most eminent of our athletic writers, referred to Johnson's ability to win the race this Saturday in Osaka. More important, I noted at the end of the article he stated that Johnson is going over to Osaka for probably the biggest race of his life but before he lines up for that race against the world's best, in the most important race of his life, he is running for Australia in the 4 x 100 metre relay two hours and 10 minutes before his individual 100-metre Osaka grand prix. Mike Hurst stated:
Some of Australia's sprint kings of the past would no sooner have run a relay before their individual race than jump off The Gap.
But Johnson is bringing a new ethic to his event and he will fulfil his commitment to the national team, ahead of any self-interest.
He will use the relay like a heat, to establish the tone for his day.
Patrick Johnson is truly a remarkable man and a wonderful role model for all young Australians aspiring to achieve their potential. On behalf of all members of the House I would like to wish him well in his great race on Saturday at Osaka. Perhaps in the near future we could arrange a reception in his honour, but in the meantime we wish him good speed and congratulate him. We look forward to meeting him in this House and honouring his life achievements thus far.
Motion agreed to. 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 469
QUARANTINE STATION PRESERVATION TRUST BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.34 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian Democrats are pleased to introduce the Quarantine Station Preservation Trust Bill. The Premier is constantly trumpeting this Government's green credentials. Rather than green credentials this Government could be better described as being in the grip of a "Cargo cult". The Government treats any developer with a plan to save the Government money like a gift from the sky. We have seen it in the Government's reluctance to spend money on rail infrastructure for the north-west sector growth area; it would rather put in a tollway.
We have seen the "Cargo cult" in full swing at Cooks Cove in Sydney's south, where a shiny new marina and shopping complex will replace a golf course, sports fields and environmentally sensitive wetlands. I turn now to the Quarantine Station. The Quarantine Station site is situated at Manly on the inner edge of North Head. It presently forms part of Sydney Harbour National Park. The headland at North Head is the largest area of unlamented bushland on the Sydney Harbour foreshores. It is a site of historical, natural and Aboriginal significance to all Australians. It is indeed of international significance in the same way Ellis Island is to the Americans. The site plots the history of Australia from pre-European occupation, through colonial times, two world wars, the advent of the aircraft to the present day.
The site contains 66 buildings dating back to the 1830s. There are over 1,500 rock engravings of Aboriginal, European and Asian origin. North Head contains a number of remarkable micro ecosystems, such as remnant rainforest and numerous species of birds, animals and marine life. From the recent history of events surrounding the Quarantine Station site, it appears that the National Parks and Wildlife Service [NPWS] seems to focus its priorities on the plants and animals on the site, rather than the historical aspects of its brief. The Government is also reluctant to spend the money needed to preserve this site.
The solution proposed by Government, with the active support of the NPWS, is to have a private developer, Maw land Hotel Management Pty Lt, lease the site, take responsibility for the maintenance of many of the buildings on the site and run a conference centre. The NPWS was the co-proponent with Maw land of a preferred activity statement [PAS] for the site. The PAS was sent to the relevant determining authorities in 2002 to decide whether they approve of the proposed activities listed. The determining authorities are: the NPWS, the Heritage Council and Planning NSW.
The NPWS has now prepared a draft amendment to the Sydney Harbour National Park plan of management. The draft amendment proposes that adaptive reuse of historic buildings and structures will be permitted in the park, allowing the Maw land proposal to be formally endorsed. The draft amendments have been on public exhibition since 2 May and submissions will be taken until 4 August. This is why this bill is important. This is the imminent sell-off of our nation's history. Our history must be saved. Public land must stay in public hands and the Government must commit the necessary funds to preserve our heritage. It is ironic and a tragedy that the Premier, who professes to be a keen student of history, has not intervened to save the Quarantine Station site.
The purpose of this bill is to retain the area known as the Quarantine Station as a public asset and to create a trust to control its maintenance and use. The object of the bill is to revoke the reservation of the Quarantine Station as part of Sydney Harbour National Park and to vest the land in a new trust to be constituted by this bill. The new trust will be similar to the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust.
The objects of the trust, contained in clause 6 of the bill, are to maintain and improve the trust lands; to encourage the use and enjoyment of the trust lands by the public by promoting the recreational, historical, scientific, educational and cultural heritage value of those lands; and to ensure the conservation of the natural and cultural heritage values of the trust lands and the protection of the environment within those lands. The Quarantine Station area is presently in an area known as Sydney Harbour National Park. Ownership of the Quarantine Station site was transferred back to the State Government from the Commonwealth in 1984. It is an area of historical and cultural significance encompassing some 66 buildings. It is interesting to note that the 470 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003
State Government took a hard stance against the Federal Government with respect to defence land owned by the Commonwealth, yet it has taken a different approach with land owned by the State by handing that land over to a private developer.
The bill seeks to preserve the historic, Aboriginal and natural heritage of the site in conjunction with the surrounding area of the North Head section of the Sydney Harbour National Park. The current operations at the site provide conference and function facilities, tour activities and overnight accommodation for the public. There are also maintenance and administrative facilities for the local National Parks and Wildlife Service operations. Some NPWS staff also stay overnight on site in a caretaker role. The bill will create a five-member trust to manage the site, and membership of the trust will include representatives of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Heritage Council, the local Aboriginal community and the general community.
It is important that adequate funding be provided to properly maintain all the buildings on the site and the historical and natural heritage. Part 4 of the Historic Houses Trust Act 1980 legislates for an endowment to be paid by the Treasurer to the trust for specific expenditure. Similar secure funding should be provided for the quarantine station site for the proper maintenance of its historic, Aboriginal and natural heritage. The provisions for leasing any part of the site include retention of public control, accord with the significance of the site and not exceed 10 years. The proposed content of any lease must be publicly exhibited for 30 days and public comments on the lease proposal taken into account by the trustees. Clause 12 (2) of the bill provides that no one person or company can lease the whole of the site.
It is imperative that sites such as the quarantine station, which could become an international historical tourist attraction, be preserved by the New South Wales Government on behalf of the people of Australia. A site with such significance to the history of Australia cannot be given over to private interests. The reason for the Government's reluctance to embrace the quarantine station site comes down to money. There are 66 buildings of varying ages on the site, and some are in need of urgent repair. The National Parks and Wildlife Service [NPWS] seems to focus its priorities on the plants and animals on the site, rather than the historic aspects of its brief. The solution proposed by government, with the active support of the NPWS, is to have a private developer, Maw land Hotel Management Pty Ltd, take responsibility for the maintenance of many of the buildings on the site and run a conference centre.
A lease agreement was prepared by Millions Stephen Jacques Solicitors dated 24 January 2000 between the Minister for the Environment as lessee, Maw land Hotel Management Pty Ltd as tenant and Maxwell Player as guarantor. The lease outlines Maw lands' obligations to refurbish and maintain many of the buildings on the site. The cost in the lease of totally developing the buildings it proposed to lease was $3,254,000. In 1998 the National Parks and Wildlife Service estimated that a minimum of $5 million was required in the short to medium term to conserve the heritage values of the site and to provide limited public access. This may seem to be a large amount of money, but it is not in terms of preserving what is a unique chronicle of Australian history.
The danger of having a profit-driven private developer in charge of heritage buildings is that money will not be available for their proper preservation. It would be easy for the lessee to say that it cannot afford to spend the money as it would be uneconomic. Money would be spent on facilities that would produce an income stream, such as accommodation and conference facilities, and the preservation of buildings of purely historical value would pass by the way. History would not be saved or served by private developers. This is the business of the government of the day, representing the people of New South Wales and Australia. I shall run through the history of the Quarantine Station.
Aboriginal occupation of the Sydney Basin is estimated at some 20,000 years ago. Evidence of Aboriginal occupation dates from the glacial flooding, which formed Port Jackson 6,000 to 8,000 years ago. The area was occupied by the Kameraigal clan, who spoke the Urinal language. The sites on North Head suggest the area was used for occupation, food gathering, recreation and formal ceremonies. There are many examples of rock art in the caves around the area. The first meeting between Governor Phillip and the Aborigines occurred at Spring Cove in January 1788. This is yet another indication of how important the site is.
In terms of natural heritage, the site is home to a stunning array of animals, birds, reptiles and marine life. Two endangered species inhabit the area: the little penguin and the long-nosed bandicoot. There are five species listed as vulnerable: the red crowned toad let, the sooty oystercatcher and the pied oystercatcher, the superb fruit dove and the swift parrot. The plant life includes remnant rainforest. The early European phase was between 1828 and 1837. The site was first used to quarantine people in 1828 when the Buss rah Merchant was detained in Spring Cove because the passengers were found to have both smallpox and whooping cough. The more healthy passengers were housed in tents on shore and the sick were contained on board the ship. 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 471
In 1832 Spring Cove at North Head was declared a quarantine station by Governor Bourke. In 1837 the area was extended to include the whole of North Head. During the quarantining of the Lady Nought on in 1837 the first permanent weatherboard structures were erected. The immigration phase was from 1837 to 1872. Free immigration began to dominate the passenger lists from 1837 onwards. From 1853 a building program was put in place, with accommodation barracks, a hospital ward and a superintendent's cottage being built. The next phase, class-defined accommodation, was from 1873 to 1880. Buildings during this phase was dominated by segregation of buildings into the classes of passengers on ships. Therefore, there was first-class, second-class and third-class accommodation. These also reflected the health of passengers, those in first class being the healthiest.
The Board of Health phase was from 1881 to 1909. A severe outbreak of smallpox in 1881 heightened the awareness of the quarantine issue. The site was administered by the Board of Health during this phase and considerable money was spent on the buildings. The Commonwealth phase was from 1909 to 1950. The Commonwealth enacted the Quarantine Act in 1908 and took possession of and responsibility for the site in 1909. The major accommodation block was built in 1911-12. The laboratory and mortuary were built in 1916. The present wharf area was laid out between 1913 and 1917. During the 1914-18 war it was used for military quarantine, and in 1919-20 for an influenza epidemic. During the Second World War it was used for soldiers returning from the war and British evacuee children.
During the aviation phase from 1950 to 1983 many people came from overseas and the site was heavily used again. In 1957 there was a major program of refurbishment, with many buildings repaired, demolished and renovated. By the 1970s not much use was made of the station. In 1974 the last ship was quarantined, the Nike Mari. In 1975 it was used to house refugees from Cyclone Tracy. The buildings gradually fell into disrepair. In 1983 there was a revival with the establishment of the Quarantine Station Restoration Trust, funded through the Community Employment Program.
I turn now to the State Government phase. In 1975 Sydney Harbour National Park was established to include lands at North Head, Dobroyd Head, Bradley's Head, Shark Island and Clark Island. In 1979 more defence land was added to the park. The most recent additions were Fort Denison and Goat Island in 1995. In 1984 ownership of the quarantine station site was transferred back to the State Government and added to the Sydney Harbour National Park. The National Parks and Wildlife Service [NPWS] took control of the site at this time, and in 1987 it began operating a conference centre. At present, visits to the site stand at about 8,500 per year. In August 1997 the Premier presented a vision statement for the future of Sydney Harbour foreshore. The guiding principles were to maximise public access to, and use of, land on the foreshore; and land made available for public access and use should be retained or placed in public ownership.
I turn now to plans of management and leasing of the site. The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 requires that a plan of management be prepared for each nature reserve. A draft conservation plan, as it was known, was produced in 1987. A conservation plan was adopted in 1991 following submissions and review of the 1987 draft plan. After that time an Expression of Interest Assessment Committee was formed. That committee took tenders for development of the site and commissioned reports on the condition of the buildings and infrastructure. Nothing was decided about the future development of the site during this time. In 1996 a new draft plan of management for the entire Sydney Harbour National Park, of which the quarantine station is part, was produced. Tenders for the quarantine station were called for in 1996. In April 1998 the Tender Board endorsed the tender of Mawland Hotel Management as the preferred tender. The management plan was signed off in 1998 and released for public comment in 1999. In June 1998 the Minister for the Environment signed a negotiation agreement with Mawland. Manly Council formally objected to the proposed leasing arrangements for the first time and sought termination of the process. In the final meeting of the Tender Board in January 1999 Mayor Sue Sacker and Deputy Mayor Dr Peter McDonald announced their resignations from the board.
In February 1999 the Minister gave approval for the grant of a conditional agreement to lease. That lease was signed on 24 January 2000. The Heritage Council endorsed the North Head Quarantine Station Conservation Management Plan in April 2000, after ruling in mid 1999 that the plan was unsatisfactory. One wonders why. Mawland produced a draft master plan and draft access strategy in 2001, which was endorsed by the NPWS. In 2001 an environmental impact statement [EIS] was prepared and exhibited. The EIS produced so many responses that Mawland and the NPWS, itself in a questionable situation, decided to call a commission of inquiry to process all the responses. In July 2002 the commission of inquiry [COI] produced its report. It found, surprisingly, that there were no major environmental reasons that the proposal could not proceed. Mawland and the NPWS, now firmly in partnership, put out a joint response to the COI called the "Preferred Activity Statement" [PAS]. 472 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003
I turn now to the present. The PAS was sent to the relevant determining authorities to decide whether they approved of the proposed activities listed. The authorities were the NPWS, the Heritage Council and PlanningNSW. The NPWS has now prepared a draft amendment to the Sydney Harbour National Park plan of management. The draft amendment proposes that adaptive reuse of historic buildings and structures be permitted in the park. The draft amendments have been on public exhibition since 2 May 2003 and submissions will be taken until 4 August 2003. This is why this bill is important. This is the imminent sell-off of our nation's history. Our history must be saved. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Don Harwin.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNIVERSITY FUNDING
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [11.50 a.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(a) condemns the Howard Government for the crisis in university funding,
(b) notes there has been a drop in government payments towards university operating grants since 1994, despite an increase in university enrolments over this time,
(c) deplores the threat to quality teaching, due to the rising student to teacher ratio, the loss of full-time staff and the increase in casual staff,
(d) views with concern the increase in student payments from $690 million in 1994 to $1,006 million in 2003, so that Australian students now carry a burden that is high by international standards,
(e) views with concern the increasing pressure on universities to seek corporate funding to meet basic operating costs and to fund research projects,
(f) condemns the Government's current research funding model which is biased in favour of wealthy universities and gives the most money to the universities that need it the least, while discouraging open-ended and basic research which is crucial to the advance of knowledge,
(g) calls on the Federal Government to increase public funding for universities and change the research funding model to ensure that universities play their critical role in advancing knowledge in Australia.
This motion is very comprehensive and I am looking forward to the contributions of other honourable members. At this stage, particularly as I do not have much time before being interrupted for Question Time, I want to put the motion in context and make a few points about the broader areas. I would also like to say something from the perspective of being on the board of the University of Western Sydney, which is one of the universities that has already lost and stands to lose the most from the very bad work of the Howard Government in relation to higher education.
I originally put this motion or one very like it on the Notice Paper early last year. I did that at the time the Federal Minister, Brendan Nelson, was embarking on a review of higher education. In the process of that review a number of different papers—I think, from memory, six—were produced. The first one, which perhaps caused the greatest alarm in the university sector, used the word "crossroads" in its title. Much of the discussion last year tended to use that word. During 2002 submissions and comments were made in relation to those papers. The New South Wales Government's submission, which I will refer to later, was submitted in September 2002, and the vice-chancellors committee, individual universities, the National Union of Students, postgraduate students and university staff—virtually everyone involved in higher education in this country—took part in this discussion and submission process.
In February this year quite deliberately and consciously a number of proposals arising out of this review were leaked by the Federal Minister and his office. A number of different leaks took place. The process was a bit strange. Some of them focused on announcing that he had been defeated by Cabinet and the budget review committee of the Federal Government. Some also tried to suggest that he had a few victories. Since then the ferment and concern in the whole higher education sector has been made worse by this process of leaks. I am pleased I was able to put this motion back on the Notice Paper this year and that it has been called on today. As I understand it, the axe will really fall for universities in Australia in the Federal budget next week, when funding for universities will be announced. I gather also that the Federal Minister will be formally releasing the final aspects of his package, coinciding with the budget. Therefore it is a good time for this House to debate the impact on universities in New South Wales. 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 473
I want to refer to a number of different facts and figures relating to the seven different sections of my motion. Before I do that I will say a little about the way universities in New South Wales and elsewhere in Australia have effectively been put into the position of having to fight one another. A lot of what I have to say relates to that. We now have three or perhaps four different groups of universities. Some of the disparities and forced divisions between them have arisen over the past few years with other important changes the Federal Government has made. Some of them relate specifically to the massive changes in the models of research funding. That has given rise to privileges for the group of universities known colloquially as the sandstones. They tend to be the older universities, like the University of Sydney, the University of Melbourne and so on. They are well-established, with considerable funding, often from private bequests going back a long way. They also tend to be leaders in a trend that worries many people, myself included, of seeking corporate funding and sponsorship. Also included are other universities like the University of New South Wales, which, while not quite as old, have managed to carve out a very successful niche for themselves.
Under the Howard Government these universities have been selected for increased research funding under a formula that very much advantages them. That leaves other universities at risk and at a disadvantage. I look forward particularly to the contribution of National Party members in this House, because regional universities relatively have missed out very badly. They include Charles Sturt University, Southern Cross University, the University of Newcastle and non-metropolitan universities. There is a group colloquially known as the wannabe sandstones, the universities that are perhaps slightly more successful in attracting funding from various sources. In this dog-eat-dog atmosphere that has been created, these universities in effect are forced—I do not criticise them for doing so—to compete with other groups of universities.
One university that is in a category of its own, and it particularly concerns me, is the University of Western Sydney. It is not a sandstone, it is not a wannabe sandstone and it is not a regional university. Therefore, the various lobby groups that help to protect some of our universities, staff and students against the process I am describing have tended to exclude the University of Western Sydney and to place it much more at risk. So, the University of Western Sydney has particularly suffered under the Howard Government.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
______
KENMORE HOSPITAL SITE SALE
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Minister for Commerce. Why is the Department of Commerce refusing to release full details of the sale of the 75-hectare, historically significant Kenmore Hospital site in Goulburn—including the valuation of the site conducted by the Value-General, prior to the site going to tender?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I can inform the House that the Government's strict guidelines on tendering are being followed precisely for the disposal of this site. An eight-member assessment panel unanimously agreed to select Rowant Gardens Pty Ltd as the preferred proponent. Its proposal best met the criteria contained in the call for detailed proposals. The criteria are aimed at achieving maximum long-term social, economic and employment benefits for the Goulburn community. In addition, the conservation of the many heritage assets on site was of major consideration in assessing the proposals. In March this year a formal deed of agreement was entered into and contracts were exchanged between both parties. Until settlement the tendering process is not complete. Any comment at this stage can be of only a general nature. The terms of the agreement cannot be disclosed even to this Chamber until the sale is finalised. The proposed redevelopment will inject more than $150 million into the local economy—I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would welcome that on behalf of the people of the region he lives in—and will generate some 500 new jobs.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: I do not welcome giving away a valuable government asset for nothing.
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Just listen to this: it will generate some 500 new jobs—very precious jobs in a community and city such as Goulburn—and up to 200 construction jobs. There will be a formal public consultation phase after the master plan and development applications have been lodged with Goulburn City Council. 474 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I ask a supplementary question. Is it a fact that the final sale price for Kenmore was around $3 million—less than half what was offered by another bidder for the site, significantly less than the cost of relocating existing mental health services to another site, and extremely cheap compared with average real estate prices in Goulburn?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: As I said to the honourable member, there is a number of obvious commercial reasons why I cannot provide information of that type to him at this time. However, I can assure him, as I think would be obvious to anybody with a sense of the commercial reality of such arrangements, that the cash price in a transaction such as this is not the only matter that adds value to the transaction. So I cannot add to my answer now. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will see the full facts of the matter when it is commercially possible for me to release them.
DROUGHT FIGURES
The Hon. HENRY TSANG: Will the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries update the House on the drought?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I announced this morning the official drought figures for the month of May. The figures show that the overwhelming majority of the State is still gripped by this one in 100 year drought. The figures show that 92.2 per cent of New South Wales is still in drought. The remaining 7.8 per cent is now classified as marginal. Last month 99.5 per cent was officially in drought, so there has been a disappointingly small improvement. The lack of stock and irrigation water remains a critical issue for many farmers. The latest figures do represent good news for producers in some confined areas, including parts of the northwest, and coastal areas north of Sydney. But, while conditions are improving for some, it is important for the wider community to remember that most of our farmers are still suffering at the hands of the worst drought in 100 years. Some parts of the State look green after the recent rain, but cooler weather from now on means that many livestock producers will be forced to feed their stock through the remainder of autumn and winter.
The rural land protection board areas that have moved into marginal conditions in the past month include: all of Maitland; Narrabri and the northern slopes; division D of Moree; divisions C and D of Walgett; north of the Namoi River in division B and north of the Manilla-Boggabri Road in division A of Tamworth; east of the Pacific Highway at Kempsey; the eastern half of Tweed-Lismore; and divisions B, C and D of Gloucester. I am pleased that producers in these areas now have sufficient pasture and water to sustain their livestock without the need to buy in fodder. However, they will not have to wait for a six-month eligibility period for State assistance if dry weather conditions were to return within the next three months. After 19 February we all thought the drought was finishing, but in the next two months follow-up rains were not received and many areas are back in the grip of a dire drought. If the areas that have gone into what is called marginal conditions return to drought within three months they will again become eligible for assistance, particularly with transport of stock and fodder.
In many places the rain that has fallen has not resulted in enough runoff to fill farm dams and our major irrigation storages. While the rain is welcome, it has created nutritional problems in livestock. It is a common problem in a green drought that livestock that has been handed feed for a prolonged period chase the short, fresh pasture growth, which on its own cannot sustain them. Weeds have also become a problem, particularly in areas where fodder has been imported from other regions or interstate, and farmers should report unusual plants to NSW Agriculture and weeds officers as soon as possible. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition would know that this is quite a problem when farmers are buying in a lot of feed.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: You get serrated tussock coming in with the feed.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Agreed. A number of reports have also been received of the army worms, which are causing considerable damage to pasture growth in the north of the State, although cooler conditions are expected to hamper the spread of this pest. The new figures represent a small improvement in the situation, but for many farmers there is no relief from this one in 100 year drought. We will be doing our best as a government to ensure that farmers are fully supported as this difficult time continues for many parts of the State. Finally, today's figures emphasise the need for the Commonwealth to immediately grant full exceptional circumstances assistance to the southwestern slopes and plains; stone fruit producers in parts of the Young Rural Lands Protection Board area; the Central and Southern Tablelands; the Central West Slopes and Plains; and the South Coast in the areas covered by the South Coast and Moss Vale rural lands protection boards. That assistance should be granted very quickly. Finally, the Federal Minister must further assure all farmers that interim exceptional circumstances assistance will not cease in June. 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 475
KENMORE HOSPITAL SITE SALE
The Hon. JOHN RYAN: Can the Minister for Commerce assure the House that the sale of the Kenmore site, which consists of 75 hectares and 40 buildings, at the very least will recover the full cost of relocating away from the site the mental health services that previously existed on the site? Will the Minister also give the House an assurance that New South Wales taxpayers have not been in any way financially disadvantaged through the sale process?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: As I said in my answer to the question by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I can confirm for the House that the disposal process for the Kenmore site has been conducted according to the Government's strict guidelines and that probity and commercial terms in the tendering have been strictly followed for the disposal of the site.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Have you covered the cost of relocation?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I will get to that. I said in my answer to the question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that I would be unable to provide details at this time as the sale is not yet concluded. But I undertake to the Hon. John Ryan to answer the specifics of his question at the earliest possible time when I am commercially able to.
PRISONER EDUCATION
The Hon. PETER BREEN: Is the Minister for Justice aware that prison inmates earn about $40 each per week for working in prison industries whereas prisoners involved in full-time education earn about half that amount? Given that just 76 prisoners in New South Wales can afford to undertake full-time education, what measures will that Government adopt to provide incentives for prisoners to improve their education?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I provided details to the House in answer to a similar question the honourable member asked me last week about prisoners being able to access education facilities. The Government is trying to provide prisoners with skills and training at a technical and further education [TAFE] level that they can use when they leave the prison system. About 4,500 inmates are involved in education programs out of a total prison population of 8,100. About 60 full-time students are involved in distance and external education; 65 per cent are involved in adult basic education—that is, literacy and numeracy courses; and, as I have indicated previously, another 35 per cent are involved in vocational education and training. The prison system employs 215 educational staff: 25 senior correctional education officers, 35 correctional education officers, 148 permanent teachers and 7 head office staff. The Government has purchased 19,836 TAFE New South Wales hours for use in vocational training. Those figures demonstrate the Government's strong commitment to providing education for prisoners and, as I indicated in answer to the previous question, we intend to do more.
I am pleased to inform the House that a number of inmates have successfully obtained statements of attainment having completed a range of different courses, including courses in small business, vocational education, horticulture and Koori issues. A number of inmates have completed certificates in general education covering a range of different areas. I have some statistics about certificate-level qualifications that inmates have obtained that I am happy to provide to the honourable member, but I do not want take up the time of the House providing them now. The Government intends to expand those programs during the next four years, particularly the literacy and numeracy programs.
FIRST HOME BUYERS SCHEME
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I direct my question to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer give details of the assistance the New South Wales Government has given to first home buyers?
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am delighted that the honourable member has asked me a question, because I do not get questions from the Opposition these days. We are now in our fourth question time and I have not had one question.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Tell us about your personal vote.
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The figure was 1,615,551 votes, which, as the Deputy Leader of the Government reminded me yesterday is the highest— 476 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003
The Hon. John Della Bosca: It is the biggest in the world!
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I do not know whether it is the biggest in the world, but it is the biggest vote ever recorded in any election in Australia. I doubt that it will ever be exceeded in New South Wales, in any other State or at the national level. I do not mind whether members opposite condemn or praise me, but I do not want them to forget me! I sit here every day, briefed to the eyeballs, but I do not get any questions from the Opposition. Therefore, I am delighted that the Hon. Amanda Fazio has asked me a very important question. This Government is continuing to do more to assist first time home buyers than any other State Government. Between 1 July 2000 and 31 March 2003, the New South Wales Government paid out $311 million in stamp—
The Hon. John Ryan: It is the least you can do.
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: It is something the previous Government did not do. The Labor Government introduced this initiative. The Coalition Government never reduced taxes. Tax rates went only one way when honourable members opposite were in government, and that was up; they kept going up year after year. This Government has reduced taxes by more than $1,400 million. This year, because of our tax changes over the past five years, the tax rate is $1,400 million less than it would have been if the tax regime honourable members opposite had in place had not been replaced. I am pleased to tell the House that between 1 July 2000 and 31 March 2003, the Government paid out $311 million in stamp duty concessions to 109,000 young home buyers, including more than 63,000 first home buyers in regional New South Wales.
The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Name them.
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The Hon. Jenny Gardiner wants me to name them all. I will take that request on notice and I may well do that on another occasion. The Government's First Home Plus stamp duty exemption scheme is the most generous in Australia. The top five postcodes for recipients are Campbelltown, in which 2,139 first home buyers received $7.8 million in stamp duty concessions—concessions they would not get if there were a Coalition Government in New South Wales; Liverpool, in which 2,173 first home buyers received $7.36 million; Cabramatta, in which 1,941 first home buyers received $6.52 million; Mount Druitt, in which 1,601 first home buyers received $6 million; and Blacktown, in which 1,538 first home buyers received $5.5 million. Eligible first home buyers in New South Wales pay no stamp duty on properties in the metropolitan area worth up to $200,000. [Time expired.]
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I have a supplementary question. Would the Treasurer elucidate his answer?
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: First home buyers in other parts of the State pay no stamp duty on properties worth up to $175,000. Stamp duty concessions are available on properties valued up to $300,000 in metropolitan areas and up to $250,000 in other parts of the State. First home buyers across New South Wales have each saved, on average, almost $3,000 in stamp duty. About 60 per cent of First Home Plus recipients are from regional and rural New South Wales, so this scheme is a very significant benefit for first home buyers in the regions. New South Wales also offers the lowest rate of stamp duty in Australia for homes valued at more than $200,000. That is worth noting.
For homes valued at between $300,000 and $400,000, New South Wales offers the second lowest rate of stamp duty in Australia. The average age of a New South Wales first time home buyer is 31. Between July 2000 and March 2003 the average price paid for a first home in New South Wales was $233,394. First home owner grants of between $7,000 and $14,000, which are largely funded by the Commonwealth Government under the intergovernmental agreement, have also been paid to 137,000 home buyers across the State. That represents a total of $1,064 million. I am pleased that the first home buyers scheme is making the step into home ownership much more affordable.
MOTOR VEHICLE EXHAUST EMISSION INSPECTIONS
The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: I direct my question to the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment. It was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald today that new motor vehicles will receive a rating based on their environmental performance. It was further stated that the Minister will launch the new benchmarks today. I commend the Government on this excellent initiative. However, is the Minister aware that many outdated vehicles are on our streets and continue to contribute significantly to air pollution? What action, if any, does the Government intend to take to phase out or limit such vehicles or to subject them to more rigorous and regular inspections? 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 477
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I do not have the answer to the Hon. Dr Peter Wong's question, but I am happy to refer it to the Minister for the Environment. I do not think we are going to be confiscating old motor vehicles that do not comply with certain standards. If that were the case, we would lose a lot of vehicles. In any event, I will obtain an answer and provide it to the honourable member.
KENMORE HOSPITAL SITE SALE
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is to the Minister for Commerce. In order to end significant local concerns about the sale process adopted by the Government in relation to Kenmore Hospital, will the Minister table in this House by the end of the day full details of the sale process, including the sale price and full details of the successful bidder's plans for the site, along with details of Government feasibility studies and due diligence checks undertaken as part of the Kenmore Hospital sale process. If not, what does the Government have to hide?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: As I assured the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. John Ryan, who asked me about this matter earlier in question time, the Government has nothing to hide in respect of this matter. Claims of wrongdoing about the disposal process for the Kenmore Hospital site—
The Hon. Duncan Gay: The country Callan Park.
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I do not know why the Deputy Leader of the Opposition keeps using the terminology "the country Callan Park".
The Hon. Duncan Gay: You got into trouble for your devious dealings on Callan Park—
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I did not have any devious dealings on Callan Park, so I am not sure what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to. The essence of my answer to the Hon. Charlie Lynn's question is very similar to the answer I gave to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. John Ryan, namely, I am very happy to be transparent about this transaction. I am very happy to disclose all matters that do not compromise the Government's commercial position, and I will do so when it is possible. However, at this stage I cannot provide the House with more information than I have already provided.
COMMUNITY DISASTER RELIEF FUND DROUGHT ASSISTANCE
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. What assistance is the Government providing from the Community Disaster Relief Fund for people who are experiencing hardship as a result of ongoing drought conditions in New South Wales?
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Hon. Jan Burnswoods for her important question. The current drought is exceptionally severe and, as we heard earlier from the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, has not eased in much of the State despite the fact that some parts of the State have received significant rainfall. The drought is different in nature to other disasters such as bushfires and floods, which have also been the subject of Community Disaster Relief Fund [CDRF] assistance. The drought is a long-term problem, and certain criteria had to be determined to ensure that the distribution of community disaster relief funds was appropriate.
I am pleased to advise the House that the Department of Community Services has now issued more than 2,200 CDRF grants, totalling more than $3.3 million, to drought-stricken households across New South Wales. The CDRF is a public trust fund to assist people affected by all types of disasters. As an indication of how widespread this problem is, I will share with the House the list of locations at which the greatest number of CDRF drought-assistance grants have been distributed to date. Not surprisingly, the majority of these locations are in western New South Wales. The locations include the postcode areas of Hay, Nyngan, Pilliga and Wee Waa, Coonamble, Quambone and Coolabah, Narrabri, Condobolin, Boggabri and Kyogle.
The Community Disaster Relief Fund Committee is doing a good job in allocating these grants. The committee is chaired by the Department of Community Services [DOCS], and includes representatives from both government and non-government agencies: the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul, Anglicare, Mission Australia, and service clubs. The House should note that drought conditions are affecting not only farming families but also those who rely on primary industry for their income. People such as shearers, and fencing and harvesting contractors are also experiencing drought-induced financial hardship. We have expanded the relief criteria to cover those people as well. 478 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003
The recent rainfall has not stemmed the daily calls from distraught families seeking assistance. Many of these families comprise older people who live on properties and are struggling physically, emotionally and financially to manage the daily tasks of farm life. A commonly reported experience—which I am sure would be familiar to members of this House who live in rural areas—is that many water tanks have corroded after being empty for such a long time, and when water is trapped in them it simply drains out of the holes. This must be extremely distressing for people. Broken pumps are also frequently reported.
Through the CDRF drought-assistance grants, New South Wales families can receive up to $2,000 at a time to help with essential household expenses, including the purchase of new water tanks to hold potable water, as well as the payment of bills. Many of the applications for relief have come as a result of farmers attending farm family gatherings. These are informal social events co-ordinated by NSW Agriculture, and they involve visiting representatives from a range of agencies, including DOCS, who are able to provide information on drought-assistance measures. It is well known that many people from rural areas affected by drought are unwilling to ask for assistance because they feel they need to stoically cope on their own—and many of them have done that. However, many of those people are experiencing such tough conditions that they need this support. The farm gatherings provide an opportunity for all the relevant information to be made available. People are provided with the DOCS State Disaster Recovery Centre phone number, and they can then contact the centre for assistance as a later time.
The State Government has contributed $4 million to the CDRF, and that funding has been earmarked for drought assistance. Of course, public donations to the fund are also encouraged. Donations can be made at any ANZ, Commonwealth, St George, National Australia or Westpac bank, or at any New South Wales TAB outlet. I take this opportunity to thank all the individuals and companies who have so generously donated to this fund.
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES RESTRUCTURE
Mr IAN COHEN: I direct my question to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests), representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, and Minister for Natural Resources. Has Ms Susan Kemp, the former deputy director of the now dismantled Department of Land and Water Conservation [DLWC], been employed to advise on the restructuring of government agencies? Was Ms Kemp responsible for the restructure of the DLWC two years ago, which led to a burgeoning bureaucracy with few results on the ground? If this is the case, how can any restructure be effective when it involves the main players in the disastrous previous bureaucratic shuffling of deckchairs at the DLWC?
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I will seek advice from the relevant Minister on that matter.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: It's your portfolio.
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That is not right; it is not my portfolio. The Leader of the Opposition should be careful about what he says. Once again, the Greens make all sorts of assertions in their questions. In future, rather than making all sorts of allegations about people who are not here to defend themselves, I ask them to simply ask the question and we will give them the answer. If Opposition members have any questions— and they have not used the opportunity to ask any questions, but they have another half an hour to do so—
The Hon. Rick Colless: Point of order: The Minister's answer should be relevant to the question. His statement was certainly not relevant to the question, and I ask you to direct him to provide an answer that is relevant to the question.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister has finished his answer.
STATE TRANSIT AUTHORITY DIRECTOR MR TONY SHEPHERD
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Transport Services. Has Mr Tony Shepherd, at any time during his current directorship of the State Transit Authority, or previous directorship of the StateRail Authority, declared any pecuniary interest or conflict of interest in relation to his positions as Deputy Chair of Transfield Services Ltd, Director of ADI Ltd or, most recently, chair of ERG?
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I was aware that the Opposition might ask this question because the matter was reported in the newspaper—which is the Opposition's prime source for all its questions. 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 479
The Hon. Duncan Gay: We asked you yesterday.
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am receiving advice on this matter. I am also advised that in relation to alleged conflicts—
The Hon. Duncan Gay: You should know—
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Do you want an answer?
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Well, we didn't get it yesterday.
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: You don't always get the answer you want; you get the answer that is right. That is the problem with members opposite: they want a particular answer, and when they do not get it—
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You're so inexperienced.
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: We will come to your inexperience later in question time. This morning I wrote to Mr Rogan, the Acting Director-General of the Department of Transport Services, and I asked him to provide me with legal advice regarding any possible conflicts of interest regarding this matter. As soon as that legal advice is available, I will advise the House accordingly.
STONEY CREEK BRIDGE
The Hon. TONY BURKE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport Services. Will the Minister please advise the House on the latest information on the Stoney Creek Bridge?
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That is a good question. I challenged the Leader of the Opposition to ask me that very question, given that he was so forthright and irresponsible in the comments that he made about this bridge last week, but he has not taken the opportunity in question time to ask me that question. He talks about inexperience. What an example of inexperience he is! This individual has made a number of allegations about the safety status of a particular bridge yet he has not taken the opportunity at the next available question time to ask the relevant Minister about the matter. And I know why he did not do that. The Leader of the Opposition is not a qualified engineer. I had a look at his academic qualifications. As far as I understand, he and his fellow bridge inspector—
The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: The Minister was asked a question about the Stoney Creek Bridge but for the last minute at least he has been referring to qualifications of the Leader of the Opposition. I do not believe that is relevant to the question the Minister was asked.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister that answers must be relevant to the questions asked.
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am happy to inform the House, and to also educate the Leader of the Opposition in the course of this, on how to inspect a bridge. I received advice from an engineer, not somebody with the qualification of Bachelor of Professional Studies—his web site indicates that he has no engineering experience—about the safety of bridges.
The Hon. Michael Egan: Bachelor of what?
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Professional Studies; it is a policing qualification. In relation to the bridge, the asset manager—a qualified engineer—inspected the bridge on 2 May and he provided me with a letter dated 6 May, which reads:
I inspected the bridge on Friday the 2nd of May 2003, and the bridge is SAFE in all aspects.
That letter was written by an engineer, not a couple of clowns running around the bridge operating in a reckless manner and endangering public safety. I also inform the Leader of the Opposition for future reference—it is part of my task to educate him about rail matters—that not all timber transoms and sleepers need to be fully effective. Transoms are structures on the bridge that are similar to sleepers. The advice of the engineer is that it is desirable to have a mixture of sleeper ages and conditions in the track, and Rail Infrastructure Corporation's [RIC's] sleeper renewal practices— 480 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003
[Interruption]
Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition an engineer? He is not an engineer so I suggest he be very careful about what he is saying. RIC's sleeper renewal practices are based on renewing approximately 25 per cent of sleepers—that is one in four—on a five to seven year cycle, depending on traffic conditions and sleepers' deterioration rate. Engineers, who understand such matters, have a different view from that of the Opposition. I respect the views of the engineers. What is extraordinary about all of this is that the Opposition did not ask a question in Parliament when it had an opportunity to get an answer. If any members of the Opposition want to inspect bridges, we will arrange for a qualified person to go with them and to do whatever is required for the inspection—provided the members of the Opposition wear the appropriate safety gear.
They should bring such matters to my attention rather than climb all over such structures in an unsafe manner. I do not mind having such matters brought to my attention. I will send the Opposition advice on what to look for when its members go out with a qualified engineer and with the appropriate safety gear. It is extraordinary that the Opposition has not asked the question, but I hope my answer has helped to educate the Leader of the Opposition. I look forward to providing additional information at a future date. [Time expired.]
M5 EAST TUNNEL AIR POLLUTION REPORT
Ms SYLVIA HALE: I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Health. When will the Minister release the full results of the Department of Health study completed last October into the effects on motorists of air pollution in the M5 East tunnel? Despite not releasing these results, has the department begun another study into the effects on residents of pollution from the tunnel, and can the Minister explain why this study only addresses a 700 metre radius despite earlier CSIRO and Roads and Traffic Authority reports that indicated the greatest impact was at one kilometre?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I note that the honourable member's question obviously deals with a highly technical issue. I am sure the Minister for Health will be able to give me a detailed answer, which I will provide to the honourable member and the Chamber at my earliest convenience.
STATE TRANSIT AUTHORITY DIRECTOR MR TONY SHEPHERD
The Hon. DON HARWIN: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport Services. As part of his role as a director of the State Transit Authority, has Mr Tony Shepherd ever been involved in discussions with respect to the implementation of smartcard technology in Sydney's trains, buses and ferries? Have any of these discussions taken place since his appointment as chairman of the board of ERG Group?
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I have already indicated to the House that I will be obtaining proper legal advice on whether there has been any conflict of interest involved in this matter. As I have indicated, I am happy to come back to the House on that.
MOTOR ACCIDENTS AUTHORITY ARRIVE ALIVE PROGRAM
The Hon. IAN WEST: My question without notice is directed to the Special Minister of State. Will the Minister inform the House as to how the Motor Accidents Authority is promoting youth road safety?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The sad but tragic fact is that young people aged 17 to 25 are more than twice as likely as any other age group to be injured in a motor vehicle accident. Each year more than 150 young people are killed on our roads—the vast majority of them are young men—and over 7,000 are injured. I know how I feel when I hear of promising young lives cut short by a car crash.
In 2001, as part of a commitment to reducing the incidence of motor vehicle accidents and injury and disability among young people, the Motor Accidents Authority developed a youth road safety program known as Arrive Alive. Arrive Alive is not simply about telling young people not to speed, or not to drink and drive, it is a program that has developed successful working partnerships with a number of youth initiatives, including Youth Week, the Big Day Out and the Eastern University Games. The program is designed to give young people ownership of an issue that affects them with potentially tragic consequences.
A key component of Arrive Alive has been its encouragement of young people to come up with their own innovative ideas to improve road safety in their own communities. As a result, young people from Bombala 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 481 to Bankstown and up to the Tweed have developed local campaigns for their peers. Another key component of Arrive Alive has been the partnership forged with the South Sydney Rabbitohs. I am pleased to inform honourable members that the Rabbitohs players are taking a leading role in the delivery of road safety messages to young people around the State.
Last year the South Sydney Club and the Motor Accidents Authority began the Bunnies in the Bush campaign, where the Rabbitohs took the Arrive Alive message throughout regional New South Wales to more than 5,000 students in years 10, 11 and 12. Building on the success of Bunnies in the Bush, earlier this year I announced the Bunnies in the Burbs campaign. Under this program the Bunnies will visit senior high school students throughout Sydney's south and east, together with police youth liaison officers and road safety officers from the Motor Accidents Authority. The visits will involve road safety presentations that include a discussion of youth road safety issues, looking at the reasons why young drivers crash, and talking about the consequences of risk-taking behaviour while driving.
Today is the first outing of the Bunnies in the Burbs. Rabbitohs players Shane Rigon and Brett Kearney will be visiting Waverley College, along with Constable Jane Heffernan, from Bondi police. The aim of the visit is to allow the players to talk to students as their peers. Shane Rigon told young people at Waverley College today that he wants young drivers to think twice about taking risks on the road. As I mentioned earlier, today is the Bunnies in the Burbs first visit. Next week the Rabbitohs will visit Matraville Sports High School and St Andrews Cathedral School. Other school visits are planned throughout this term. I thank the Rabbitohs for their work and hope that all students enjoy their time with the players but, most important, that they listen to the road safety messages that they deliver.
NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FEDERAL BUSHFIRES COMMITTEE SUBMISSION
The Hon. MALCOLM JONES: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship. Has the National Parks and Wildlife Service made a submission to the Federal bushfire inquiry entitled "House Select Committee on the Recent Australian Bushfires", which closes on 9 May? If so, is it publicly available?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am not aware whether a submission has been made or whether it is publicly available. I will refer both matters to the relevant Minister and obtain an answer.
STATE TRANSIT AUTHORITY DIRECTOR MR TONY SHEPHERD
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport Services. Did Mr Tony Shepherd advise the Minister or his predecessor of his intention to either apply for the position of chairman of the board of ERG or his intention to accept the position?
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I refer to my previous answer.
PRISON SENTENCE CALCULATION ERRORS
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Can the Minister please provide further information in relation to the death of an inmate at the John Morony Correctional Centre?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Yesterday the shadow Minister for Justice, Andrew Humpherson, issued a press release in which he made seven accusations relating to the report that was tabled by me in answer to a question asked on Tuesday. The first accusation he made in the press release was that the Government was trying to shift the blame for present maladministration because a report had been tabled that spoke more about the life of the dead inmate than about the bungle—the main purpose of the report.
The report was actually prepared by Mr Vern Dalton, who served the Coalition Government as Director-General of Corrective Services and as Director-General of Community Services. He also served as Chief of Staff to Virginia Chadwick. It was necessary for him to outline the facts and circumstances leading to the sentence miscalculation. It is appalling that Mr Humpherson tried to diminish the report in the way that he did, particularly in light of the fact that only one-fifth of it dealt with the issues he identified in the first part of his press release. 482 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003
The second accusation he made was that the Government is guilty of covering up the death for political gain, with no regard to the deceased's family or the right of the public to know of government maladministration. That is just rubbish. The Department of Corrective Services immediately informed the Coroner and the inmate's family of the death. Indeed, the inmate's family visited John Morony Correctional Centre on the date of the death, soon after it was discovered. The Commissioner for Corrective Services immediately instituted a departmental inquiry and yesterday I revealed the critical matters arising following receipt of the report of the inquiry by me on 8 April.
Mr Humpherson then said in his press release that the alleged non-disclosure amounted to corruption, which is why the Opposition has referred the matter to the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC]. I note that members of the Liberal Party are regular customers of the ICAC; that is not a novel proposition. However, it is a novel proposition that self-disclosure is corruption. I have never heard of that.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why don't you ask Eddie?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: You have a regular spot in the queue down there. So far this matter has been investigated by the department's Professional Conduct and Management Committee, with two internal investigations and a preliminary inquiry by Mr Gilligan and Mr Dalton. Following the investigations the acting inspector-general, specifically in respect of the appointments of Mr Dalton and Mr Gilligan, stated:
I am of the view that their appointments will provide an increased level of transparency and impartiality that will assist in bringing the issues involved in this matter to a successful and satisfactory conclusion.
In light of all the other inquiries I can understand why the ICAC may feel left out and I welcome its participation. Mr Humpherson said that the Government had shown no compassion for the inmate's family, despite it being responsible for the bungle. Not only has the Government given the family a full and open apology, it has provided counselling and other assistance to the family. The commissioner has also been in regular contact with the family to address concerns arising out of this matter. In his press release Mr Humpherson stated:
The report provides substantial detail on the prisoner's failures yet ignores the systemic failings of sentence management … it is hell bent on passing the buck, in part blaming a dead prisoner just like it blamed a dead train driver.
This is the most appalling of the incorrect assertions made by Mr Humpherson and is a direct attack on the integrity of Mr Dalton. For the reasons I gave yesterday I reject it entirely. Not only do I reject it, I refer honourable members to the comments of the acting inspector-general, who stated:
… the Department's investigation into this matter, in terms of completeness and timeliness, has been of a very high standard. The investigators involved should be commended for their diligence.
[Time expired.]
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I wish to ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister please elucidate his answer.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The sixth allegation Mr Humpherson made was that the report made no reference to systemic maladministration within the prison system and tried to shift the blame onto an inexperienced parole officer. He did not explain what he meant by systemic maladministration, nor did he present any facts. If he asserts that the report says nothing about underlying problems in the Parole Board Secretariat, obviously he has not read it because the report made a number of recommendations. I have already indicated that the Parole Board and its secretariat need change, and that is coming. Finally, Mr Humpherson asserted that the former Minister for Corrective Services said:
…new technology has been introduced in an attempt to eliminate the erroneous release of prisoners because of communication delays between courts and the gaols, the loss of papers in transit and so on.
Mr Humpherson therefore concluded that prisoners are being erroneously released on a monthly basis despite the Government promising to fix the system. This is an unintelligible statement that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, so it is difficult to provide a response. For the edification of honourable members, when I examined the matter I asked for details of errors under the former Coalition Government. I was advised that no details were kept. However, I was told that if I wished, departmental officers would be happy to go through press clippings to try to find out where they were. 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 483
NON-CUSTODIAL FATHERS COUNSELLING SERVICES
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I ask the Minister for Community Services a question without notice. Is it a fact that more men commit suicide than the combined total number of deaths due to drug overdose and the road toll because many non-custodial fathers have unmanageable financial constraints placed on them by the Family Law Court and the Child Support Agency? What funding does the State Government provide to counselling services for non-custodial fathers in crisis who are distressed by their experiences with the Family Law Court and Child Support Agency? What action is the Department of Community Services taking to support distressed men and to help address this most urgent family crisis in New South Wales?
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Recently there have been reports of an increasing number of custodial orders given to fathers by the Family Law Court over the past few years. The honourable member's question refers to non-custodial fathers in crisis, a matter that is largely the responsibility of the Federal Government, which has done some work in this regard. Indeed, this morning I read a report in a newspaper about counselling services available to men—not necessarily non-custodial fathers—being made more accessible and using more male-friendly language. I undertake to obtain more detail from the Department of Community Services about the issues raised by the honourable member. However, as they fall largely within the ambit of the Federal Government, he may wish to direct a letter to the Federal Minister to ascertain more information.
CENTRAL COAST TAXI LICENCES
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Transport Services. What community consultation has the Minister undertaken in relation to his proposal to grant new taxi licences to the Central Coast? Has the Minister undertaken a study of the economic impact on existing taxi owners and operators of granting new taxi licences? If so, will the Minister publicly release the study findings?
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The concerns of existing taxi licence holders on the Central Coast have been brought to my attention. My ministerial staff have met with representatives of that group, which has outlined its concerns. I have asked the department to look at the questions relating to the issue of those licences and to come back to me. I acknowledge that the Minister for the Central Coast also referred the matter to me. We will continue to consult with all other affected groups to determine whether we can put in place a process that will ensure that people's livelihoods and concerns are addressed. The short answer is that I have had ministerial representatives meet with taxi owners and existing licence holders, and we are working through a range of issues.
WATERFALL RAIL ACCIDENT COMPENSATION
The Hon. TONY BURKE: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport Services. What is the latest information on action taken to assist those affected by the Waterfall train tragedy?
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: This question raises an important issue. I have sought advice on the process because I want to ensure that compensation matters are dealt with expeditiously and compassionately. We want to ensure that people who suffered the horrific tragedy of Waterfall and who are victims of that tragedy have matters processed in a way that ensures that they experience the minimum amount of hardship after the event. All parties concerned have legal rights, and those legal rights must be observed. I am advised that all legal representatives of the accident victims have been contacted. Those without legal counsel have been contacted directly. Over the coming months claims and medical reports will be assessed and settlement conferences held following offers of compensation from StateRail. These conferences will take place over a period of about 10 weeks after the offers of compensation are made. The tragic nature of these circumstances means that some victims will be unable to provide final information and medical reports for some years after the accident because the extent of their injuries is unknown. In some cases claims will not be settled until the injuries have stabilised.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: I acknowledge the importance of what the Minister is saying. Given the importance of the matter, should the Minister not advise the House of it by way of a ministerial statement, in order that the issues can be examined closely by the Parliament rather than dealt with by way of a dorothy dixer during question time? 484 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003
The PRESIDENT: Order! I have addressed this issue on previous occasions. The rules applying to the content of questions are many, but those applying to the content of answers are few. And one of those few rules is not that an answer must not contain a statement that could otherwise be made in the form of a ministerial statement. The Minister's answer does not contravene any standing or sessional order. The Minister may continue.
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Many people are suffering as a result of the Waterfall tragedy. There is a range of matters that concern the individuals involved. What I am trying to do in my answer is provide some assurance and reassurance that we will be handling these matters in a way that meets their expectations. I found it extraordinary that a point of order was taken. As I said, the tragic nature of the circumstances means that many victims will be unable to provide final information and medical reports for some years after the accident because the extent of their injuries is unknown. In some cases claims will not be settled until injuries have stabilised. This is especially the case with psychological injuries.
I am advised that for these reasons three personal injury claims are still outstanding from the Glenbrook accident 3½ years ago. Two-thirds of the Glenbrook claims were finalised within two years of that accident, and 90 per cent were finalised within three years. I am advised that 10 new claims were lodged just prior to the three-year statutory limitation period. A victim support unit has been set up within StateRail. This three-person victim support train is available on a 24-hour basis. Direct lines and mobile phone numbers have been made available to those involved in the accident. I am advised that to date the unit has co-ordinated the provision of counselling, paid out-of-pocket expenses incurred, including medical bills, and met the travel costs of relatives called upon to support people in the most difficult times. It is a very difficult time for many people. If anyone is not satisfied with the assistance being provided, I urge them to contact my office and personal staff. We all have a responsibility to help the victims of this tragedy through these traumatic circumstances. [Time expired.]
JEWISH COMMUNITY SECURITY COSTS
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Treasurer a question without notice. Is it a fact that the Jewish community in Sydney is now being forced to spend more than $1 million annually to protect from terrorism its schools, synagogues and other buildings—and even the Israeli National Day function held last night, at which the Premier and the Ambassador for Israel were guest speakers—with security officers and metal detectors? Is it a fact that other nations such as Italy fully meet such security costs? Will the Treasurer urgently co-ordinate, with the Federal Government, a dollar-for-dollar grant to meet these heavy annual costs?
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The honourable member's question is probably better directed to the Minister for Police. I will take it up with the Minister for Police and obtain a full response. I am aware that that there is a high level of security at a number of Jewish functions, and at functions and activities organised by the Israeli embassy in Australia and previously by the Israeli Consulate-General in Sydney—although we do not have one at the moment. Indeed, as I mentioned in the House yesterday, only the other night I spoke at a function held by the Zionist Council of New South Wales to celebrate the fifty-fifth anniversary of Israel. I noticed that at that function there was a higher level of security than one would normally find at a civil function held elsewhere in Sydney.
I mention to the House that this is the first time in this Parliament that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has asked me a question. I point out that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is now the father of the House, having been elected in 1981. In the other place that distinction belongs to the honourable member for Lachlan, Ian Armstrong, and the Speaker, John Aquilina, who jointly were also elected in 1981.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask a supplementary question. I deliberately did not address my question to the Minister for Police. I was asking not so much about making available police officers but financial support to meet security costs. I gather that the Jewish community is happy to engage its own security and so on. It is a matter of the financial cost.
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I point out to honourable members, particularly the new members, that while I am the Treasurer that does not make me—
The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Santa Claus?
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: It does not make me Santa Claus. I am not the first port of call for requests for funding. As honourable members will be aware, at budget time every year I bring down the budget 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 485 and I allocate very, very generous amounts of money to all my ministerial colleagues. Indeed, I think the Police budget is now more than $1.6 billion—a huge increase over Police budgets of the past eight years. Likewise, I think the health budget has now exceeded $9 billion. It is the responsibility of Ministers and their agencies to determine the priorities within the budget they receive.
DROUGHT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION COSTS
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question without notice is to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. What is the total amount paid by the New South Wales Government in drought relief during the current drought? Of that amount, how much has been allocated to NSW Agriculture for administrative functions, compared with the amount paid to drought-affected farmers and their families?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: As of 5 May the amount was $73 million, of which several million dollars went to administration. Something over 400 staff, including the Rural Assistance Authority, front-line staff, and so on, have been fully engaged in drought issues. I will get the actual figure, but I estimate it would be around 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the total. Honourable members can probably go through the figures in some detail in the estimates committees later in the year. They can rest assured that every one of these programs has been delivering millions of dollars to farmers every month.
It is absolutely outrageous for this Opposition to try to play niggling politics in relation to the drought. Members opposite should be more serious about the drought. They should be asking me when is the Federal Government going to introduce exceptional circumstances relief. They should be asking me about the five areas of the State that have not received exceptional circumstances relief at all. Obviously the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has not been around the bureaucracy much. He has been here 15 years or so but not as a Minister. It is clear he does not know that that involves some administration cost.
The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: We do not need a commentary on what the Opposition should be asking.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister that his answer must be relevant to the question asked.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Nothing is more relevant to the drought than the Commonwealth Government ensuring that interim exceptional circumstances payments are continued after 8 June and that those five areas in the south of the State receive full exceptional circumstances payments. That is the question. I hope that each of the four members of the National Party—
The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: The Minister still seems to be offering a commentary on the National Party rather than answering the question.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister is making comments about the Commonwealth Government's drought relief. He is answering the question. The Minister may continue.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I will take my full time on this question. Farmers are waiting for the Federal Government to fund these five areas in the south of the State. Last night our Government agreed to an extension of services for the drought, a great new part of our policy. We have done that, but where is the Federal Minister, Warren Truss? He does not even reply to questions from the National Party. The honourable member for Lachlan got it right when, according to the Sydney Morning Herald of 26 March, he said, "We will have to have an autopsy on the carcass." He should have said that the National Party needed a medical check-up but he implied something worse: he implied that the National Party was dead. The best thing to do with a carcass is to bury it.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: I wish to ask a supplementary question.
The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: If honourable members have any more questions, I suggest they put them on notice.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Hon. Rick Colless stood and sought to ask a supplementary question. The Minister bulldozed his way in. I ask you to follow the normal procedure and allow the honourable member to ask his supplementary question. 486 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003
The PRESIDENT: Order! The sessional orders, which are very clear, state that at the discretion of the President one supplementary question may be immediately put by the member who asked a question to elucidate an answer. I decided not to exercise my discretion on that occasion.
Questions without notice concluded.
[The President left the chair at 1.05 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]
SYDNEY WATER CORPORATION
Operational Audit 2001-02
The Hon. John Hatzistergos tabled, pursuant to the Sydney Water Act 1994, the report of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal entitled "Sydney Water Corporation Operational Audit 2001/2002", dated January 2003.
Ordered to be printed.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNIVERSITY FUNDING
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [2.31 p.m.]: Prior to question time I spoke in general terms about the crisis in university funding created by the Howard Government that has left all New South Wales universities in a very difficult situation, particularly regional universities such as New England, Southern Cross and Charles Sturt. I have the honour to represent this House on the board of the University of Western Sydney, and I have a particular concern about the crisis facing that university. I will cut my remarks short so we may have the pleasure of hearing the Hon. Christine Robertson's inaugural speech. To show the seriousness of the crisis facing universities I will detail the points in the motion. We can have little hope that the crisis will be resolved after next week's Federal budget and the promised announcements by Federal Minister Brendan Nelson following the review of higher education that has been conducted over the past year or so.
Paragraph (b) of my motion refers to the drop in real terms in government payments towards university operating grants. Had the growth in operating grants continued to keep pace with average weekly earnings as previously, instead of increasing from $4.3 billion in 1995 to only $4.9 billion, the grants would have increased to $5.4 billion. So in that one area alone the universities of Australia are already half a billion dollars short. I will not go through all the figures; they are available in documents such as that produced by the business higher education roundtable and a number of other documents, including the New South Wales Government's submission to the review I referred to.
Paragraph (c) refers to the threat to quality teaching because of the rising student-to-teacher ratio. In 1990 the figure for Australian universities was 12.9 students to one teacher; in 1995 it was 14.6; and in 2000, the latest complete figures I have seen, the figure rose astronomically to 18.8. Most of us are aware that such changes in the quality of teaching and education of students are significant. In addition to students missing out because of the increase in the number of students per teacher, those changes have a significant impact on the workload of, and the stress on, staff. There is also the continued reduction in full-time staff and tenured staff as universities struggle to effectively reduce their staffing costs by cutting higher-paid staff and saving money on full-year employment. They juggle teachers, giving some perhaps only one day's work a week.
The increase in casual staff and non-tenured staff and so on has continued to be a threat to the education of students and also a threat to the working conditions of staff. It also has had a very bad effect on female university staff because the vast majority of casual staff who fail to get tenured appointments are women. I am also concerned about the load being carried by full fee paying students, that is, the massive increase in the student payments through the Higher Education Contribution Scheme [HECS]. Most people do not realise that the load carried by Australian students and graduates is extremely high by international standards.
The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Rubbish!
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: For some Australian students it is actually higher than the figure in the United States. It is all very well for the former Opposition shadow Minister to say, "Rubbish" but the many different statistics available in all the numerous publications I have show the extent to which the fee load has grown. I do not understand how she can say, "Rubbish." It is now estimated that parents of school starters will 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 487 need to save up to $113 a week to pay for their future university fees. Obviously the figure varies from course to course, but those who opt to pay by way of HECS will have a huge debt. Of course, those who do not go to university will not have that debt. So we are back to the bad old days: instead of being able to attract all groups in the community, universities are becoming increasingly elitist places that only the children of the rich can afford to attend. All of that is exacerbated by the continual move to admit extra students who pay their fees up front at a lower rate.
I referred to paragraphs (e) and (f) of the motion before question time, so I will not say much more about them. One relates to the increased pressure on universities to seek corporate funding to meet basic operating costs and to fund research, and the other relates to the research funding model. The so-called reforms of the Howard Government have considerably disadvantaged most universities. Again I instance the regional universities and the University of Western Sydney in particular. The process will continue as the basic level of government funding continues to decline.
To finish off a brief account of the crisis, the last paragraph of my motion asks this House to call on the Federal Government to increase public funding for universities and to change the research funding model to ensure that universities play their critical role in advancing knowledge in Australia. I am aware that rallies and meetings will take place this week. Next week we will find out exactly what the Federal Government proposes, but, given how comprehensively and deliberately most of the proposals have been leaked over the past few months, I do not think anyone with an interest in the education of our students at present and the kind of nation that we become in future could hold out any hope that the Howard Government has the slightest understanding of, or concern about, the future of higher education in Australia.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I give the call to the Hon. Christine Robertson. As this is the member's inaugural speech, I ask honourable members to extend her the usual courtesies.
The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [2.40 p.m.] (Inaugural Speech): I commend the motion to the House and fully support the Hon. Jan Burnswoods' statements. I recognise and thank the Eora people. I join this place fully recognising the expectations of a considerable number of communities and individuals from country New South Wales for me to deliver. I am not afraid of hard work, I am fully committed to the wellbeing of the communities of country New South Wales, and I strongly believe that Country Labor is the political vehicle of government that relates to all different groups and individuals for the benefit of all country communities and their industries.
Being the first Labor woman from Duri to be in this place is a considerable honour. However, I am not the first Labor person from Duri to be here. William Cahill, the father of two brothers who have served in this House, was the Duri schoolteacher from 1906 to 1930. Cyril and James Cahill were both Labor members of the Legislative Council for periods between 1950 and 1978. Both men had a long history of community service. James received his primary school education at Duri school, as did my two sons.
Cyril was expelled from the Labor Party in 1959 after voting against the abolition of the upper House, so I am not sure whether I should feel guilty for being thankful. Two other notable Labor figures from the immediate area are the Federal members Bill Scully, who was born in Bective and was the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture in the Curtin Government—a very important gentleman—and, of course, the legendary Fred Daley from Currabubula, which is just down the road from Duri. My local area has a good solid Labor history and I am proud to be part of it.
I was born in Wollongong in 1948, and by the time I finished school in 1965 I had attended eight schools across New South Wales and had managed to get an excellent education in life from very different communities, from Berry, a small dairy town in those days that was not then a major tourist centre, to Tamworth, which was already presenting as a regional centre, to Mascot, a culturally diverse inner-city suburb. My years as a nurse were satisfying. However, it was in 1986 when I joined the health education and public health section of the regional health system that I learnt about the issues that affect people's ability to be healthy: issues such as access to work, racism, poverty, housing, education and healthy family structures—not in any order, because they all influence each other.
The communities, public health practitioners and clinicians of New England, the north west and, for a while, the Manning area, taught me well. It was not easy to leave my job recently, and my farewell last week was very sad. I married in 1968 and have had 34 good years with my husband, Richard. I have two sons, Abe and James. I am very proud of these two young men as friends. I also have a delightful grandson, Joshua. I thank them for surviving my obsession for social justice and Labor principles and apologise for the time it stole from them. 488 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003
I joined the Labor Party in 1980, not long after moving to Duri. Garry Ryan is a Country Labor member in Tamworth. He is a very good man who does not make value judgments of people's actions, gender or race. He ensured that my work in the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party [ALP] and local and regional structures was valued and utilised. I thank Garry for the honest and forthright ideals he shared with me, which will help me work in this place. I joined the Rural and Provincial Affairs Committee of the New South Wales branch of the ALP in the early 1980s. I succeeded Garry Ryan as the secretary and proudly became the chair in 1990.
I decided to leave the cracks about women and the chair out of this speech, but it was interesting. From that group and the grassroots country Labor Party members, Country Labor was born. I still chair the Country Labor Committee and I will continue to do so until after our July conference. I am very proud that it will be held in Tamworth. Rob Allen's devotion to Labor principles and the Labor cause has been a major factor in the success of Country Labor. He is now the New South Wales branch country organiser and he was the secretary of the Rural and Provincial Affairs Committee and the Country Labor Committee for most of my years as the chair.
I thank the New South Wales Labor Party general secretaries for their support over the years. John Della Bosca, who is now a member of this House, was the first to recognise the way forward, both for Labor in the Bush, which we then called ourselves—I heard the crack about that this morning—and for making country services relevant. He set up direct dialogue between Ministers and the Country Labor Committee. That committee has been a very successful advisory group. Because of several years of intense debate, and because we have in the Hon. Bob Carr a Premier who believes in good government for all, country New South Wales has enjoyed major benefits in recent years.
I particularly thank Party Secretary Eric Roozendaal and Assistant Party Secretary Mark Arbib. Their trust in me has been a major encouragement over recent years. Eric and Mark confirmed and expanded Country Labor, presided over its registration, and got me here. I thank my friends in the union movement, particularly Michael Williamson of the Health and Research Employees Union—my union—for their support. There is no doubt that without the unions in country New South Wales, our workers would be totally ripped off. Given the current Federal industrial laws and few jobs, many already are.
I am pleased to be working here with the Hon. Amanda Fazio. We have a long history of partnerships that work. I will continue to work with my friend Senator Ursula Stephens, the President of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party. She is a Country Labor woman and I have worked closely with her to positively influence country policy. I also thank my friend and Emily's List mentor, Christine Kibble, and all my workmates and life friends for their support and trust.
Special recognition must be given to the Country Labor members in our branches. The people of the Tamworth branch of Country Labor have been a huge part of the past 20 years of my life. At 11 or 12 years of age at East Tamworth Primary School I first learnt that Aboriginal people did not have an easy time. The Aboriginals—my peers—lived in a paddock on the way to the tip. Their houses were small sheds built with corrugated iron and hessian. In the cold there were not enough clothes. They were supposed to be learning with us. They were not allowed to swim in the public swimming pool. I started to learn.
The New England north west has the largest Aboriginal population in New South Wales. I have worked for those communities since 1986 and I have made many good friends. I know that there are not enough resources and that family-destroying feelings of worthlessness have been created by generations of racism. I also know that many young Aboriginal people are getting a good education, that health services and access to health are improving in some places, that there are good, strong, tough kids who can compete on the job market, and that more opportunities are available. It is our job in government to ensure that everyone has the resources and support to be able to access education, housing, jobs and health. I will be working hard to achieve that for all Aboriginal communities across the State. There is not yet equitable access to education, health, housing and justice for all communities in country New South Wales, whether black or white. In some of our towns and villages it is very easy to hide that fact, but I have no intention of leaving it hidden.
The changes to rural industrial bases have had a considerable impact on the demography of country New South Wales. Coastal areas have fast-growing populations with large numbers of elderly people, who have a huge impact on services, such as health, and on the environment, and there are many poor people. Southern inland New South Wales is generally growing, except the smaller towns, and it has fewer problems resulting from poverty. It is facing development issues. Western New South Wales and northern inland New South Wales 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 489 have declining populations outside their regional centres. Some areas have large proportions of children and others have large proportions of elderly people, and there are many poor people. The country is not one amorphous mass; each region is different with different needs. Within towns there are extremes of rich and poor. The individual regions also have fiercely defended identities.
The country is complex, and legislation and policy must recognise that. Policies for country New South Wales should not be about propping up or saving but about developing innovative infrastructure programs that deliver services to the people who want to stay, and who have a right to stay, in small towns and villages. There is always potential for industrial development in country New South Wales, and it is essential that the Government support rural communities with relevant infrastructure and implement processes to enable that when appropriate.
Most people in country New South Wales are not farmers. They live in the regional cities, towns and villages. They may or may not be required by the agricultural industry, and these days they would be more likely to get seasonal work if they were not competing with backpackers. They may work for the industrial base within the town.
Agriculture is incredibly important to this country and this State. However, it is not the only country consideration for this Parliament. The current drought has affected farmers, business and major industries such as the abattoir industry. It would be tragic if we were to permanently lose our abattoirs, for example. Towns that have lost abattoirs rarely recover their jobs through other industries. We are able to assist the farmers, and we are able to assist the small business proprietors and offer development assistance to affected industries, including abattoirs. We must find a way of dealing with the massive unemployment and family dislocation that will occur if these abattoirs shut.
Historically, the workers either move on or just stay in town to become second and third generation unemployed families with a resultant decline in health and lifespan. I intend to work for these people. Bob Carr's Government has introduced many policies and programs, which have certainly improved life and equity for country people. As the motto said, "There is more to be done". Last week, when I was feeling somewhat directionless in this place, I ran into an old Rural and Provincial Affairs Committee member, Paul O'Grady, a previous member of this House. Paul said, "Just don't forget what a great honour it is to be in this place." To all those trusting me to deliver I will not forget. Thank you.
Before I finish I must express my thanks to my family. I thank my husband, Richard, who really has stuck by me during nasty times when people thought it was acceptable to publicly denigrate me because of my political belief, struggling in his business because that is what is often done to people in the country when they are perceived not to conform, and coping with my constant travel. Thank you: my life would be lost without you. I also thank my sons, Abe and James, who grew up to be nice people despite my constant community commitments, and Abe's friend Elisha, who is a special part of our family. I thank my brothers, Robert, Michael and Peter, who have always supported me and for several years tolerated my unfortunate teenage cooking. I extend my thanks to my sisters-in-law, Norma and Susie, who are so important to us all. I also thank my Robertson brothers and sisters-in-law, John and Barbara, and Christopher and Vicki, for not necessarily sharing my politics but always supporting my right to work for others. Very sadly, we all lost John last year. I lost a great friend and confidant.
I extend thanks to my extended family of aunts, uncles and cousins, who in many ways have supported me to become the person I am. I thank my grandmother, Bobby, who was such a major part of my very young life and who gave me many of my little personal traits. I also thank my father, who taught me how to be angry. I especially thank my mother, Diana Carr, who taught me how to use the anger; who believes that everybody is equal so I never learnt to feel subservient or gender affected; who has spent her adult life ensuring her children could think; who is a wonderful painter; who worked in soul-destroying jobs for a pittance to feed, clothe and house us and still kept her amazing brain; and who lends her only coat to someone who knocks on the door and asks for it—and, amazingly, gets it back, even if a few months later. I can never thank her enough. Thank you.
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [2.54 p.m.]: Before I speak to the motion moved by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods I take this opportunity to congratulate the honourable members who have recently joined us and delivered their first speeches: the Hon. Tony Burke, Ms Sylvia Hale and the Hon. Christine Robertson. I note a very strong Tamworth connection from the Hon. Christine Robertson. She joins many other illustrious members and former members of this House, including the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, the Hon. Rick Colless, Sir Adrian Solomons, who was a member of this place when I was appointed to this House as a member of staff, and the 490 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003
Hon. Ian Sinclair, who was a member of this place many years ago. If the new members to this place are able to make as valuable contributions as each of those people have made, this place will certainly be richer for their presence. I certainly enjoyed listening to each of their first speeches over the past couple of days.
Not surprisingly, the Opposition cannot support the motion because it is based on a false premise. It begins by condemning the Howard Government for the crisis in university funding. On what possible basis can the Hon. Jan Burnswoods contend that there is a crisis in university funding? Indeed, the honourable member was not able to sustain such an argument. She said that she had originally placed the motion on the Notice Paper more than 12 months ago and that the motion had been changed very little. The honourable member is full of rhetoric. Clearly, in the past the motion was put on the Notice Paper as some sort of political stunt. Just as the community has rejected Federal Labor for its scaremongering tactics and these sorts of attacks, so we will reject this motion by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods on behalf of the Government. It is not correct to suggest that there is a crisis in university funding.
It seems that the argument being put forward by the Opposition is taken from the song sheet of the Federal Leader of the Opposition, Simon Crean. He has been wrong on this issue, as has the Hon. Jan Burnswoods in moving the motion. It seems that the honourable member has been reading too many of the media releases of Jenny Macklin, the Federal Opposition spokesperson and shadow Minister for Education, Science and Training, who has also been wrong on these issues, as I will demonstrate. None of what the Hon. Jan Burnswoods has said today suggests that she has done other than swallow the rhetoric that has been put forward and has discredited Federal Labor on this issue. Simon Crean, the Federal Leader of the Opposition, has for a considerable period made incorrect assertions about university funding. On 25 February this year he made the following statement on Queensland radio 4QR:
You know in the last six years there has not been one extra university place created. If, in fact, the pattern that I'd put in place had been kept by John Howard, we'd have 16,000 more places today—the whole of Australia—but 16,000 more.
If that sort of figure had not been achieved in the period since the Howard Government came to office in 1996, we might be able to talk about a crisis. But Simon Crean was wrong. His suggestion that not one extra university place was created is simply incorrect. If it were the case, it would have been a crisis. In fact, since 1996 the Howard Government has created 22,420 new, fully funded undergraduate places for Australian universities. This includes the additional places delivered in 2001 by the Prime Minister's innovation action plan Backing Australia's Ability. That package provided 2,000 additional university places each year from 2002 for Australian universities in the priority areas of science, mathematics, and information and communication technology.
So not only are there more places but there are more places in critical areas that matter to the future of Australia, such as science, mathematics, and information and communication technology. The honourable member has ignored these issues in her motion—the very issues that convince the Opposition that there is no crisis in public education. In fact one would think, if one was to believe the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, that the Commonwealth has provided very little funding for higher education. Approximately $6.7 billion in Commonwealth funds goes to the higher education sector each year. Add to that the $4 billion that the universities get from other sources and that sector effectively is receiving $11 billion. Where is the crisis in that? The sector is not in crisis. In fact, given its overall assets and revenue—$20 billion in net assets, $4.4 billion in liquid assets or funds, and an estimated $11.3 billion in revenue last year alone—the higher education sector has the capacity to do very well and be a world leader.
I do not suggest that there should not be changes and that the universities cannot do better. The Commonwealth Government has recognised that there should be changes and that is why we have had the most significant review of higher education. That is why discussion papers have been presented and an opportunity given for community input to the Government. But this issue is not about many of the elements of the motion of the honourable member; it is not about picking out a couple of universities to the detriment of the rest. That is simply wrong. There have been extraordinary assertions—nonsense, say my Opposition colleagues—coming from the Labor Party that suggest that the focus will be on only a couple of universities to the expense of others.
The Federal Opposition has engaged in scaremongering by suggesting that the Federal Government plans to direct its funding away from some institutions to only one or two big world-class institutions to get them in the top 100. That is not true. That has never been an issue that has been taken up by the Federal Minister; it has never been an issue that has been on our agenda. We want our universities to be the world's best, but we do not want to engage in cherry picking by saying, "We will give support here but we will not give support somewhere else." It is intended that there be reforms within the higher education sector but that does not mean there is a crisis. It is a recognition that we can do better. 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 491
The proposed reforms are intended to enable all institutions to maximise their potential and provide the best service to students, their community and to Australia as a whole. Who could disagree with that? I repeat, anybody who would suggest that universities are doing their best and cannot do better would be wrong. We do not say that. What we have said is that it has been appropriate to have a review because many things have happened that have impacted on our universities over a number of years. My personal view is that the Dawkins reforms, where we amalgamated a number of higher education institutions and created a vast array of universities across the nation, has not been and was never in the best interests of higher education in Australia. The reforms may well have given people access to universities but they may not have been in the best interests of students because probably far too many universities and far too many courses have been created.
While I do not have the figures in front of me, I recall a speech from the Federal Minister last year in which he highlighted the fact that there is a myriad of courses in Australia which are expensive, have a staff- student ratio better than one staff member to one student in many cases, but attract only a minute number of students. The honourable member mentions rising staff-student ratios in her motion, but she overlooks the fact that a myriad of courses in universities across Australia could be described as mickey mouse courses—highly funded courses that provide little mainstream education that would better advance the whole of Australia.
The Federal Government is absolutely right in putting some of those issues on the table for discussion. One concept is that anybody with a personal interest can, on a whim, create a course and assume that the course should be funded because it will generate broad interest and advance Australia as a nation. But at the end of the day this is not only about personal education and the advancement of each individual—or at least those of us who have or have had the privilege of attending a university—it also is about the community good. The community good is best served by ensuring that university funding is directed to support the majority of students in courses that are in the community's interests. If the honourable member had bothered to look through many of the courses that are in some of our universities, she could draw the conclusion that they are not necessarily going to advance the whole community. Indeed, if one compares the best practice outcomes from Australian universities with outcomes from other universities, one would have to ask whether we are being well served by the billions of dollars that we contribute annually to universities.
Given the commitment of research dollars, we should be able to expect from universities outcomes that go beyond pure research to commercial activity derived from that research. For example, most advances in medical science come from research within universities. But that principle also holds true in many other areas. Across 29 Australian universities surveyed in 2000, 38 commercial start-ups were recorded. While that was an increase of 40 per cent on the previous year, only two of our universities—the University of Queensland and the University of Sydney—approach international best performance.
When the honourable member talks about a crisis she should focus also on how universities are performing, a question that involves much more than dollars. The honourable member has missed an opportunity to talk about that issue. There may be issues about how universities are performing but the honourable member today missed a great opportunity to address a fundamental problem—the governance of our universities. I raised that point in this House recently when there was debate about the former Chancellor of the University of Sydney. The governance of universities was discussed and on that occasion I said it was ironic that the University of Tasmania was the university that had moved to the most modern approach. It had reduced the number of people on its council rather than keep the 30 to 50 members appointed to some university councils.
Yesterday this House passed a number of motions appointing parliamentary representatives to the councils of numerous universities, thus maintaining a long tradition well entrenched in legislation. Perhaps the Parliament should consider whether over the years those parliamentary representatives have attended meetings regularly, provided appropriate service and given proper scrutiny to the tasks they were allocated. Perhaps representation of parliamentarians on university councils and university governance should be reviewed. Governance and obtaining a proper return for research dollars may not be a matter of crisis but they highlight the fact that some changes are warranted. That is the reason for the Federal Government embarking on its extensive review. Reform is needed on a range of issues, such as the quality of teaching and learning, governance arrangements, specialisation and regional engagement, indigenous participation in higher education, university financing, and the interface between higher education and vocational education and training.
Two years ago the Minister was savagely attacked for suggesting the need for debate on this issue. Because of the way TAFE courses are presently structured, students may undertake a three-year course, and those who do well may receive the appropriate certificate and slip into an undergraduate course at university, thereby avoiding some of the HECS fees. The Minister merely highlighted that loophole, and he was right in 492 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003 doing so. The State Government is very good at cost shifting and I would have thought it would have pursued the matter. Certainly, the Federal Government need make no apology for reviewing the matter because honourable members would agree that differentiation, competition and flexibility are in the best interests of students and university teaching staff.
I believe that at the end of the day the mover of the motion and the Opposition all seek a robust, vibrant, higher education sector that will assist Australia to be at the forefront of learning and teaching. Australia as a society should benefit from a high education standard and its research should strive to be world's best practice. The Australian vice-chancellors committee and the Federal Minister are in agreement and a review is now taking place. However, universities must examine ways in which they, too, can make a contribution. What is wrong with commercial involvement? [Time expired.]
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.14 p.m.]: There is a crisis in public higher education in Australia, and I am amazed that the Opposition does not acknowledge it.
The Hon. Henry Tsang: You are speaking the truth now.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I always speak the truth. Some like it and some do not. It differs depending on what I am saying. I would like to quote some figures from "Higher Education in Australia: The Facts June 2002", which is from the business higher education round table and, therefore, not a lefty group. The Federal Government's contribution to universities is horrifying. The amount that universities were required to contribute increased from 22.5 per cent in 1988 to 35 per cent in 1999. The total dollars from the Federal Government to universities dropped in absolute terms from $4,772 million in 1994 to $4,463 in 2000.
The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Wrong.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: It is not wrong. It dropped $300 million in eight years. The student-teacher ratio in 1990 was 12.5 students per teacher but in 2000 the figure increased to 18.8. In 1984, 48 per cent of students worked full time during semester but that has increased now to 71 per cent.
The Hon. Rick Colless: That is because they are only doing 12 hours a week.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: The assumption is that study load is full time in order to reach the necessary expertise. University numbers have expanded, which means that the mean level of intelligence must also drop. For example, if the top 30 per cent of school-leavers now attend university, the mean is at the fifteenth percentile; when the top 10 per cent attended university, the mean was at the fifth percentile. If the opportunities for people to attend university increase—and I have no problem with that—the student population differs. Therefore, to maintain the standard of universities, teaching numbers must increase considerably, not decrease. I have a motion on the Notice Paper to a similar effect. A degree is worthwhile but some people are more intelligent than others. In order to provide equality universities must be resourced appropriately. One cannot simply have a one-size-fits-all solution and lower the standard for the top students. While it is good to increase the number of students, it does not necessarily give the best results. Certainly, the funding drop in absolute terms under the Howard Government is poor by any standard. That fact must be faced: a spade must be called a spade.
There is no point talking about world's best practice and other meaningless phrases that are bandied around—all they mean is that we have wonderful intentions—if it is not being delivered. Table 6 in the business roundtable paper on higher education in Australia shows that in 1992 the Federal teaching funds were $3,926 million, which was 56 per cent of total funding. That rose to $4,383 in 1995, but it was still only 52 per cent of total funding. In 1999 it dropped to $3,341. So the figure was less in 1999 than it was in 1992, and it was only 37 per cent of the total funding received. Clearly, that is an abdication of government commitment to universities. If one simply says that the Federal Government has reduced funding in absolute terms—leaving aside the consumer price index—clearly there has been a dereliction of resources put into higher education. That is of great concern if we talk about being a clever country and not merely a derivative economy.
That is extremely worrying because in the end intellectual capital will determine how Australia fares in the medium term. It is interesting that part of the funding is being taken up by corporate sponsors. As I said, the number of students working during term has increased dramatically. That has affected poorer demographic areas. Interestingly, the University of Western Sydney raises only 20.4 per cent of its funding, which is the 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 493 lowest percentage in New South Wales. That university has more difficulties because it is located in a relatively poor area. It is remarkable that the university has a chair of gaming funded by the club industry.
It might also be noted that the University of Sydney has a chair of nutrition, which I think was funded by a drug company. Indeed, I suspect it was the same drug company that made adifax as a weight loss drug, because at one time the professor of nutrition gave talks in which he said that adifax, which turned out to be methyl amphetamine, was not just another weight loss drug but also had a special, different mechanism of action. That professor, whom I had known for many years, was a person of high integrity. I think he believed what he was saying, but it was worrying. It is significant that adifax was withdrawn from sale in Australia. I must confess that I was not convinced by the evidence and I never prescribed adifax. Therefore, when the company representative told me to take my patients off adifax it did not take me long because I had not prescribed it for any of them.
Colgate sponsors the chair of dentistry at the University of Sydney, and Shell sponsors the chair of engineering at the University of New South Wales. It is a little worrying because my experience of universities in the field of medicine is that because drug companies sponsor conferences they are able to influence who is invited to them—invitees can be flown in from overseas and put up in a hotel at someone else's expense. That affects who attends the conferences and it affects their content, even those held on weekends by institutions or colleges supposedly dedicated to improving educational standards. The course content of weekend conferences is being influenced by the dollar, so it is important to have neutral information in the course content provided by universities.
I must admit that I went through university on my Commonwealth scholarship, which had a living allowance if I needed it. Indeed, I basically put myself through university in the later years because I did not want to be dependent on my parents. However, their income test meant that I was unable to get the living away from home allowance, which is probably perfectly reasonable. I do not have a problem with the idea of means testing. Another aspect of people working their way through university or being saddled with a huge Higher Education Contribution Scheme debt is that they consider that they have invested a certain amount of money and given away many years of their life to get a university degree and they now want that money back. Graduates with a degree such as medicine leave university with a huge debt and must earn a huge income to repay that debt. Therefore, they charge their patients a lot of money. That breeds the attitude that graduates will sell their expertise for the highest amount of money.
When I went through university my fees were paid. Effectively, the community gave me a university education, and I have tried in my life to give something back to the community. We must say that we are investing in our children for the benefit of society, and that society should get something back. Clearly, if the ethos of free education is undermined, the thinking of graduates will be affected. That aspect is often overlooked. It is being pound wise and penny foolish in terms of the type of world we want to build. As I said, participation rates among students have increased since 1990. In 1990, 64 per cent of students were retained to year 12; in 2000 the figure was 73.3 per cent. Higher education participation rates in 15-year-olds to 19-year- olds have risen from 44.2 per cent in 1990 to 49.8 per cent in 2000. So there has been a increase in the number of students. As I said, if we are to maintain the standards of universities, we must put more money into teaching.
I have received a copy of a letter from a student at the Hawkesbury campus of the University of Western Sydney, which is struggling. It came to the attention of the student during the holidays that the Hawkesbury campus psychology department had been closed. Teachers and staff returned from holidays to find that the contents of their offices had been packed in boxes in preparation for a proposed move to the Penrith campus. It was rumoured that a staff member had been made redundant and another staff member was on stress leave resulting from the associated pressure. The situation was untenable, causing anxiety, uncertainty and speculation among the students and staff of the Hawkesbury campus. The student who wrote the letter, which was given to Professor Wayne McKenna, said:
I am shocked. Following the uncertainty regarding the social science department during 2002 UWS reassured the students and teachers that there would be no changes to any department and we would be able to complete our degrees at the Hawkesbury campus unimpeded. Despite repeated attempts we are unable to obtain any factual information regarding this upheaval. To this date there has been no confirmation or information released to the students by the UWS. This silence and underhandedness is unfair and has effectively removed students from having the right of reply.
That is what has happened to the psychology students at the Hawkesbury campus. They will have to move from Richmond to Penrith to complete their studies. That will be difficult because the university has already given them an undertaking, and many people choose their subjects and courses based on their availability and 494 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003 timetables because they must fit their studies around jobs, families or other commitments. A change of rules halfway through a course is immensely difficult for students. In this House we have debated a motion to stop the closure of Seaforth TAFE and a motion to stop the sale of the St George campus of the University of New South Wales.
As governments put pressure on universities, universities try to realise their assets by flogging land— that well-known Australian way of getting money if one is in a tight financial position. I am concerned that higher education in Australia is being squeezed. It is absolutely absurd for Opposition members to pretend that it is not being squeezed. This motion must be supported because it is a fact that university funding is in crisis. The staff to student ratios are difficult, and the amount of casual work available is low because the labour market is becoming increasingly centralised. Students are doing it tough. HECS fees give students a huge debt at the end of their courses. It is a problem financially and causes students to think: I paid for my education so now I will get as much money as I can rather than think about giving back to society. This motion draws attention to a considerable social problem, and I support it.
The Hon. PETER BREEN [3.29 p.m.]: I am pleased to support the motion moved by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, which is essentially concerned with the funding crisis that currently afflicts higher education in this country. There can be no doubt that our universities are in crisis. The growing isolation from national decision making, reduced funding and increased student numbers have resulted in universities experiencing deteriorating conditions of teaching and learning. These developments pose a serious threat to the capacity of the higher education sector to achieve the outcomes needed to sustain Australia's economic and social development. While knowledge is increasingly recognised as a vital element of the global economy, in many ways universities remain undervalued and underappreciated.
Honourable members may be aware that in 2001 the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee conducted an inquiry into the capacity of public universities to meet Australia's higher education needs. The committee's report, released in September 2001, presents a less than favourable view of universities in this country and details many fundamental problems. The committee found that many of the pressures that universities are experiencing, such as administrative irregularities, breaches of professional ethics, victimisation and violations of academic freedom, were all symptoms of the Federal Government's failure to adequately fund these bodies. Further, the committee found that the Howard Government's crude funding cuts to universities, supposedly in an effort to make them more efficient, has continued to the point where they are causing long-term damage to the fabric of the higher education sector. This has reached a point where Australia's international reputation as a provider of quality higher education services is now being questioned.
As a representative on the council of the Newcastle university I have been constantly amazed at the interest in education in Australia from various parts of our region of the world. The numbers of international students attending our universities and the funding provided by their attendance are dramatically increasing. For example, at Newcastle university it is expected that by 2006 somewhere in the order of 40 per cent of the university's funding will come from international students. With the great interest from our region of the world in education—particularly education based on the western model that we have in New South Wales and Australia—the opportunity is there to tap into it in some way to create the funding that our education system so desperately needs.
I am not aware how many school buildings and tertiary institutions stand vacant today but whatever the number—and I am sure it is considerable—I ask honourable members to consider the lost opportunities these empty buildings represent. How many young people in Asia would gladly pay handsomely to receive an education in Australia? It seems to me we have the infrastructure, the buildings, and the skills—why not take advantage of them? With a small amount of imagination the Australian education system could be self-funding and our children and grandchildren could then enjoy the same privilege that our generation received: free education. This should not be a privilege limited to those of us who were educated a generation ago. Education ought to be a right as stated in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and numerous other international instruments. The right to education ought to be paramount in a prosperous country like Australia. We ought to be investing in the future of our young children, as the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield- Evans pointed out.
The Federal Government's overhaul of the higher education sector does little to improve the funding crisis in our education system. Under the $1.5 billion, five-year plan, which is due for release in this month's budget, it is expected that the Government will introduce more onerous regulations regarding the distribution of 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 495
Commonwealth funding. The new contract obligations will link Commonwealth support to government priorities such as industrial reform, enforcing defined times for degree completion and national teaching priorities. I understand that the Government may also abolish funding for over-enrolled places at public universities that now deliver $2,000 or one-fifth of the normal funding for every student they enrol on top of their quota.
The pressure on university students is an equally serious matter. The Government's proposed changes will also partially deregulate student fees, allowing universities to determine how much they charge for some courses. The clear direction of the policies of the Federal Government is towards providing opportunities and places at universities for those who can afford to pay. For those who cannot pay there will be no opportunities. It will be a case of: teach yourself or simply do not learn at all. The higher education contribution scheme [HECS], which has received quite a bit of press in the past few weeks, is in what I consider to be a state of serious crisis. According to the Sun-Herald last year, predictions are that the HECS debt will top $11 billion by 2005. This is an extraordinary debt for our young people to have to bear.
In my office upstairs is a former student who recently graduated from university. She is paying a proportion of her wage to the Government in HECS fees. Her debt is close to $20,000. It accrues interest each year, and a certain amount is deducted from her salary towards that debt each time she receives a pay cheque. The accrual of interest is just keeping pace with the amount that is deducted, so this debt hangs over that person's head day in, day out. Every student who graduates from university in Australia is saddled with a debt that they have to think about and plan for, and at some stage they have to work out how to repay it. That the HECS debt is likely to top $11 billion by 2005 is quite a frightening prospect. It seems to me that one day some prospective government will offer to wipe that debt. That seems to me to be a guaranteed way of getting into government in Canberra. What the cost of that will be—
The Hon. Rick Colless: Simon should try it.
The Hon. PETER BREEN: Someone should try it. Simon could do with something like that; he is not getting much else. If we could invent a new policy for Simon, it would be heroic. This HECS debt is something that the Federal Government and the Federal Opposition should think about. I cannot imagine the adverse effect it is having on our young people graduating from university—presumably the smarter end of our young people. For these young people to be constantly worried by that debt is most unsettling. None of us will benefit from people worrying about debts of this kind, and they are not small debts by any stretch of the imagination. With those few words I endorse the motion. I thank the Hon. Jan Burnswoods for moving it because it is an important motion and one I hope the House will support.
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [3.39 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods. I thank my research assistant, Jason Kara, for preparing a raft of information on this matter. I am very happy to provide references to any honourable members who are desirous of having them. Universities and the higher education sector are in crisis and this motion acknowledges that sad fact. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 18 November 2002 reported:
Since its first budget, the Howard Government has softened up the universities by accelerating the process of their long-term financial decline.
Since 1996 the real value of university operating funds from the Commonwealth, including the Higher Education Contribution Scheme [HECS], have fallen from $13,013 per student in 1996 to $11,840 in 2001—a cut of $1,173 per student. The loss of university funding of almost $1,200 per student translates in concrete terms to the loss of 20 hours of tutorials per year for each student, 10 hours of lectures per year for each student, and a professor for each 100 students. They cannot be provided because of the funding cuts; they are gone because of the cut of $1,200 per student. Student to teaching staff ratios, an important factor in determining the quality of education, rose from 14.5 to 19.9 between 1993 and 2001. This has led to serious workload and stress issues for teaching staff and increased pressure on departments to replace quality assessment practices with shoddy quick-to-mark practices.
Universities and staff have been hit hard by government plans for research funding. In a fairly blatant blackmail attempt the Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, intends to force academics onto Australian workplace agreements in return for research funding. This will affect over 42 per cent of academic staff, and it totally removes the basic tenet of academic merit determining research grants. The National Tertiary Education Union [NTEU] believes that "linking research grants to individual contracts would be nothing but an underhand and tricky means of lowering the working conditions of Australian university 496 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003 staff"—sneaky and tricky. The NTEU also argues that "Australian Workplace Agreements provide inferior conditions of employment for academic staff, precisely the reason why previous attempts by the government to introduce them in universities have failed". I suggest that without guaranteed funding based on merit these new proposals will lead to an exodus of researchers to better funded and high-quality universities overseas. This brain drain will be detrimental to all levels of society and Australia should not have to bear it.
At the same time that the Federal Government is reducing the quality and depth of higher education it is asking students to pay more and more. The Productivity Commission report "University Resourcing: Australia in an International Context" has shown that Australian universities are more reliant on student fees than overseas institutions are. Direct contributions by students here are significantly higher than those in the United States of America. Our contribution as a percentage of our gross domestic product is also amongst the lowest in the Western world. By 30 June 2003 students and graduates in Australia will owe more than $9 billion to the Commonwealth Government for the cost of their HECS fees. The Government appears likely to deregulate fees, which will mean some universities will increase fees by up to 25 per cent. The gap between the HECS and the HECS plus top-up fee will be covered by some form of new universal loans scheme. Information leaked to the press regarding the contents of the package indicates that the Government is proposing to charge market interest on loans for the deregulated component of the fee package.
This proposal is borrowed from the New Zealand model. Since 1992 students there have been charged an interest rate on loans for the whole of their student fees. Evidence from New Zealand has shown high student debt levels impacting on graduate life choices, in particular in relation to childbearing and marriage, establishing businesses, paying for health care, purchasing first homes, and making provisions for retirement and superannuation. Students from low socioeconomic status groups, regional and isolated students and those with indigenous backgrounds still suffer significant education disadvantage today. These charges will make them more unlikely to attempt tertiary study because of the debt burdens they would face. Perhaps the worst thing to come of this is that the Federal Government is lying about its higher education policy, and it is lying about the extent of government funding. An example was highlighted by the National Tertiary Education Union on 12 March of this year. The Federal Government claimed that students pay only 25 per cent of their costs, with taxpayers covering the other 75 per cent. The union highlighted that research published by the Federal education Minister's own department in 1999 showed that student contributions varied considerably depending on the degree in which they were enrolled, ranging from 26 per cent for agriculture and animal husbandry students through to 80 per cent for law students.
The misleading and deceptive statements by the Federal Government are designed to hide the devastating effects of the budget cuts that I have mentioned. As I said at the start of my speech, the Howard Government has softened up the universities by accelerating the process of their long-term financial decline. Simon Marginson, a professor of education at Monash University, has shown that public funding of teaching and learning at universities has fallen from over $12,000 a student in 1977 to about $5,000 today. In 1983, 90 per cent of university funding came from the Government; in 1999 it was less than 50 per cent. I fully support the motion to condemn the Howard Government for the crisis in university funding and commend the Hon. Jan Burnswoods for moving it in this House.
The Hon. IAN WEST [3.47 p.m.]: Before speaking in support of the motion I add my congratulations to those of other members for Sylvia Hale, Tony Burke and Christine Robertson on their inaugural speeches. The motion condemns the Howard Government for the deliberately induced crisis in university funding. There is no doubt that the Government's actions have been well thought out. The Federal Government has shown a similar pattern with its actions with the financial and banking sector and Medicare. John Howard's theme is to introduce a two-tiered, user-pays system versus welfare. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe suggested that we do not have a crisis. She went through the usual smoke and mirrors exercise, not comparing apples with apples but speaking about places versus funding. Previous speakers from this side have illustrated that the clear funding reductions since 1996 have been horrendous.
The Hon. Patricia Forsythe says, tongue in cheek, that the crisis has not occurred since 1996. It is obvious for all to see. The deregulation process behind this exercise is blatant. The honourable member wants to reduce the number of Legislative Council representatives on university councils. I am extremely proud to have been appointed as a representative of this House on the Macquarie University Council. I will attend every meeting that I can and take an interest in ensuring that the effects of the Federal Government's actions in further deregulating education and reducing funding to universities is highlighted and that people are aware of it.
Paragraph (b) of the motion notes the reduction in university operating grants since 1994 despite an increase in enrolments since that time. Figures released by the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee show 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 497 that 53,925 qualified Australians could not get a university place in 2002. That represents a 33 per cent increase in unmet demand for university places since 2001. The most recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] study found that the number of young adult Australians obtaining bachelor degrees in 1999 had fallen by 27 per cent. Paragraph (c) of the motion states that this House:
… deplores the threat to quality teaching due to the rising student to teacher ratio, the loss of full time staff and the increase in casual staff.
It is obvious from the figures that the student-to-teacher ratio increased from 15 in 1993 to 20 in 2001. It is fundamental that that has led to a reduction in the quality of teaching. Even I can understand that. The decrease in the number of full-time staff and the increasing casualisation of staff has exacerbated the ratio problem. One does not need to be Einstein to work out that staff are having great difficulty coming to grips with their lack of job security and that their ability to teach is continually eroded as a result. Paragraph (d) of the motion states that this House:
… views with concern the increase in student payments from $690 million in 1994 to $1,006 million in 2003, so that Australian students now carry a burden that is high by international standards.
We are far below the OECD average for world's best practice. Australia is a high student fee, low private graduate benefit country. Australian university graduates earn 36 per cent more than their countrymen with secondary school qualifications. By comparison, graduates in other OECD countries earn, on average, 60 per cent more than their less qualified countrymen. Australian students pay higher fees than students in almost all other OECD countries. They now directly contribute 30 per cent of overall university revenue in fees: 18 per cent in higher education contributions, 2 per cent in postgraduate fees, and 10 per cent in international student fees. That compares unfavourably with the 19 per cent paid by their counterparts in public universities in the United States of America, and is slightly more than the 28 per cent paid by students in private, not-for-profit universities in the United States.
It is obvious that, as the motion states, through this deregulation process the Federal Government is ensuring that the social and intellectual capital of Australian universities is continually downgraded. It is chipping away at it year after year. As a council member of the Macquarie University, which is in the Prime Minister's electorate, I was interested to read today in the Northern District Times an article stating:
HIGH achieving students may miss out on a place at Macquarie University after it was revealed the university received less Commonwealth funding last year than most Australian universities.
New figures showed Macquarie University received the second lowest amount of funding per student in the country in 2002.
While the average funding per full-time student in Australian universities was $11,004, Macquarie University students received just $9,267 …
Macquarie University vice chancellor, Di Yerbury … said the university was keeping afloat by postgraduate fee-paying programs and enrolling fee-paying international students.
"We are still being funded as if we hadn't changed from what we were doing 20 years ago."…
Ms Yerbury said students wanting to gain admission to the university needed UAI scores of 90 and above for every course.
That is an absolute disgrace, given that the university is in the middle of the Prime Minister's electorate. If we do not do anything about this funding crisis, the intellectual and social capital of our country will drop below the critical mass, and that will result in increased criminal activity. We all know what the end result will be. I commend the motion to the House.
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [4.00 p.m.], in reply: I wish first to congratulate the Hon. Christine Robertson. I am pleased that my motion provided her with the opportunity to deliver her inaugural speech—and what a fine speech it was. We welcome her presence. I am also pleased that during the debate the Hon. Tony Burke was able to take the chair for the first time, following his equally fine inaugural speech yesterday. I thank all members who contributed to the debate on the motion, particularly my Government colleagues the Hon. Peter Primrose and the Hon. Ian West, and the two crossbench members who supported the motion, the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans and the Hon. Peter Breen.
I am glad the Hon. Patricia Forsythe contributed to the debate. However, her contribution puzzled and worried me somewhat and I would like to address a few matters raised by her. I suppose it is not surprising that 498 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003 the Hon. Patricia Forsythe felt the need to defend her Federal Liberal Party colleagues, particularly the Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson. Nevertheless, as was clear from her brief contribution, she faced an uphill battle in trying to defend the indefensible. It is an indictment of the Opposition in this place that it had only one speaker in an important debate on the future of higher education.
The Hon. Patricia Forsythe said, unbelievably, that Brendan Nelson had never wanted to cherry pick with regard to favouring some universities. Such a remark would, I am sure, come as a great surprise to the overwhelming majority of universities in Australia. As I said, I looked forward to hearing the contributions of National Party members but, unfortunately, there were not any. It was the former Minister for Education and Training, John Watkins, and his Labor ministerial colleagues who, at the ministerial council held in Auckland late last year, persuaded the Ministers there to force the Federal Government, reluctantly, to accept the need for a rural and regional impact statement to be included in the package being developed by Brendan Nelson. If the Hon. Patricia Forsythe really thinks that Brendan Nelson was never engaged in cherry picking I suggest she read the New South Wales Government's submission and look back over some of the media stories and other reports from last year.
Symbolic of a great deal of the Liberal Party's thinking about universities, the Hon. Patricia Forsythe floated the idea that the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly should no longer have representatives on university boards and councils. Her argument may or may not have been out of order, on the basis that it reflected on a decision of the House made only yesterday. Perhaps more significantly, the argument suggests that the philosophical direction being taken by the Opposition in this place, as well as by the Howard Government, is essentially the privatisation of our universities. It is no coincidence at all that since the Howard Government was elected in 1996 we have seen a massive drop in government funding, as evidenced by the figures the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans put on the record.
We have seen a shift away from public funding and support for universities, and towards intense pressure for both private funding, through students and their families, and corporate funding, through the demands for universities to seek sponsorship—sometimes quite dodgy sponsorship—for individual chairs and departments, and to set up their own corporate structures to market their research and other services. Only last year the State Government found it necessary, following scandals associated with, I think, the University of Melbourne, to very much strengthen the university governance clauses because of the way in which universities, in their desperate bid to seek a dollar, were in many cases making bad commercial decisions and therefore losses.
I was so struck by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe's comments about Brendan Nelson's alleged support for TAFE and the training sector, as distinct from the university part of the higher education sector, that I interjected upon her. It is good to see a Federal Minister offering support for TAFE, but not if that means attempting to shift students away from the somewhat higher-cost university sector and into the relatively low-cost TAFE sector. Of course, the very same Federal Minister has consistently floated the idea of introducing Higher Education Contribution Scheme fees for TAFE.
Again it is evident that every one of the ideas floated by the Federal Government is designed to remove government funding, public funding, and support for universities and to establish a privatised and multi-tiered system of elite universities and other kinds of universities, such as those in the United States of America. In that context, it is utter nonsense for the Hon. Patricia Forsythe to accuse me and other Government members of believing in some kind of one-size-fits-all philosophy. In my contribution I stressed the special role—the special mission, if you like—of a university such as the University of Western Sydney. I emphasised that that role was different from the role of country universities such as the University of New England or Charles Sturt University, different again from the role of regional city universities such as Wollongong and Newcastle universities, and that, in turn, the role of city universities was different from the roles of the well-established metropolitan universities such as Sydney and New South Wales universities.
I strongly believe that there must be variety and differentiation, but not by creating well-off, elite universities for the sons and daughters of rich families and overseas fee-paying students, while other universities are left to take students who cannot afford to go to the expensive universities with the elite research institutes, undergraduate degrees and postgraduate courses.
I wish to return to a couple of points I made in spelling out the seven separate aspects of my motion. First I refer to the situation faced by students and their families. I congratulate the National Union of Students on the material it has prepared in opposition to what the Federal Government is doing, some of which I quoted 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 499 earlier. I believe that the union of students has drawn attention to the financial burden placed on university students and their families now and into the future. The union has also done a good job of drawing attention to some of the hidden niceties in the Nelson proposals. I refer, for example, to the extremely repressive industrial relations proposals that have been floated in the Crossroads documents.
The Hon. Ian West referred to funding for Macquarie University. When the Vice-Chancellor of Macquarie University is forced to go to the media about the catastrophic problems facing her university, which is in the Prime Minister's electorate, I do not believe that much more evidence is required to establish the dreadful things the present Federal Government has done to our universities. To quote the National Union of Students again: Under the Howard Government and Minister Brendan Nelson we are in grave danger of turning the clever country into the clueless country.
Motion agreed to.
AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE FOR HEALTH, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT ABROAD
The Hon. IAN WEST [4.10 p.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(a) congratulates Australian People for Health, Education and Development Abroad (APHEDA), the overseas humanitarian aid agency of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), also known as Union Aid Abroad, for its work in international aid and development and skills training projects for workers in South-East Asia, the Pacific, Southern Africa and the Middle East,
(b) notes APHEDA's commitment to social justice and human rights since its establishment in 1984 by the ACTU through direct contributions to countries and regions of the world where men and women workers are disadvantaged through poverty, lack of human and workplace rights and civil conflict,
(c) recognises APHEDA's rights-based approach through its Union Aid Abroad program in building self-reliance for workers, their organisations and communities,
(d) supports APHEDA's efforts to eradicate poverty and achieve human rights as well as lift standards of corporate governance, public accountability and financial management,
(e) supports APHEDA's commitment to social justice and international solidarity for human rights and development by its support of education, training and development projects, working in partnership with those whose rights to development are restricted or denied,
(f) commends APHEDA's work in East Timor, where, with the support of Australian Unions such as the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union (LHMU), the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU), the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union (CEPU), the Independent Education Union (IEU), the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) and others, together with building companies, training bodies and AusAID, a program of vocational training, community media development, capacity building for local community organisations and assistance to the University of East Timor library is being undertaken, and
(g) commends APHEDA's long-term commitment to development in countries such as Cambodia, where the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union (LHMU), the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA), the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU) and others, together with AusAID, have trained more than 2,000 disadvantaged women each year for over 10 years in employment skills or income generating skills so they can have access to a better life.
The Australian People for Health, Education and Development Abroad [APHEDA] was set up by the ACTU in 1984. Its resumé includes projects in more than 15 of the most needy countries in the world, including Cambodia, East Timor and Vietnam, and in places such as Iraq and Palestine. It has three offices. Its major office is in Sydney, it has a small office in Canberra, and its international office is in Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
APHEDA assists with many of these projects by providing financial and technical help to local unions and community-based organisations it is able to make contact with. APHEDA's vision is for unions and communities to work internationally to eradicate poverty and achieve human rights. APHEDA does this by working with local partnerships and local organisations to help them in various ways, such as with dental, childcare, health and education programs, with reading and writing, and by focusing on the difficulties that local fledgling communities have in ensuring that the technical skills of, particularly, their young are such that they are able to participate in, and be citizens of, their community.
The programs are many and varied around the world. In Kmua Buka, East Timor, the APHEDA program supports literacy, management and vocational skills for workers, targeting the poor, women and ex- 500 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003 combatants. It provides carpentry classes. The program has enabled 400 women to attend literacy classes to enable them to communicate in their own language. For the first time in East Timor a local university has been equipped with a library full of books. A community radio has been set up, with a mobile radio station that travels around various communities and asks ex-combatants, in particular, to talk about their experiences.
APHEDA has supported the Cuban Children's Fund since 1999. It was set up to assist the William Soler Paediatric and Cardiac centre in Havana to help care for children with cardiac problems. It has proven extremely helpful in providing intensive care ventilators, defibrillators and dental X-ray machines. For the first time in many years a number of young children have had their teeth properly cared for. Labour rights training for women workers in the garment industry has been set up in Cambodia. Approximately 200,000 people are working in the country's largest industry, earning $US1.50 for a seven-hour day. The program informs workers of their rights and challenges breaches of that country's labour code.
Another success that APHEDA should be congratulated on is its HIV-AIDS education and support program in places such as Zimbabwe. A quarter of the 15 to 45-year-old population there are thought to have HIV-AIDS, and by 2010 it is predicted that the average life expectancy there will be just over 30 years of age. APHEDA is working with the Zimbabwe Council of Trade Unions, an organisation with a history in HIV-AIDS campaigns. Through local links, local union officials are being trained to greater educate their members about HIV-AIDS, and APHEDA is providing material in three languages to help inform members how they can provide support for sufferers.
In South Africa, between 2.2 million and 2.5 million adult women have HIV-AIDS, and thousands are contracting the disease daily. The work of APHEDA with the National Movement of Rural Women has been an extremely important exercise in that country. I am pleased to have this opportunity to move the motion congratulating APHEDA and affiliated organisations on their fantastic work in helping those who are disadvantaged in many countries around the world.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [4.20 p.m.]: On behalf of the Coalition I speak in support of the motion. The Opposition congratulates the Australian People for Health, Education and Development Abroad [APHEDA] for its international aid work in South-East Asia, the Pacific, South Africa and the Middle East. The Opposition's record is there for all to see. We have always supported all Australian organisations that seek to give assistance to the disadvantaged in Third World countries and this motion is a continuation of that support.
I will make the Opposition's position clear and my contribution to this debate will be brief. The comments of the Hon. Ian West would be supported by all members of this Chamber. Many worthy organisations throughout the country are involved in similar pursuits as APHEDA, such as World Vision, Red Cross, Community Aid Abroad, church groups and other organisations. They deserve the support of the House and the continuing support of the Australian people. They perform an outstanding task in bringing assistance and succour to the less fortunate. This motion will pass with the full support of the House. It is a shame that the Hon. Jan Burnswoods will not participate in the debate and make a positive contribution for a change. Nonetheless, the Opposition congratulates the Hon. Ian West on moving this worthy motion.
I note that the Hon. Ian West referred to East Timor and the important role that this House played in the debate leading to the independence of East Timor. It would be remiss of me not to mention the contribution of the Hon. Janelle Saffin, as a representative of this Chamber and in her personal pursuit to bring independence to the people of East Timor. I also take this opportunity to congratulate the man who led the international commitment on behalf of Australia to free the people of East Timor, the Prime Minister, John Howard. If the Prime Minister had been a member of the Australian Labor Party, they would have turned him into a national icon. Because he is a Liberal, he has not been given the support and acclamation he deserves. I assure honourable members that the Coalition acknowledges the role John Howard played in East Timor.
Looking at the history of East Timor, no less an authority than Laurie Brereton pointed out that it was Gough Whitlam back in 1974 who gave the green light to the Indonesians to invade East Timor, but it was the Australian Prime Minister John Howard who gave the support to ensure the independence of the people of East Timor. It is worth putting that fact on the record. The trade union movement is in a position to actively contribute to democracy in Africa and Asia. The Coalition will continue to encourage trade unions to ensure that those less fortunate have their support so that they can enjoy democracy as we do.
The union movement should also be involved in Zimbabwe so that its people may share in the freedom enjoyed by others around the world. They have been ground under the heel of President Mugabe and I urge the 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 501 union movement to take a stronger role in that country. When the Hon. Ian West reports back to his Labor Council friends and to organisations such as the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, he should call upon them support the people of Zimbabwe.
[Interruption]
The Hon. Peter Primrose reminds me that the current Opposition leader in Zimbabwe is a former head of the union movement over there. So he, too, is supportive of the union movement taking a much stronger role in Zimbabwe and getting behind that Opposition leader in that country to ensure that their quest for freedom is continued. My colleague in the other place the honourable member for Gosford met with trade officials in Zimbabwe in 1998. Upon his return to Australia he discussed the issue with the current Minister for Transport Services, the Hon. Michael Costa, in his then capacity as Secretary of the Labor Council. To his credit he agreed that more could be done in Zimbabwe to assist the unions with their struggle for union rights and democracy.
I look forward to the Hon. Michael Costa outlining at length exactly what he has done since that meeting with the honourable member for Gosford back in 1998 to ensure that the people of Zimbabwe have a taste of freedom. Australians who provide aid and assistance to disadvantaged countries should be applauded. Often we do not realise how fortunate we are to live in this country. It is wonderful to see Australians providing this kind of assistance to those less fortunate.
The Hon. TONY BURKE [4.28 p.m.]: I am pleased to join the Hon. Ian West in speaking in support of the motion. At the outset, I note that there is probably a reason for the Hon. Jan Burnswoods not contributing to the debate. The case study she referred to during last night's adjournment debate relating to a school program was an APHEDA [Australian People for Health, Education and Development Abroad] project. So in terms of a commitment to ensuring that these issues are raised, I think that was well and truly made in the adjournment debate last night.
There are three important principles of organisation with which APHEDA runs: justice and solidarity; self-reliance, not charity; and being union based. I want to focus on the principle of self-reliance, not charity. This is complementary to the work of charity organisations and is in no way a criticism of the work they provide. Part of the solution to problems, particularly among working people in a range of nations, is the old principle of teaching people to fish rather than providing them with fish, the principle of helping people to organise, and helping to ensure that employees are organised in countries around the world. Therefore, the work done by APHEDA, union members, the Australian Council of Trade Unions [ACTU] and individual unions, supported by AusAID, works to this end.
I shall focus on one area in which APHEDA has done tremendous work, that is, child labour. This is also complementary to what was raised last night by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods. It is easy for us simply to say that child labour is wrong. It is worthwhile to look at the impact of child labour and at what the solution involves. First, child labour is wrong because it is extraordinarily dangerous for the young people caught up in it. Secondly, child labour operates to the exclusion of education—and it is simply the case that the young people involved are spending their days at a workplace rather than in a classroom. Finally, child labour contributes to unemployment.
[Interruption]
I assure the Leader of the Opposition that while I was on the paper run I was not missing school of a Saturday or Sunday. Child labour contributes to unemployment for adults in that the young person is taking a job that otherwise would have been provided to an adult. The International Labour Organisation [ILO] has a number of core labour standards that include specific references to child labour. One more recent acknowledgement was that while child labour is always wrong, some aspects of it are particularly offensive, and are referred to as the worst forms of child labour. For this reason, the ILO Convention 182 calls for an end to bonded or slave labour, dangerous and hazardous work, and child labour involving very young children, with a particular call for the immediate end to child labour involving sexual exploitation. In a question put on the Federal Parliament notice paper Robert McClelland asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs:
Which OECD member Governments have not ratified Convention 182 regarding the Worst Forms of Child Labour.
The answer was that, fortunately, only one OECD member government has not ratified the convention. Unfortunately, that one member government is Australia. I turn now to some of the work on child labour in India. I want to talk about India because in that country children as young as four commence work in the child labour industry. Although the life expectancy of people doing hazardous work does drop, in some industries in 502 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003
India life expectancy has dropped to 14 years. That means that 14 years becomes the average life expectancy of some children involved in these industries. The project that APHEDA has undertaken for child labourers in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Punjab is different from what a charity would do. Nonetheless the project is equally important, and potentially will have greater longevity. First, it is creating awareness in the community about child labour; and, secondly, it is motivating parents to send their children to school. In these communities there is opportunity for children to go to school but motivation and awareness among parents requires specific projects, and APHEDA is proud to be involved.
Thirdly, the project is providing up-front basic preparatory education on formal lines. Not only is education being provided but it is being provided initially in the open air. The reality of education in the open air in India is that the temperature can reach 50 degrees, so APHEDA has been working to provide shelter so that the education provided will be much more effective. APHEDA is also involved in lobbying government to provide schools in the relevant districts. Importantly, it is encouraging and indeed has worked as a catalyst for trade union membership in parts of India. Child labour is less of a problem in well-unionised areas than in unregulated areas. For those reasons I am proud to support the work that APHEDA does, and I am proud to support the motion. I hope that the time is not too far away when our national Government sees fit to ratify Convention 182 so that what is being done on the ground can be mirrored by what we do officially as a nation.
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [4.35 p.m.]: I too add my name as a supporter of the motion moved by the Hon. Ian West. APHEDA-Union Aid Abroad is the overseas humanitarian aid agency of the ACTU and was founded in 1984. Almost all Australian national unions and their State branches are members of APHEDA [Australian People for Health, Education and Development Abroad], as well as all State labour councils, many regional labour councils and several hundred individual union members, including myself. APHEDA-Union Aid Abroad directly supports training projects in education, health and vocational skills training in developing countries. Many of APHEDA's projects are designed to strengthen community development and human rights, including workers' rights, and to help communities organise around these important issues.
On behalf of Australian workers, APHEDA is helping skills training for disadvantaged workers and refugees in South-East Asia, the Pacific, the Middle East and southern Africa. Last year APHEDA-Union Aid Abroad assisted more than 50 training projects undertaken with 42 separate project partners in 12 countries. Funding for APHEDA-Union Aid Abroad is provided by an annual grant from the ACTU, sponsorship of overseas projects by many unions, donations from many individual members of trade unions, and grants, won on a competitive basis, from AusAID. While approximately two-thirds of APHEDA-Union Aid Abroad's overseas projects involve skills training in what would be considered humanitarian areas of development, such as training community health workers in Vietnam or employment skills training for disadvantaged women in Cambodia or Kampuchea, approximately one-third of APHEDA's projects are in the area of workplace human rights.
These projects vary from directly assisting the establishment of unions and the training of union organisers and delegates in Kampuchea, East Timor and Indonesia to occupational health and safety training and child labour projects in the Philippines, assisting unions to educate members about HIV-AIDS prevention in Vietnam and literacy training for union workplace delegates in South Africa. APHEDA-Union Aid Abroad has always considered that strengthening workplace human rights is an important element of strengthening our wider human rights, and one of the most effective ways of strengthening workplace human rights is to strengthen independent and democratic trade unions.
I refer specifically to the sorts of submissions APHEDA has made to a range of inquiries to try to strengthen and implement its objectives, for instance, the Public Inquiry into Australia's Relationship with the World Trade Organisation. APHEDA-Union Aid Abroad made a submission to that inquiry to support a rules- based system which encourages trade between countries. However, in order to ensure that the global economic growth reaches the workers in developing countries who create this wealth and the poor in developing countries who are in greatest need, minimum labour standards need to be observed by all who participate in international trade. The logical place to situate a set of rules or a code of minimum labour standards is in the World Trade Organisation, working in conjunction with the International Labour Organisation. According to APHEDA, to depict minimum labour standards as being a form of hidden protectionism for industrialised countries is missing the point.
One of the essential prerequisites for several hundred million workers in developing countries is to be able to win their just share of the global wealth. For a country to deny its workers minimum labour standards, especially the right to organise and bargain collectively, is to allow and even encourage its workers to be exploited. This is a form of protectionism to companies by offering them an indirect subsidy paid for by their 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 503 own workers. As we all know, subsidies are not supposed to exist under the World Trade Organisation's level playing field philosophy. Furthermore, APHEDA-Union Aid Abroad calls for a more transparent and more inclusive World Trade Organisation to avoid the commonly held perception that it is just a rich man's club only interested in improving the conditions and profitability of companies. In conclusion, I again endorse the motion moved by the Hon. Ian West and congratulate APHEDA on its great work.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [4.40 p.m.]: I have great delight in supporting the motion of the Hon. Ian West. I believe the work of Australian People for Health, Education and Development Abroad [APHEDA] sets a very good example of the way in which organisations in this country do not have a focus just on their core activities. The union movement in Australia, apart from being strongly involved in ensuring that workers are given a fair deal, get a decent wage and have safe working conditions, also takes it upon itself to make sure that it provides assistance and support to the people in need in Third World countries.
The range of projects APHEDA is involved in is not the ordinary range of activities one might expect to find. One particular project that APHEDA was involved in and which I thought was very good was trying to ensure the retention of native languages in East Timor. Under the former Indonesian administration, native languages were not promoted and Indonesian was taught in schools. APHEDA had a strong role in supporting the project, which ensured that young children in schools in East Timor were given the textbooks and storybooks in their native languages and that that cultural strength was reinforced. APHEDA is involved in many other projects that are very worthwhile, but that particular project took my attention. I try to support APHEDA in what small ways I can. I support its fundraising initiatives and, like many other Labor members in both Chambers, I try to support APHEDA by sending out its Christmas cards. That is one of its major fundraising initiatives.
The Hon. John Hatzistergos: So do I.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: The Minister for Justice advises me that he uses APHEDA Christmas cards as well. They are high-quality products. They use art from indigenous communities in Australia and from countries where APHEDA is supporting aid projects. The cards also always have one old trade union banner. I find those trade union banners are a significant link with our ties to the union movement and the working movement. That is the particular Christmas card I choose to use. I am pleased to spend my money on APHEDA because I know that profits go to support overseas aid. I know the people who work in the APHEDA office. If you give money to that organisation you can be assured that the bare minimum is spent on administrative expenses. I am pleased to support the Hon. Ian West's project. Unlike some members opposite, who may think it is odd to support a charity by buying its Christmas cards, I do not. That is a very practical and worthwhile way to support projects.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The honourable member is trying to verbal the Opposition. At no stage did any member of the Opposition mention anything about it being odd to buy Christmas cards from a charity. Quite the opposite—most of our members buy Christmas cards from charities.
The Hon. Peter Primrose: What is your point of order?
The Hon. Duncan Gay: The point of order is that the honourable member said that we said it—and we did not say it at all.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: To the point of order: I was responding to interjections from the Hon. John Ryan. I suggest that if he believes he was not interjecting he should make his comments to his fellow members in a lower tone of voice. If I can hear them enough that they interrupt my speech, I consider them to be interjections.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: I ask the honourable member to withdraw. It is quite obvious no member of the Opposition made any inference about buying Christmas cards from a charity. As I indicated, many of us, myself included, buy Christmas cards from a charity—although not necessarily the same group that the honourable member uses—to help charity work. It is a laudable thing to do and to infer that we find it appalling is just wrong. I ask the honourable member to withdraw those comments.
The Hon. John Hatzistergos: To the point of order: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is now asking the honourable member to withdraw. First, the point of order should be dealt with, and I submit there is no point of order. 504 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003
The PRESIDENT: Order! As I have ruled on many occasions, interjections are disorderly at all times.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: There weren't any interjections.
The PRESIDENT: Order! If members feel they have been misrepresented, they may seek to make a personal explanation at the appropriate time.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is disgraceful.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Madam President, I will not withdraw that. You are disgraceful.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: In concluding my comments on the good work of APHEDA, I advise that when I referred to comments made by the Opposition, I said that some people may think it is odd to buy Christmas cards to support a charity, but I do not. I find it strange that some people would take exception to that comment.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: Once again I ask the honourable member to withdraw those comments. It is quite obvious that no member of the Opposition whatsoever made those comments.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: If members opposite are so distressed by my comments, to allow debate to continue I will happily withdraw them. I will leave it up to people who read Hansard to make a judgment on the debate that has taken place this afternoon. I commend to the Chamber the motion of the Hon. Ian West and I suggest that anyone who is not sure what has taken place this afternoon read Hansard and inform themselves.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.49 p.m.]: I am pleased to support the motion moved by the Hon. Ian West, which relates to the works of Australian People for Health, Education and Development Abroad [APHEDA] and the versatility of the union movement. Perhaps the activities of APHEDA expand the view of many members of the House about what unions do and can achieve. Sometimes we focus on a picket line in Sydney or something involving a particular industry and we lose sight of some of the good and practical help that has been provided by the overseas aid arm of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It is important for Australia through any activity, including union activity, to assist nations in the Asia-Pacific area. APHEDA has been operating 60 projects in the Pacific, Southeast Asia, Cambodia, Vietnam, South Africa and the Middle East. The projects are implemented in partnership with local organisations. They have all been achieved through 10 full-time and part-time staff based in Sydney's Trades Hall, a small office in Canberra and one overseas office in Cambodia.
Cambodia suffered destruction of all its institutions during the Pol Pot regime. It is important for us to assist the Cambodians in the reconstruction process by training people for employment and forming trade unions so that workers have an organisation that can work on their behalf. All of us have read reports about Asian countries where union movements are weak or ineffective, where there is a great deal of exploitation of workers, sometimes even children, to the stage almost of slave labour.
The activities of APHEDA include the interchange of ideas and visits by union leaders. APHEDA emphasises the training of people who can then train others in their own communities. So not only do they retain their skills for a lifetime; they also pass on their knowledge to others in their community. This is a long-term and very cost-efficient aid whereby a small amount of money can have an effect for decades. I will not repeat comments I have made previously about the origin of the union movement. A small band of workers in England formed the first unions or associations to protest at their exploitation because they simply wanted food for their families. With the tremendous development in unions over the years they now play a major role in our society. We are pleased to support the motion.
The Hon. IAN WEST [4.53 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Hon. Peter Primrose, the Hon. Amanda Fazio, the Hon. Anthony Burke, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Leader of the Opposition for their support of the motion and their contributions to the debate. The motion congratulates, notes, recognises, supports and commends the Australian Council of Trade Unions [ACTU] and Australian People for Health, Education and Development Abroad [APHEDA]. The Leader of the Opposition referred to Zimbabwe. If he reads my speech tomorrow, he will find that I also referred to Zimbabwe. In Zimbabwe APHEDA has the Workplace HIV Education and Support Program. In Zimbabwe a quarter of the population between the ages of 15 and 45 have 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 505
HIV and it is predicted that by 2010 the average life expectancy will be just above 30 years. APHEDA is working with the Zimbabwe Council of Trade Unions, an organisation with a history in HIV-AIDS campaigns, to train local union officers to greater educate their members and to allocate resources to workshops and to provide material in three different languages to help inform people about how support can be given to sufferers of that most horrific and insidious disease. I commend the motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Postponement of Business
Private Members' Business item No. 5 outside the Order of Precedence called on, and postponed on motion by the Hon. David Oldfield.
FAMILY IMPACT COMMISSION BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.57 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
We are now recommencing debate on this very important bill, the Family Impact Commission Bill. It has been before this House a number of times. I first gave notice of it on 23 May 1991, which is nearly 12 years ago. It was introduced into this Chamber on 26 October 1995 and then reintroduced on 11 April 2002. So it has had a long history. The bill is unique in that it was passed by the House at the second reading stage and referred to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice to report back to the House, which it did after an extensive inquiry. The committee canvassed evidence for and against the bill—most of the important evidence favoured the bill—and, perhaps differently from other committees, the committee reported the results to the House without making any recommendations one way or the other about the future of the bill. The committee decided that it would be best to refer the bill back to the House for the wisdom and judgment of the House. I accepted that decision as preferable to the committee rejecting the bill or presenting a negative report, which it did not.
This is a unique situation. I appreciate the opportunity that we are given as members of the House to introduce private members' bills and to seek, through presenting the arguments in favour of the bill, to win the support of the majority of honourable members. Bills cannot be passed unless they attract the support of the majority. Perhaps this bill should be the subject of a conscience vote, because it touches on issues of conscience in the same manner as euthanasia, abortion and the age of consent. I sense from the tenor of previous debates on this similar legislation that we are dealing with issues of conscience. This bill raises questions about members' values, what they regard as a family in our society and what they would like to see done to support the traditional family.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.
JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE INTO THE TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE OF NUCLEAR WASTE
The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:
The Legislative Assembly informs the Legislative Council that it has this day agreed to the following resolution:
(1) That a joint select committee be appointed to consider and report upon proposals by the Commonwealth Government to transport nuclear waste through and potentially store nuclear waste within New South Wales, with specific reference to the following matters:
(a) logistical arrangements associated with the proposals, including sourcing, transport and storage of waste;
(b) health and safety risks associated with the transportation and storage of nuclear waste in New South Wales;
(c) extent of possible resource implications associated with the transportation and storage of nuclear waste within New South Wales; and
(d) any other relevant matter. 506 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003
(2) That the committee consist of seven members, as follows:
(a) three from the Government, being two members of the Legislative Assembly and one member of the Legislative Council; and
(b) two from the Opposition, being one member of the Legislative Assembly and one member of the Legislative Council; and
(c) two Independent or cross-bench members, being one member of the Legislative Assembly and one member of the Legislative Council.
(3) That the members be nominated in writing to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly and Clerk of the Legislative Council by the relevant party leaders and the Independent and cross-bench members respectively by 28 May 2003. In the absence of any agreement concerning Legislative Council representation on the committee the matter is to be determined by that House.
(4) That at any meeting of the committee four members shall constitute a quorum provided that the committee meets as a joint committee at all times.
(5) That the committee have leave to sit during the sittings or any adjournment of either or both Houses; to adjourn from place to place; to make visits of inspection within New South Wales and have power to take evidence and send for persons, papers, records and things, and to report from time to time.
(6) (a) That should either House stand adjourned and the committee agree to any report before the House resumes sitting, the committee have leave to send any such report, minutes of proceedings and evidence taken before it to the Clerk of each House.
(b) A report presented to the Clerks is:
(i) on presentation, and for all purposes, deemed to have been laid before the House,
(ii) to be printed by authority of the Clerk,
(iii) for all purposes, deemed to be a document published by order or under the authority of the House, and
(iv) to be recorded in the official proceedings of the House.
(7) That the committee report by 5 December 2003.
The Legislative Assembly requests that the Legislative Council appoint 3 of its members to serve with the members of the Legislative Assembly on the Committee and name the time and place for the first meeting of the Committee.
Legislative Assembly JOHN AQUILINA Speaker
Consideration deferred.
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ROAD SAFETY
The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:
The Legislative Assembly informs the Legislative Council that it has this day agreed to the following resolution:
That a Joint Standing Committee (to be known as the Staysafe Committee) be appointed to inquire into and report upon road safety in New South Wales with the following terms of reference:
(1) As an ongoing task, the committee is to—
(a) monitor, investigate and report on the road safety situation in New South Wales; and
(b) review and report on countermeasures aimed at reducing deaths, injuries, and the social and economic costs to the community arising from road accidents.
Without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the following are to be given urgent consideration—
(i) countermeasures aimed at traffic accidents associated with alcohol and other drugs;
(ii) traffic law enforcement measures and their effectiveness;
(iii) a review of human factors affecting traffic accidents, especially those relating to driver and rider licensing requirements and standards; 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 507
(iv) the social and economic impact of death and serious and debilitating injuries resulting from traffic accidents; and
(v) heavy vehicle safety.
(2) That such committee consist of six members of the Legislative Assembly and three members of the Legislative Council and that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders of either House, at any meeting of the committee, any five members shall constitute a quorum provided that the committee shall meet as a joint committee at all times.
(3) That Mr Barr, Mr Bartlett, Mr Gibson, Mr Hunter, Mr Maguire, Ms Saliba and Mr Souris be appointed to serve on such committee as the members of the Legislative Assembly.
(4) That the committee have leave to sit during the sittings or any adjournment of either or both Houses; to adjourn from place to place; to make visits of inspection within the State of New South Wales and other States and Territories of Australia.
(5) That should either House stand adjourned and the committee agree to any report before the Houses resume sitting—
(a) the committee have leave to send any such report, minutes and evidence taken before it to the Clerk of the House;
(b) the documents shall be printed and published and the Clerk shall forthwith take such action as is necessary to give effect to the order of the House; and
(c) the documents shall be laid upon the Table of the House at its next sitting.
That a message be sent acquainting the Legislative Council of the resolution and requesting the Legislative Council to appoint three of its members to serve with the members of the Legislative Assembly upon such joint standing committee and to fix a time and place for the first meeting.
Legislative Assembly JOHN AQUILINA Speaker
Consideration deferred.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE
The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:
The Legislative Assembly informs the Legislative Council that it has this day agreed to the following resolution:
That in accordance with section 29(1)(b) of the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998, the following members of the Legislative Assembly be and are hereby appointed to serve on the Committee on Children and Young People:
Mr Bartlett Ms Burney Mr Cansdell Mrs Hopwood Ms Judge Mrs Perry
Legislative Assembly JOHN AQUILINA Speaker
JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:
The Legislative Assembly informs the Legislative Council that it has this day agreed to the following resolution:
That in accordance with section 67 (1) of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993, the following members of the Legislative Assembly be appointed to serve on the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission:
Ms Allan Ms Gadiel Mr Hunter Mr R W Turner
Legislative Assembly JOHN AQUILINA Speaker 508 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003
JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:
The Legislative Assembly informs the Legislative Council that it has this day agreed to the following resolution:
That in accordance with section 65 (1) (b) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, the following members of the Legislative Assembly be appointed to serve on the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption:
Ms Keneally Mr Mills Mr O’Farrell Mr Pearce Mr Price Mr Roberts Mr Yeadon Mr J H Turner
Legislative Assembly JOHN AQUILINA Speaker
JOINT LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:
The Legislative Assembly informs the Legislative Council that it has this day agreed to the following resolution:
That in accordance with section 5 (1) (b) of the Legislation Review Act 1987, the following members of the Legislative Assembly be appointed to serve on the Legislation Review Committee:
Mr Collier Mrs Hancock Ms Judge Ms Saliba Mr R W Turner
Legislative Assembly JOHN AQUILINA Speaker
JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION
The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:
The Legislative Assembly informs the Legislative Council that it has this day agreed to the following resolution:
That in accordance with section 31C (1) (b) of the Ombudsman Act 1974, the following members of the Legislative Assembly be appointed to serve on the Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and Police Integrity Commission:
Mr Corrigan Ms Hay Mr Kerr Mr Lynch
Legislative Assembly JOHN AQUILINA Speaker
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos agreed to:
That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 20 May 2003 at 2.30 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.07 p.m.]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn. 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 509
INQUIRY INTO COMPLAINTS OF SEXUAL ABUSE IN THE ANGLICAN CHURCH DIOCESE OF BRISBANE REPORT
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [5.07 p.m.]: Last week the board of inquiry into past handling of the complaints of sexual abuse in the Anglican Church Diocese of Brisbane tabled its report in the Queensland Parliament. Given grave concerns regarding the widespread nature of the unforgivable crime of child sexual abuse within our own community in New South Wales, the following should be considered in the question of having further inquiries outside Queensland. The report was lengthy and covers some 471 pages. On page 380 the report tells of a young boy known as F.G. who was sexually assaulted on an ongoing basis between 1978 and 1981 by John Elliot, the leader of a Church of England Boys Group and the Bursar of the Anglican Church Grammar School, East Brisbane.
On 14 February 2003 John Elliot pleaded guilty to ten counts of sexual abuse of FG. Convicted paedophile John Elliot is now in prison, which is a good thing. It was not until 1993 that FG's parents became aware of the series of sexual assaults. Sometime prior to, and probably in the period from 15 to 20 July 1993, Dr Hollingworth, the current Governor General, was approached by Bishop Noble, who conveyed to him a complaint made by FG's parents that John Elliot had sexually abused their two sons, and Dr Hollingworth agreed to deal with the matter. Dr Hollingworth interviewed John Elliot, who admitted his guilt and confessed to all the offences. Archbishop Hollingworth then arranged for John Elliot to visit FG's parents. FG's parents stated that John Elliot's attitude was all self-pity, and that he was sad that he would never see FG again. He further commented that no harm was done. At no time did he ask for forgiveness or express any kind of remorse. FG's parents stated they were sickened by his attitude and presence.
On page 386 the report tells us that, in order to assist him in deciding what further action should thereafter be taken, Dr Hollingworth required John Elliot to see Dr Slaughter, a psychiatrist, saying that a final decision on John Elliot's future would be dependent on Dr Slaughter's assessment of Elliot's following treatment and any recommendations. Dr Slaughter told Dr Hollingworth that, while there was nothing about John Elliot's current behaviour that was a matter for concern and while Elliot was clearly deeply penitent, nevertheless paedophiles tended to reoffend. Dr Slaughter reported in writing to Dr Hollingworth that sexual attraction to young people and paedophilia was a permanent state and could not be changed.
Dr Hollingworth allowed Elliot to continue in the church ministry for several years after his retirement by allowing him to act as a locum in parishes. This continued until Elliot was charged by the police with other child sexual abuse offences. The report discloses on pages 403, 404 and 405 that, following threats involving legal action by one of the victims in September 1999, Dr Hollingworth wrote to Bernard Yorke, the general manger of the diocese, pointing out that the biggest concern to the diocesan insurers was that the young victim may take legal action. Dr Hollingworth wrote to Elliot urging him to keep a low profile, stating:
In normal circumstances I would deem it unwise to put you at further risk of exposure and complaint but I also appreciate the difficult state of your family finances and of your need to continue doing work.
From page 414 of the report we learn that Dr Hollingworth, at the time he made his decision to continue to lead the ministry, was aware that Elliott was a person who repeatedly abused FG and also had abused, though not to the same extent, FG's brother. It is noted on page 418 that the board of inquiry found that Dr Hollingworth's handling of the complaint in respect of John Elliott was not fair, reasonable and appropriate. The report further notes that no bishop acting reasonably could have allowed a known paedophile to continue as a parish priest.
I seek to raise questions to be addressed by the Governor-General. Will he answer questions regarding a woman who, as a 13 -year-old, was under his pastoral care? Will Hollingworth explain his connection, if any, with this person, who, I am informed, as a grown woman last week committed suicide? Was the Governor- General involved, until today, in suppression orders in the Supreme Court, in an effort to keep his past from the Australian people?
MACULAR DEGENERATION AWARENESS WEEK
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [5.11 p.m.]: Like many members of the Legislative Council, I have recently received correspondence from the Macular Degeneration Foundation advising of Macular Degeneration Awareness Week, which is to be held from 1 to 8 June. As members of Parliament we receive many similar letters from organisations seeking to highlight one particular medical condition or another. Earlier this year I was invited to attend the launch of a documentary on macular degeneration, which I unfortunately was not able to attend due to commitments in the election campaign. Being acquainted with a young man who has this 510 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003 condition has sparked my interest in macular degeneration. The partner of one of my best friends is a talented visual artist in his thirties who is gradually losing his sight because of this condition, of which his family has a history. The theme of this year's Macular Degeneration Awareness Week is "Why are people going blind?" What do most of us know about this condition? I must confess that until recently I knew very little about it. I have been advised by the Macular Degeneration Foundation:
Macular degeneration [MD] is the name given to a group of degenerative eye diseases which affect the central area of the retina called the macula. The macula gives you central vision which enables you to read, drive, and perform other activities that require fine, sharp, straight-ahead vision. It allows us to read fine print, recognise faces, watch TV, thread a needle, drive, look straight ahead etc. A person with MD finds these activities almost impossible to perform alone.
People with macular degeneration have only peripheral vision and many are considered to be legally blind. In fact, the disease accounts for more than two-thirds of legal blindness in Australia. I have been advised that currently 344,000 Australians are living with the significant form of macular degeneration, of which 108,000 have the late stage of the disease. Each year approximately 12,000 new late-stage cases are diagnosed. The "wet form" of macular degeneration—there are three different types—accounts for approximately two-thirds of the late stage of macular degeneration and, without proper diagnosis and treatment, can send a person blind within days.
Any vision loss caused by macular degeneration cannot be regained. Individual and collective behaviour change offers the only means of controlling the incidence of the disease. Research shows that the risk of progressing from early- to late-stage macular degeneration can be reduced by 25 per cent following high doses of systematic antioxidants, and by up to 30 per cent by a sufferer giving up smoking. Macular Degeneration is thought to be caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. It is known that smokers and people with a family history of macular degeneration have a much greater risk of developing the disease. There is no cure for macular degeneration. It is a progressive disease, and treatment options are limited and dependent on the stage and type of the disease. Current treatments aim to halt or slow its progression and preserve as much vision as possible.
However, there are some things people can do to reduce the risk. These include giving up smoking, because smoking increases a person's chance of developing macular degeneration by a factor of four; eating a diet rich in fresh fruit and coloured vegetables, especially dark green, leafy vegetables; increasing one's intake of fish and other omega-rich foods and avoiding vegetable oils; supplementing one's diet with multivitamins and antioxidants, in consultation with one's doctor—and these days, I suppose, in consultation with the list from the Therapeutic Goods Administration; controlling cholesterol and blood pressure levels; protecting one's eyes from ultraviolet light; and checking one's vision regularly. A simple eye test that people can do themselves is detailed in a fact sheet from the Macular Degeneration Foundation. I have a copy of that document, and I am willing to make a copy of it available to any member who would like to undergo the test. The best advice is that people over the age of 50, or those who have a family history of the condition, should see an eye specialist at least every two years.
The eye test I have referred to it is called the Amsler Grid eye examination. It takes less than a minute to complete the test, and anyone can do it—at home, in their own office, anywhere. If an adverse result is found after performing the self-examination, the best advice is to consult one's eye doctor immediately. The Macular Degeneration Foundation was formed in response to the current macular degeneration epidemic in this country, and it is the peak body representing the estimated 344,000 Australians who currently live with the significant form of macular degeneration. The foundation aims to promote awareness, prevention, intervention, education, research and support of the disease. Its goal is to preserve the autonomy, dignity and independence of people with macular degeneration by helping to reduce the distress and suffering caused by the loss of central vision.
The foundation is currently working with NSW Health to raise awareness of macular degeneration, and it is in discussion with other State governments as well as the Federal Government. Australia is a world leader in the research of macular degeneration, one of the most serious health problems facing Australians. Early detection is the key to minimising the effects of the disease. I wish the foundation every success with its upcoming awareness week, and I urge all members to take the Amsler Grid eye examination and encourage others to have their eyes tested on a regular basis.
GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL MISMANAGEMENT ALLEGATIONS
The Hon. GREG PEARCE [5.16 p.m.]: An issue of deep concern to the community has been raised with me on numerous occasions in the past couple of weeks in my capacity as Chairman of the Opposition's 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 511 waste watch committee. The Government's record of financial mismanagement and waste raises troubling concerns as to the capacity of some Ministers. The community is justified in being alarmed at the plight of New South Wales as a result of the incompetence of Ministers like the former Minister for Transport, and the disdain of the Premier, who is only interested in media spin and conning the public.
Last year the Opposition was instrumental in the disclosure of the Christie reports, which suggested that at least $20 billion in essential rail maintenance will be required by 2011 because of the neglect and mismanagement of the Government in the past two terms. As the Sydney Morning Herald reported on 25 February 2002, "The findings were kept secret for more than a year" and "the State Government has suppressed the documents written last year by its former rail supremo Ron Christie, because of their explosive revelations about the deteriorating network, CBD congestion and safety concerns". Several weeks after the election the Sydney Morning Herald, reporting on the confidential Godfrey report, referred to "a damning account of neglect, waste and failure". The report, which was prepared for the Cabinet's budget committee in October 2002 and subsequently hidden, said that at least $1.5 billion in emergency funding was needed.
The response of the new Minister for Transport Services, Mr Costa, has been to gloss over the incredible bureaucratic mess that his predecessor allowed to develop. The Carr Government's priority was to pay dividends to Treasury. It intimidated and blamed the bureaucracy, hid the problems, and allowed waste and mismanagement to cost the people of this State billions of dollars. Perhaps the most disturbing symbol of the Government's mismanagement and waste has been the farcical experience of the Millennium trains. I do not propose to take up the time of the House by relating the sorry tale of mismanagement and waste associated with this project, and the disgraceful fraud perpetrated by the Government in claiming that these trains were operational last year.
The Opposition will pursue the cost of these trains and, in particular, the cost of the delays and necessary rectification work caused by their premature entry into service. The community is entitled to be alarmed and worried at the capacity and commitment of the Government to manage the rectification of these problems. Take new Minister Costa's start last week. He ignorantly claimed that the Opposition's commitment of $120 million in urgent spending on maintenance was not funded. No doubt the reason he so rapidly dropped this blooper was that one of his junior advisers pointed out to him that funding was available from uncommitted capital expenditure in the public trading enterprises sector, which includes the State Rail Authority, the State Transit Authority and the Rail Infrastructure Corporation. Minister Costa's experience is as a director of WorkCover, overseeing the growth of a $2 billion-plus deficit, and a director of Pacific Power, which lost hundreds of millions of dollars over trading contracts with the Victorian utility Powercor Australia Ltd.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: Pursuant to Standing Order 175, in raising his concerns about the Minister for Transport Services the Hon. Greg Pearce should make reference to specific matters, rather than raise general matters. I therefore ask that you call him to order.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: To the point of order: I am specifically relating issues that were raised with me by members of the community. I have not cast any aspersions on the Minister. I have quoted publicly available information about the Minister's former appointments. If the Hon. Amanda Fazio takes the view that that public information is detrimental to the Minister, that is her problem.
The Hon. John Hatzistergos: To the point of order: I think the correct standing order is Standing Order 80, which, if memory serves me correctly, states that matters of the kind that the Hon. Greg Pearce is raising should be properly ventilated; and that offensive words should not be used against either House of the Legislature or any member thereof, nor against any statute except when moving for its repeal. The honourable member is making statements that are derogatory of the Minister for Transport.
The Hon. John Ryan: He hasn't used offensive words.
The Hon. John Hatzistergos: He has. He made comments about him using bloopers, and being referred to by some junior member of staff—
The Hon. Rick Colless: He is a blooper.
The Hon. John Hatzistergos: He made a number of comments that were derogatory of the Minister for Transport, and in the circumstances, Madam President, you should rule him out of order and ask him to withdraw those comments and refrain from making further comments of that kind. If he wants to attack a member, he should do so by way of substantive motion. 512 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003
The PRESIDENT: Order! The position is made clear by Standing Order 80, and even more so by Standing Order 81, which states:
No Member shall digress from the subject matter of any Question under discussion; and all imputations of improper motives, and all personal reflections on Members shall be deemed disorderly.
I ask the honourable member to withdraw all imputations against and personal reflections on the Minister for Transport Services. Will the honourable member withdraw?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: What imputations are you asking me to withdraw, Madam President? I did not make any imputations. If you can tell me what the imputations were, obviously I will withdraw them. But I did not make any imputations.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: What is the situation, Madam President?
The PRESIDENT: The member's time for speaking has expired.
The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: You can't leave it up in the air.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: If there is a ruling it has to be acted upon.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Greg Pearce stated that he was not making imputations against the Minister for Transport Services and I accepted his statement.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: But you ruled that he was.
The PRESIDENT: Members must be aware that they cannot make imputations against or personal reflections upon other members of Parliament. The Hon. Greg Pearce has been here long enough to know that.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: But you ruled that he did.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Any member who makes imputations against another member of Parliament, either in this place or in the other place, will be ruled out of order.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Madam President, I take it from your ruling that you accepted that I did not make any imputation and therefore there was nothing to withdraw?
The PRESIDENT: No. You made the statement to the House that you were not making imputations against the Minister for Transport Services, and I accepted that.
ST JOHNS CHURCH DARLINGHURST SITE DEVELOPMENT
Ms SYLVIA HALE [5.23 p.m.]: Today marks the beginning of life under a new council for many residents of inner-city Sydney. Minister Frank Sartor, who helped engineer the expansion of Sydney City Council while he was Lord Mayor, has moved on to Macquarie Street. In the years to come, how will residents of areas such as Darlinghurst, Glebe and Kings Cross look back on his expansionist ambitions? Will this handover be the start of a sad and sorry new chapter in the development of the city? Or will Sydney City Council seize the opportunity to ensure that the future development of inner-city areas meets the community's needs and expectations?
Already a major test of the council's mettle is looming. On Darlinghurst Road, Kings Cross, St Johns Church has entered into an agreement with Trafalgar Properties for a commercial and residential redevelopment. The approval of the development is now the city council's responsibility, and local residents are looking to the city to protect a site that, according to the New South Wales Heritage Office "contains one of the few unaltered Edmund Blacket buildings in Australia". Both the rectory and the church have been individually listed on the Register of the National Estate.
In 1857 the public land on which the church, the rectory and the hall were built was granted to the church "[u]pon trust for the direction of the church school and for no other purpose whatsoever". It is inappropriate, therefore, that the church, in conjunction with Trafalgar Properties, now proposes to redevelop the site and sandwich the church between two towers, one of which is 20 times bulkier than the building it will 8 May 2003 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 513 replace. An independent heritage assessment has concluded that the proposal is out of keeping with the church's heritage character. The city council must respond to the growing tide of community opposition to the church's development plans. Local citizens are adamant that consultation has been inadequate, that heritage values are being threatened, and that potential public open space is being lost.
Public open space is particularly important in this already overcrowded area. In the past decade alone, Darlinghurst locals have experienced a 25 per cent increase in population density. The area has one of the lowest people-to-park ratios in the State. The residents are crying out for more open space, for a park. Instead, the church wants to deprive them of sunlight, and further "wall up" the streets with high-rise. The Greens have joined the campaign against this development. As usual, we are the only political party prepared to stand up to developer interests. As usual, this application comes in the context of an unsavoury history of donations by developers to political parties.
Over the past four financial years, Hawker Britton, who are acting as advisers to the church on this proposal, gave $49,275 to New South Wales Labor. During the same period Audant Investments and its subsidiaries Trafalgar Corporation and Trafalgar Properties donated a total of $97,600 to the Labor Party. None of these figures include the additional personal donations by directors of the companies to political parties. However, it is worth noting that Bruce Hawker of Hawker Britton, is the Premier's former senior adviser, and that Selena O'Connor, an employee of Hawker Britton, who is undertaking community liaison on behalf of the church, was a staffer to Pam Allan, a former Australian Labor Party Minister for the Environment.
As usual, the risk is that the influence exerted by political donations will distort the democratic process so that residents' interests run a distant second to the interests of corporations and their political mates. Greens researcher Norman Thompson has been tracking political donations. His impressive research is publicly available, and the figures on property developer donations stand out. Mr Thompson is also at the forefront of our campaign to protect heritage values and secure open space for the community at the St Johns Church site. Unlike the major parties, we are neither seduced nor intimidated by property developers. We will continue to represent the voice of the community against overdevelopment during this term of Parliament. Together with the local community we will very closely watch the city council's handling of the proposed St Johns Church redevelopment.
DEATH OF MRS MARGARET "PEGGY" ERREY
The Hon. IAN WEST [5.27 p.m.]: I pay tribute to an activist, feminist and trade unionist who had a lifelong commitment to justice: Margaret "Peggy" Errey, who died in 2002 aged 88. She was born in 1914 in County Cork during the time when Europe was consumed by the First World War. She grew up in a large family that was committed to the republican cause, a commitment she held throughout her life. As a child she would hide under her bed while the special unit of the Royal Irish Constabulary, the Black and Tans, raided the family home. Her early teenage years gave her an acute appreciation of the importance of good health, employment and education.
The Erreys, like most Irish families at the time, were poor and struggled to find work and get food for the children. The little joys came from highlights such as the local dances organised by Sinn Fein, where they would laugh, dance and sing songs about the dream of a united Ireland. As a young adult Peggy went to England to search for work. She obtained a job as a trainee cook that allowed her to enjoy the things she was deprived of in Ireland—work and healthy food. Peggy was in London during World War II and was deeply affected by the Nazi bombing raids. Her fear brought on alopecia. Witnessing the fight against fascism brought home to her the importance of the basic values of freedom and equality.
Peggy married in England and her son, Richard, and daughter, Margaret, were a great source of love and pride to her. After the war the family migrated to Australia and Peggy ended up as a cook at the Fairy Meadow Commonwealth Hostel, north of Wollongong. Her time there, mixing with steelworkers and wharfies staying at the hostel, served as an apprenticeship in industrial relations in this country. Before long she was a workplace delegate for the Restaurant and Catering Trades Union.
In the early 1950s Peggy was appalled when the Prime Minister attempted to outlaw the then Communist Party and divide the Labor Party. She believed that this attack was the first step in the loss of freedom of speech and association. She feared that the next move would be an attack on independent trade unions. In 1953 Peggy became a delegate to the South Coast Labour Council. In the 1960s She worked at the Wollongong Treasury College as a cleaner and joined the Miscellaneous Workers Union [MWU]. By 1980 514 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 May 2003
Peggy was made a life member of the MWU. She served as a State and Federal councillor, executive member and vice-president of the New South Wales branch of the "Missos". In 2000 the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union set up the Peggy Errey advanced delegates course in her honour.
All this work for the union was carried out with no financial reward; she earned only a cleaner's wage. She helped establish the South Coast Medical Centre, which served working-class families in Wollongong for decades. She was heavily involved in the Stewart Street Women's Centre, the Jobs for Women Program, and the Migrant Resource Centre. With the ACTU she worked on the working women's charter committee and was a delegate to the ACTU Women's Conference. Peggy was also made a life member of the South Coast Labour Council and the South Coast May Day Committee. Peggy believed strongly in education as an empowering tool for the people she represented. She would walk the streets to get signatures to petitions supporting the establishment and funding of the University of Wollongong, because she knew that life lessons alone were not enough.
Peggy was also active in the more popular—or less popular, depending on your point of view—causes of the time, such as the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations, anti-apartheid protests, the struggle to gain Aboriginal rights, and the problems facing migrant women. She really was a twentieth century activist. Peggy was often helping a battered wife, a person fighting drug addiction, or someone needing a place to stay for the night. She was not judgmental and she had the ability to treat all women and men equally. Peggy's legacy is that she taught many to celebrate the rich complexity of humanity through her enthusiasm and passion for fighting injustice. Peggy was a true believer. A traumatic childhood turned Peggy into a passionate defender of the downtrodden and I pay tribute to her.
MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT SERVICES PORTFOLIO RESPONSIBILITIES
The Hon. RICK COLLESS [5.32 p.m.]: Earlier this evening the Hon. Greg Pearce outlined some of the problems about urgent maintenance on a rail system that has not been funded. Minister Costa's experience as a director of WorkCover was overseeing the growth of a $2 billion-plus deficit, and of Pacific Power, which lost hundreds of millions of dollars over trading contracts with the Victorian utility Powercor. Further questions have been raised this week as to the Minister's competence in financial management in relation to the $61 million wasted on information technology at Sydney Water. It should come as no surprise, given the Minister's culpability in paying out Peter Ryan, that he has agreed to waste $355,000 on the sacked head of the Rail Infrastructure Corporation, even though the Minister described that organisation as "not able to account [for] the way taxpayers' money is spent".
The confusion and ineptitude of the Government was highlighted by John Brogden in his capacity as shadow Treasurer when he made public the Government's inability to manage its own departmental restructure in time to produce a complete budget. No doubt the Treasurer's time is spent, in large part, trying to educate his Minister for Transport Services on these issues. Given the history of the Minister and his incompetence in financial management, the question the community is entitled to ask is: How can he establish that he has the experience and judgment to fix the gross problems in our rail transport system, particularly after his complete blooper last week on the Opposition's responsible promise to provide a priority of $120 million over three years for urgent rail safety upgrades?
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 5.35 p.m. until Tuesday 20 May 2003 at 2.30 p.m.