Election of Members)-Sessional Committees-Governor's Speech: Address in Reply (Second Day's Debate)-Adjournment (Cromehurst Special School)

Petitions-25 August, 1976 95

Wednesday, 25 August, 1976

Petitions-Questions without Notice-Public Accounts Committee (Election of Members)-Sessional Committees-Governor's Speech: Address in Reply (Second Day's Debate)-Adjournment (Cromehurst Special School).

Mr Speaker (The Hon. Lawrence Borthwick Kelly) took the chair at 2.15 p.ni. Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

PETITIONS The Clerk announced that the following petitions had been lodged for presentation and that copies would be referred to the appropriate Ministers:

Abortion Laws The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales, respectfully sheweth: 1. That as taxpayers we object to the use of funds for abortions under the guise of health payments and/or benefits. 2. That no pressure should be brought to bear to hinder the prosecution of those participating in criminal abortion. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Honourable House takes such steps through the appropriate channels to stop the misuse of taxpayers' money and to ensure that the law prohibiting abortion in N.S.W. be properly enforced. Petition, lodged by Mr F. J. Walker, received.

Mr Darrell Stonehouse The petition of residents situate in the Lower Blue Mountains and Members of Senior Citizens Clubs at Warrimoo and Springwood. Respectfully sheweth that they are of the opinion that one, Mr Darrell Stonehouse, now a patient in Lidcombe State Hospital, but whose property is being handled by the Protective Commissioner under the Mental Health Act, has the right to state that he wishes his sister, Mrs J. Henderson, to reside in his former home situate, No. 2, The Avenue, Warrimoo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House give consideration to Mr Stonehouse's personal request that his sister, Mrs J. Henderson, be allowed to remain as a tenant in his former house. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. Petition, lodged by Mr Rofe, received. 96 ASSEMBLY-Questions without Notice

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS Sir ERIC WILLIS: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Education. Did the former Government introduce a scheme for payment of subsidies on interest incurred by non-government school authorities on loans for approved building projects, and was the maximum rate payable under this scheme increased during my term as Premier and Treasurer to a maximum of 10 per cent per annum? Has the Wran Government recently and without publicity reduced this maximum to 7 per cent, thus causing considerable hardship to a number of church and other non- government schools? By this action, has the Government saved itself approximately $300,000 per annum or only half of the amount returned to consolidated revenue as not being required for oversea teacher recruitment in the past financial year? If this is so, will the Minister urge his colleagues the Premier and the Treasurer to restore the 10 per cent maximum or has his Government embarked on a deliberate policy aimed at causing non-government schools to wither on the vine? Mr BEDFORD: It is a fact that the subsidy has been held at 7 per cent, which it was until 28th April this year when an announcement was made by the previous Minister for Education just prior to the election in a blatant vote-catching attempt- Sir Eric Willis: Look at the file and see where I asked the former Premier six months before- Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked the question and should listen to the answer. Mr BEDFORD: A number of undertakings were given by the Labor Party when in opposition and the Labor Government is meeting those promises. However, the Government does not feel obliged to meet promises made by the parties that are now in opposition. The Government is mindful of the fact that assistance is required by way of interest subsidies to the non-State sector of education. As a consequence my Cabinet colleagues and I have given it consideration and it is being looked at in the context of the forthcoming Budget.

BURRINJUCK DAM Mr SHEAHAN: I ask the Minister for Conservation and Minister for Water Resources a question without notice. Is it a fact that, due to lack of action by the previous Government in repairing damage to Burrinjuck Dam caused by major flooding back in 1974, irrigation water to the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and river pumpers along the Murrumbidgee River could be threatened? Is it a fact also that the highly productive southern part of the State is at present undergoing severe drought and should the water supply be cut it would cause untold hardship to the whole rural community? Will the Minister investigate the situation as a matter of extreme urgency and endeavour to have the necessary repair work commenced and completed as soon as possible? Mr GORDON: The work proposed is the improvement of the low-level outlets in Burrinjuck Dam which were temporarily sealed off following damage to the control valves in the major flood late in August, 1974. At present, the final 10 per cent of the storage cannot be released at all and the rate at which releases can be made becomes progressively restricted as the storage falls below 25 per cent of capacity. It will take at least eighteen months to deliver the new outlet valves after the issue of an order and the scheduled programme of construction necessarily extends over a period of thirty months. This period includes time for design of the valves and civil Questions without Notice-25 August, 1976 97 engineering works, supply and installation of the valves, civil construction and com- missioning of the new outlets. To ensure that the outlets are serviceable by the end of 1978, the design of the works must proceed now so that tenders for the valves may be invited by November, 1976, and site construction work commenced in January, 1977. Sir Eric Willis: On a point of order. Mr Speaker, I submit that questions without notice, by the very nature of the term, require the Minister concerned, though he may have some inkling of the answer, not to give a written or a read reply. If a Minister has a detailed and technical reply that he intends to read in detail, the question should be put on the Questions and Answers paper and it can be answered more properly in that manner. I submit that the Minister is not reading from short notes; he is reading every word of his reply and in effect is not answering a question without notice. Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order involved. Mr GORDON: I was simply endeavouring to tell the House the poor state of irrigation construction works on the Murrumbidgee River. In the greatest drought since records have been kept the Burrinjuck Dam is only 75 per cent efficient-all due to the lack of interest and concern of the previous Government-and further down the stream other irrigation works are in danger of collapse. If that happens, work on the Mumbidgee Xrrigation Area will cease, the whole of the irrigation area will be lost, and other irrigation works will cease production. The Yanco weir is also in urgent need of repair and there is a need for the raising of the level there. I draw the attention of honourable members to this position and I assure the House and the honourable member for Burrinjuck that this work will be carried out as a matter of urgency.

DECENTRALIZATION Mr PUNCH: I ask the Minister for Decentralisation and Development and Minister for Primary Industries whether a Mr Austin Holrnes approached the Depart- ment of Decentralisation and Development on 5th August, 1976, seeking financial assistance for a feasibility study for a proposal to decentralize an industry to Gloucester. Is the Minister aware that Mr Holmes has stated in a statutory declaration that he was told: "The department will not undertake the cost assessment that you are after, Austin. If you had put in the plant at Grafton, the boss upstairs might have been more sympathetic-that is his area. You know that Gloucester is a Country Party strong- hold." Mr F. J. Walker. Where is Grafton? Mr PUNCH: Have a look at a map and you will find it. Will the Minister say whether he instructed officers of his department to display such unfair bias, and will he countermand any such instructions to ensure that his department is administered responsibly and fairly? Mr DAY: The honourable member for Gloucester, who is Leader of the Couniry Party, would know if he had a look at the proposition put up by Mr Holmes that it was in the realm of turning lead into gold or getting milk out of plastic cows. The Depart- ment of Decentralisation and Development has never carried out feasibility studies into all the ratbag proposals that are put up to it. Let us call this scheme what it really is-a ratbag proposal to turn old cars into new vehicles. Somebody-apparently the man's name is Holmes-approached the department with a proposition that it should lend an unspecified amount towards the capital cost of establishing an industry- [Interruption] 7 98 ASSEMBLY-Questions without Notice

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wollondilly to order for the first time. Mr DAY: -to convert old HR Holdens into new motor vehicles. It was supposed to be a wonderful industry. He was properly told that if he wanted consideration for that project, or for any other proposal, he should first do a feasibility study. He went away and concocted the story that the department took the view that no industry in other than Labor electorates would be assisted by the department. That was an absolute concoction and a blatant lie. It is an insult to the officers of the Department of Decentralisation and Development for the Leader of the Country Party even to suggest that they would give anyone such an answer. His deputy sitting beside him would know full well that it is an insult to suggest that or, in the unlikely event that they were given such an instruction, that they would pass it on. Mr Punch: He swore it in an affidavit. Mr DAY: I do not care whether he swore it on a stack of bibles. The fact is that it is not correct and I am telling the House that my officers did not tell him that. Moreover, I have not told the officers of my department to adopt any such policy. Just before I was interviewed by the Australian Broadcasting Commission about this matter I had authorized the spending of $2.25 million at Moss Vale, which is in the electorate of the honourable member for Wollondilly, a former Premier. Mr Lewis: That electorate is well represented and there are no ratbags down there. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr DAY: I have not taken out any figures but I suggest that more than 90 per cent of the sums I have authorized for industries in country areas are to be spent in Liberal or Country party electorates. I deny absolutely that any such instruction was given. If Mr HoImes has signed a statutory declaration to that effect, he is a blatant liar. Before I sit down I wish to correct the geographical knowledge of the Leader of the Country Party. Grafton happens to be in the Country Party electorate of Clarence. I fail to see the logic in a suggestion that I have some preference for the Clarence electorate over the electorate of Gloucester. I deny absolutely the suggestion and I condemn the Leader of the Country Party for having the temerity even to suggest that officers of my department would give anybody such an answer.

USE OF PESTICIDES Mr O'CONNELL: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Decentralisation and Development and Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware that there is little control over the use of dangerous pesticides in this State and that the former Department of Agriculture was lackadaisical in its approach to the use of pesticides by organizations under its control? Will the Minister introduce legislation to ensure that the use of insecticides, fungicides and pesticides generally will strictly controlled and that such controls will apply to government departments? Mr DAY: I commend the honourable member for Peats for his interest in matters affecting the environment and the welfare of people using pesticides, weedicides and fungicides. The Government is contemplating the introduction of legislation. A difficulty arises in that legislation which is introduced unilaterally by one State might not be fully effective. It is highly desirable that every State should introduce uniform legislation. Questions without Notice25 August, 1976 99

Sir Eric Willis: You had better tell that to the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister for Co-operative Societies. Mr DAY: I do not follow what the Leader of the Opposition is getting at. I am answering the question asked of me by the honourable member for Peats. It would be better for the Leader of the Opposition to write to the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister for Co-operative Societies than to make an aside about him. I thank the honourable member for Peats for his question and I assure him that the Government will look at the problems created by the improper use of pesticides, weedicides and fungicides. We will be requiring much stricter controls in the manufacture of these products, in the registration of those who use them and in the proper labelling of them so that an operator can understand the problems that might arise from improper use. Also, we will be requiring that products for which registration is sought undergo full and proper testing.

MANLY FERRY SERVICES Mr DARBY: Has the Minister for Transport and Minister for Highways given consideration to the problem of the maintenance and revival of the ferry services between Manly and Sydney? Has he received reports regarding the condition of the aged vessels Baragoola and North Head? Has he received recently a report from the South Steyne Preservation Society regarding its commendable hopes that the South Steyne may be brought back on to the run? Further, what encouragement has the Minister to offer to the commuters of Mdy who prefer water transport and to the tourists who wish to enjoy a ferry trip on Sydney Harbour and to share the beauty and charm of Manly and its district? Mr COX: My officers have just compiled a report in connection with few services with particular emphasis on the Manly to Sydney run. Details of the report, which is being studied by my officers, have yet to be confirmed. In due course I shall make details of it available to the House and to the honourable member. A report about the South Steyne, which arrived at my office yesterday, contains a plan for my consideration to bring the South Steyne back into service at a cost of $330,000. Although the figures have yet to be checked by my officers, I am inclined to think that the sum will be considerably higher than that. Also, I am inclined to think that in the long term the plans presented by my officers to me will give better value than the restoration of the South Steyne. However, I assure the honourable member for Manly that the report on the South Steyne will be investigated promptly by my officers.

JOINT COMMITTEE UPON DRUGS Mr QUINN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that the use and abuse of drugs is a matter of grave concern for the community? Was a joint committee of both Houses of the Parliament established during the last Parliament and was it prevented from coming to a final determination by the sudden dissolution of this House? Has the Minister given any consideration to the reconstitution of the drug committee so that this matter can be properly invesfi- gated and reported upon? Mr STEWART: I am glad to be able to tell the honourable member far Wentworthville that it is the intention of the Government to reconstitute the joint committee of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council on drugs. The committee met and deliberated under the chairmanship of the honourable member for Wakehurst and gave an interim report prior to the prorogation of Parliament in April 100 ASSEMBLY-Questions without Notice of this year. I have spoken to the Premier this morning concerning this matter and I shall discuss it with him again either this evening or tomorrow with a view to recon- stituting the committee with new members, because the Attorney-General and 1 were members of the original committee. I hope that next week we shall be able to bring the necessary motion before the House.

SAFETY ON TRAINS Mr PICKARD: I ask the Minister for Transport whether his attention has been invited to the tragic death in my electorate of a schoolboy as a result of his falling through an open doorway of a train on his way home from school. Is the Minister aware of my continual representations on the need for extra trains with safety devices for the protection of children travelling to and from school? Will he give the House and me an assurance that as one of the first steps in his first five-year plan for improving the quality of the service and preventing any further such tragic events immediate action will be taken to upgrade the quality of trains and safety devices in order to protect schoolchildren? Furthermore, will the Minister give immediate attention to the question of overcrowding of trains carrying schoolchildren in my electorate- Mr F. J. Walker: On a point of order. Mr Speaker, your predecessor was at pains to point out to the House on many occasions the prolixity of certain questions. Though I have no objection to the content of this question, it is clearly outside the rules laid down by your predecessor. It is long indeed; in fact, it is approaching a speech. I ask you to make a ruling about prolix questions. Mr SPEAKER: Order! 1 am a little concerned that we have met for only two days and yesterday we had rather long questions- Mr Healey: And rather long answers. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Davidson to order for the first time. The same thing is happening with this particular question. It is verging on being out of order and is over-long. A question should not be a brief speech; it should be concise and to the point and should not give more facts than necessary. It should seek information. I ask the honourable member to repeat his question and keep it within those bounds. Mr PICKARD: May I complete it, Mr Speaker? Furthermore, will the Min- ister give immediate attention to the question of overcrowding on trains carrying schoolchildren in my electorate, particularly in the section between Brooklyn and Hornsby? Mr COX: This question of children travelling on trains has the attention of the Government. No one likes to hear of schoolchildren falling from trains. I might say to the honourable member as a former Cabinet Minister that the lion's share of the blame for the run-down state of the transport system rests with the Government of which he was a member.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Burwood to order for the first time. Mr COX: The reason why he is over there and we are here is the previous Government's lack of appreciation of the problems of public transport. [Interruption] Questions without Notice-25 Aigust, 1976 101

Mr SPEAKER: I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order for the first time.

Mr COX: I have already taken up the matter of security on trains with the chief commissioner and the Minister for Education so that we can have a better safety programme at the schools to encourage children to act properly when travelling onetrains. Also, I have asked the commissioner to improve security arrangements On trains, but to instal automatic doors on the old carriages would cost $17 million. We cannot take any existing carriages out of the fleet; we do not have sufficient carriages and that is the reason for the overcrowding. When our programmes for the next five years are presented to the Parliament, the House will see some positive planning in relation to public transport.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT Mr JONES: My question is directed to the Minister for Local Government. Does section 160c of the Local Government Act provide for relief to people who have a single dwelling in an area zoned for other than residential development? IS the deferred payment charged normal council interest, and is the interest compounded Year after year? Does it continue indefinitely and can it become a burden to the rate- payer? Will the Minister investigate the possibility of amending the Act to require local government to write off at the beginning of the sixth year the appropriate interest charge together with the written off deferred rates?

Mr JENSEN: Section 160c of the Local Government Act is one of those enlightened amendments that were introduced in the term of the earlier Labor Government. It gives relief to ratepayers who occupy land that is zoned for a higher Purpose than its present use. The period of six years was fixed because it was felt that arrears should not accumulate beyond that period. It is proper, of course, that interest should attend the accumulated sum in the event of the property being disposed of within the six-year period so that when the owner of the property benefits from its sale the council will be recompensed for its concession of deferred rates. The Pro- visions of section 160c are currently under review to ascertain whether the kkd-of relief it gives to people whose land is zoned for a higher purpose might be applled also to ratepayers whose land is not zoned for a higher purpose but is affected by land sales in anticipation of a different zoning being applied. The matter raised by the honourable member for Waratah will be considered in the current review.

DROUGHT IN SOUTHERN NEW SOUTH WALES Mr SCHIPP: My question is directed to the Minister for Decentralisation and Development and Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware that a large portion of southern New South Wales, including my electorate, is suffering one of the worst droughts on record? Did he receive a telegram from me on Thursday, 19th August, urgently seeking details of compensation available to farmers who have been compelled to slaughter drought-stricken stock? Will the Minister assure these worried people that his failure to reply to my telegram was not caused by his having insufficient time to attend to his primary industries portfolio? Mr DAY: I am sorry that the telegram was not acknowledged. However, I acted on it by referring the matter to the Director-General of Agriculture for report. The director-general spoke to me about it this morning, and I expect to receive a written submission from him tomorrow. I am aware of the drought in the southern I02 ASSEMBLY-Questions without Notice

part of New South Wales. I know also that a policy such as he suggests, similar to the Victorian one, would have wide ramifications if adopted. The Victorian situation is rather unusual. As well as having a drought, the Victorians have the serious dairy industry problem of over-production of manufacturing milk. I understand that at least 90 per cent of the cows that were destroyed under the Victorian Government's policy were dairy stock. The Victorian Government's policy is fulfilling two purposes in that State. First, it is giving aid to impoverished dairy farmers, and second, it is getting rid of dairy stock unwanted in Victoria because of over-production. The honourable member for Wagga Wagga and all other members will appreciate that cycles of natural disasters are a part of primary production. Cattle are destroyed for many reasons. Before any policy such as that suggested by the honourable member could be adopted, it would need to be carefully defined so that when put into effect it would not be merely a means ~f recompensing owners who thought that their stock in poor condition should be destroyed. There would be many complications in policing such a programme. I am wre all members will agree that any proposal such as this would need to be carefully studied. This matter, which was raised at a meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council, has been under consideration by the Department of Agriculture in the past couple of weeks, and I expect to receive a comprehensive submission and recommendation on it shortly. When I do, I shall let the honourable member for Wagga Wagga and all members of the House know.

SHIPBUILDING

Mr HUNTER: I ask the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, Minister for Ports and Minister for Housing a question without notice. Has the federal Govern- ment agreed to allow another ship for the Australian coastal trade to be built overseas? Tf so, will the New South Wales Government ask the federal Government to reconsider this decision'? Mr FERGUSON: It is a fact that the federal Government has decided to allow Bulkships Limited to order overseas a 4 000-tonne cement carrier to be used in the Tasmanian trade. The State Dockyard submitted a tender, but unfortunately Carring- ton Slipways, Newcastle, was the lowest tenderer. This action by the federal Government was another indication of its attitude towards the Australian shipbuilding industry, for it is willing to deprive of an opportunity to build ships in Australia not only a State instrumentality but also private enterprise. In this instance it is ready to make an attack on a private enterprise. We have a national government that brings down a budget, makes great play about the defence of the nation, and increases defence expenditure. As Australia is an island continent and a maritime nation, surely its governments should ensure that we have a proper shipbuilding and repair capacity. Here was another opport~~nityfor the federal Government to do this-in the same way as it had the opportunity to keep in operation a viable, efficient shipbuilding organization at Newcastle. I refer to the private enterprise undertaking, Carrington Slipways, which is a most efficient shipbuilding enterprise. Once again the Commonwealth Government is willing to allow these orders to be placed ove-seas, and even at this late stage I make an appeal on behalf of private enterprise and the people of New South Wales. By failing to give the lowest tenderer, a private enterprise business in Newcastle, an opportunity to build this ship in New- castle, the federal Government gives another indication of its prejudice in the shipbuilding field against not only the two Labor States of South Australia and New South Vales but also the great industrial city of Newcastle. Questions without Notice-25 August, 1976 103

MEDIBANK STRIKE Mr FISHER: I ask the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, Minister for Ports and Minister for Housing a question without notice. Did he, as a Minister of the Crown, state publicly that he intended to take part in the recent Medibank strike? Did he also announce that he intended to donate his salary for the day to a charitable organization? Will the Minister advise the House which charity received the benefit of his salary for the day? Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member is asking the Minister a question concerning some personal matter which is not within his capacity as a Minister of the Crown. I therefore have no hesitation in ruling the question out of order.

ROAD FUNDS Mr SHEAHAN: I ask the Minister for Transport and Minister for Highways whether he will give to the House the facts of his submission to the Australian Minister for Transport on the allocation of the additional $11.3 million for road funds from the federal Government, and also the facts of the federal Minister's attitude? Mr COX: I did receive a letter from the federal Minister, the Hon. Peter Nixon, dated 9th June, in which he said: As indicated at the Premiers' Conference on 4 February 1976, the Government is very concerned at some of the implications of the funds allocations adopted under the current legislation, particularly with regard to Local Government needs and the needs identified in the rural arterial network. The Government has therefore decided to ask State Governments to allocate the additional funds to these areas to the maximum extent possible. Having taken into account that the overall allocation to Urban Local Roads for 1976/77 already represents an increase over the present years allocation, it would be my aim that an appropriate proportion of your allocation of $1 1.3m be directed towards Rural Local Roads and Rural Arterial Roads so as to provide a similar amount of money in 1976/77 to that available this financial year. On 13th July Mr Nixon wrote to me again, saying: In my letter of 9 June 1976, I advised that an additional $11.3 million for roads will be allocated to your State for 1976/77. I also mentioned the Government's wncem at the situation facing Local Government Authorities and that it would be my aim to see an appropriate proportion of these funds directed towards Rural Local roads. When the additional grant for these roads ia known, it will be necessary for you to submit a supplementary program. Sir Eric Willis: On a point of order. Mr Speaker, your predecessor, whose precedents you have followed so far in so many respects, ruled on many occasions that if an honourable member, including a Minister, reads from a document as part of his answer or part of his speech, he is required to table that document. I wonder whether you would apply that rule on this occasion? Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. My predecessor ruled clearly on a number of occasions that he had no control over the way in which a Minister answered a question. On this occasion the Minister is making reference to documents in front of him, and it is understandable that he would come into this Chamber equipped with certain information available to him so that he can adequately answer questions that may be put to him. There is no point of order. 104 ASSEMBLY--Questions without Notice

Mr COX: Officers from the Department of Main Roads conferred with officers from the federal Transport Department and made suggestions on how those funds should be allocated. In accordance with the wishes expressed by the federal Transport Department, the funds were changed along these lines. Rural arterial roads were given a supplementary grant of $6.63 million, which took the total funds for that year up to $15.43 million, which was the same as for 1975-76. In accordance with the wishes of the federal Minister, rural local roads were increased by $2.98 million, bringing them up to $16.48 million, the same as for the previous year. Further, urban arterial roads were increased by $1.69 million. I might say that the Bureau of Roads report recommended an escalation of $55 million for New South Wales, whereas in fact we received only $11.3 million. I have followed out the spirit indicated by the federal Minister, and I am amazed that he would answer a question in the federal Parliament by criticizing the letter I had written to him. If this is the new federalism policy that will be adopted by the federal Government, that federal Ministers are not willing even to write to me and say that they are not happy with the situation-which, in fact, was discussed by my officers and Mr Nixon's officers-and if Mr Nixon is to go along the way he is at present, I can envisage a complete breakdown of proper relationships between the State and federal spheres.

WINDAMERE DAM Mr WOTTON: I direct a question without notice to the Minister for Conserva- tion and Minister for Water Resources. In view of the recent dismissal notices given to various employees at the site of Windamere Dam near Mudgee, and in view of undertakings given by the Premier and the candidate for the Australian Labor Party in the eleotorate of Burrendong during the recent elections, will the Minister say whether the Government has abandoned the construction of the dam? Will he advise me and the House of the Government's policies on the construction of Windamere Dam, property resumption and the deviation roadworks associated with it? Mr GORDON: The Government inherited a legacy of Country Party promises throughout the State, one of which was that the Windamere Dam would be built. In June, 1975, the Leader of the Country Party advised the people in the electorate of Burrendong that the Windarnere Dam would be built, and that the storage of water would begin in the spring of 1980. In other words, he said that the dam would be finished in 1980. The situation is that the Government does not have sufficient money to build the dam. It is just a matter of priorities. The Leader of the Country Party arranged his priorities as they suited him. The present Government intends to build the Windamere Dam. Mr Mason: Then why not go ahead and build it? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Dubbo to order. Mr GORDON: It is simply a matter of priorities and of doing the work when funds are available.

MOTOR VEHICLE THIRD-PARTY INSURANCE Mr RAMSAY: Is the Minister for Transport and Minister for Highways aware of the serious concern being expressed about motor vehicle third-party insurance premiums? Is it the Government's intention to raise third-party premiums by any substantial amount? Questions without Notice--25 August, 1976 105

Mr COX: The Premiums Advisory Committee has recommended that motor vehicle third-party insurance be increased for motor cars by up to 40 per cent, and for the bigger motor cycles by up to 50 per cent. During the recent elections the Premier gave an undertaking that there would be no increase in motor vehicle third-party insurance premiums this year. That undertaking still stands. A complete review is being made of the Motor Vehicle (Third-Party Insurance) Act to determine whether it would be feasible to introduce a system of indexing third-party insurance rates. That study is proceeding at a favourable rate and I hope it will not be long before I am able to make a suitable recommendation to Cabinet on the matter.

OLD SYDNEY TOWN Mr BARRACLOUGH: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Sport and Recreation and Minister for Tourism. Is the Government really concerned with the future of Old Sydney Town and of the people who are employed there? Has the federal Government announced that it is unable to inject further funds into the project, and as a result is Old Sydney Town in severe financial difficulties and threatened with closure? As the livelihood of sixty-five employees and the continuation of Old Sydney Tomare threatened, will the Minister provide fiaancial assistance for this historic tourist attraction? Mr BOOTH: I thank the honourable member for Bligh for his Dorothy Dix question. I say at the outset that complete responsibility for Old Sydney Town rests with the federal Government. If the honourable member for Bligh wants further government money injected into the project, he should get on to his federal Liberal Party colleagues. This project was funded by the federal Government. Mr Maddison: By the Whitlam Government. Mr BOOTH: The honourable member for Bligh has just lauded the whole scheme, and now his colleagues suggest that the federal Government should not have spent money on it. Mr Barraclough: I want to know what the State Government is going to do about it. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Bligh to order for the first time. Mr BOOTH: This matter is the responsibility of the federal Government. The project was undertaken jointly by Fox Developments Pty Limited and the Bank of New South Wales, both of which were heavily committed to it. What is happening with Old Sydney Town is another example of what is happening throughout New South Wales, not only in tourism {but also in areas affecting my portfolios of Sport and Recreation. Federal Government money was advanced for many projects. It was then cut off and the State Government is being asked to step in to make up the cutbacks of the Fraser Government. The sanne request is being made about all sorts of projects-sporting facilities, grandstands, and so on. This is the new federalism of the Fraser Government. The previous federal Government advanced money for projects, the present federal Government is unwilling to continue financing them, and so the New South Wales Labor Government, less than four months in office, is being pressed to pick up the tab for all of them, and Old Sydney Town is but one. The New South Wales Government is most conscious of its responsibility in this area. The Government is aware of the significance of Old Sydney Town, not only to New South Wales but indeed to the whole of Australia. Discussions are now 106 ASSEMBLY-Questions without Notice

taking place on the matter, and the honourable member for Bligh, by asking this question, is aggravating the situation. The discussions have reached a delicate stage, and questions such as this put them in jeopardy. I repeat, the publicity that will flow from the asking of this question will not help Old Sydney Town, and that is what we are about-helping it. Mr Barraclough: That is what I asked. Mr BOOTH: If the honourable member had seen me beforehand I should have been able to give him a better answer. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Bligh has asked a question. He should be patient and listen to the answer. Mr BOOTH: Had the honourable member for Bligh seen me in my room no doubt I should have given him a much better answer than I have been able to give here. All he is doing is trying to stir up a political battle. Discussions have reached a critical stage and are continuing. We on this side of the House have some real concern for Old Sydney Town. We are aware of its historical significance and mindful of our responsibilities.

TOTALIZATOR AGENCY BOARD Mr CLEARY: I desire to ask the Treasurer a question without notice. Does the Victorian Government pay dividends on first, second and third placings on TAB investments for an advertised eight starters in horse or dog events? Does the Victorian Government pay first, second and third dividends should a late scratching take place after starting time for the race? Is it true that the New South Wales Totalisator Agency Board pays dividends only on first and second placings when similar situations occur in this State? Will the Treasurer arrange for this anomaly to be corrected and allow the New South Wales TAB to operate in a manner similar to that of the Victorian TAB, thus giving a better deal to small punters? Mr RENSHAW: The honourable member for Coogee is well informed about TAB operation both in New South Wales and in Victoria. It is true, as the honourable member has put forward in his question, that in Victoria a late scratching in an 8-horse or 8-dog race does not make any difference to the dividends for first, second and third placings being paid. It is true also that in relation to late scratchings in New South Wales dividends are paid only on first and second places. This is an administrative matter and there would be no necessity to amend any Act to make this adjustment. I will take the matter up immediately with the TAB to see whether appropriate adjust- ments might be made as soon as possible.

CUDAL DAM Mr WEST: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Conserva- tion and Minister for Water Resources. Will the Minister advise this House when tenders will be called for the construction of Cudal Dam? Did the previous Government proceed with the acquisition of land at the dam wall site and other works associated with its continuation? Will the Minister give an indication when his Government proposes to acquire the balance of the land required both at the wall site and the area ultimately to be covered by dam waters? Mr GORDON: The honourable member for Orange said that land has been acquired for the site of the Cudal Dam. The fact is that there has been only one Questions without Notice25 August, 1976 107 acquisition of land for this proposed work. The only work that has been carried out so far has been diamond drilling of the site. The answer to the honourable member's question is much the same as that which I gave to the honourable member for Burren- dong earlier today. It is a matter of availability of loan funds. Expenditure so far on the Cudal Dam is in the vicinity of $330,000. Mr Punch: Does this mean that there will be no more dams? Mr GORDON: No, it does not mean no more dams. As an indication of progress in this field let me say that the Chaffey Dam is under way and no doubt the honourable member for Tamworth would be happy about that. That is a project that is progressing satisfactorily. The honourable member for Barwon would be happy with the work being carried out in his electorate in an endeavour to get rid of water hyacinth, a problem which has been sadly neglected for a long time. The Dartmouth Dam has been commenced and works are proceeding on the Namoi River and the Gwydir River. Honourable members opposite cannot say that nothing is being done. In fact, if it were not for the Labor Party none of these huge constructions would have commenced.

FLOOD MITIGATION Mr FERGUSON: Yesterday the honourable member for Clarence asked me a question without notice concerning future subsidies for flood mitigation programmes in New South Wales. The Government holds strongly to the view that flood mitigation is one of the most important single contributions that can be made to country development. By minimizing the destructive power of the coastal rivers during times of flooding, the flood mitigation authorities are undertaking work of a long range character, from which the whole of the nation reaps benefits in terms of increased food production. The history of flood mitigation in this State goes back to the 1950's when the then Labor Government led the whole of Australia by resolving to tackle the age-old problem of flooding by putting into effect practical flood mitigation schemes, based on sound engineering investigations. The work has continued for almost two decades, and the stage has been reached where more than $44 million has been spent on flood mitigation works on both the tidal and the non-tidal sections of the coastal rivers. At the time when flood mitigation programmes were first commenced, they were subsidized on the basis of a two-thirds contribution by the State Government and a one-third contribution by the local governing authority concerned. During the period from 1963 to 1976 the Commonwealth Government acknowledged the national importance of the State's flood mitigation programmes and provided finance to match the State Government's contribution, thus allowing government assistance to be on the basis of two-fifths from the State Government, two-fifths from the Commonwealth Government and one-fifth from the local governing authority concerned. There were, however, different conditions applying to the Hunter Valley because of differing circumstances in that particular case. Commonwealth assistance was terminated as from 30th June, 1976, when the agreement then existing expired. The various flood mitigation authorities have prepared a submission for a further 6-year programme covering the period 1976 to 1982 and involving a total expenditure in excess of $30 million. The key issue here, of course, is whether the Commonwealth Government will agree to further participation in the flood mitigation programme. The Department of Public Works has furnished full details to my colleague the Premier, and he will be making a submission in the near future to endeavour to induce the Commonwealth Government to agree to continue the subsidy. In the meantime, however, the State Government is prepared to 108 ASSEMBLY-Questions without NoticeSessional Committees

pursue the flood mitigation programme on the basis of the old 2:1 arrangement. I hope to be in a position to advise the flood mitigation authorities next week of the allocations to them for 1976-77. As far as the Clarence River Flood Mitigation County Council is concerned, it may well be that this council may have to retard the tempo of its construction programme, but it is certainly not because of any decision on the part of the State Government. Rather will it depend on whether the Commonwealth Government is willing to continue to inject finance into the flood mitigation programmes and to allow work to continue at the same pace as previously.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE Election of Members Mr SPEAKER: I have to inform the House that in accordance with section 16 of the Audit Act, 1902, as amended, I have received from the Premier the nominations of Keith Ralph Doyle, Vincent Patrick Durick, Robert Bruce Duncan, Keith O'Connell, and Patrick Allan Rogan for election and appointment as members of the Public Accounts Committee, constituted under that Act. I shall submit forthwith to the House, for decision by open vote, the names of the members so nominated, one by one, in alphabetical order, no debate being allowed. Keith Ralph Doyle appointed. Robert Bruce Duncan appointed. Vincent Patrick Durick appointed. Keith O'Connell appointed. Patrick Allan Rogan appointed.

SESSIONAL COMMITTEES

House Motion (by Mr F. J. Walker) agreed to: (1) That the House Committee for the present Session consist of The Speaker, Mr Akister, Mr Barraclough, Mr Boyd, Mr Brereton, Mr Degen, Mr Hunter, Mr Ryan, Mr Singleton and Mr Walker, with authority to act in matters of mutual concernment with any Committee appointed for similar purposes by the Legislative Council. (2) That the Committee have leave to sit during the sittings of the House.

Library Motion (by Mr F. J. Walker) agreed to: (1 ) That the Library Committee for the present Session consist of Mr R. J, Clough, Mr Coleman, Mr Johnson, Mr Kearns, Mr Leitch, Mr Mackie, Mr Osborne, Mr Rogan, Mr Whelan and Mr Wilde, with authority and power to act jointly with the Library Committee of the Legislative Council in accordance with the Assemblv's resolution of 26 November, 1968. (2) That the Committee have leave to sit during the sittings of the House, Sessional Committees-Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 109

Printing Motion (by Mr F. J. Walker) agreed to: (1) That the Printing Committee for the present Session consist of Mr Cleary, Mr Face, Mr Fischer, Mr Johnstone, Mr Jones, Mr McGowan, Mr Maher, Mrs Meillon, Mr Mutton and Mr Rozzoli, to whom are hereby referred all Papers (except such as the Standing Orders or the House direct shall be printed) which may be laid upon the Table of the House. It shall be the duty of such Committee to report from time to time which of the Papers referred to them ought, in their opinion, to be printed, and whether in full or in abstract; and it shall be in the power of the Committee to order such Papers, or abstracts thereof, to be prepared for press by the Clerk in attendance upon such Committee, and such Papers or abstracts shall be printed unless the House otherwise order. (2) That the Clerk of the House shall cause to be printed, as a matter of course, all reports from the Printing Committee. (3) That the Committee have leave to sit during the sittings of the House. Standing Orders Motion (by Mr F. J. Walker) agreed to: (1) That the Standing Orders Committee for the present Session consist of The Speaker, Mr Brown, Mr Cameron, Mr Haigh, Mr Keane, Mr Maddison, Mr Pickard, Mr Ramsay, Mr Sheahan and the mover with leave to report on any matter or thing referred to or pending before the said Committee, and to confer upon subjects of mutual concernment with any Committee appointed for similar purposes by the Legislative Council, and that The Speaker be empowered to convene meetings of the Committee. (2) That the Committee have leave to sit during the sittings of the House.

GOVERNOR'S SPEECH: ADDRESS IN REPLY Second Day's Debate Debate resumed (from 24th August, vide page 68) on motion by Mr Wilde: That the following Address in Reply to the Speech which His Excellency the Governor had addressed to both Houses of Parliament on opening this Session of the Parliament of New South Wales be now adopted by this House: To His Excellency Sir Arthur Roden Cutler, upon whom has been conferred the decoration of the Victoria Cross, Knight Comm~nderof the Most Distin- guished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Knight of the Most Venerable Order of St John of Jerusalem, Gov- ernor of the State of New South Wales and its Dependencies, in the Common- wealth of Australia. May It Please Your Excellency- We, Her Majesty's loyal and dutiful subjects, the Members of the Legisla- tive Assembly of New South Wales, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our thanks for Your Excellency's Speech, and to assure you of our unfeigned attachment to Her Most Gracious Majesty's Throne and Person. 2. We beg to assure Your Excellency that our earnest consideration will be given to the measures to be submitted to us, and that the necessary provision for the Public Services will be made in due course. 110 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply

3. We join Your Excellency in the hope that, under the guidance of Divine Providence, our labours may be so directed as to advance the best interests of all sections of the community. Mr WEBSTER (Pittwater) [3.25]: On behalf of honourable members on this side of the House I should like to congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your elevation to your high office. I think that all honourable members on this side of the House share with you a great affection for this Parliament which is made up of this fine old building, honourable members, the people we represent who come to visit us, and the staE of this great institution. Mr Speaker, we look on you as a shining figurehead who is going to help shape the destiny of this Parliament in the years ahead. On behalf of honourable members on this side of the House I should like you to know that as long as that figurehead does not lose any of its lustre and remains untarnished it will receive the respect and courtesy that is its due. However, that is more than one can expect from Government supporters. You know as well as I do, Mr Speaker, that there are a number of fine gentle- men on the Government benches. However, there is also a group who have no respect for you or for the Chair, and they have no respect for things decent and traditional, for which this Parliament is so well known. Only yesterday the Government rejected a discussion on law and order in this community. On that occasion we went through the spectacle of watching the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, Minister for Ports and Minister for Housing taking a lashing when questions were being asked by Opposi- tion members. We saw him approach you, Mr Speaker-almost like a chicken running to its mother's wing-seeking solace. Mr Speaker, I am not willing to express the nature of what took place on that occasion lest I be accused of insulting you. Not the least of Government supporters of whom I speak is the Premier himself, the leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party. I am sorry that he is not present in the Chamber at the moment for I should like to tell him directly that my colleagues and I regard him as a brittle, frail leader and one who will soon snap. When that happens he will display the same characteristics as a dry twig of Angophora costata. The Premier is a great actor who has been in office for only a hundred days. He is like so many other Labor leaders: I do not know whether he is an ocker in silvertail's clothing or whether he is a silvertail who is acting the part of an ocker. Only last weekend we saw the spectacle of the Premier's confrere-the Labor leader of South Australia-riding an elephant at Taronga Park. On Monday night the same gentleman hared out to the television studios at Channel 7 to record the fi-st of his television series. That shows what great actors they are. Perhaps it is only a matter of time before we shall be watching the Nifty and Don Show on television. That is one presentation that we shall all look forward to watching. Mr Speaker, we all know you are a gentleman; it is therefore a shame that your tenure in the chair will be short. It will not be long before the people of New South Wales wake up to your leader and oust him from office. I should like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for conferring upon me in your publication of a couple of days ago my right to unrestricted entry to the parliamentary establishment. I understood that that right was given to me as the representative of the electorate of Pittwater. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have listened to the honourable member for Pittwater for some little time now and I feel that he might be wasting his opportunity to address the House. I must remind him that though the praise that he has lauded upon me has been nice, I feel he must come back to debate on the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply. The honourable member must deal with matters contained in the Government's general legislative programme as outlined in the Governor's Speech. Perhaps he may refer to matters that were not included in the Speech and he believes Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 11 1 should have been included. I feel that what the honourable member is dealing with now does not come within the scope of the debate on the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply, and I ask him to come back to the motion before the House. Mr WEBSTER: Mr Speaker, I understand your sensitivity on this matter, as I am sure do the members of the press who are listening in the press gallery. I shall return to what has been said already in the debate. Yesterday honourable members heard fine contributions from two new members of this Parliament. I should like to congratulate the honourable member for Parramatta and the honourable member for Blue Mountains. I am somewhat concerned about the latter gentleman. As recently as last week I spent some time in his electorate. The honourable member for Blue Mountains is a member of this House primarily because of the state of the coalmining industry. The people of his electorate are looking forward to a development of the coalmining industry based at Lithgow, but to get the coal out of the country to oversea markets it is necessary to have a coal loader at Botany Bay. In that respect I am not too clear in my mind as to what the people of Lithgow have been told and what has been going on in Sydney. It may be that the two things do not add up. At all events, I foresee the honourable member for Lithgow experiencing a fairly troubled period in his early days in this Parliament. Added to that, I have the word from people concerned with the coalmining industry in Lithgow that the new Minister for Mines and Minister for Energy announced way back in 1964 that the local coal industry was dead and that a number of small industries would be developed in the Lithgow Valley. It is understandable that the people of the Blue Mountains electorate regard their representation in this Parliament as something of a big question mark. What we have seen during the first 100 days in office of the new Labor Government is nothing more than a projection of decisions made by the previous Government-in fact an extension of the philosophies of that coalition Government. Until we heard His Excellency's Speech yesterday, we were waiting nervously to see the extent to which the socialist pressures would apply to this Government. No doubt the honourable member for Illawarra will not like any part of what I am saying, but the fact is that socialist pressures are going to deal a blow against the people of this State. I propose to deal briefly with transport and the comments in the Governor's Speech on the subject of transportation. His Excellency said that this Government has devised a 5-year modernization plan-a programme for massive replacement of rolling stock and locomotives and the installation of a computerised signalling system. It would seem that Government supporters hope to work miracles. That programme is mentioned in the Governor's Speech under the heading of innovation and reform. However, on 7th April last the Leader of the Opposition, who was then Premier and Treasurer, said that there would be thirty air-conditioned double-deck inter-suburban carriages ordered for the people of Blue Mountains and Gosford. He said also that also included in current contracts were 200 aluminium wheat waggons, 300 aluminium wheat hoppers, 500 coal hoppers, 500 coal waggons, 285 container vehicles and 1660 con- tainers, of which 160 would be refrigerated. A11 these are on order--

Mr Day: After ten years.

Mr WEBSTER: The fact is that they are on order. The people of New South Wales should know that they are being misled and hoodwinked by the Government which claims to have a programme of innovation that will revolutionize the transportation system in New South Wales. I turn now to what was said in the Governor's Speech under the heading of planning and environment. This new Labor Government 112 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply has already combined the departments of Planning and Environment. This book I have in my hand entitled Planning and Environment, proves that to be a fact. These two books I show to honourable members-one a green publication, the other a blue one-are the result of one of the greatest public relations exercises that this State has ever seen. This programme was designed to bring to the people of this State a well- balanced, all-embracing planning and environment programme. However, Government supporters have been telling the people of New South Wales for the past 100 days that theirs is a government of reform, a government that will innovate.

I am a little concerned about some other parts of the Governor's Speech, particularly those dealing with strata titles, consumer affairs and the Real Property Act. My mail tells me that we are in for a few shocks and that the Government intends to make illegal a strata title to a property more than five years old. There is something sinister about those two matters. Honourable members on the Government side are not told that sort of thing. They would not know about that yet. The party to which they belong is conducted like a union meeting. I am part of a large section of the community that has not been hoodwinked by the honeymooning Premier and by the apparent calm of his one hundred halcyon days. This allows us to see through the blatant hypocrisy of his actions. Behind the exterior that is so ably presented to the people of New South Wales there is a mind that is thinking of a club commission and casinos, in spite of recently uttered mealy-mouthed concessions to church groups.

He knows he has told the gambling bosses that there will be casinos and it is a mealy-mouthed utterance to tell people that there will be an inquiry. He has not yet told his party members, particularly the nine around Botany Bay, that the environmental impact study is just a farce. They do not know that yet, but we know and the people of New South Wales must be told. We know that the Labor Government is poised to manipulate the real estate industry in this State and to try to manipulate the medical insurance industry and is looking for worker control in the schools. That is the other side of the dulled coin.

We get sufficiently accurate reports of Labor caucus meetings-make no mistake about it. We know that the honourable member for Illawarra and one or two others from the socialist side of the group do not vote Liberal; they have to go somewhere to apply their pressure. I shaU refer frequently to socialist pressures on the Labor Government of this State. We have every reason to be suspicious and afraid that there will be a repetition of events which racked this nation between 1972 and 1975, years during which a socialist Treasurer said, "If we want more money we will print it." There was a socialist Treasurer who said, "Who needs to balance overseas payments?" In those years we witnessed some of the most irrational developments in the history of our nation. For example, through the trade union movement the socialist pressure groups alienated the work force against the multi-national companies by presenting them as great giants who came out of the hills to gobble up all and sundry.

What was the effect of this? There were unprecedented industrial troubles in the factories, excessive wage demands and, in tandem, there was the stupidity of the Hon. R. F. X. Connor who did all he could to close down the supply of raw materials by ruining the mining industry. Listen to the stupidity of it: just about when they were wondering whether it was worth while producing goods in Australia the multi- nationals got the gift of a lifetime. The Hon. E. G. Whitlam reduced tariffs on imported goods. Instead of using Australian labour to manufacture in Australia the multi- nationals drastically reduced the Australian operation and imported their goods. They were able to offer them at a competitive price because of the reduced tariffs. Mr Webster] Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 113

That makes sense to no one, but that was what the socialist influences could produce. In spite of the headlines, is not that why the Nissan company went to Victoria? Is that not why there has been a steady flow of business and industry out of New South Wales into Queensland? It is because of fear of Labor Government interference. The businessman wants to be left alone in order to get on with his business and to manufacture and trade. Mr Quinn: You sent them interstate. Mr WEBSTER: If you speak to David Muir, head of the department in Queensland and ask him about the figures, he will tell you that he is delighted with the increase. I heard Bob Hawke on radio a couple of days before the last federal election telling anyone who wanted to listen that there were fewer bankruptcies under Labor than there had been in the years before 1972. That may be so but it is only part of the story. He did not say that there were 60000 small and medium sized businessmen who found themselves in the position where they thought that it was just not worth while carrying on. Wages were too high, costs were too high and taxes were too high. They were working too hard for too little, so they opted for closing up and going into enforced hibernation, waiting for conditions to improve. Those 60 000 were not bankrupt and do not show in the bankruptcy statistics but as a nation we lost their productivity. We lost revenue from the company taxes, the income taxes and sales tax and we find their employees on the unemployment lists. There was an absurd situation of a nation not only losing out on income but also having an increased burden placed on it through ensuing social service payments. I ask the Premier to remember that when next he is talking about unemployment with his socialist pressure group and uttering platitudes about consensus, as he did back in 1971 when prices rose by an alarming 7 per cent. That is laughable today. Unemployment crept up to 1.63 per cent. Our growth rate was a sluggish 4 per cent-all this in a world ravished by inflation. But the Liberal federal Government was able, by astute management, to keep Australia out of the rat race, that is, until December, 1972. Within three years we saw a terrifying decline in our living standards. The inflation rate was 16.3 per cent. The unemployment rate was 5 per cent and rising. We even went through a quarter with a growth rate of minus 2.8 per cent- a minus growth rate in a country that is supposed to be young and vigorous, with all its riches waiting to be exploited. I present this picture today because the Parliament and the people of New South Wales need to be reminded of the thrashing the State has taken at the hands of the Labor Party. With a government in Canberra today now trying to get the country back on the rails there is no point in the New South Wales Labor Government bleating and moaning because it cannot get its hands on all the money it needs to finance its excessive election promises. As the Labor federal spokesman on the economy, Mr Chris Hurford, said recently, "We spent too much too quickly". The Government of New South Wales is poised to do the same thing. It will sell out this State, if necessary. The Government does not want to hear the message. The honourable member for Illawarra has been restless since I started but he knows that what I am saying is true. I hope that the people of New South Wales hear this, because they are going to pay. What the honourable member for Illawarra is not aware of, because his mind and ears would be closed to it, is that there is a change on the industrial front. Mr Quinn: He has an open mind. Mr WEBSTER: That is what he has not got. That is the shame of it. On the industrial front I am hearing stories of revolt. The honest to goodness dinky di 8 114 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply

Australian worker who used to take pride in his company's success, who used to feel that he was playing a part in the development of his State, is starting to rise up against the handful of communists who have oppressed him in recent years. He now realizes that he has not had much say in union affairs. He realizes that the demands made on his behalf have not only been excessive but have also cost many of his mates their jobs. The Newcastle dockyard is the John Halfpenny story, a story of social destruction. There is talk about cranking up the Australian content but in the Governor's Speech reference is made to deepening Newcastle Harbour and the Government intends to seek world-wide tenders to do so. What about getting Australian companies to do fhe dredging of the harbour? The Government is as hypocritical as it can possibly be. Just listen to this claim by the Amalgamated Metalworkers Union. I want everybody in New South Wales to listen to a log of claims of the John Halfpenny group. They ask for double superannuation of $20 across the board. They want $7 an hour in wages with a $25 a week quality allowance. Do we deduce from that, that if the employer does not pay the $25 he cannot expect quality? Further in the claim it talks of all overtime at double time and for any time off on leave, payment for seven days instead of five. The union wants compensation to be paid for by the employer, who is to be repaid by the insurance company. The claim includes ten days' sick pay with no doctor's certificate or statutory declaration. One can see the old "sickie syndrome" running rampant in those circumstances. The union asks for an extra week's leave a year and then-listen to this one-an increase in the annual leave loading to 33 per cent. Mr Ryan: On a point of order. Before the honourable member for Pittwater shows more of his ignorance I suggest that he ask some of his industrial lawyer friends who will tell him that the reason a log of claims is submitted- Mr Viney: What is the point of order? Mr Ryan: If you keep quiet, you will find out.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I intend to hear the point raised by the honourable member for Hurstville and I can hear it more clearly if there are no interjections from members of the Opposition. Mr Brown: What is the point of order? Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Raleigh to order. Mr Ryan: When a log of claims is submitted it has a wide range- Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable imember for Hurstville to come straight to the point. If he wishes to debate any matters that the honourable member for P'ittwater is discussing, he will have an opportunity at a later stage. Mr Ryan: Thank you, Mr Deputy-Speaker. I apologize. The point I wish to make is that the honourable member for Pittwater is committing an error in speaking of a log of claims in the manner- Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved. Mr WEBSTER: I can appreciate that the honourable member for Hurstville is sensitive about this as it is the sort of material that is not reaching the public of New South Wales. It is the sort of material that they need to hear in order to understand Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 115 what is happening. I shall repeat the last line of the claims, which is the punch lime: increased annual leave loading to 33 per cent. Is it any wonder that the employers of this country are tossing it in? I am not surprised to hear the responsible members of the work force in this community saying, "It has gone too far, fellows." I am meeting more and more people in the work force who have come to realize that there are communists at work and that they are on a course of self-destruction. They are beginning to see what happens if all power is vested in one pair of hands. They are coming to realize that as these people attain their objectives, which in the ultimate would see the executive, the police and the judiciary in the charge of one person, they would not be able to fight any longer. In the totalitarian situation the individual has no rights. The advocates and the perpetrators of this plot are the friends of this Labor Government. They have put that Government here to further these aims. Many fine people saw glimpses of preoisely what I am talking about when they were told to strike for a day over Medibank-with no vote and no c~ns~tation. Mr Mallrum: What is wrong with it? Mr WEBSTER: I suggest that if the honourable member for Campbelltown were to go to the toilet, in which environment he would find compatability, and looked in the mirror he would be able to say, "There is a man with the mind of a sewer rat." Those who went on strike over Medibank were told also, "Just do what the union boss tells you." They tried to pull off the same thing again with the postmen by asking them to refuse to deliver letters to doctors, but the postmen, who were trade union members, said, "Go jump in the lake". There is discontent in our cornrnunity.We are facing a period with a new Government that is based on a party which we know to lack self-control; we know it is a party that is so deeply indoctrinated that its ideological hobbyhorses will dominate the Government of this State without regard for the real needs of the people and for the future of New South Wales. On the morning after the delivery of the first federal Labor budget an economist who is well known in Labor circles and had been working on some of their so-called fiscal reforms, telephoned me and said: "They are mad. They have built unemployment into that budget. They will be chucked OLI~." And so it was on 15th December last year. This is what a supporter of honourable members opposite told me. My advice to the Government is to remember that statement. It has to stop uttering political platitudes about inflation and unemployment. The time is ripe for the Government to start looking at the deep, root causes, recognize them and act in a way that will relieve many people instead of playing around with its left-wing pressure doctrines which it wants to foist on an unwilling public. Already the Premier is on the money train. He knows that he has a better deal from the federal Government than the Opposition ever received when it was in government. This afternoon one of the ignorant government supporters talked about the new federalism. I remind him that it does not start operating until next year. If he were to spend a little more time trying to keep himself informed, he would know that. Last night we were invited by the Premier to work in a spirit of consensus. If the Government stopped looking for more money and started thinking about wanting less money for government, we might be able to do business. During the lifetime of this Parliament I am going to thump the Government, seeking a greater role in capital development and the functions of this State by private, competitive enterprise. Though we are over-governed, that is not to say that some percentage of progress is not best handled by government. We are and always have been a hybrid society- private enterprise and government. However, an imbalance has developed which has allowed too much activity on the government side. This can be largely attributed 116 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply to the fact that our social and political progress has been much slower than technological advance and as a result of that, through our fear or ignorance, we are losing the strength and the courage to make the right decisions. I once heard it said that we can be likened to a bunch of carpenters hammering away, often hitting our own thumbs and our heads as we bring our hammers back; we do not quite know what we are trying to build and meanwhile we blame the hammers. In the past two days the House has listened to a lot of hammer blows. I think of joint ventures in which government and private enterprise might operate satisfactorily. I think of coal exploration and of the future of the liquefaction of coal to provide fuel for the State's future needs. I think also of nuclear energy. Are we to run away from uranium or should we regard it as the element that will take us across an economic threshold? A better private enterprise and government balance is vital. The Moomba to Sydney gas pipeline, of which a great deal will be heard in this Parliament in the coming weeks, is a classic tragic example of too much government interference. One cannot expect private enterprise to find the huge sum of money involved and to take the necessary risks and bear them alone. Therefore, government is necessary as a partner if we are to benefit from all the good that science and technology can provide. A creative and co-operative relationship should and can be developed. Two observations I should like to make in support of my comments are that, though our high standard of living has its roots firmly embedded in many years of scientific and technical progress and though we cannot ask people in our community to accept a reduced standard of personal goods and services, we as community leaders need to remove the indiscriminately applied anti-technology bias that has been promoted by the friends of Labor. Every citizen that we represent has a right to aspire to higher standards. If this is our objective, we must go out in search of sound, non-emotional, unprejudiced, meaningful value judgments. We must consider the good that can come from progress as well as looking at the bad, and the costs. We do not want a massive government bureaucracy. We do not want governments telling people where they will invest their savings, what jobs they will take or even allocating the natural resources of the nation. This socialist-pressured Labor Government wants to do these things. For example, it wishes to set up in this State an energy authority to control the production and distribution of all energy in the name of the people of New South Wales. Mr Mallam: Hear, hear! Mr WEBSTER: The vocabulary of the honourable member for Campbelltown is limited to about four words, including hear, hear, which he says often. In the interests of the people of this State I want to see private enterprise alive and healthy in New South Wales so that it can maintain its ability to offer people their freedom and make the contribution to society that the people expect. The friends of this Government do not want to see that happen. So ravaging have been the effects of Labor-induced inflation in this country that many private companies in New South Wales today find themselves with debts out of all proportion to their equity capital and net earnings. This, in parallel with the high interest rates, creates an intolerable debt expense. New equity capital in New South Wales is as hard to come by as a decision from a Labor Minister. It is all very well for the Premier to re-echo our introduction of the deferred payment system of activating the building industry. I hope he understands that it was only a palliative and a stopgap until things get going again. If it is allowed to run on unchecked, it could be highly dangerous. The building industry is a service industry. It does not create a market, but if you can get a market going the building industry will flourish. What is needed, to reactivate private industry and thus provide jobs for the unemployed and a willing Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 117 market-place for the goods and services produced, is an honest realization followed by positive, co-operative action, in favour of the role of competitive enterprise. But I am afraid this State is about to fall victim to political indulgence, to indiscriminate government spending. It is useless trying to cure a social ill if in the process one negates the means by which the cure can be funded and in so doing causes to ail the very lifeline to the source of needed resources. I ask the Government to give an honest answer to the question, what does a human being require? What is human need? We have not touched even the most basic research into this question. If we could get started and make proper use of the magnificent technological information available to us, we might just find ourselves on a skilfully guided path which lifts productivity, reduces waste, stores, retrieves, alters, builds, and utilizes according to human need. All of us-members of this Parliament, environmentalists, representatives of the press, scientists, primary producers-need to be involved in this research. If, in the interests of that honest answer, all sections work to the common aim, we will beat inflation and unemployment, resources will be more widely used, common social ills will disappear and people with a genuine need for justice on their side will receive the care they deserve. On this basis, I will go along with consensus. It was Booker T. Washington who wrote: "In all things that are social, we can be as separate as the fingers, yet as one hand in all things essential to mutual progress." I am afraid that the Labor Government in New South Wales today is hitting itself on the head as it brings its hammer back, and it will blame the hammer for the result. I fear for the future of New South Wales under this Government. Mr PETERSEN (Illawarra) [3.55]: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I support the Address-in-Reply motion so ably moved by the honourable member for Parramatta and seconded by the honourable member for Blue Mountains. I congratulate them on the high standard they have set for this debate. With the dedication and ability they have displayed in their speeches, it is a fair presumption that they will continue to hold their seats against the attacks of the Liberal-Country party Opposi- tion and that Labor's stay in Government in New South Wales will be prolonged. This presumption is confirmed by the wide-ranging nature of the Labor Government's legislative programme. However, having said that, let me say also that my pleasure in being a member of the Government is tempered by anger-anger that the rotten, capitalist society in which we live is for the second time in my lifetime subjected to a state of slump, with mass unemployment. In my electorate the unemployment rate is 8.8 per cent compared with a national average of 5.2 per cent. The reason for this unemployment is primarily the same as the reason for mass unemployment in the 'thirties-that the ruling class of this country, when faced with a choice between mass unemployment and reduction in the rate of profit, chose mass unemployment. On this occasion, too, there is another factor-rising inflation-which the capitalist class want controlled. The only way that they visualize its being controlled is to reduce consumer demand. Now, this does not mean cutting out colour television, production of luxury yachts, sales of Mercedes- Benz cars. What it means to Fraser and Anthony is reduction of government spending on health, education, public transport and other essential services and a pool of unemployment amongst the workers in order to keep wages down. That is a reversal of the position that occurred during three years of Labor government from 1972-75 when the workers obtained clear and unmistakable gains in their standard of living. That is the basic reason why the Labor Government was dismissed on 11th November, 1975. In a situation of world economic crises the Australian capitalist class thought it was necessary to bring the working class to heel-something which they thought 118 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply

they would do much more easily under their own Liberal-Country party Government than with a Labor government based upon the working class and the trade union movement. What happened on 1 lth November, 1975, showed quite clearly that, faced with a situation of ~~nusualeconomic crisis-when the workers are demonstrating their absolute refusal to accept the consequences of the capitalist mode of production-the capitalist class and their direct agents are not at all fussy about their methods. In Chile the democratically elected President Allende was murdered by the army generals. In Australia we had a conspiracy of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Malcolm Fraser. the Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, and the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, to remove the democratically elected Prime Minister, Mr Gough Whitlam. I have not the time to examine their motives in full. It is not necessary to examine those of Malcolm Fraser-a wealthy property-owning squire. His nearest counterparts are the German junkers who formed the mainstay of Prussian militarism. It is also not necessary to examine the motives of Sir Garfield Barwick, whose brum legal advice played such a major part in Kerr's action to dismiss the Government. Every lawyer of any capability knows that the so-called legal opinion was of such an abominable standard of competence that any law student who gave such an answer to an examination question on constitutional law would have been lucky to get 2 out of 10. He was a hack Tory politician who got the job of Chief Justice in return for services rendered-and at the appropriate time he returned the favour. What does concern me particularly is the role played by Sir John Kerr, Labor's appointee to the Governor-Generalship. Why dic! he conspire with the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice to overthrow a democratically elected government? Mr Punch: On a point of order. I take the point that this House should not be harangued by the member for Illawarra denigrating the Governor-General and the position that he occupies in this country, and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, as he has just done. He may disagree with some of the actions that were taken, but it ill-becomes any member of this House to behave in such a lairikin fashion and make the utterances that he is making today. I ask you, Mr Deputy- Speaker, to direct the honourable member to speak to the motion before the Chair, which is for the adoption of the Address in Reply to the Governor's Speech, and not make a personal attack on the Goverror-General or the Chief Justice. Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: My attention was temporarily distracted and I was not listening intently to what the honourable member for Illawarra was saying. The Address-in-Reply debate should he confined to matters that are in the Governor's Speech or to omissions from it, provided those omissions relate to subjects that may properly be included. As I indicated previously, I did not hear what the honourable member for Illawarra said, but if he wishes to pursue the theme to which the Leader of the Country Party objected, he will have to convince me that it relates to the Governor's Speech. Mr PETERSEN: Thank you for your ruling, Mr Deputy-Speaker. This is a vital point. The Labor Government is in office in the State of New South Wales because of dissatisfaction with the rule of the previous Liberal-Country party Govern- ment of New South Wales. After all, it was just a question of the unpopularity of the Government. I have no doubt that if the Liberal-Country party Government in Can- berra were now to go to the polls it would be overwhelmingly defeated. Of course, none of us has any illusions that Sir John Kerr will dismiss the present federal Liberal- Country party Government. I put it quite bluntly that John Kerr dismissed the Labor Government because he wanted to protect the economic and 'social system of privilege in which he held a favoured position and to which he had scrambled and crawled Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 1 l') after beginning life in working-class Balmain. We need to forget any assumption that he was overly concerned with maintaining the law. I aim to demonstrate that when the law concerns his own privileges, his legal training does not deter him from having the law bent in his favour. Mr Webster: On a point of order. Mr Deputy-Speaker, it is my understanding that a member may use copious notes when speaking in a debate but he may not read directly from the manuscript, which I submit the honourable member for Illawarra is doing. Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! It has been ruled many times that a member may refer to copious notes. Indeed, the member who spoke immediately before the honourable member for Illawarra did just that. I think all the honourable member for Illawarra is doing is to refer to copious notes. Mr Punch: On a further point of order. I take the point, Mr Deputy-Speaker, that the honourable member for Illawarra is continuing his personal attack on the Governor-General. This has nothing to do with the Address-in-Reply debate which is before this Chamber. I ask you to direct the member to refrain from doing this. Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I intimated previously the conditions under which this debate would continue, that is, that an honourable member may refer ta- matters that were included in the Governor's Speech or matters that could properly have been included in it but were not. If the actions of the Governor-General and the subsequent changes in the political nature of the Government in Cacberra have brought changes in our State economy, I think it is fair for an honourable member to link up the actions of the Governor-General with the subsequent flow of events which brought about such a change in the financial affairs of New South Wales. The honourable memiber for Illawarra is completely in order. Mr PETERSEN: I want to examine the facts involved in the divorce case of Robson v. Robson. First, it is difficult to ascertain exactly the facts in this case. Mr Punch: On a point of order. The honourable member for Illawarra is renowned for getting down in the gutter and for the depths to which he will sink at all times in this House. He is now referring to a matter concerning the wife of the Governor-General, and to some other happenings that may have gone on. I submit that has nothing to do with this debate. Mr Deputy-Speaker. I ask you again- Mr Flaherty. You are canvassing a ruling of the Chair. Mr Punch: I am not. The divorce of a certain person has nothing to do with this debate. Surely members are adult enough to get out of the gutter and behave as members of Parliament, not as hobos, like the honourable member for Illawana does. I ask you, Mr Deputy-Speaker, to direct him to return to the motion before the Chair. Mr Petersen: On the point of order. I wish to draw attention to the fact that the administration of the previous Government left a great deal to be desired. The particular example I am quoting is an indication of the sort of administration that we would not countenance in a Labor government. Mr Webster: Mr Deputy-Speaker, without canvassing your ruling- Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Is this on the same point of order? Mr Webster: Yes. In my address to this Parliament not thirty minutes ago I was brought back to the specific subject matter of the Address in Reply by the Speaker aS this Chamber. 120 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER. Order! On two occasions I have ruled on the extent of the Address-in-Reply debate. I said that matters of federal concern and jurisdiction may be mentioned only so far as they affect the State Government's legislative and administrative duties. If the State Government is administering any facilities or any department for the federal Government, that comes within the ambit of this debate. I shall listen intently to what the honourable member for Illawarra has to say, but I ask him to confine himself within the parameters I have outlined. Mr PETERSEN: Thank you, Mr Deputy-Speaker. First, I want to state exactly the facts in this case. In this House on 18th March, 1976, I drew attention to the fact that the file of papers concerning the case are not held in the divorce registry. I should like to know who removed them, why they were removed, and whether the removal was effected legally-and so would millions of Australian citizens. However, the records show that certain actions- Mr Jackett: On a point of crder. Mr Deputy-Speaker, it has been ruled on many occasions that a member may refer to copious notes but may not read his speech. The reason for this rule is, of course, that the House is very anxious- Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I ruled on that very point a few minutes ago when the honourable member for Pittwater raised it. As I have already given a ruling on it, no point of order is involved. Mr Jackett: I submit with all the respect in which I hold the Chair that I am not referring to what the honourable member for Illawarra was saying when you gave a previous ruling. I am referring to what he is saying at this moment. With all the respect I can pay you, Mr Deputy-Speaker, I ask you to bring him to order. Over the years the whole purpose of such a ruling has been that a member may not speak from a prepared speech. Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I advise the honourable member for Bunvood that not ten minutes ago I ruled on that very point of order. The honourable member for Illawarra is not breaching the rules. The point of order is not upheld. Mr PETERSEN: Thank you, Mr Deputy-Speaker. The records show that certain actions occurred. Mrs Robson's application for divorce was filed on 17th March, 1975. It was set down for hearing on 15th April, 1975, and the decree absol~~tewas granted forthwith. John Robert Kerr and Anne Robson were married on 29th April, 1975. Several journalists have pointed out that a period of five weeks from date of application to date of decree absdute is unusually short. The case of my own divorce is much more typical. I did not seek any special privileges not provided for by law and it took five months from date of original application to date of decree absolute. In order to demonstrate how Mrs Anne Robson's application was specially dealt with, let me tell the House the procedure involved in my case and compare it with that of Mrs Robson. My original petition was filed on 22nd April, 1975, and with the application I filed a discretion statement. Mr Jackett: On a point of order. Mr Speaker, I take the point that the honourable member for Illawarra has not looked up from the notes from which he has been reading for over a minute. It would be impossible for him to memorize every word of it and it is obvious that he has not done so as he has not looked up from his notes. The whole purpose of this ruling, surely, is that a member may not read his speech. Obviously the honourable member's speech has been prepared for him in Marx House. I ask that you rule him out of order. Mr Einfeld: On the point of order. In the past ten minutes the honourable member for Burwood has taken the same point of order twice, and on both occasions the Deputy-Speaker ruled against him. He has just made exactly the same point of Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 121 order again. It is not unusual for him to make an irrelevant and irresponsible suggestion, but I ask you to regard these interjections and points of order as frivolous. With respect, I think you ought to warn members that if they continue to do this sort of thing you will take appropriate action. Mr Jackett: On the point of order. Mr Speaker, I submit to you that the Deputy- Speaker ruled in that particular case that it was the same point of order that was taken ten minutes before. As I was not in the House when the previous point of order was taken how could it be the same point of order? I invite your attention to the fact that the honourable member for Illawarra was reading and did not lift his eyes from the papers before him for over one minute. I was drawing your attention to that, and not to something that happened ten minutes before. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member is repeating the point that was taken earlier. Although I have just entered the Chamber, I was listening to the proceed- ings, and I heard the Deputy-Speaker request the honourable member to link up his remarks with the motion. I shall certainly observe his conduct from now on, but I rule that he is entitled to read from copious notes. This has been acknowledged by previous Speakers. I am sure that the honourable member for Illawarra will accede to my request. Mr PETERSEN: When I filed my petition, I filed with it a discretion statement admitting adultery with the lady I love and to whom I am now married. Mrs Robson's petition was not accompanied by such a statement. What is so special about Mrs Robson that when she filed her petition on 17th March, 1975, she was not required to file a discretion statement in accordance with the terms of court rule 164? Mr SPEAKER: Order! Does the honourable member for Armidale wish to take a point of order? Mr Leitch: Yes. Mr SPEAKER: When the honourable member rises to take a point of order he should not simply stand in his place; he should let me know why he is rising. Mr Leitch: Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the rulings of one of your predecessors, especially ruling 89 of Sir Kevin Ellis, in which he said: Honourable Members who seek to use the privilege of freedom of speech in this House to criticize non-members of the House do so upon their own responsibility. Occasionally the Chair, in what might appear to be a bad case, seeks to restrain any such attack but it is not within the province of the Speaker to prevent free speech in this House. Having quoted that, I submit that this is a bad case. This is a scurrilous attack on a private citizen, and it is demeaning to this House that it should be allowed to continue. Therefore, I submit that such an attack should be ruled out of order. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Matrimonial Causes Act is administered by both the federal Government and the State Government. I have listened to the honourable member for Illawarra instancing the situation concerning his own divorce, and apparently he is comparing it with another circumstance. From what I have heard of his speech, I do not see that he is out of order. However, I shall certainly be listening to make sure that he does not unduly attack an outside individual who has no right of reply in this House. I ask the honourable member for Illawarra to continue. Mr PETERSEN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. No discretion statement was filed as provided for by court rule 164, and I wonder what is so special about Mrs Robson that she was not required to He a discretion statement when it is necessary to have it 122 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply there for perusal by the Attorney-General should he be not satisfied that the law has been complied with. Any divorce lawyer can tell you that it is most unwise for a petitioner not to fde a discretion statement in circumstances where there is the possibility of a person's adultery being revealed in evidence. Could it be that Mm Robsola had received an undertaking that the lack of a discretion statement would not be raised in court? Was there collusion? If so, with whom?

In my case, my former wife's legal advisers notified my legal advisers that she did not intend to defend the case, and on 29th May, 1975, I applied to the court to have my divorce petition set down as an undefended case. However, like Sir John. Kerr, I wished to travel with my present wife, and on 5th September, 1975, I applied in writing, with a sworn affidavit, for expedition of the hearing. I acted in accordance with court rule 180 (2),asking for the court to expedite the hearing as provided for ia court rule 180 (1) . No such written application was made by Mrs Robson.

Not wishing to receive any special privileges, and being determined to obey the law-in fact, I had no alternative but to obey the law-I made my application as provided for in the court rules. I was particularly careful to ensure that my application complied with court rules 19 (l), (2) and (3), asking for an early date for the hearing, and for the case to be heard in Sydney. In accordance with court rule 19 (4) an affidavi't accompanied the application, setting out my personal reasons for an expedited hearing. My barrister appeared before Mr Justice Carmichael on 5th September, 1975, and the judge approved the application and set the hearing for 10th September, 1975.

Unlike the actions of Mrs Robson's legal advisers, my solicitor notified my spouse of the date of the hearing. What 1 should like to learn is who fixed the hearing of the Robson v. Robson case for 4.30 p.m. on 19th April, 1975? Why was Judge Robson not advised? I realize that there is no legal obligation to advise the other party in an undefended case, but surely it is a matter of common courtesy to do so. The hearing of my case took place at 10 a.m. on 10th September-not at 4.30 p.m., which is, to say the least, an unusual time for a case to be heard. In addition, my case was listed on the court notice board for anybody passing to see-unlike the Robson v. Robson case. I can see nothing in the court rules which provide for any exemption from court listing. How did Mrs Robson avoid having her case listed?

At the hearing of my case on 10th September, 1975, I was granted a decree nisi, to become absolute in seven days. Unlike Mrs Robson, and despite the fact that my former wife was present in court, I was not granted the favour of an immediate decree absolute similar to that obtained by Mrs Robson on 18th April, 1975. Although there is no doubt of the legality of that decision, it is, to say the least, unusual for a decree absolute to be granted immediately. It is something like the death penalty in criminal law-it is so final. What were the unusual circumstances that prompted the grant of an immediate decree absolute? Were any special representations made and, if so, who made them, and to whom were they made?

The Robson v. Robson case raises very important issues. So far as the administration of justice in New South Wales is concerned, is there one law for the elite and another for the masses? The divorce court rules have been approved by this Parliament and have the force of law. One of the ironies of the situation is that no penalties are provided for breaching them. ObviousIv it never occurred to the persons who drew them up that the courts operating under their aegis would not comply with them. However, in the case of Robson v. Robson there is a case where court rule 164 was not complied with, in that a discretion statement was not fded by the petitioner, and the Mr Petersen] Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 123 application for expedition of the case did not comply with the provisions of court rules 180 and 19. There have been departures from the normal procedures concerning the listing of the case, the time of hearing, the granting of a decree absolute, and the removal of the file of papers. Mr Jackett: On a point of order. I am at a loss to understand just how the honourable member for Illawarra is tying this up to the Address-in-Reply debate. I concede that it is possible for an honourable member to say, "That is not in the Governor's Speech, but I think it should be". If that is what the honourable member is doing, I cannot see how he can contend that a divorce case is relevant. It seems to me that there must be some limitation on the way in which this debate should be conducted. I do not mind any honourable member departing a little from the strict confines of a debate. Every member is considered to be an honourable member, but the honourable member for Illawarra is now broaching the conduct of a particular divorce case. With due respect, I cannot for the life of me see how this can be related in any way to the Governor's Speech, which includes intentions of the Govern- ment, the record of the Government, what its supporters ssid befcre the elections, and what they want to do after the elections. What the honourable member is putting cannot be related to the intentions of the Government or to his dissatisfaction with the way in which the government of this State is conducted. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I point out to the honourable member for Burwood that he does not have the call to address the House; he has risen on a point of order. I ask him to make his point explicit and concise, and I shall rule on it. Mr Jackett: I am merely asking how the honourable member for Illawarra is able to relate what he is saying about the conduct of a divorce case some considerable time ago either to what is in the Governor's Speech or what is not in that Speech. I ask you to inquire from the honourable member how he connects his remarks with the motion for the Address in Reply; that is all I ask. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The debate on this motion permits honourable members to speak of matters of policy contained in His Excellency's Speech and on matters of policy that might have been omitted from that Speech. I assume from what I have heard so far that the honourable member for Illawarra is representing that in the application of the divorce laws in this State a differentiation is made between persons. If that is something that can be corrected by legislation, the honourable member for Illawarra is in order. Mr PETERSEN: As I said in this House on 18th March, 1976, there is grave concern and disquiet that justice was not done in this case, for it appears that special favours were bestowed through the old-boy network. Having said all that. one needs to ask why special favours were applied for. Mr Leitch: On a point of order. I refer to the decisions of the Hon. Sir Kevin Ellis between 26th May, 1965, and 19th October, 1973, and in particular to his ruling regarding reflections upon judges. I shall not read all of it, but Mr Speaker Ellis held that the conduct and actions of a judge may be criticized only by a specific and distinct substantive motion. Tt scemed to me that the honourable member for Illawarra in his last remarks was criticizing either a judge or the whole judiciary. Mr Petersen: I have not mentioned a judge. Mr Leitch: The honourable member for Illawarra interjects and says that he has not named a judge. By implication he admits he is doing exactly what I have said, and I submit that he should be ruled out of order. 124 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply

Mr SPEAKER: Order! What the honourable member for Armidale says about the ruling of the Hon. Sir Kevin Ellis is true, but there are other views on this matter. I refer to a case in which it was said that no wrong is committed by a member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticizing in good faith, in private or public, public acts done in the seat of justice. If some wrong has been done, I do not see that the honourable member for Illawarra is out of order in raising the matter in an endeavour to have the position corrected. I think that that is all the honourable member is trying to do in this case. Mr PETERSEN: As I said, one needs to ask why special favours were applied for. Complying with the court rules caused me a little inconvenience. I have no doubt that Lady Kerr could have complied with all of the court rules, and all that would have happened would have been a delay in obtaining a divorce by no more than a month. Apparently, though, Sir John Kerr believes that he and his family are entitled to special privileges at all times. Could not he wait another month? What the case indicates also is that, among our elite, respect for the law runs a poor second to matters concerning their own convenience. If the law is incon- venient, they will bend and break it to suit their own purposes. Clearly, in this case, the normal procedures of the divorce courts were bypassed simply to suit the convenience of Sir John Kerr. It seems that for people like Sir John Kerr there is great joy to be found in the exercise of privilege. Mr Cameron: On a point of order. The honourable member for Illawarra pro- ceeds to make random accusations that Sir John Kerr has bent and broken the law. The honourable member has adduced no evidence whatever to indicate that Sir John Kerr has bent or broken any law. I put it that his allegations are scandalous and are an outrageous breach of parliamentary privilege. I submit that it is appropriate at this stage that you warn him, and warn him fairly, of his responsibilities in relation to parliamentary privilege, and that if he persists in this scandalous behaviour, a heavy responsibility will rest upon you, which may involve asking the honourable member to resume his seat. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Illawarra is now seeming to attack sovereignty, and there may be some substance in the point of order. However, I regret to advise the honourable member for Illawarra that his time has expired. Mr PUNCH (Gloucester), Leader of the Country Party [4.25]: First, let me offer my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply on their maiden speeches. Second, let me say that my contribution to the debate most certainly will be constructive, unlike the totally destructive tirade we have just heard from the honourable member for Illawarra. The Governor referred at some length in his Speech to unemployment-and rightly so, for unemployment is a serious problem in New South Wales, particularly in country areas. The Government, surely, must give every attention to lessening the effects of unemployment on people throughout the State, particularly in the places where unemployment is serious, such as in country businesses and in primary industry. Many people who were on the land have been displaced and compelled to go else- where, even to the cities, to seek jobs. I hope that the State Budget to be delivered next month will make provision for a positive attack on the problem of unemployment. The Government begins its period in office in a fortunate position. It starts off with a balanced State Budget for the financial year 1975-76. In fact, there was a surplus of more than $21 million. It starts off also with the new Fraser federalism plan, as a result of which it will be receiving from the federal Government 21 per cent Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 125 or $643 million more in 1976-77 than the State received in the previous financial year. In these days of extreme inflation great credit is reflected on the administrative ability of any government that can balance its budget. The previous Liberal-Country party Government did just that. It is now up to the Labor Government to show what it can do. I hope that the Government will not fall for the pie-in-the-sky line followed by the former federal Labor Government, and I say that because during the State election campaign the Premier made so many wild, irresponsible promises- promises expensive to implement. It is now his problem to honour those promises. I trust that he will adopt a responsible attitude so that the people of New South Wales will not be penalized, as the Australian people generally were penalized when the federal Labor Government caused so much suffering, so much unemployment, and increased so many taxes in implementing its programme.

The Fraser Government's Budget introduced last week showed considerable foresight and wisdom in not increasing taxation. I trust that the New South Wales Government will follow suit. We should not lose sight of the fact that most of the present unemployment in Australia, and all of the existing level of inflation, were caused in the three short years during which the Labor Party was in office in Canberra. I do not believe that any nation has seen such a tremendous change in the national economy as Australia saw under the federal Labor Government. In three short years Australia went from being an exciting, vibrant, developing country of which we were all proud, a country where people were getting on so well, to a place where, suddenly, fear, unemployment and inflation were rife, and so many people were wondering whether they would be able to carry on. That need not have happened in Australia, which is an isolated nation, if the federal Government had adopted a responsible attitude at that time. But no, the Labor Party in Canberra was determined to go ahead with its grandiose schemes.

Australia is fortunate in being a rich country. However, it is not large enough, so rich or so well populated to be able to support such extravagant schemes as those proposed by the former federal Labor Government, particularly its leader the Hon. E. G. Whitlam. This is particularly so when one considers the totally irresponsible economic management displayed by that Government. I do not dispute that some of the schemes proposed by the former federal Labor Government had commendable merit, but it must never be forgotten that the schemes put forward by a government of any political persuasion must be paid for: nothing is ever free. If the new State Government is to help to control inflation-and this will result in the control of unemployment to a considerable degree-it must show restraint. Honourable members were interested to hear His Excellency's Speech yesterday, particularly his comments about the Government's concern in regard to the slump in rural incomes. The Govern- ment acknowledges that prices have risen only marginally against steeply rising costs. However, it seems strange that one of the new Ministers should act rather contrary to this view by freezing prices on one commodity, milk. Milk producers also have to suffer increased prices. I propose now to suggest some action which I believe the Government can take to assist people, particularly those in primary industries and in small businesses in country towns, all of whom are in urgent need of assistance. I propose also to refer to some of the comments that have been made during this debate and in other places since we last assembled about the record of the previous Government. The new Minister for Decentralisation and Development and Minister for Primary Industries delivered a tirade in this House, claiming that the record of the previous Government in regard to decentralization was not good. He said that this was due to its indolence and apathy over the past decade. I remind the House that in 1965 the former Liberal- Country party Government established the first Ministry of Decentralisation and 126 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply

Development and appointed the first full-time Minister for Decentralisation and Development. That Government started a programme that compared more than favourably with anything that Labor proposed in all those years. Labor was previously in office in this State for twenty-four years and during all that time it spent only $3.6 million on decentralization and assisting industries to become established and to expand in country areas. In the eleven years that New South Wales had a Liberal-Country party Government in office $88 million was committed to help l 000 industries in 200 different centres throughout the State. This allowed about 80 000 people to remain in country areas because of the local job opportunities that were provided there for them. That Government also provided accommodation for key personnel employed in those industries by constructing 2 000 cottages over that period. Do not let us hear any more nonsensical statements like the one that the Minister for Decentralisation and Development and Minister for Primary Industries made about decentralization. He spoke about apathy of the previous Government, but he should be aware of the record of the Labor Party on decentralization. Labor displayed indolence and apathy in other fields also. In answer to questions without notice today another Minister said that water conservation works in this State could all be wiped. Mr Einfeld: He did not say that at all. Mr PUNCH: He definitely implied that. The only exception he mentioned was Chaffey Dam, about which I shall say something shortly. We now find that two more projects that were about to start have suddenly been scrapped. We were told that they will be continued when funds permit the work to be carried out. I am willing to provide the Minister at the table with plenty of factual information if he wants it. In the twenty-four years that Labor was in office in this State its record in water conservation was one dam started and carried through to completion-one dam in twenty-four years. In the eleven years from 1965 to 1976, when the Liberal-Country party Government was in office in this State, six major dams were started and finished. Other dams that Labor had been playing around with were completed, and still more dams are now well on the way to completion. The key figure in my argument is that during our term of office six dams were started and finished compared with only one dam in more than double the time that Labor was in office in New South Wales. To my mind that is a positive and constructive record of which the former Government can be proud. Labor's record is one of which it certainly cannot be proud. It displays once again the attitude of the Labor Party-whether in the federal sphere or in this State-that it has no interest in the country areas. Labor is not interested in expenditure directed at helping country areas. The only dam mentioned as proceeding by the Minister for Conservation and Minister for Water Resources today was the Chaffey Dam. It is going ahead for onIy two reasons: first, construction was too far advanced for Labor to stop the work; and second, a large proportion of the water to be stored in that dam will be used for the town supply of the city of Tamworth, one of our most important provincial centres in this State. Construction on the Chaffey Dam hed to go ahead because it was so important to the people and the industries based at Tamworth. On water conservation and the need to provide balanced agricultural development in this State, the answer is a lemon as far as the Labor Party is concerned. Its record proves that. I hope the Government will continue the programme that was commenced and followed by the previous Government in providing country towns, villages and provincial centres with adequate water and sewerage schemes. When the former Govern- ment came to office people had to wait fifteen years to get a sewerage supply. When that Government went out of office the waiting period was down to seven years and we Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 127 were even reducing that time. It should at least stay at that level or drop even lower, if it is possible to provide more funds for this purpose. I certainly do not want to see people waiting for these services for the time that they waited under Labor because of its attitude towards the needs of areas outside the metropolitan area of Sydney. When the former Liberal-Country party Government was in office in this State tremendous progress was made on road construction in country areas. Although there was not as much work done as I should like to have seen, people who travel about the State will have noticed a tremendous improvement in the past eleven years as a result of the money spent on country roads. %nfortunately, rural roads suffered from the time that the federal Labor Government came to office. Labor cut the Commonwealth Aid Roads grant in each 3-year period. About $24 million was spent by the former Liberal-Country party Government on new roads, but the Labor Govern- ment in Canberra cut that expenditure to $23 million, then $15 million and then to $13.5 million in a 3-year period. With inflation running at the level it was under Labor, about 20 per cent, not a great deal of roadwork could be done with that amount of money. The former State Government is proud of its constructive record. We hope that the new Labor Government will give more consideration to these issues than Labor has done in the past. We hope particularly that it will give more consideration to decentralization and water conservation than the Government has indicated today and yesterday in this House. One of the most important problems facing the State today is the depressed state of our primary industries. Almost without exception, they are fighting for survival. Along with this goes the economic survival of hundreds of thousands of people who live outside the Sydney metropolitan area, and, indeed, many business people in the metropolitan area. All these people-in fact, the whole economy of the State-depend on a prosperous primary industry. Landholders, employees, people who conduct businesses in country towns-in fact, the whole rural community-are dependent for their pros- perity on our primary industries. I can recall that about ten years ago there was a serious drought in this State when the primary industries suffered severely and millions of sheep and hundreds of thousands of cattle were lost. At that time the motor industry in the city was laying off men because it was impossible to maintain sales owing to the depressed state of the primary industries throughout New South Wales. It is not a matter of saying: "She'll be right. The farmers are always crying out for help". What is at stake is the survival of so many people outside the capital cities, as well as serious consequences for the cities themselves. I should like to refer the House to some rural industries, particularly the beef cattle, dairy, fruitgrowing and wool industries. Although there has been a slight improvement in the wool industry it is still terribly sick. The only bright spot is in the grain industry. Even that industry is being handicapped at a critical time by disastrous holdups in shipping movements and in clearing the silos in the northern part of the State so that more wheat may be placed in the silos for the growers to be paid. I do not consider that many people, including many members of Parliament, fully realize the serious problems that face country areas today and the definite need there is to look after them. I should like to run briefly through some of the problems and to remind honourable members of what has happened over the past ten years to the income and costs of primary producers. From 1965-66 to 1975-76 the adult male wage virtually trebled from $58 to $168 a week. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has estimated that in the past two years farmers' costs have gone up by 46 per cent. At the same time the income of most primary producers has dropped, or has not done much better than remain static. For example, ten years ago in the wool industry the average price per 128 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply kilogramme of greasy wool was 110 cents. Ten years later it was 126 cents, an increase of 15 per cent. Over the past three years to the start of the present season the price of wool had dropped by 22 per cent. In the past four years costs in the wool industry have gone up by 77 per cent. How can an industry survive when costs have increased by 77 per cent but income is down by 22 per cent? Costs continue to increase. We are witnessing an unfortunate position in our vital wool industry, which has made this country. The old saying of riding on the sheep's back is still true. One sees today in wool districts people unable to maintain their properties in a reasonable manner. Fences and buildings are neglected and properties overrun with unwanted growth and suckers. Properties are not being cared for or fertilized properly. One observes also a decline in the quality of stock on many properties. I should like also to refer to the beef cattle industry. Ten years ago a truckload of prime fat bullocks would bring about $2,000. Today a similar truckload would bring $1,000, or perhaps a little more. Over that period wages and fencing and other costs have approximately trebled. Ten years ago a 12-month-old vealer would have brought $100; now it would bring $60. Poddy calves used to bring about $15 or $25 each but today one would be lucky to get anything for them. One might obtain $5 each for them if one was particularly lucky. Certainly in the drought area in Victoria poddy calves would bring no return and many are being shot. I do not intend to speak at length on the dairy industry for legislation is to come before the House shortly and I shall speak then at some length on that industry. In 1965 the producer of whole milk received 43.42~a gallon. In 1975 he received 77.81~a gallon, an increase of 79 per cent. However, over the same period $theprice paid to the producer for manufacturing milk has remained static. It has dropped a little in the past year or two as a result of the loss of oversea markets. If one allows for New South Wales having a 50/50 produotion of whole milk and manufacturing milk, it means that on an average the price of milk has increased by approximately 40 per cent. One must then look at the costs of dairyfarmers who work generally 12 hours a day, 7 days a week for 365 days a year. One hears a lot about prices and proposals to be brought forward by the Government, but let me take as an example the milk factory at Dungog, which is near my electorate. The average individual return to whole milk suppliers to that factory is $141 a week. The average return to suppliers to the Gloucester or Wingham factories is $120 a week. Those figures must be compared with the average adult wage of $168 for forty hours spread over a 5-day week. These suppliers to whom I refer represent the allegedly rich fellows one hears and reads about whom the Minister seems intent on penalizing. Undoubtedly wages and costs will continue to rise. If the price of milk is pegged, how are the treatment plants that market whole milk to survive? If they cannot get any more money on whole milk they will have to obtain it out of the manufacturing side of milk. This would mean their making more profit in the manufacturing side to offset the losses on whole milk. I remind honourable members that milk for manufacturing comes mainly from the North Coast, the South Coast and the Riverina. Under the proposal of the present Government to peg the price of production but not costs, the farmers in those areas will be penalized. I do not consider that they should be penalized: they have enough problems at present. By freezing one section of prices the only way that processing factories such as Dairy Fanmers Co-operative Limited or Fresh Food and Ice, which supply the milk consumers of New South Wales, will be able to survive is by making more profit on the manufacturing side of their operations at the expense of those farmers whom we are trying to assist. The Minister for Decentralisation and Develop- ment and Minister for Primary Industries is so obsessed with penalizing same Ministers Mr Punch] Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 129 or members of this House who are farmers that he has ignored the facts behind the whole of the industry. He should realize that he cannot drag those few down without dragging down the whole industry. [Interruption] Mr PUNCH: Fortunately, they cannot be dragged down to the level of the honourable member for Campbelltown.

[Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Campbelltown to order for the first time. Mr PUNCH: It seems a strange way to run an industry when one considers that as recently as two years ago the chainman of the Dairy Industry Authority said on his return from overseas that dairyfarmers should get big or get out. It seems that the Minister is following a policy of knocking out those who are too big. The dairy industry is most complex and no problems are ever solved by destructive policies. They should be overcome by a constructive approach. That is the policy that the Iiberal and Country parties have attempted to follow with the dairy industry. When I opened the dairyfarmers' conference recently I expressed the hope that the Govern- ment recognized the complexity of the industry and approached its problems in a constructive manner. Fruitgrowers are another section of primary producers with great problems. Many have been helped to leave that industry. They have seen years of work bull- dozed away for nothing. Horticulturists, vegetable growers and ricegrowers are having serious problems today through high costs, droughts, floods and loss of markets. If it is good enough for wages to continue to rise and for secondary industries to continue to receive massive aid through tariff protection, surely it is good enough for primary producers to receive reasonable assistance in their time of crisis. The voice of the man on the land is not heard by many people in the city and the news media when he cries for help. All too often he is seen as the recipient of unnecessary and undeserved subsidies-in other words, propped up by subsidies and hand-outs that are not available to others. This is not so at all; the reverse is the case. Today by far the greatest subsidies go to the secondary industries. Primary industries are subsidized by about $450 million to $500 million a year and secondary industries by $3,0001 million a year. In spite of this, the secondary industries cannot see, and do not want to see, the problems in country areas. Assistance to the important motor vehicle industry, which is part of our way of life, is of the order of $4,000 for each employee. I know a few primary producers who would like to get half of such a subsidy. It is grossly unfair that primary producers, who are in dire straits, are not being given proper recognition. Mr Einfeld: Do you mean by the New South Wales Government? Mr PUNCH: No, at a national level. The assistance that is being given helps the big cities. I am not criticizing forms of assistance to protect our industries and to provide balanced development in our State, but it is not fair that many interests that benefit from this assistance should frown on aid to the rural industries. Even the Australian Industries Commission recently acknowledged that the rural industries are disadvantaged by the higher assistance given to other industries. Much has been heard recently of the shipbuilding industry and the fact that the federal Government has approved the construction overseas of some ships for the Australian National Line. 9 130 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply

If it had not done this, a subsidy of $13,000 a year would be needed for each worker in the shipbuilding industry. At present the industry receives a subsidy of $9,000 a year for each employee. There may or may not be arguments for giving that industry more money, but the point I am making is that if it is good enough to subsidize the shipbuilding industry, it is good enough to assist the primary industries throughout Australia. I shall return to the important shipbuilding industry later in my speech. I intend to reply to fame of the garbage that was spewed out yesterday by members on the Govern- ment side about the dockyard at Newcastle. I shall give some facts that members of the Labor Party will not like. I shall put the blame for the ills of the shipbuilding industry where it belongs. As I said. I do not believe that this State can continue to prosper unless the primary industries are prosperous. There is an old adage in the United States of America that what is good for Ford is goad for America. I suggest an appropriate adage for this country would be that what is good for the primary producers is good for Australia. The New South Wales Government must adopt a constructive approach and attack the problems of our primary producers. Let me mention a few areas where assistance should be given. It would be of great value to many people in this State and to the economy as a whole. Rail freights should be reduced. If it is good enough to drop rail fares in Sydney by 20 per cent, it is good enough to help the downtrodden primary industries by making a similar reduction in rail freights. The Government must also do much more to get grain out of the northern silos. By next harvest the problem of grain storage in northern New South Wales will be serious. Some parts of this area will have an enormous harvest. The Minister for Lands and other members know that the wheatgrower does not get paid for his wheat until it is stored in the silo. I-Ie will not be able to get more wheat in the silo if the silo is already full. Mr Crabtree: The market is overseas. Mr PUNCH: That is right. The big problem at present has been caused by industrial unrest on the waterfront.

Mr PUNCH: Our cackling friend from Campbelltown, whose record is well known, would not know. If he read the papers he would know of the industrial unrest. The fact is that the silos are full. They have not been emptied because of a great deal of industrial unrest on the waterfront in Sydney. The Government must now act positively and firmly. It must move as much wheat as possible out of the silos before this year's wheat crop is harvested. I accept that it would be physically impossible to empty them immediately, but the Government must make every possible effort to get wheat out of the silos so that this year's wheat can be put in. As honourable members know, there is a serious drought in the southern part of the State. We are all aware of the situation in Victoria, but the drought in southern New South Wales is just as bad. Many primary producers in this area are deserving of drought assistance. Over the years drought assistance has been given to primary producers. More liberal, long-term, low-interest finance must be made available to primary producers to enable them to get through this disastrous time. The Government must change its mind. The Minister did not say no, but neither did he say yes. He is taking quite a while to adopt a cattle slaughtering scheme similar to that which was introduced in Victoria. A decision should be made on this matter immediately. I do not like the procrastination that is going on. Unless it is absolutely necessary I Address in Reply-25 Allgust, 1976 133 do not want cattle to be slaughtered or a subsidy paid to owners for killing them, but surely when it becomes necessary it is better to adopt this course SO that impoverished cattle owners will get some small return. It is better to shoot stock than to let them die slowly of starvation, as they are dying in southern New South Wales. A decision must be made on this matter as quickly as possible. I believe that freight concessions will be applied in some areas. They will need to be liberalized so that stock can be moved by rail more economically from the drought area. It is vital that the Government give immediate assistance to the business community, Businesses in country towns and cities are in dire need of financial assistance. They need loans such as those provided by the previous Government. Mr Crabtree: They want more caravan parks. Mr PUNCH: That is right. You did not want them to get any assistance. Mr Crabtree: My word I did. Mr PUNCH: Well, get going and give some. More financial assistance must be quickly provided for small businesses, which are in serious trouble. Small businesses in the country suffer when cattle and wool producers cannot meet their expenses. This situation applies also in dairying and fruitgrowing areas. If these small businesses are not assisted, they will have to close down. They will not be able to continue supplying the needs of primary producers. The Government should immediately make this type of assistance available. It should provide more advice on management and finance, as the former Government did through the small businesses agency. This is very important for small country towns. The Government should set up a milk marketing board to promote the sale of milk and other dairy products. Great success has been achieved in milk marketing in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. I regret that it has not happened here. I hope it can be done, and in view of the serious problems facing the dairy industry I hope the Government will act quickly. A milk marketing board could overcome all the problems facing the dairy industry at present. The State Government can help also by producing a responsible budget this year. The State can contribute by helping to control inflation, which is the great enemy of the primary producer. The Labor Party purports to have a great affinity with the trade unions. It now has a chance to show its influence by helping to control industrial unrest. We have seen industrial unrest run out of control in this country. We heard great statements from the federal Labor Party before it was elected to office to the effect that it understood the unions and would restrain industrial unrest, yet during its period in office Australia experienced the highest incidence of industrial unrest ever in its history. The State Government must take strong, positive and constructive action to control industrial unrest. Let me instance two strikes. One was the recent wool handling strike, which resulted in delayed payments not only to the woolgrowers but also to small country businesses. The wheat handling strike delayed payments to many New South Wales wheatgrowers. Such strikes are ridiculous and unnecessary. We shall never improve productivity if such unrest in industry continues. These are some of the matters that need attention in the coming State Budget. The federal Government has its part to play too. I have spoken about the problem of tariffs, and I acknowledge that that is a federal matter. I say also that the federal Government should not rule out the possibility of devaluation in an attempt to grapple with the problem. It has been said that devaluation is a possibility. I believe that it is necessary if primary producers are to be helped. 132 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply

I have mentioned the shipbuilding industry and its problems. Let me state clearly the policy of the former Liberal-Country party Government, which was to maintain a shipbuilding, ship repairing, and heavy engineering facility at Newcastle. We believed that such an industry was vital not only to the economy of Newcastle but indeed to the economy of the whole of the east coast of Australia, and that it was vital also to defence. The former State Government never failed to push the case for a new dockyard and as a government we spent millions of dollars in preparing for it. We supported heavily the old floating dock. How it has kept afloat, I do not know. We made a strong protest to federal governments over a number of years-to both Liberal-Country party and Labor Party governments in Canberra-against the failure to act in this matter. Before any honourable member on the Treasury benches criticizes the present federal Government, it should look at the record of the Labor Party. I say unequivocally that a new Newcastle dockyard could now be under constmction if the federal Labor Government had supported the project. However, for two and a half years it delayed, procrastinated, and deferred a decision.

I spoke to the former federal Minister for Transport about the matter, as did the Premier and Treasurer. We spoke also to other federal Ministers. We implored them to take action, to sign the agreements needed to get the work going. However, nothing was done. Three or four times it was my responsibility to extend the terms 0f the directors of the dockyard. The federal Government had said that it intended to go ahead with the building of a new dockyard. I extended the directors' terms for three months. Nothing happened. The federal Government said it intended to proceed. I extended the directors' tqm for another six months. Still nothing was done. The federal Government refused to approve of the dockyard construction or to call tenders for the new establishment. Let all this hypocrisy in the press and in this House stop. Let us hear no more about the effect of the decisions made by the Fraser Government on the dockyard at Newcastle. The fact is that the Minister for Transport in the federal Labor Government had a chance to bring this matter to finality but although he was also the federal member for the electorate of Newcastle, he did nothing about it. It is all very well for the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, Minister for Ports and Minister for Housing to say that Mr Fraser reneged on, an agreement. Mr Fraser did not renege on any agreement. Mr Jones, the Minister for Transport in the federal Labor Government, reneged on an agreement made with me a few years ago when I was in Canberra with the chairman of the dockyard, the manager, and the Director of Public Works. The federal Labor Government entered into an agreement, but did not honour it, even though it had two and a half years in which to do so.

The State Dockyard at Newcastle has a long and sad history. All over Australia people have watched its record with considerable alarm. In the ten years up to 1975 1555 000 man-hours were lost at the State Dockyard through strikes, mainly on demarcation issues. What a record. Perhaps many of the radical unionists who supported those strikes should have thought of their future, for they have priced the dockyard out of business. It is sad that many genuine, decent people who work at the &&yard are now being hurt by the actions of their colleagues over the years. Where were the officials of the Newcastle Trades Hall when all this was going on? Did they try to get some sense into the workers who wanted to strike? Where were the Newcastle members of the Labor Party? The Newcastle city council is now tub thumping, saying that the federal Government is at fault and that it should do something to help the dockyard. What did the city council do in former years? It approved of the industrial action that was taken.

Mr Face: You are a liar. Mr Punch] Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 133

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Charlestown to order for the first time. Mr PUNCH: When did the honourable member for Charlestown implore the men of the dockyard to go back to work? What Labor member of this House from the Newcastle area condemned strikes at the Newcastle dockyard? They stand condemned in the eyes of the people of Newcastle for a total failure to act over the years to keep the dockyard going. The federal Minister for Transport had the courage at least to go to the dockyard and tell the men that they were cutting their own throats. What has the honourable member for Charlestown done in that respect? What has any other member of the Labor Party done? The answer is that they have done nothing: they have gone along with the strikes on every occasion. I agree that the State Government is following a correct course in putting a case for the dockyard now, but it is a pity that members of the Labor Party did not use their influence earlier with some of the dockyard unions. The record is sad, and all members of the Labor Party stand condemned for that reason. I wonder what the honourable member for Charlestown or other Labor Party members in this House did when the former federal Government under the Prime Ministership of Mr Whitlam cut the shipbuilding subsidy from 45 per cent to what, in due course, will be 25 per cent. What did they do? Did the honourable member for Charlestown say anything about that? We heard nothing from him. I remind honourable members that it was the federal Labor Government that cut the shipbuilding subsidy from 45 per cent to 35 per cent, and provided that it would be reduced to 25 per cent in 1981. At least the present federal Government has stopped any further reductions. Mr Face: They cut it right out. Mr PUNCH: They did not. They have left it at 35 per cent, and the honourable member knows it. Let us stick to the facts. Members of the Labor Party have failed miserably in respect of the Newcastle dockyard, and the fact is that the federal Labor Government was responsible for the reduction in shipbuilding subsidies. Mr Face: Mr Nixon the present federal Minister for Transport dumped the dockyard. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Leader of the Country Party to continue his speech and to ignore interjections. However, the honourable gentleman should bring himself back to the general matters dealt with in His Excellency's Speech. He has spent some time now on one particular issue, and that is completely out of order in this debate. Mr PUNCH: I do not have a great deal more to say on the point, but it is important to say it. I conclude on this note: the Governor referred in his Speech to the dockyard, and (that is more than one can say of the matter raised by the honourable member for Illawarra. I repeat, we must not lose sight of the fact that the federal Labor Government, not the Fraser Government, reduced the shipbuilding subsidy, and that the federal Labor Government failed to act when the State of New South Wales was spending millions of dollars on this work. I say also that the New South Wales L$beral-Country party Government, as well as supporting the new dockyard proposal at Newcastle, supported the work of deepening the Newcastle harbour at a cost of $70 million. It supported work on building a coal loader at Newcastle to serve the coal industry and the people employed in it in the Hunter Valley. The former Government supported the construction of the nearly hished and important roll-on-roll-off wharf in that port. It did a great deal of other work in the area, but those three projects alone showed the genuine desire of the former Government to assist the port of Newcastle. If the preaent Government comes anywhere near that record, personally I should be I34 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply

surprised, but at least it would greatly benefit the people of Newcastle. The State must recognize its responsibilities and act on them. One thing is certain about this industrial unrest: whether the Prime Minister agrees to give some help to the shipbuilding industry or whether the State finances some form of floating dock, the industrial unrest at the State Dockyard at Newcastle must cease. The only way in which industrial unrest there will cease will be by the workers forming themselves into one union. By doing this they could eliminate the ~culousdemarcation issues that have been a feature of the dockyard for many years. The dockyard management has been pressing for this for years. Another area I propose to touch upon briefly concerns the port developn~ent at Botany Bay. Yesterday the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, Minister for Ports and Minister for Housing thumped the table and said, "We have called for tenders but we might not go ahead with the work." I wonder how many firms would be willing to tender for work on schools, hospitals and roads if they knew that the Government intended to wait until they had spent thousands of dollars on preparing tenders and then tell them that the Government had decided not to go ahead with the work. What an attitude for any responsible Minister to take, yet that is what the Deputy Premier said in this House yesterday. I am sorry that the Minister for Lands has left the Chamber because I propose to refer to a motion that he moved in this House on 4th November, 1975, with regard to Botany Bay. On that occasion he was supported by all his colleagues, particularly the environmental aces of the Labor Party who were in this House. On that occasion Be moved: That this House views with alarm and expresses its concern with the Government's proposal to permit major development to proceed on the fore- shores of Botany Bay without- (i) a total development plan of the proposed port development incorpora- ting all presently known developments and future Government plans for reclaimed Iand at Botany Bay; (ii) discussion with the community, local government, environmentalists and persons who make their living from the waters of Botany Bay and associated waterways on the effects of proposed and future developments; fiii) a total environmental impact study of the effect of major development upon Botany Bay and its nearby residents; and (iv) establishing a Botany Bay Port Development Authority . . . The Government set up an inquiry under a Queen's Counsel. It was not an environmental study or an inquiry into the total development and there was no discussion with the local community. The Minister received submissions to the effect that local people were concerned about being denied sufficient access to the inquiry. Moreover, the Botany Municipal Council was quoted as having stated that it was opposed to any further development of Botany Bay. Of course, the Labor-controlled Botany council is rather well-known in this House. That council announced that it was opposed to further development in and around Botany Bay until a thorough environmental study was carried out. That is what the members of the Labor Party were saying prior to the recent elections. In support of his motion on 4th November last the Minister for Lands said: I ask again that the Minister give an assurance that he will discuss with members of the community, local government, environmentalists and people who make their living from the waters of Botany Bay, the proposed future development of the bay. Mr Punch] Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 135

Written submissions were made to the inquiry but even before a report has been submitted to the Government tenders are being called for the next stage of the development, which would involve the construction of the container building. What a shambles. The whole thing is an absolute farce. These Labor members know-they knew it before their election to government but they were not honest enough to admit it-that Botany Bay is vital to the shipping needs of this State and this city and that it must-and will-proceed. There is no doubt about that. When the matter was debated previously the honourable member for Kogarah, who is now the Minister for Lands, and the honourable member for Georges River, who is now the Attorney-General, gave out in this House the greatest lot of claptrap that I have ever heard. This morning I again read the report of that debate. Now, however, their attitude has changed. Suddenly we do not need an environmental study; we do not need a full port authority and we do not need to discuss the development with the community. Now they express the hope that the work will proceed. It worries me that people can make such irresponsible, misleading and untrue statements prior to an election, knowing full well that what they have put is untrue and misleading. The Government has distinguished itself in a short time--only 100 days-by breaking a lot of its election promises. The first of these broken promises concerns a moratorium on the development of the new port at Botany Bay. Some works have been deferred-no doubt temporarily. Though no full inquiry has been held, the works are to proceed. It is absolute hypocrisy for the Government to be so irresponsible as to act in this way. Yesterday we heard the Deputy Premier speak about this work proceeding, but he was only attempting to mislead the public even more. Mrs HilIier-a most vocal critic of the former Government-and many other environmentalists concerned about Botany Bay, are now aware of the true position and they are saying publicly that they have been misled by the Labor Party. A number of reports condemning Labor have been published in the media since the State elections. I wonder what the honourable member for Hurstville thinks about the position no'w; he certainly made a lot of noise about Botany Bay before the elections. Mr Mallam: He is as happy as Larry. Mr PUNCH: I know he is happy because he misled the people, just as other Labor members did; he supports a party that has broken its word. Sometimes I feel as though I am a little naive but I think that there must be a little honour left in the world when members of the Labor Party in that area are being condemned by people from whom they received assistance, for instance Mrs Hillier and other environmental leaders. Some councils have stated to the press that the present position is a total sham and that the work should be properly evaluated. As I said earlier, this work is of vital importance to the State and it must go ahead. We have known that all the time. I do not like to see any goverrunent misleading the peopls--particularly on an important matter like this. The Government set up an inquiry into the Botany Bay development, and I made a comprehensive submission to that inquiry. I wanted to try to keep the Government honest-though I know that would be a hard job. I made that submission because I wanted a full, frank, detailed statement to be considered by Mr Simblist, Q.C., when he carried out his investigations. I wanted also to reailinn the policies of the former Government in this regard, which I believe will ultimately be pursued, although unfortunately it will be done at a much greater cost as a result of the delays and the frustrations that have occurred. The Opposition-particularly members of the Country Party-awaits the introduction of the Budget with interest. We have heard Labor supporters make all sorts of promises both in this House and during the election campaign. They made so many 136 ASSEMBLY-Address in. Reply promises that it will be interesting to see which ones the Government honours. One of Labor's promises was that if elected to office it would not increase taxation. That is one promise we shall watch with great interest. Labor cannot have it both ways; it cannot fulfil all its eleotion promises without increased taxation. I think everybody, including the Premier, realizes this. The Premier has virtually admitted that it is probable that a lot of his promises will not be fulfilled. Honourable members can be assured that the Opposition will keep the Government right up to the mark on its promises; it will either force the Government to fulfil its promises or to admit in this House that the people of New South Wales were misled during the elections by its wild and irresponsible promises.

Mr FACE (Charlestown) r5.201: I congratulate the honourable member for Parramatta who moved the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply, and the honourable member for Blue Mountains who seconded the motion. I wish well honourable members on both sides of the House who are making their maiden speeches in this debate and I hope that they have a fruitful career in this place. In taking part in this debate it would be remiss of me if I did not deal with some problems of the Newcastle and Hunter regions. For example, a matter of vital concern to the constituents of Charlestown is the employment of people in the Newcastle and Hunter regions. In this respect the following words are relevant: We recognize industry, in particular our shipbuilding, as a fourth. arm of defence . . . Our high priority for these areas will lead us to ensure the continuing viability of our shipbuilding and ship repair industries. These fine sentiments, with which all honourable members would agree, are contained in policy statements of the federal L?beral and National Country parties made not ten years ago, not five years ago, but last year. Tonight the House heard the former Minister for Public Works, who represents a seat close to Newcastle, speaking in a way that could be attributed only to the fact that he shares my concern for the economy of the Hunter region and that he is trying to make himself look good in the eyes of the eleotors. Last year the Prime Minister made his grab for power. There were other grabs for power also by supporters of the Liberal Party. A document issued in 1974 by the Liberal and Country parties states that it encouraged the use of Australian industry to contribute to a more independent defence capability. The document said also: While we must have regard to proper considerations of economy, we cannot allow the factor to be the exclusive criterion. Technological skill and strategic advantages of local capacity to supply and support the services and their equipment must be a balancing consideration. The policy of the Liberal and Country parties encourage the maintaining and development of dock- yards having Naval capacities. All these are fine words. However, we have learned over the months since l l th Novem- ber when the federal Labor Government was dismissed from office, that much of what Liberal supporters say cannot be believed. Last week the federal Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Cotton, and the federal Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, announced a policy that will effectively destroy shipbuilding in Australia. I wonder whether it is a coincidence that this action by the federal Liberal Government is aimed at the two States which have Labor governments. Is there no length to which the federal Liberal-Country party Government will go to get back at the people who refused to vote for it? One saw only too clearly how supporters of those parties set out to destroy the Whitlam Government. Now one sees similar moves to destroy the Labor governments in New South Wales and in South Australia. I refer further to the Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 137

attitude of honourable members opposite and that of their federal colleagues. In June, 1975, the federal Minister for Transport, who was then a member of the federal Opposition, when speaking during the committee stages of the Whitlam Govern- ment's ship construction bill, which sought to phase out the bounty on shipbuilding, is reported at page 3177 of federal Hansard as having said: The lower rate of subsidy of 25 per cent which will apply after 1st January, 1981, is, I submit, a disincentive to shipbuilding in Australia. Although the industry has been given notice that after 1981 a level d 25 per cent subsidy will apply it must in the intervening period rearrange its equipment, planning and personnel to cope with the new situation which will exist. The reorganization and rationalization will require substantial investment on the part d the Australian shipbuilding industry, and unless some incentive is provided I believe that after 1981 we will see the virtual disappearance of a ship )building industry in1 this country.

That same person, who is now the Minister for Transport in the federal Parliament, has the gall and audacity to announce that the shipbuilding bounty will end. This will sound the deathknell of an Australian industry that for many years has battled against competition from oversea shipyards which received greater subsidies from their governments than the Australian shipyards have received from ours.

I wish to turn my attention now to a report prepared by Unisearch Limited of the University of New South Wales for the Australian Shipbuilders Association. That report, which is dated 4th March, states that according to the last complete survey conducted by the United States Department of Commerce thirty free-world nations supported their shipbuilding industries. Those nations saw the need to maintain shipbuilding capacity even when it was not economic to do so. The survey also revealed, and it is axiomatic, that the shipbuilding industry is too complex to be rebuilt quickly in times of an emergency should it be allowed to wither and die. In Australia the industry is not being allowed to wither and die; it is being cold bloodedly murdered by the Fraser Government in Canberra.

A detailed analysis of the present Australian shipbuilding cost disadvantage shows that larger ships need a 40 per cent bounty to match European and Japanese prices, and rather more during the present world shipping crisis. A further analysis discloses that our material costs are 14 per cent below those of Swedish manufacturers but 18 per cent above Japanese shipbuilders and 64 per cent above British shipbuilders. Local overhead costs are further increased as a result of low throughput.

I refer again to the report prepared by Unisearch for the Australian Shipbuilders Association. It states that long-term prospects were enough to justify the survival of the remaining developed shipyards. The report states, also, that the replacement in fifteen to eighteen years time of current coastal bulk-ship tonnage by more appropriate ships and a modest development of trade requiring two new general cargo or specialized vessels a year would mean that a total of 79 new ships would be required between 1975 and 1986. Fifty-six of those ships would be in the 3 000 tonne to 30 000 tonne dead-weight class, five between 30 000 and 90 000 tonnes and eighteen over 90 000 tonnes. Orders for ships below 90 000 tonnes dead weight would support an industry of the present size, even allowing for the importation of some vessels. Development of the Whyalla shipyard in South Australia to build larger ships would further improve the situation. There are significant requirements for small ships and the prospects for well-equipped small shipbuilders looked good until the federal Government's heavy- handed action. Yesterday the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, Minister for Ports and Minister for Housing gave some indication in a ministerial statement of the 138 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply

massive hardship that would be caused to people in the Newcastle area should the federal Government not relent its attitude. I should like to reiterate some of the facts. The State Dockyard at Newcastle will be forced to dismiss immediately 62 design staff. It will have to dismiss progressively a further 1 225 employees between the beginning of October this year and the end of July next year. This will leave a total of 680 employees at the dockyard working in the repair and engineering divisions.

For eleven years the honourable member for Gloucester, who was the previous Minister for Public Works, and his predecessor as head of the Country Party, Sir Davis Hughes, pleaded for subsidies for certain sections of the community. The honourable member for Gloucester stands indicted for what he said today. He knows only too well that I and my colleagues from the northern area have almost burnt a trail going back and forth to his office over the past four years. He stands indicted also as a Liar for saying that we have taken no action. We have done everything we could. He must be aligned with the previous Government for its attitude over the past decade to the shipyards. They should have been developed to meet the demands for ship repairs and construction expected in the years to come. He stands indicted also for allowing antiquated equipment that came from the Walsh Island dockyard to be kept in service at the Newcastle dockyard.

Honourable members do not need to be reminded of the unemployn~entsituation in New South Wales. It has been aggravated by the Fraser federal Government. and will be further fed by ihe dismissal of these men. It could mean a loss to the indmtry of young apprentices who have felt that they weIe working in valuablc trzJeJ :hat are of benefit to themselves and to the community. I do not think the Fraser Govzrn- ment has stopped to consider what it is doing to apprentices in the shipbuilding industry and the building industry in Newcastle. I am a former apprentice. I left the building industry because of uncertainty in it. People who leave the trade in their mid-20's do not return to it. The cost to the nation of the loss of this skilled labaur will never be gauged. The Prime Minister has not taken this into account. When the shipbuilding industry and the building industry recover there will be a shortage of tradesmen. The situation is being made worse by the foolish policies of the Fraser Government. The Prime Minister is fond of telling people that life was not meant to be e3sy. Far from wanting an easy life, the apprentices and other employees at the dockyard want nothing more than the right to work. They do not want it easy. They want a chance to work for a living instead of joining the ever-growing ranks of the unemployed.

The former Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Ports brought abut half the problems at the dockyard by the dilatory way in which he conducted himself most of the time. He never troubled to go to the dockyard; he spends onIy half of his time in his own electorate. That is why his constituents ring up other members and complain to them. In spite of this, he is always telling us how to conduct our own business. At least we in, the Labor Party have our own electoral offices in Newcastle. Alas, the former Minister has not one there.

Last year the State Dockyard had a net profit of $1,106,000, which was a substantial increase on the previous year's profit of only $7,900. With a turnover of more than $40 million and a payment of $13.5 million in wages and salaries, one can imagine the economic effects on the City of Newcastle and the region around it if the work were to be reduced. In spite of this the Prime Minister hypocritically advises the people to buy consumer goods. How can the people of Newcastle do this? New- castle already has more than 9 600 people unemployed. This proportion of unemployment is 30 per cent higher than the average for Australia. If 1 300 more workers are thrown out of employment, the situation in Newcastle. which is the second largest city Mr Face] Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 139 in New South Wales, will be further depressed. Not only will 1 300 workers and their families be affected. Thousands of other people who work in industries that service the dockyard will also be affected. The honourable member for Gloucester is always talking of private enterprise. Who does he think supplies the dockyard? Who does the construction work and the machine work? It is well known that at least 10 000 people are engaged on work of a subcontracting and ancillary nature to keep the 2 000 dockyard workers going. All these workers are employed by the people whom Opposition members are supposed to represent. Members of the Opposition are interested only in themselves. The overall economic effects on Newcastle and surrounding region will bring the situation to breaking point. The New South Wales Labor Government is mindful of the situation and has some proposals to make. That is why the Premier and the Deputy Premier are going to Canberra on Friday. Let it not be said that we do not give credit where it is due. In 1968 Sir Robert Askin, who was then Premier, and his Minister for Public Works, Sir Davis Hughes, sought assistance for the dockyard from the federal Government, but no assistance was forthcoming until the Whitlam Government came to office in October, 1973, and agreed in principle to meet the cost of constructing a large graving dock capable of taking vessels up to 150 000 tonnes deadweight, subject to the State meeting the costs of ancilliary facilities such as a new wharf, cranes and dredging. A joint Commonwealth corporation was to be established to manage the undertaking and all the assets of the State Dockyard were to have been transferred to the corporation. It was a deal worked out in the spirit of co-operation between a federal Labor government and a State Liberal-Country party government. The cost of the graving dock was estimated at $17.75 million. Now, with a Liberal government in power in Canberra and a Labor government in New South Wales, the Fraser Government has unashamedly reneged on the deal. It stands indicted for its action. As the Premier has said on a number of occasions, the New South Wales Government will not be bullied by the Fraser Government. It has now received a recommendation for the purchase of a 35 000-tonne lifting capacity floating dock, which would be capable of docking almost all the Australian fleet now operating or under construction. The dock can be delivered to Newcastle by the end of next year or early 1978, but such a project is naturally expensive. It will cost $16 million for the dock and an additional $13 million for the ancillary work. Federal assistance is needed for this project, which is now vital, but whether it will be forthcoming or not, only the Prime Minister knows. Let me give honourable members some idea of what Australian shipyards can achieve. In recent weeks the State Dockyard at Newcastle has completed two important repair contracts on a fixed price basis. The dockyard not only completed these contracts within the quoted price but also completed them ahead of the stipulated time. The work on the tanker Cellana was completed seven days early. That is an effective answer to the honourable member for Gloucester, who criticized the work force there. The savings to the owners in getting their ships back into service earlier is estimated con- servatively at $100,000. To give another example, the dockyard was able to compete both in Australia and Singapore for repairs to the 108 000-tonne bulk carrier Alnwick Castle. It was able to do this because it had built up the necessary expertise and skills over more than thirty years of shipbuilding and repair work. With this knowledge it has been able to devise a much more economical way of doing repairs than that suggested by the shipowner. Once the dockyard's shipbuilding activities cease, the ship repair work will suffer. The Prime Minister and his colleagues would not know this, and they would not care much about it if they did. It is well known that there is a world-wide glut of 140 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply

ship repair work as a result of the downturn in the economy throughout the world. A great change has occurred, but the Newcastle dockyard cannot take full advantage of this change because it lacks a floating dock. The New South Wales Liberal-Country party Government's failure to fund the dockyard over the past ten years is an indictment of it. It let parts of the dockyard decline. Let me now turn to shipping in general. Australia is an island, and lives by maritime trade. It is only logical that its ports and shipbuilding industry should have number one priority in growth plans. However, shipbuilding should not be considered in isolation but in relation to shipping, ship repair and other Australian industry. Ad- mittedly, from the owners' point of view the larger shipbuilding industry had a poor image, because local ship operators had to make ship purchases based on the simplistic policy of equating local and overseas prices, a procedure which, over the years, has moved more and more out of step with owners' real ship costs as worked out on a discounted cash-flow basis. Also, longer delivery periods associated with low investment in shipyard facilities have served to discourage the local shipowner. However, the quality of the local product is undoubtedly high, and furthermore there are a number of examples of Australian design and construction that have provided solutions to unique problems encountered by shipowners in this country. These can be explained quite easily. Australian builders can consult Australian owners and operators and overcome Australian problems. The most complete survey of aid given by oversea governments to their maritime industries is to be found in the United States Department of Commerce publication Maritime Subsidies, which was published in 1971. The publication considered 53 free-world maritime countries, including 31 with shipbuilding industries. Governments in 30 of those countries provided shipbuilding aid. The exception was Hong Kong. For the information of members I list those 30 countries. They were Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Taiwan, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, Portugal, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. I believe it is worth placing on record something of the history of the shipbuilding bounty as it has affected Australia. Assistance to shipbuilding by means of subsidy was introduced in 1947. The policy adopted at that time remained unchanged in its major features until May, 1972, and it had two basic aims. They were, first, to encourage and support the development of shipbuilding for Australian coastal shipping, and, second, to do this without increasing the operating costs of shipowners because of the need to build locally rather than having access to world markets. In order to achieve these objectives the Government prohibited the importation of ships except with the approval of the Minister for Transport, and at the same time subsidized local construction to equate the Australian price with an estimate of the price of the same vessel built in the United Kingdom and delivered to Australia. The process by which the subsidy was administered was that the Government bought ships from Australian builders and resold them to intended owners at a price equal to that of a similar ship delivered from the United Kingdom. The difference-and the consequent loss to the Government-was the subsidy. Although this procedure appears sound and simple, it was difficult to make work in practice. Some of the assumptions on which it was based were invalid or were subject to change, and in fact these changes were so great as to frustrate the basic aims of the policy. Administrative procedure caused costly complications and delays. The position of the Government as intermediary between shipbuilders and shipowners became unworkable and eventually untenable to all three parties. Mr Face] Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 141

The problems that had the more far reaching effects were encountered in trying to ensure that true parity was maintained between the costs of vessels constructed locally and imports. Because this could not be done satisfactorily, shipowners became reluctant to build in Australia and in consequence this has meant that Australian shipbuilders have been faced with a depressed and intermittent demand for vessels. It is all very well for the Prime Minister and his federal colleagues to castigate workers in shipbuilding yards and say that they are responsible for the slump in the industry. The facts as I have outlined them show that his assertions appear to be inaccurate. Let me return again to the figures as outlined in this House yesterday by the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, Minister for Ports and Minister for Housing. The annual report of the dockyard shows that in 1975-76 man-hours lost through industrial disputes fell by almost 25 per cent. There has been a further improvement since the end of March, with only about 5 000 man-hours lost in industrial disputes. This amounts to about three hours for each employee during a 4-month period to the end of July-hardly a hotbed of industrial militancy. It is quite clear from dockyard management reports that union reorganization and co-operation are a reality. However, in view of all the facts it is difficult to escape the thought that Newcastle industry has been singled out as an example to teach a lesson to certain sections of society. That is the only possible conclusion on the facts. It is happening to the ship construction industry and to the building industry. It is true that the shipbuilding industry in Australia cannot be justified on purely economic grounds. Neither can a number of other projects. However, the totality of the weights associated with shipbuilding are such as to make one understand why governments of maritime nations throughout the world, including many with lesser advantages than ours, are taking extraordinary steps to prevent the extinction of their shipbuilding industries. The cost and the response time to regenerate shipbuilding from zero in response to some future need would be too great. The Government's decision to murder this industry has effectively signed away our shipping independence for a very long time indeed. Once the tradesmen, the design draughtsmen, the members of staff, leave the dockyard, such a body of expert persons will not be easily reassembled. The real crime in the federal Government's decision on the shipping industry, whatever the causes, is that it comes at a time when prospects for a stable and efficient shipbuilding industry looked the best thev have looked in the chequered history of the industry in this country. Following a number of initiatives by the previous Labor Government there was a new and surprisingly durable accord between manage- ments and unions in the industry. The prospect of a single shipbuilding industry award ending demarcation disputes and tail-chasing wage claims actually appeared likely where only two years ago such an idea would have been unreal. With the prospect of the Newcastle dockyard getting a contract for four ships of a single type with identical specifications, the 15 000-tonne bulk carrier for the Australian National Line, an Australian shipyard had, for the first time in history, a chance to show it could be efficient. However, because of the uncertainty about the policies of the Liberal-Country party governments, nothing was done. In support of that claim I refer honourable members to the report of the Australian Shipbuilding Association, which certainly would not be sympathetic to the Australian Labor Party. When other maritime nations were getting ready for a flood of ship repair work, Australia was sitting idly by. T'he industry has now been struck a death blow. The shipping industry should be given a chance to build those four vessels. The policies of the Labor Government on decreased subsidies as outlined were made in the light of an expected boom in shipbuilding. Of course, this did not take 142 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply

place and so we have a completely different set of circun~stancesand we must adapt, but not with a short-term, short-sighted policy of folding up the entire industry. We now have a world glut of shipping and overproduction that is causing dumped prices. But this will not continue for ever. We cannot afford to lose an industry and a set of skills which could never be reassembled. Other countries have seen the wisdom of this move. I hope that the federal Government comes to its senses and gives the shipbuilding industry the boost it needs.

Mr MOORE (Gordon) [5.50]: Mr Speaker, might I first offer you my congratulations on your elevation to your high office. I should like to describe to the House as briefly as I can the social nature of the electorate of Gordon. It has twenty-three churches and two hotels. The spirit of conservatism and harmony that is engendered by that fact is reflected on polling day when booth workers from all parties manage to go about their business in a reasonably festive way knowing that the great point at issue is whether the Labor candidate will retain his or her deposit.

I wish to pay tribute to the two members who preceded me in this Chamber. Mr Kevin Harrold entered this Chamber in-at least for my party-unfortunate circumstances, but during his period here he worked diligently for the electors of Gordon, knowing full well what was in store for him at the next State elections. Many other men would have sat here, enjoyed an armchair ride for the whole of their term and done nothing, but Mr Harrold honestly earned the money that he received from the State for representing the electors of Gordon. Before Mr Harrold became a member of this House the electorate was represented for many years by Mr Harry Jago who tirelessly represented the people of Gordon. Such were his endeavours on their behalf that in the early part of 1974 it appeared as if ten years had been lifted from his age, such were the cares and troubles of the ministerial office that he held and the work that he did for the people of Gordon.

I now turn my attention to the plight of the workers of New South Wales and remind the House that the word workers means everybody-from a casual gardener through to employees who are managers and executives in business firms. I point out to honourable members the attitude of this Government towards the Ministry of Industrial Relations and what has befallen it since the State elections. At first the Government appointed one of its so-called bright young men, who was being touted in the press as a future runner in the leadcrshlp stakes of the Labor Party. It appears that he found the task too hard, so Labor turned to a tired, old man and tagged on to the end of his motley collection of ministries responsibility for industrial relations. The man to whom the Government gave the responsibility for trade union affairs had been the victim of a conspiracy between the present Premier and the trade union movemect; they assassinated him politically and removed him from the leadership of the Labor Party after the previous State elections. That shows the attitude of the Government to the trade union movement in this State and what it thinks of it.

One of the matters that was mentioned in the Governor's Speech was the creation of a joint council for employees of the Public Transport Commission. I should like to commend the Government on its decision to create such a council. I am not sure that I agree entirely with the appointment of all the members of that council, either on the basis of their expertise or their ideological stand. However, that decision contrasts sharply with the stated policy of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales on worker participation imposed at managerial level from above, as printed in The Radical. It is a doctrine of board-level representation by full-time union officials to represent the hopes and aspirations of the ordinary men and women who work for those enterprises. Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 143

I submit that the creation at the other end of the employees' range of a joint council to represent the workshop floor is a far better way of catering for the needs of an enterprise and the people who work for it. Democracy, so-called, imposed from above is virtirally another form of despotism. The Australian Labor Party policy, which is aimed purely at boards of companies and putting full-time union officials on them is nothing more than another form of despotic control. In fact, any government worth its salt would realize that a policy of open-door management, allowing any worker with a grievance to take this problem to a responsible officer of the company, is a far better way of ensuring harmony and co-operation in any workshop, office or other place of employment. One of the few examples that I am awarc of in New South Wales where private enterprise has voluntarily taken a trade-union official on to its board occ~irredat Broken Hill. A company called Minerals Mining and Metallurgy, which took over the South Mine and started to rework it, voluntarily appointed an officer of the relevant trade ilnion as deputy chairman of its board. This was a pioneering experiment in that sort of worker palticipation in New South Wales, yet that company has been dumped by the present Government. In late May and early June, continuing into July, that mine was forced to dismiss its workers because the present State Labor Government refused to guarantee a loan by the company to enable it to continue working. The Government was not even asked to put up the money, so it cannot cry poor mouth, as it does about almost anything else innovative in this State. The Government was merely asked to provide a guarantee for what was a certain future for a mine, but instead it chose to put sixty people on the industrial scrapheap-and these people were employed in one of the Government's safest electorates. So much for Labor's supporting private enterprise in a valiant attempt to make its own despotic system of worker participation survive. I should like to deal now with the Government's attitude towards industrial disputes in primary and rival industry in New South Wales. The Grain Elevators Board terminals at major seaports in New South Wales are facing a series of bans, stoppages and disruptions that have continued for many months. These disputes concern the introduction of a second shift to enable grain from the wheat belts of New South Wales to be exported and so earn money for the livelihood of this State. As a result of their own greed, employees at these terminals have refused to abandon overtime shifts and thus allow 300 additional jobs to be created at the Grain Elevators Board terminals. Those 300 extra jobs in this Government instrumentality could alleviate unemployment in this State, particularly at Newcastle about which the honourable member for Charles- town has made such pious and bleating remarks. Those 300 people are being denied jobs because of the inactivity of a government that will not act responsibly and support an application for a second shift at the terminals of the Grain Elevators Board. At Port Kembla the coal loader has ceased operations because of claims for a 35-hour week by employees at that port. The Government stated that its policy was to support a 35-hour week if and when the industry or undertaking can afford it. The men at the coal loader at Port Kembla have announced that they will return to work tomorrow morning under worker-control conditions and working their own 35-hour week. Prior to this time the port of Port Kembla and its coal loading facility have been idle. Why has the Government not taken any action about this dispute? Why has it not stated that its policy is to support a 35-hour week on the ground that the Maritime Services Board can afford it? Or that it does not support a 35-hour week on the ground that the board cannot afford it? At least the Government should say something-it should make some statement for the benefit of the men of the South Coast where employment is just as depressed as in Newcastle. [Mr Speaker left the chair at 6 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.1 144 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply

Mr MOORE: Before the adjournment I was adverting to the atrocious dilatori- ness of the Government in respect of a number of industrial disputes that have affected the livelihood of those engaged in the primary and rural industries of New South Wales. I mentioned the dispute at Grain Elevators Board terminals in tow ports and the failure of the Government to take any positive steps with regard 'to manning disputes. I discussed also the coal loader at Port Kembla and the 35-hour week claim. I wish to advert to one other industrial dispute in the rural transport sector, the demarcation dispute between the New South Wales Transport Workers Union and the Australian Railways Union at freight terminals that have been decentralized to allow a more rapid and efficient distribution of freight to rural users. This Government is doing nothing about that dispute. The new terminal at Tamworth, which is due to open, would provide greater facilities for the users and primary producers in that area. Yet the Government folds its arms and lets the terminal rot. It does nothing for the people of New South Wales outside the small perimeter of suburbs which they regard as their bailiwick. I refer now to the State Dockyard at Newcastle and draw attention to some of the fatuous remarks made earlier this evening by the honourable member for Charles- town. One of the major problems of the dockyard is the rapidly expiring life of the lifting dock. A new floating dock, which would be within the province of the dockyard to build at a cost of $17 million or $18 million, is needed if the ship repair facilities are to continue. Much has been made of the recent co-operation by workers at the dockyard and of the reduction in industrial disputes. I commend them for that and for the spirit in which they are prepared to co-operate and no longer allow themselves to be incited by a shop steward who is not there now, a former federal Minister for Transport and honourable member for Newcastle who is known for his agitation among workers at that dockyard. If the floating dock is essential for the well-being of Newcastle and for the working life of the workers at Newcastle, why is the Government intending to bring it in from overseas instead of making it with the shipbuilding facilities available at the dockyard? The Government blithely talks about bringing in the vessel from overseas and mooring it at Newcastle in two years' time. In the meantime many workers at Newcastle would go on the industrial scrap heap as a result of the importation of ships from overseas about which the Government bleats piously. I refer the House to the proposed Warilla hospital on the South Coast, a development that would ease the strain on public hospital facilities there and stop the disgraceful attitude of the Government and part of the trade-union movement towards Medibank. I include the attitude of those Ministers of the Crown who took part in the recent strike. I include also their attitude that private enterprise cannot provide much- needed community faciIities on the South Coast. They contend that only government- run enterprise is good enough for the citizens in that area. Even though they cannot be accommodate in the existing hospital because its facilities are overtaxed, the trade- union movement in Wollongong will not permit, for ideological reasons, the construction of a private ward hospital at Warilla. The Government has thrown on the scrap heap the workers at Windamere Dam. Further, it has halted work on Botany Bay, suspended planning on the deep water coal loader at Port Kembla and created massive uncertainty in the coal industry in New South Wales, with the result that future development of collieries and colliery openings in New South Wales are likely to be abandoned and that much-needed industry forced north of the border. The workers of New South Wales cannot afford the uncertainty and indecision of the Labor Government, which is trying to walk an ideological tight- rope. It cannot pander to the environmentalists unless it ignores totally its responsibilities Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 145 to the workers and the rapid acceleration in unemployment that has been caused during the short period that the present Government has graced the Treasury benches of this House. Unmployment has accelerated in New South Wales, particularly in Newcastle and Wollongong. Under the Labor Government they are rapidly becoming cities without a future. That is to be deplored. One problem is the apathy of and diminution of interest in the trade-union movement. The Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, the largest union in Australia, has had a significant decrease in membership over the past two years-a decline of some 12 000 or 13 000 members. In a country that has the highest union membership among the work force anywhere in the free world and in a country where the trend to membership of trade unions is increasing contrary to the position in the rest of the world, the Government should be adopting an attitude that keeps people in work, and if they are to be in unions, that keeps them in their unions and encourages them to be active unionists. I am a member of the trade union that covers my vocation. I have always belonged to the appropriate trade union and been active in it. A government that takes the work section of the former Department of Labour and Industry, now the Depart- ment of Industrial Relations, and places it in uncertainty as to its future is to be condemned. Anything that reduces the possibility of harmony between employer and employee is to be shunned. As I mentioned earlier, the Government is attempting to impose a policy of worker control from above instead of introducing a system of open- door management whereby employees can discuss freely and openly their problems, their hopes and their aspirations in the work force and where the corporation, public or private, can talk to its employees and harvest their knowledge and suggestions for the good of that enterprise. Since the 1850's when the Stonemasons Society was formed, trade unionism has been one of the great protections of the workers of New South Wales. It can only remain so if all persons who belong to trade unions take part in union activities and do not permit them to be run by persons whom they consider to be ideological opposites. Any person who belongs to a trade union and does not take part in its activities is irresponsible. Any government that throws people out of jobs or refuses to create jobs so that people can be employed, is also irresponsible. The Government stands condemned for its inactivity on a number of industrial disputes in the public sector. They affect vital areas of employment or job-creating opportunities for members of trade unions for whom the Government is supposed to have such a close and working relationship. I congratulate my fellow members who have made their maiden speeches in this Assembly today, and those who will follow. Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) 17.401: I am privileged to represent in this Assembly the people of Ashfield, and I thank them for their vote of confidence in electing me as their parliamentary representative. I look forward to the co-operative spirit of all members in the Legislative Assembly, and I hope that I might represent the people of Ashfield for as long as my predecessor, Mr David Hunter, though there might be some conjecture about that. I should be remiss if I failed to pay tribute to David Hunter, who represented the people of Ashfield for some 35 years. He was a respected member of the community in and around Ashfield, and a commanding figure within the electorate. He gave 35 years of dedicated service to the people of the Ashfield electorate-almost half his life. It was a great contribution. He was loved and respected by all members of this House. It is a privilege for me to follow into this House a man who was so well respected. I might add from a personal viewpoint that David Hunter gave much to the people of Ashfield and the Parliament and received little in return. As many people know, he was aicted by blindness, but one would not have known that if one had to rely on any evident disability flowing from that affliction. 10 146 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply

The Governor referred in his Speech to local government. During the past six years I have had the privilege of being an alderman of the Ashfield municipal council, and for the past four years I have had the added distinction of being its mayor. Problems surrounding local government are reasonably well known to me. Local government rates have increased so dramatically in the past few years that the problems of local government authorities have been exacerbated out of all proportion. Increased costs are relevant, but in my view the main reason has been the failure of the past State Government to promote immediate relief for residents and ratepayers dike. Indeed, it has been almost a callous and cynical approach, especially towards people on fixed incomes and low incomes who are unable to meet the high incidence of rates.

It is almost ten years since this Parliament investigated the system of rating. It is only proper that some method of rating other than by using the valuation of land as a guide should be evolved. A more equitable method must be found. Valuations of properties must be made more realistic if they are to continue to be used as a yardstick for the levying of rates. If found to be not an appropriate guide, the system must bc abolished. It might be more appropriate in the city to impose a levy for rates and services provided by councils. It must always be remembered that the tenants who reside in an area are affected by rate rises. Most landlords merely pass on to their tenants the indirect cost of increased rates. Some local government bodies are overstaffed and duplicate work, or are too small to be efficient. The amalgamation proposals contained in the report of the Barnett committee were shelved when the Government of the day failed to seize the opportunity to relieve ratepayers and residents of the burden of excessive rates.

I am confident that the new Minister will approach this matter with deliberation and the purpose and confidence that the people of New South Wales require of him. He has set a fine example in the proposal to peg rates for the 1977 year. Amalgamations need not be feared. I have mentioned the Barnett committee, the recommendations of which are quite well known to honourable members. One of its recommendations was for the amalgamation of various areas. This is appropriate. It must be noted that there has been large-scale reorganization of local government administration in the United Kingdom, and that the local government boundaries commission in New Zealand has broad powers in respect of local government amalgamation. There is no need to travel far to see the effect of the proposed local government amalgamations.

It is refreshing to learn that compulsory voting will be reintroduced at local government elections. This will be a desirable stimulus for people to become involved in their own community. New residents will acquaint themselves with the location and resources of an area and provide a larger electoral body. All these things should ensure more effective local administration and healthy open government. The Government of New South Wales should give a lead to the people. In 1976 it should be the pace- setter for a community that demands efficiency, economy and austerity. People in country areas have already experienced the benefit of some amalgamations and are happy with the economies that have resulted.

Local councils must be either relieved of their social service responsibilities or have them funded by the Australian Government, but care must be taken to ensure that local community initiative and spirit and the interplay of ideas are not lost. ~t must, be remembered that many local groups play an important part in community welfare. It is obvious that the federal Government is not interested in social welfare projects. It has shelved more responsibilities than it has acknowledged. By abdicating its social welfare responsibilities it has imposed greater burdens on local councils. MPWhelanl Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 147

The financial burdens on local government must be eased. I am delighted at the programme announced by the Government for a gradual abolition of financial contributions by local councils to statutory authorities. During my four years as mayor of the municipality of Ashfield, some $336,000, or 7 or 8 per cent of the council's rate income, has been paid to State government instrumentalities and a paltry $113,000 has been received back by way of local government assistance. That financial flood in the wrong direction must be stopped. I am delighted to be a member of a government that will put a stop to that iniquitous and continual outflow of money. There must be no further selective rate reductions of the type implemented by the previous Government when it reduced certain water rates. Some concessions must be given to the already over-taxed people who live in and around the city, and especially to new settlers and families buying their first house. These people are already troubled by high interest rates adcapital repayments. As a member of the legal profession I should like to have the cumbersome Local Government Act streamlined. It could be codified and made a lot simpler. I believe it is within the province of this Parliament to ensure that all legislation and Acts of Parliament can be readily understood by members of the public. In the area of health, some 200 000 people have been prejudiced by the lack of adequate casualty facilities ak the Western Suburbs Hospital, which it situated on the Hume Highway in a densely populated area with large industrial complexes in the vicinity. Honourable members will appreciate the need for a large casualty section at this hospital. On a few occasions the previous Government promised to provide $2 million for a casualty section there. The people of the inner western suburbs have the right to health services as good as those provided for people in other areas. The Government has the duty to care for all its people. Some years ago $2 million was earmarked to provide a casualty section for the Western Suburbs Hospital. Coincidentally, two weeks prior to the last State election the first sod was turned for that casualty section. In the hurry, and in order to see that the construction fell within the confines of the Budget, the authorities omitted an x-ray section to service that casualty centre. I could not think of anything more ludicrous than having a casualty centre without an adequate x-ray section. In the preceding twelve months 17 500 x-rays were taken at the hospital; 9 500 of those related to outpatients. With the advent of the casualty centre a greater load will fall on the x-ray department. I am grateful for the support that has been given by the people in the electorate, and the Minister for Health has promised to look into the matter and to provide relief as a matter of urgency. The Minister has an innate knowledge of hospital workings, and was for many years the chairman of the Canterbury Hospital. I con- fidently expect that he will not only approve funds that will allow the casualty centre to proceed at the Western Suburbs Hospital but will also make provision for an x-ray department there. I have been delighted to learn of the great progress made by the Government in the field of education. However, the people throughout the Ashfield electorate are poorly served by education facilities; they suffer the dual legacy of inadequate school buildings and a shortage of playground space. It is hardly believable that this should happen in this lucky and wealthy country. Bearing in mind the complexities of modem education, students are expected to undergo learning and acquire educational skills under inadequate conditions and poor surroundings. The 1 500 students at the Ashfield school complex are expected to receive their education on 7 acres of land, whereas the minimum requirement to comply with education standards is 21 acres. TO add insult to injury, they are expected to use a 148 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply dilapidated wooden gymnasium fit for demolition. To add further insult to that injury, the school would seem to be a subject for the Mark of Zorro-it is being adversely affected by a road-widening proposal that will require 17 000 square feet of the recreational land now available to the students. The road proposal is preposterous for it will lead not only to the loss of recreational land but also, because of the proximity of the Hume Highway, a noise problem will arise. As the Hume Highway carries about 26 000 vehicles a day, honourable members can imagine the noise problem that will arise. Unfortunately, school problems are common throughout the Ashfield electorate, for Ashbury, Croydon Park, Dulwich Hill, Summer Hill and Croydon schools suffer similar disabilities. I have been especially disappointed by the Commonwealth Government's proposal to cut back support for pre-schools. This onerous decision will affect the less privileged members of the community. As I have had the good fortune of serving as a member of the Summer Hill pre-school centre, I am in a position to describe the difficulties that will confront that organization, which intends to cater, on a full-time basis, for forty-four children. Summer Hill has a large ethnic population of tenants who live in and around the area. The present federal Government proposaI to reduce by 25 per cent the amount available for paying the salaries of teachers who work in these pre-schools will cause great hardship. This decision is to be deplored, and the State Government cannot ignore the fact that the present Liberal-Country party Government in Canberra has deserted these people. I believe that we are duty bound to ensure that people of initiative in local communities are rewarded and provided with the funds that are needed for their projects. The organization I have mentioned is certainly faced with an over- whelming task, for it has to collect about $30,000 and it will have to meet annually 25 per cent of the cost of teachers' salaries. The Government proposes to create an ethnic affairs commission. I was the chairman of an organization in the Ashfield area which was ultimately responsible for the establishment of the New South Wales Ethnic Communities Council. The organization founded in the Ashfield area has received financial support from the Ashfield municipal council as well as moral support from people within the Ashfield area. Migrant communities were neglected by the previous State Government, but the previous Labor Government in Canberra promoted initiatives in this field, including the establishment of radio station 2EA, the creation of a community affairs bureau, and the appointment of a commissioner for community relations. The ethnic communities have benefited greatly from this, and I am sure that they will welcome the additional proposal by the Government of New South Wales.

The Ashfield electorate is indeed a cosmopolitan one. If one attends a prize- giving ceremony at any school in the area or speaks to the students as I do, it is soon clear that there is no dominant migrant group. The students come from Greece, Italy, Lebanon, Poland, Spain, Portugal, and many other countries. It is my privilege to live with my family within the confines of an area in which many of these people have settled. It it important for the Government of this State to take the initiative in welcoming newcomers to our shores and to give them the opportunity of integrating in the community and enjoying the Australian way of life. The implementation of an education campaign to this end will further enhance the integration of all ethnic communities. The State Labor Party and the new State Government has forecast a progressive campaign for the advantage of all ethnic communities. In addition, to assist the ethnic groups I intend to agitate for the increased use of language libraries, the training of additional ethnic teachers, the teaching of ethnic languages and additional English classes for the children of migrants. Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 149

To give some indication of the number of migrants living in the Ashfield electorate, I invite the attention of honourable members to the fact that last month I had the privilege of welcoming at a naturalization ceremony about 160 migrants into the Australian family. I should like the Government to support a cultural and languages resources centre within the Sydney metropolitan area, to serve as a focal point for all migrant groups. This would enable people to view the cultural heritage and study the history of all nations. I envisage an education programme for our children involving the study of their fellow citizens and providing them also with a greater understanding of migrant communities and the histories of all nations. Last week I had the privilege of attending an ethnic communities day at Summer Hill school. That about thirty-four different ethnic groups were represented on that occasion illustrates the magnitude and diversity of the groups of people who live in my electorate. I have been particularly concerned about the lack of police protection in and around the metropolitan area, particuIarly in the Ashfield police district. An insufficient number of police imposes a great strain on the health and capabilities of the police in the service. I urge the Premier to consider as a matter of urgency the provision of adequate police protection for the people of the Ashfield area. Too much of the time of police officers is taken up in attending road accidents, especially in my electorate where large numbers of vehicle accidents occur. Tragic accidents occur, and the police officers on duty have to attend them. Further, only one police officer is on duty at Ashfield police station from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. to provide a service for 60 000 people. The absence of police protection has been of great concern to the people in the electorate of Ashfield. The number of police at the major police station in Ashfield is inadequate to cater for and to satisfy the needs of the electorate. Sixty thousand people live within the police district. One is always amqed at the dedication of police officers to their tasks, but the insufficiency of staff is such as to put a serious strain on the health and capabilities of the police officers concerned. I urge the Premier to ensure as a matter of urgency that the people of Ashfield are given adequate protection by an addition to the police strength. So much of the time of police officers is taken up at road accidents that little time is available to answer other calls. We have a tragic situation of one police officer being on duty from 11 o'clock at night until 7 o'clock in the morning. That is indeed a most unsatisfactory solution. However, I place on record my thanks to all police officers connected with the Ashfield area for their dedication and for the assistance that they have given to the people in my electorate. I imagine that we are a little more fortunate than those who live at Haberfield, which is in the electorate of Drummoyne, where the one police station closes at 5 p.m. One can only assume that no crime is committed in Haberfield after that time. I pay tribute to the Minister for Transport and Minister for Highways for the assistance he has given me as a newly elected member, and for the co-operation that has been forthcoming from the department. As a result of our dual initiatives, a programme is being put into effect to update transport facilities, including the Ashfield railway station-which will become a model for other railway stations-and in addition the stations of Summer Hill and Croydon are to be modernized. The public is to be provided with protection from the elements, and shelters will be erected at selected locations. The Minister has been most sympathetic to the problems caused by the number of vehicles traversing residential streets in the municipalities of Ashfield, Canterbury, Burwood and others that form the electorate of Ashfield. Some residential streets in the electorate have more than 10 000 vehicles a day passing along them. That is a mammoth figure, and the problem is causing concern. The environment is being destroyed, and noise pollution also is reducing the residential amenity. Consideration 150 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply

must be given soon to ensuring that heavy vehicles traverse main roads and are kept away from residential streets. I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your elevation to a most important position in this House. I place on record my congratulations to the Premier of this State on leading the Australian Labor Party back to the Treasury benches. I thank the president of the New South Wales branch of the party, the Hon. John Ducker, and his staff for the assistance they gave all candidates in 'the election campaign. I thank also the members of the A.L.P. branches for their help. It is important to remember always that the Australian Labor Party obtained 49.8 per cent-nearly 50 per cent--of the vote of the people of New South Wales, and that indeed is a sufficient mandate, Mr VINEY (Wakehurst) [8.3]: May I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your election to the high office you now hold. I know that it is an office you wanted, and I Am sure that you will carry out your functions in the same manner as did your predecessors. I congratulate also those who have made their maiden speeches, particularly the mover and seconder of the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply. It is a signal honour to be chosen for either task. I am sure that His Excellency Sir Roden Cutler would have felt a sense of personal disappointment at the message he had to deliver to Parliament about the lack- lustre programme of the Wran Government. I, as chairman of the Opposition's wm- mittee on transport and highways, am no doubt expected to deal with those subjects, and in doing so I wish that the Minister for Transport and Minister for Highways were at the table of the House, for I do not enjoy attacking, in a parliamentary sense, someone who is not present. However, I am sure the Minister Assisting the Premier, will adequately substitute for him on this occasion. What concerns me greatly is that the Minister for Transport and Minister for Highways when in Opposition developed a reputation of obtaining information from within the public service. That is fair enough. We have now reached a stage when public servants are not expected to remain silent. That attitude was fostered by the Whitlam Government, and I agree that public servants should have greater liberty than they had formerly to speak up on matters. However, I believe also that they should do it publicly rather than leak information. I say that because governments change, and public servants who disclose information in that fashion could not be expected to have loyalty to a new government. As I say, the Minister for Transport and Minister for Highways, when spokesman for the Labor Party in Opposition on transport matters, developed a reputation for being able to get inside information. Regrettably some of his so-called friends circulated a rumour that he was being fed this information by a senior public servant. I do not believe it was fair of them to have named that public servant. It was not fair to the man himself, or to the Minister for Transport and Minister for Highways. New South Wales has a dedicated Minister and, I believe, an honest one who is trying to do a job in respect of transport. He has committed himself to certain policies. He is trying to build up the image of public transport. What is his leader doing? I suggest that the Premier is undermining public confidence, for in the National Times on 10th August, 1976, the following statement is attributed to the Premier: The reason people in and near metropolitan Sydney don't use the public transport is because it's a rotten system-dirty, irregular and too expensive. The Premier )thengoes on to say, talking about fare cuts: NOW, if we're wrong about this, we've made a major error in judgment. I shall come back to that. [Interruption] Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 151

Mr VINEY: The Minister merely wants to get his name in Hansard, I should like all supporters of the Government who subscribe to the Premier's thinking to be on record in Hansard as regards their views of public servants, for the Premier says that the public transport in this State is dirty and irregular because the transport staff did not clean the system. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst has the floor. I trust that he will be heard in silence and that other honourable members who are now in the House and are on the list to speak in this debate will receive the same courtesy. Mr VINEY: I refer next to the Sun on 23rd March, before the election. This article is entitled: "Trains Creep Over Slide" and it says in part: Trains carrying thousands of commuters are running within a metre of the edge of a washed-away track on the North Shore every few minutes. A landslide has dramatically weakened the foundations of the track embankment a quarter of a mile south of Turramurra Station. That is reasonably restrained reporting by the Sun. On the same day the Daily Mirror published a similar article. I have no doubt that the reporter was doing penance on behalf of his master for the information he had to present tot the Botany council inquiry. Suddenly, instead of restrained reporting these words appeared in the Daily Mirror; Trains 6 inches from disaster. Daily Dice with Death. Thousands of commuters daily risk death as they travel over a collapsed section of track on the north shore. And so it goes on, frightening the blazes out of people on the North Shore. I repeat, this was irresponsible reporting and the Daily Mirror reporter must have been doing penance for the fact that Rupert Murdoch had to admit at the Botany council inquiry certain ways he had acted in respect of the Labor Party in a previous election. What a price to pay-dancing on the end of strings pulled by Wran people. Another headline says, "5 000 dice with death". On the following day in this House the Premier, as Leader of the Opposition, asked a question in these terms: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport and refer9 to the state of the surburban railway track at Turramurra. At that time the question was asked I remarked that it was a funny way to get to Bass Hill. Of course, he had not been out to Turramurra himself. He sent someone out to look at the situation. Now, in the aftermath of the election, how serious is this Turramurra embankment danger? In a few months it moves from the Daily Mirror headlines saying 5 000 dicing with death at a time when the reporter was paying penance, to a small article of postage stamp size in the Sun-Herdd, headed "Travelling at a Jogtrot." North Shore train travellers wonder when that washaway near Turra- murra will be repaired to allow trains to exceed l0 km per hour there. Is the position, at Turrmurra so dangerous? Were the Daily Mirror headlines justified? I shall quote an extract from a letter written by the new Minister for Transport and Minister for Highways in reply to representations made by the honourable member for for Ku-ring-gai. The Minister wrote: I am writing in reply to your representations on behalf of residents of your electorate who have expressed concern in regard to the condition of the railway embankment above Wambool Street, Turramurra. 152 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply

The Public Transport Commission has assured me that the embankment between Pymble and Turramurra is safe for the passage of trains. Both tracks have been relocated approximately three feet away from the embankment. . . In that letter the Minister is telling the people, through their representative, the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai, that everything is safe and that the 5 000 dicing with death headline was a lot of garbage. As I have said previously, and repeat now, the Daily Mirror was doing penance for the fact that Rupert Murdoch had to admit at the Botany council inquiry that he had changed his support. Mr Quinn: The railway line at Turramurra was moved over 3 feet. Mr VINEY: All that was happening in these attacks was that the Premier and his cohorts were talking about the railways being unsafe and questioning the integrity of senior officers in the Public Transport Commission. Nothing has changed. The embankment at Turramurra is still the same. The Premier was calling for a concrete reinforcement wall and all sorts of things but when the new Minister takes office he says, "She's sweet; we will keep an eye on it." I want to move on to another great disaster of the Wran Government and that is fare cuts. In July, 1975, the Minister for Transport, then in his role as Opposition spokesman on transport matters, was reported in the Daily Telegraph as saying that a State Labor government would cut fares by 20 per cent. At the same time the Premier, who was then Leader of the Opposition, said that New South Wales under Labor administration would jump at a federal Government offer to take over the New South Wales railways. I want that recorded in Hansard again to remind the Premier of what he said twelve months ago so that he will be aware of it in discussions which will take place over the next few weeks. We heard this great promise of fare cuts but were they applied equally across the board to all people who use public transport? Of course not. They are discriminatory. These fare cuts were brought in at a time when the Public Transport Commission was starving for revenue. The Government has given away $24 million a year in revenue though the public transport system could not handle one additional passenger in peak hours. Mr Mulock: Why can it not handle extra passengers? Mr VINEY: Because it has not the rolling stock to do so. Mr Mulock: Exactly-the coalition government did not purchase it. Mr VINEY: Come in, spinner. If the Minister cares to listen I shall tell him more. Loyal Labor Party people, union officials whom I know and respect and meet in community areas such as scouts, have said to me: "For God's sake, can't you people stop this madness? We need revenue". Mr Haigh: Who said that? Mr VINEY: Labor Party people in the Public Transport Commission. They said, "We need the revenue because we are short of so many things and particularly we need more rolling stock". If the Government had introduced a fare cut right across the board and all the people had the benefit of it, that might be a different exercise and would be regarded as a social welfare benefit. That is not so. The fare cut has been discriminatory and the workers have been separated into two groups. On 13th April the editorial of the Sydney Morning Herald stated: . . . . . in the face of m annual loss of more than $300 million a year on public transport, to promise (as he has) to reduce rail, bus and ferry fares by 20 per cent in a Labor Government's first Budget is a sheer gamble. Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 153

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much interjection. The honourable member for Wakehurst has the floor. If interruptions do not cease I shall have to take more direct measures against the offenders. Mr VINEY: That editorial of the Sydney Morning Herald comments upon the fact that the Premier's promise to cut fares by 20 per cent was a sheer gamble. Of couse, that is indicative of the attitude of this Premier who loves gambling. We have heard about his double crossing the Council of Churches with regard to casinos and no doubt someone else will deal with that matter. The Public Transport Commission and the Department of Main Roads need revenue. Soon after the fare cuts the State is crying poor mouth over the condition of the Hume Highway. Was it the right time to give away revenue to one section of the public when the Government desperately needs revenue? The federal Government is pouring millions of dollars into the national highways scheme. Sure, that was started by the Whitlam Government and I do not deny that fact. Going to the next situation, again I read from the Sydney Morning Herald, this time of 20th May, where a headline is, "State drops costly publicity plan". The article reads: The State Government has scrapped an expensive publicity campaign designed to attract commuters back tot public transport, the Minister for Transport, Mr Cox said yesterday. It would be wrong for the Government to promote the transport system while the State railways and bus fleets were run down badly, he said. The $250,000 campaign for the press, radio and television, had been planned by the previous government. "I did not think it the appropriate time to start a quarter of a million dollar media campaign to sell public transport," Mr Cox said. "The condition of the rolling stock causes me some concern, and I feel any pro~grammeto sell public transport should be introduced when the system is in reasonable working order." That was on 20th May when the Minister said the Government would not spend that money because rolling stock was inefficient. It was not long afterwards that we were hit through the media-radio and press-with advertisements selling public transport. We have seen page after page of advertisements, all selling public transport. My question is this: was the Minister gifted with a magic wand between 20th May, when he said rolling stock was inefficient and inadequate, and late July or early August when we see this mammoth advertising campaign? Or was it perhaps that forward orders placed by the previous government had brought new rolling stock into existence? Perhaps the Minister changed his attitude. He cancelled the advertising and, because the rolling stock was inefticient and the system was inadequate, would not wear it at d. Even after the advertising commenced the Premier was still saying that the railway system is rotten and dirty. What a vote of confidence the Premier is giving the Minister for Transport and Minister for Highways who, I would suggest, is spending far more than $250,000 in this campaign. Some people may wonder why this campaign is being carried on but the reason is obvious-all the advertisements carry the following message: As announced by the Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Cox, M.L.A., on Sunday, 27th June, 1976- [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have listened intently to the honourable member for Wakehurst and it would seem that the whole of his speech so far has depended 154 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply upon press statements. Extensive rulings have been given on the use of press statements both in questions and debate. One of the main requirements is that the member who is speaking must satisfy Mr Speaker of the accuracy of the statements. It has been stated that it is not permissible for questions to be asked, or debate based on press statements to Iw engaged in, unless the honourable member raising the matter assures Mr Speaker and the House that the material published is reported accurately. Accord- ingly, the honourable member must take entire responsibility for the correctness of the statement as published. I should like to ask the honourable member for Wake- hurst whether he will assure me that all the press statements and the material he is using are correct and that he accepts responsibility for their correctness. Mr VINEY: Mr Speaker, I am delighted to comply with your direction. I am quoting from advertising authorized and paid for-I hope-by the New South Wales Government. This material does not consist of press statements but paid advertising-reams and reams of it. I trust that you will accept this material as not being press statement but official announcements by the Government of New South Wales. The point I was making is that one can understand why the Minister suddenly allowed this advertising campaign to come into being-he was duchessed. At that stage the dyMinister of the Government who was seen everywhere, being all manner of things to all men, was the Premier. It was a one-man government although it had a smoother style than the former Labor Government under the Hon. E. G. Whitlam. I know what was happening. I assume that it was the same agency that was going to spend the money under our administration, but it does not matter. The agency came along with a convincing argument, and then dangled the carrot-the promise that the Minister for Transport would get his name in headlines; and everyone would know who was the Minister for Transport because the Government would pay to see that his name was put on to every advertisement. I refuse to be told that the words: "As announced by the Minister for Trans- port and Highways, Mr Peter Cox, MLA, from Sunday, 27th June, 1976, fares will be reduced by an average of 20 per cent" is selling copy. I suggest that the words and the space could have been used more effectively to promote the cutting of fares. I propose now to move on to the next area surrounding this advertising campaign. Every radio commercial-and I heard them incessantly without knowing the exact number although I could check it by going to the monitoring service and getting a cost estimate-contained the words: As announced by the Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Cox, M.L.A., on June 27th, fares have been reduced by an average of 20. per cent. If those words were part of a 60-second radio commercial they would occupy 13.3 per cent of that time; they would occupy 27 per cent of the time in a 30-second commercial. On the basis of an expenditure of $100,000 on these radio commercials-and I suggest that it is a most conservative estimate-the Minister's share of his personal publicity in government advertising by means of a 60-second commercial is $13,300. If the messages were part of a 30-second commercial, the Minister owes the Treasury $27,000. I make this point because the Minister was bleating loud and long about a pamphlet issued before the State elections. He accused the Liberal-Country party Government of putting out the pamphlet for political purposes and said: "I will not authorize this bill. The Treasury can collect it from the Liberal Party." What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander-although this might be an emasculated gander. I wish to place on the record the fact that the new Minister for Transport owes the Treasury a large sum of money due to the fact that the advertising agency informed him that it would build him up and tell the people that the Government had another Minister other than the Premier. I propose to go into this matter a little further. Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 155

When the media asked the Government the result of the fare cuts they were informed: "We do not know how many new passengers we have got but we certainly have not lost any". What a great gamble-throwing away each year $24 million worth of revenue, when there is an urgent need for funds for the public transport system and for more rolling stock. However, we can go much further than that. The Premier, when Leader of the Opposition, said in his policy speech before the State elections, "We will peg fares for two years irrespective of anything that happens". He did not use the word irrespective but it is obvious that he meant that the Government would peg fares irrespective of what happened in the arbitration court and inflation. Before the State elections the Premier made certain promises to curry favour with voters who worked in the Government transport industry. Workers in the Public Transport Commission receive wages that are laid down by the arbitration courts. Why are employees in the Public Transport Commission treated as a small elite group and given concessions that are not given to other workers in this State? I can appreciate that in the old days railway employees were dedicated men who were probably paid wages that were lower than those paid to similar workers in outside employment. For this reason they were given certain concession. However, those days have gone. The unions have argued the case on behalf of transport employees, and the salaries that they now receive do not take account of those free benefits. If one carried the philosophy of the Government forward one would reach the stage where a worker in the State brickyards would get free bricks, employees working in power stations would get free power and so on. That would be a ridiculous situation and it would cause divisiveness in the community. The Premier said that the Govern- ment would peg fares for a period of two years. When this House met on 25th May- and there is little to show for it-I raised a question on the adjournment concerning people who used private bus transport. I asked how the users of private bus services would receive the concessions that were to be given to users of public transport. All I received was a sneering reply from the Premier who said, "The honourable member for Wakehurst is looking after his friends who own bus companies". I am delighted to have friends who own bus companies; they are dedicated people who operate an essential service at a price the public can afford to pay. I propose to indicate on this map the area served by private bus operators. The part of the map marked in red indicates that areas of Penrith, St Marys, Blacktown, Mt Druitt, Lidcornbe, Smithfield, Liverpool, Bankstown, Sutherland and Hurstville are served by private buses. However, people using those services have been given no benefit by way of a fare concession. The reductions were not spread across the board. What is worse, these private bus operators are plying under the formula laid down and accepted for many years in regard to any fare increases that they may seek. Proposed fare increases were sought in May, but because the matter was referred to the Minister for Transport who has to give approval, the private bus operators have not been granted a fare increase. This is political dynamite. The Minister has to allow bus operators to increase their fares in order to stay in business; the Government cannot afford to take over private services. The private operators have to pay the recent wage increases awarded by the courts. In the meantime, he has sat on the application for an increase which was endorsed by the Commissioner for Motor Transport. His attitude is, "Let them bleed". Some Government supporters think that a licence to run private buses is a licence to rob the public. What utter nonsense. Though the State is short of revenue, the Public Transport Commission of New South Wales called tenders for four electric furnaces for installation at the Eveleigh workshop. That workshop is to be phased out. With the ancillary equipment involved we are talking about something in the order of $2 million. What does the honourable member for Marrickville have to say about that kind of operation? 156 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply

In September, 1975, he asked the Minister for Transport for the foundries in his electorate to be given work by the Public Tmnsport Commission. Employees would be thrown to the scrap-heap in the private enterprise sector. I disagree with the answer of the former member for Wagga Wagga who trotted out the Public Transport Com- mission claptrap to justify that stance. The honourable member for Marrickville wanted work for the foundries in his electorate. At this stage the Public Transport Commission is still being alIowed to call tenders to install equipment though the private sector is being wooed by the Premier, who eulogises it at every function he attends. Tenders have been called and $2 million will be spent in duplicating a facility that could be handled adequately by the private sector. The waste continues. The Minister for Transport has said that there might be a place for trams. He came with me to view the operation of the Townrnobile battery powered bus. The inventor of that is a brilliant man with a major contribution to offer in regard to electric transport. But the Minister gave him no encouragement. He said if this vehicle that his officers were still assessing its potential. The bus is not driven by diesel power, does not smell and does not require imported fuel. Instead of giving Mr Leembruggen some encouragement and offering to help him, as the protoype had been proved, the Government said: "No, It does not fit into the system. We will talk about trams." Mr SPEAKER: Order! I regret that the honourable member has exhausted his time. Mr HILLS (Phillip), Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Mines and Minister for Energy [8.33]: We have just had a delightful and most enjoyable interlude. The honourable member's speech amused all honourable members. The Governor of New South Wales proved by his excellent Speech on the opening of the Parliament what all honourable members have known for many years about his integrity, dignity and affable Australianism. Those characteristics emerged clearly yesterday, as they have in the past. His Excellency has the confidence and respect of each individual member of the Government and, I am sure, of every member of the House and the people of New South Wales. Mr Viney: What about the Governor-General? Mr HILLS: As the Premier said yesterday, each member on this side of the House will speak for himself about the Governor-General. The Governor of this State has had no demonstrations against him. As the Queen's representative, democracy is safe with him. Not so with the incumbent in another place. 1 shall declare myself: I shall not attend any functions at which Sir John Kerr is present. I felt at the time he committed a dastardly crime against democracy, and that democracy would suffer in this nation. It will never regain its proper status until Sir John Kerr is no longer Governor-General of Australia. Following the Governor's Speech we heard the maiden speeches of two honourable members. The honourable member for Parramdta succeeded an esteemed member of this Chamber, Dan Mahoney, who decided to retire from politics. I am sure that the new honourable member for Parramatta will fill his shoes with great distinction. The honourable member for Blue Mountains, who seconded the resolution for the adoption of the Address in Reply to the Governor's Speech, acquitted himself well and I am sure that we shall hear more from him in the future. [Interruption] Mr HILLS: The honourable member for Pittwater can interject if he wishes but I shall not have any difficulty in handling him. I had no difficulty in handling him when he was with Channel 7 and sometimes dragged me out of bed early in the morning to do him a favour by filling in on his programme. Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 157

Mr Webster: Tell us about the coal and the coal loader. Mr HILLS: Would you like to know about the coal loader in Newcastle that your mob sold out to the Japanese and how it entered into an agreement with a company called Gollin that went broke? The arrangement of the financing of the coal loader and the setting up that company was established on the basis of 60 per cent Australian finance and 40 per cent Japanese. [Interruption] Mr HILLS: Don't you want to hear about it? When Gollin went broke, others came to the rescue. Does the honourable member for Pittwater know that that placed his Government in an untenable situation? The sum of $55 million is being borrowed from Japan out of the $80 million capital needed to construct the coal loader and the Japanese have demanded mortgages over government-held land. The former Govern- ment entered into an arrangement that the present Government is unable to cancel. If the loader goes bad the Japanese may foreclose not only on that coal loader but on the other government coal loader in Newcastle. In fact, the Japanese could control the whole of the export of coal through the Port of Newcastle. The honourable member for Pittwater wants me to talk about coal loaders. Let him tell me what the answer to that is? [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! For some time the honourable member for Pittwater has persisted with mmtant interjections. I regret that if he continues I shall have to deal with him harshly. The Minister has the call. Mr HILLS: I am delighted that the honourable member for Pittwater reminded me about the coal loader. It is something that I am pretty well worked up about, just as I am worked up about the problem of unemployment in New South Wales. The Gover- nor rightly placed emphasis on the Government's deep concern about the high level of unemployment in this State. As Minister for Industrial Relations, responsible for the Department of Labour and Industry, I regret having to make reference to the appallingly misleading statement made last week by the Leader of the Opposition, Sir Eric Willis. It was a studied pose that he repeated in this Home yesterday and no doubt will adopt again. State politics does not often descend to such a low and deliberate intention to mislead, as did the statement by Sir Eric Willis. The Leader of the Opposition had the temerity to blame the new State Labor Government, only three months in office, for having increased unemployment in New South Wales by the loss of 10 000 jobs, or some other ridiculous claim. He was completely exposed in another deliberate lie when he tried to mislead the House about lost working hours and days in the State being the reason for the transfer of the motor industry to Victoria. His argument was completely demolished and his lies were exposed in this Parliament by the Minister for Decentralisa- tion and Development, who gave figures that demonstrated how little one can rely upon the word of the Leader of the Opposition. We know why yesterday the Leader of the Opposition was forced into a position of moving urgency. We know that he has problems within his party. I know what it is like. I led the Opposition over two elections, a matter that has been raised before in this House. My leader, the Premier, has led the Labor Party back to Government. I listened with great interest to the most pleasing speech that I have ever heard by His Excellency the Governor over the past eleven years because Labor had come back to office. We have been led back to office by the Premier who did a great job as leader of that Party. I am not drawing any conclusions, but I believe that honourable members opposite should think seriously about the person who was responsible for deciding to call an early election. He tried to do a Bob Askin but what happened? The people of 158 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply

New South Wales completely demolished him. I do not observe any honourable rnem- bers opposite being happy now, and I look at them all with great interest. I notice that the honourable member for Wollondilly is smiling; he is in a delightful situation. Mr Lewis: I have never lost an election yet. Mr HILLS: There might be a story in that. Honourable members opposite had better invite him back again. Mr Lewis: You lost two and Sir Eric lost one. Mr HILLS: You had a redistribution of boundaries before one election but you did not have time to have another redistribution before the last elections, so you tied your own hands. I was speaking about the way the Leader of the Opposition set out to lead astray this Parliament. It should not be any surprise to him to learn that in the month of May-and I am sure honourable members opposite will never forget the 1st May-unemployment throughout Australia reached the highest peak for any month of May since these figures were commenced in 1947, with 286 203 unemployed in Aus- tralia. In New South Wales 4.6 per cent of the work force, or 105 331 people, were unemployed in May, 1976, when Labor came to office. Labor cannot be blamed for the highest peak of unemployed being reached in Australia since statistics were commenced in 1947, when we had a Liberal-National Country party Government in Canberra and a Liberal-Country party Government in New South Wales hanging on tenaciously in the hope that some miracle would save it and that it would retain office. The people realized what a lousy job it was doing and decided to change the government in New South Wales. They can see through what Sir Eric Willis has been attempting to do over the past couple of days. They know that he left behind a legacy of 115 997 unemployed in this State. I should hope that the Leader of the Opposition will desist from telling lies to the people. They see through him. When the federal Government announced its recent budget and announced at a Loan Council meeting how far it was willing to go to underwrite the loans approved by that council I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition rubbed his hands in glee. It was decided that there would be an increase of only 5 per cent in loan funds available to the various States of the Commonwealth and he would realize that that would make it difficult for the new Government in New South Wales to bring in the reforms that it was most anxious to initiate. I do not know how the former Minister for Education feels about the cut in loan funds that have occurred. I cannot understand why Opposition members are not urging the federal Government to loosen the purse strings in this most difficult period. I have no doubt that the citizens of New South Wales know who were responsible for the high unemployment figures and that they will take it out on them, whether it be today, tomorrow, next week or in two years' time. I should not have quarrelled with the federal budget had it provided incentives to stimulate the manufacturing industry, as was claimed. However, the realistic intention of the budget is to keep unemployment at an ever-increasing rate until about 400 000 to 500 000 people are unemployed. Ironically, the budget's main hand-outs were to the mining industry, which at present is most wealthy and profitable and the only growth area remaining in the Australian economy. Mr Mutton: That industry employs people. Mr HILLS: Yes, and that is the only area where the present federal Liberal- National Country party Government has decided to give any assistance, but not because there is unemployment in the mining industry. The statisitics produced by the Common- wealth Government show that New South Wales has only six unemployed miners Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 159 with thirteen vacant jobs available. However, there are 800 unemployed fitters, 122 unemployed turners and over 340 unemployed boilermakers. With all the trades needing assistance the Commonwealth Government is not too willing to assist. New South Wales has the highest level of unemployment because it has the highest number of people employed in the key industries which have been worst hit by the recession and because of the reduced public expenditure which I have mentioned already. Our metals, machine and appliance industries, which provide half of the employment opportunities in New South Wales, and the key manufacturing industries, which employ 27 per cent of Australia's manufacturing work force, were among the most heavily hit industries. They produce basic metals, industrial machinery, agricultural machinery, electrical machinery and metal fabrication.

Of greater importance to New South Wales is the state of the building and construction industry, which in New South Wales slumped severely during the second half of 1975. Of course, that has not been assisted by the federal Government. In the building industry the number of houses commenced in New South Wales in the March 1976 quarter was 5.5 per cent below that of the same quarter a year before. By com- ~arison,on an Australia-wide basis 21.8 per cent more new houses were commenced in the March quarter of 1976 than there were a year before. For the benefit of the former Attorney-General who is apparently not concerned, I say again that the number of houses being co~~tructedin New South Wales has declined severely while in every other State of the Commonwealth it has increased.

Are honourable members aware of the financial jiggery-pokery that was going on even when the present Opposition was in office about the transfer of funds needed for housing construction from New South Wales to Victoria? In October, November and December, 1975, and January, and even through to February, 1976, the money being spent in New South Wales on housing construction was 33 per cent of the Australian total. In Victoria it was as low as 27.3 per cent. But in April and May of this year when the Liberal-Country party Government was in office there was a sudden switch of funds. That 33 per cent dropped first to 31 per cent in March of this year, then to 28.7 per cent in April and in May it stood at 28.4 per cent. But in Victoria the figure went up. This meant that there was a transfer of funds to Victoria by the banks and private lending institutions to enable that State not merely to maintain its rate of building construction but to increase it. One needs to examine closely this situation, and the Treasury &cers of New South Wales are in the process of doing that. Why were these funds transferred? Was it because economic control of the Commonwealth of Australia really exists in Mel- bourne and not in Sydney? These transfers occurred while the present Opposition was in office and it did nothing about the matter. These are matters that need careful wn- sideration because we are not constructing homes in this State today. Formerly the New South Wales economy ensured that more flats than pxivate homes were built, mainly because of the diiculties encountered with the availability of serviced land. In the eleven years that honourable members opposite were in Government there was a tremendous emphasis on the construction of flats and home units. With the downturn in building construction in this State, we are facing a shortage of accommodation for rental purposes. Indeed, it is already upon us. This will mean added pressure on those premises: which are available. It is expected that because of the shortage rents will increase by 30 per cent within the next twelve months. Honourable members cannot say that I have not warned them about this situation. That is what is expected in the real estate industry. It behoves every member of this Parliament to ensure that the drift that occurred in the transfer of funds from 160 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply

New South Wales to Victoria is arrested. We must get back to spending at least from 32 per cent to 33 per cent of the total funds being used for constructing homes throughout the Commonwealth. I am delighted to see the honourable member for Wagga Wagga in the Chamber. I should have thought when he jumped up to ask a question without notice today that he would ask me about the supply of natural gas to Wagga Wagga. He has been running to the press down there almost every day since we came to office. Perhaps it is time that I told this Parliament about the disgraceful arrangements that the former Government entered into with the Australian Gas Light Company and how that Govern- ment abrogated its power and authority to the Australian Gas Light Company. That Government gave its authority away for absolutely nothing-a sell-out-merely on the company's word that it would construct or arrange to have constructed the laterals to Wagga Wagga, Bathurst, Orange and Lithgow, and also that it would construct a pipeline to Newcastle. All these arrangements, which were entered into by the former member for Wagga Wagga, were merely verbal: there was no written agreement. The New South Wales Government had the right and authority to negotiate on behalf of all of the people of New South Wales, not just the consumers within the Sydney metropolitan area where the Australian Gas Light Company has its franchise, and some other places. The company gave a verbal undertaking at the request of the New South Wales Government that it would proceed with the construction of laterals. Of course, the federal Labor Government was elected and Mr Connor graciously took away the responsibility.

[Interruption]

Mr HILLS: Let me tell honourable members opposite that the federal Govern- ment is supplying all the money for the construction of the pipeline. An agreement was entered into between the pipeline authority and the Australian Gas Light Company --not the State Government-that upon request to that company laterals would be built. Mr Webster: How much a therm is natural gas to cost?

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HILLS: It will be delivered to Sydney at 7 cents a therm. You thought I did not know. It is all right. I do not need protection. The member for Wagga Wagga is asking why the Minister for Mines and Energy does not do something about getting the gas to Wagga Wagga? I tell the House. It is because the former New South Wales Government was so dilatory and did not insist on having some say as to when the laterals would be built. That is the position. As Minister I cannot lift a finger against the Australian Gas Light Company and instruct the company to have the laterals built. The Government will be introducing legislation into this Parliament to correct that position. Somebody has said that we are trying to crack a nut with a sledgehammer. It may be that the nut that we are dealing with needs a sledgehammer. The company has been getting away with something for a long time.

The Australian Gas Light Company and the private company, Santos, have been holding up the delivery of gas into the pipeline which is being constructed, and gas is needed to purge sections of the line which have been completed. These companies have been refusing to trigger off the agreement between the Australian Gas Light Company and Santos. Again, the Slate Government has no power or authority in this matter because the previous Government gave it all away for nothing on a verbal undertaking Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 161 that these laterals would be constructed. Country people are going without natural gas, and will go without it forever unless we take legislative action in this Parliament to ensure that the laterals are constructed in accordance with the undertakings that were given to the former Government. Mr Webster: What about the iiles? Mr HILLS: If you do not think natural gas is important, you tell your friend over there. There is nothing in writing at all about these matters in the files.

(Interruption] Mr HILLS: Do you want me to sit down while you make a speech? Mr Pickard: No. We are enjoying it. Mr HILLS: If the honourable member is happy about the fact that his Govern- ment, and its Ministers-and he was a member of Cabinet and should have known something about it-were able to con these country people, including the honourable member for Wagga Wagga, into believing that they were going to get natural gas, I am ashamed of him. This is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of this Parliament. The Government will be introducing legislation to remedy the situation. Despite the honourable member's interjection, there is nothing sinister about it. It will be introduced to right a wrong which the former Government perpetrated on his constituents. I hope he tells them the facts. We on this side are delighted to be in government, especially at having polled 49.8 per cent of the vote. Some members put up tremendous performances. For example, the honourable member for Ashfield had the biggest swing of all, 8.7 per cent. That is not bad. While we have the kind of members who have made their maiden speeches in this debate we shall be here in government for another twenty years. The members opposite will finish up with long grey beards, still on the Opposition benches. Mr FISCHER (Sturt) [9.1]: I congratulate members who have made their maiden speeches in this debate, especially the honourable member for Gordon, the honourable member for Blue Mountains and the honourable member for Ashfield, all of whom saw fit to praise their predecessors in a meaningful way though not all of them are of the same political persuasion. This is a tribute to the calibre of the previous member for Blue Mountains, Mr Harold Coates, and the former member for Ashfield, Mr David Hunter. I look forward to the other maiden speeches yet to come, particularly those from the honourable member for Orange and the honourable member for Barwon. The Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Mines and Minister for Energy had the temerity to question the part of the federal budget that introduced a worthwhile set of concessions and incentives for the mining industry in Australia. It is a sad reflection on him that at a time of energy need he has queried the federal Govern- ment for giving maximum priority to mining and energy in spite of its overall austerity. From time to time he has made statements in the media criticizing his federal counter- part, the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for National Resources and Minister for Overseas Trade. This is unfair because the Rt Hon. J. D. Anthony has shown a national outlook in emphasizing first the need to curb inflation, and second the energy needs of the nation. This area has fared better than all the others. It is heartening to know that mining in Australia is again being encouraged after three years of disaster under the administration of Reginald Francis Xavier Connor. Natural gas is not available 11 162 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply

tonight in Wagga Wagga or Bathurst, because of the interference and actions of that gentleman when he was the federal Cabinet Minister in charge of mining. Last weekend in the United States of America a lady who had just slashed her wrists with a blade held the blade to her neck every time the police moved in to prevent her from committing suicide in a public place. A crowd that had assembled urged her on, saying in effect, "Go to it, sister, go right on." This is another example of the outlandish excesses that are developing throughout the world, particularly in the United States of America. This has been underlined by the latest pornography development in America, the ultimate pornographic experience known as the snuff movie, which portrays cold-blooded murder by real actors who are murdered on screen. Every stage of the brutality and murder is represented in life on the screen, and the film ends with one fewer live actor or actress, who generally has unwillingly par- ticipated h a lilm of his or her own death. This is another example of the type of excesses that need to be stamped out in a sensible, reasonable and progressive manner by that body which should have responsibility for controlling such things, and indeed the whole realm of the law-the relevant congresses and parliaments of those countries, at least the democratic countries of the world. This is where the priorities and guidelines of freedom should be laid down and excessive action against individuals constrained and controlled-not by the wishes of one or two individuals who might occupy posi- tions of power. I have in mind in this context the recent raid on the community at Tuntable Falls, Nimbin, near Lismore, as a result of which forty-two people were arrested and charged. I shall not comment on that matter, which is now before the court, but I have mentioned it as an outstanding example of the control that is suddenly being exercised by the Premier, the Minister in charge of the police and the Premier's left-hand man, the Attorney-General. In effect, the Premier questioned the authority of the super- intendent of police on the North Coast when he made a public comment calling for a report on the raid. The Premier then said that he was not in agreement with the action that had been taken. Mr Petersen: You rock me. Where do you stand? Mr FISCHER: I shall tell the honourable member in a moment if he has the courtesy to wait and listen. It is not for the Premier to set prioritfes willy-nilly to suit his particular attitudes to such matters as euthanasia, drugs, and homosexuality. It is for this Parliament-the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council-to set these priorities, and then for the police force and all other law enforcement agencies to get on with the job of enforcing the law. The Premier did not take that action behind closed doors. His public questioning of his own police officers must be taken as a massive vote of no confidence in the police involved in carrying out their duties when they raided a certain community at Nimbin. They adjudged it right to make that raid, and in the interests of upholding the law. The honourable member for Illawarra is upset about that raid. Obviously he is strongly opposed to it because he sees it as a suppression of communities that would like to lead another way of life outside the law as it now stands. If so, let him move in this House for the legalization of marihuana, euthanasia and abortion. I am sure the Attorney-General will support these measures in due course, if not now. He may first put them before a select committee; he has alluded to one or two select committees on this type of issue. I make the point that the Parliament of New South Wales should decide the priorities. It must decide what is to be the law. It is up to every member of Parliament to support law enforcement agencies and to let them get on with the job. It is not for the Premier and the Attorney- General to enter into such matters as the raid on the community at Nimbin, by saying, perhaps for all the wrong reasons, that they would interfere with the due processes of the law before the courts. Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 163

This attitude leaves in an awkward situation policemen who might like to carry out similar action in other towns of New South Wales as they deem fit, because they now know that, if they carry out what they believe to be their duty, they will not have the codidence of the Minister in charge of police, the State Premier. They no longer have his confidence in implementing the law of the State of New South Wales as it now stands. Mr Brown: I want them to do it to protect the young people in my area, anyway. Mr FISCHER: So do I. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Sturt has the call. Mr FISCHER: The honourable member for Raleigh is correct when he says that this problem applies not only in one area. Indeed, it is a problem for the young and old people throughout New South Wales. However, this attitude has now led to a slight but growing number of people-perhaps of a hippie nature--coming across the border from Queensland into New South Wales because they know that in this State the Premier, who is the Minister in charge of police, will not back up his own police force. This is disgraceful. I await what the Premier will do in relation to the report of the Commissioner of Police. The situation obtaining today throughout the community is deadly serious, and will get worse before it gets better. It is not one to be dealt with lightly; indeed, it should be dealt with by a select committee of this House and, if any changes are to be made, those changes should be made by Parliament and not on the whim of one or two Ministers. I turn now to another subject, which was not referred to in the Governor's Speech, although perhaps it might be covered by the blanket clause at the end, which refers to other measures that are under consideration and in the course of preparation. I refer to the Legislative Council and its role as the upper House. I shall unashamedly state where I stand on the method of election of the upper House. I have had an opportunity, over the six years I have been in State Parliament, to look closely at not only the role of this Chamber but also its method of election. I see the upper House as playing a correct role as a house of review. I am quite convinced, for many reasons which I shall now outline, that the upper House should be maintained in its present form, with its present method of election. There is nothing undemocratic in the election of the upper House. As the honourable member for Illawarra knows, on 13th May, 1933, the people of New South Wales had a referendum before them, relating specific- ally to the election of the upper House. On that occasion, by a large majority, the people of New South Wales voted in favour of the introduction of the present method of election of the Legislative Council. Mr Petersen: Do not let them reject too much of our legislation, or we will take them on. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Sturt needs no assistance from honourable members. Mr FISCHER: On 29th April, 1961, the people of New South Wales had another opportunity to vote on the question of the upper House. On that occasion the question put to them was whether the Legislative Council should be abolished. On that occasion the people of New South Wales once again voted in favour of retention of the upper House, with its present method of election. There is nothing undemocratic about the way in which members of the upper House are elected; the present method was approved by the people. This is what democracy is all about; it was done by referendum. 164 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply

Also, it is interesting to compare this method of election with the various other methods that obtain throughout New South Wales at various levels-indeed, throughout the world. The method of election for every county council in the State of New South Wales is indirect, being a once-removed form of election, which is exactly the same as the method used for the election of members to the Legislative Council. On Melbourne Cup day this year the people of the United States of America will vote to decide who will be their next President, but there will be no mention of the candidates, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, on any of the 200 million ballot-papers that will be used on polling day. They will be elected by the indirect method, similar to the method of election of members to the upper House in New South Wales. I shall give another reason why the upper House here has a role to play; I am sure that the honourable member for Illawarra will compliment me when I explain this aspect of my argument. The method of election to the upper House provides a means of introducing into politics and into Cabinet people with specialized talents. I need only refer to the present Premier of New South Wales, who would not otherwise have entered politics, and then eventually entered the Legislative Assembly, had he not used the Legislative Council as a stepping stone. He is not the only example; I refer also to the present federal Minister for Primary Industry who is now in the House of Representatives. He entered politics by becoming a member of the Legislative Council in New South Wales. Indeed, the honourable member for Cessnock entered politics through the Legislative Council. It is quite clear that the upper House plays many and varied roles, not the least of which is the opportunity it gives to people with specialized qualities and talents to enter politics. No less than the present president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions at a National Press Club luncheon not long ago confirmed this, by commenting that specialized representation in politics and Cabinet should be provided for in the electoral system. Bob Hawke spoke of the Jacksons, Carnegies and others who could come into Cabinet without going through all the rigmarole of preselection, being elected on election day, and so forth. By those remarks Bob Hawke confirmed the method of election to the upper House, which provides specialized representation in Parliament. Of course, Bob Hawke is having his preselection troubles. Mr Petersen: We have all had them; the honourable member for Sturt has had them too. Mr FISCHER: There is nothing wrong with democracy as it operates in the electorate of Sturt and other electorates held by the Country Party. The method of election of members of the Legislative Council was approved at a referendum held on 13th May, 1933, and was confirmed at a referendum held on 29th April, 1961, on both occasions by a significant majority. The method of electing members of the Legislative council is not greatly different from methods used for electing houses of review in other places throughout the world. It allows persons with specialized knowledge to make a contribution to the political life of the State through the parliamentary system. For those reasons I believe that the upper House is indeed totally democratic and is playing a vital role in the life of the community. Honourable members opposite might ask why I should support the present method of electing members of the Legislative Council and the direct method of electing members of the Australian Senate. The answer is that the New South Wales upper IIouse does not have the same power as the federal Senate, and if it did, only direct election cf its members would be appropriate. In New South Wales the decisions of government are made where they should be made, and that is in the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Council never has had and never should have the powers exercised by the Australian Senate in relation to our federal Government. Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 165

Mr F. J. Walker: What powers does the Legislative Council not have that the Senate has? Mr FISCHER: If the Attorney-General has not read the State's constitution legislation, he should do so, for he will find in it that the Legislative Council cannot block supply or reject a budget presented to it by the Legislative Assembly. That justifies retention of the present method of electing members to the upper House. I move from that matter, which may be the subject of a referendum at some stage during the Forty-fifth Parliament, to another question that also may be subject to a referendum-a redistribution of boundaries. In November, 1973, the Liberal- Country parties in New South Wales gained a majority of votes and a small working majority in the House. What could be fairer than that? In the 1976 election, on the same set of boundaries, the Labor Party gained 49.8 per cent of the votes, according to the honourable member for Ashfield. That gave the Labor Party a majority of the votes and a working majority in the Legislative Assembly. Why tamper with boundaries that can produce those results? Mr Petersen: Because we support the principle of one vote, one value. Mr FISCHER: I should be surprised if the honourable member for Murrum- bidgee, the honourable member for Casino, the honourable member for Burrinjuck or the honourable member for Broken Hill agreed with the honourable member for Illawarra. If the system advocated by the honourable member for Illawarra were adopted, each of those members, with the possible exception of the honourable member for Broken Hill, would lose his seat. It will be interesting to see how they front up on that question. The Country Party believes in the principle of one vote, one equal value of representation, and nothing could be fairer than that. We make no apology for seeking equality of representation. Mr F. J. Walker: How is it that I got 36 000 votes and the honourable member for Sturt got only 201 000-odd? Mr FISCHER: The Attorney-General is incorrect. If he studies the electorate enrolments he will see that the electorates with the second and third smallest enrolments are those held by the honourable member for Broken Hill for the Labor Party and by the honourable member for Castlereagh, also for the Labor Party. What is needed, and what can be justified, is a system of one vote, one equal value of representation to enable all honourable members to represent their electors with the same effect. Take the electorate of Ashfield, for example. It is not far from Parliament House and covers about 4 square miles. Geographically the honourable member for Ashfield is able much more easily to serve his electorate than is an honourable member elected by people in an area covering 8 000 square miles. That is why I say that any move by the Labor Government to change the boundaries will be made for the purpose of bringing about a gerrymander to keep the Labor Party in power until the turn of the century. If successful, such an arrangement would not allow for the swing of the political pendulum that has occurred and will occur from time to time. Let the message go out loud and clear that any attempt 'by the Labor Government to alter electoral boundaries should be seen as an attempt to tamper with a system to bring about a gerrymander and to leave the Labor Party in power permanently. I conclude by referring to the drought that is devastating my electorate, and the rest of the southern part of New South Wales. One hears much talk of the drought in the United Kingdom, but it is no worse than the drought in many parts of southern Australia. This afternoon the Minister for Decentralisation and Development and Minister for Primary Industries gave an evasive answer on the Government's attitude to the drought problem. What is needed is positive action, particularly in relation to 166 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply the cattle and sheep slaughter assistance scheme which, if administered through the pastures protection boards, would enable stock to be disposed of successfully. At the moment such stock cannot be disposed of through ordinary market channels, because of the low value of the animals and the cost involved. I doubt whether Government supporters realize the extent of the drought. In some areas there will be a total crop failure, and many people will be unemployed, simply because of the vagaries of the weather. It behoves all honourable members, particularly those on the Treasury benches, to do whatever they can to enable primary industry to recover when the weather pattern changes, and to make their contribution to the economy of New South Wales and to the employment of persons in that part of the State. If the drought in the southern part of the State continues there will be vastly increased unemployment and a huge decrease in rural income. Country towns will collapse in their infrastructure, and the whole problem will spread. The need is for action now by the federal Minister for Primary Industries and the State Cabinet. There must be action now, not at some future date following some months of negotia- tion. Unless immediate action is taken the primary industries in the southern part of New South Wales will collapse-to the disadvantage of the State as a whole. Mr AKISTER (Monaro) [9.31]: I am delighted to congratulate the honourable member for Parramatta, who moved the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply, and the honourable member for Blue Mountains who seconded the motion. As well, I congratulate the many new honourable members who have !madetheir maiden speeches in this debate. I thank the people of Monaro who elected me to represent them. It is an honour to follow to this House two of Monaro's most trusted and valued representatives-Jack SeiEert and the late Steve Mauger. My appreciation goes also to those dedicated workers in Labor Party branches who assisted me during my campaign even though they had grown a little weary in the preceding months of the procession of federal elections that were forced upon them. Especially I should like to thank the Premier and those of my parliamentary colleagues who joined me in Monaro for what we then believed to be only a by-election. Honourable members may remember those stirring days in April when one Friday night the Premier, now the Leader of the Opposition assured the people that he had no intention of calling a State election in the near future. As we now know, he had a sudden change of heart. A mere four days later he announced the State election. Perhaps the former Premier reckoned that the people of Monaro had something on their minds when he saw reports of public opinion polls taken during that by-election campaign. Whatever it was, we now know that what was in the minds of the people of Monaro was also in the minds of a majority of electors in this State. They showed what they were thinking by returning a Labor government to put New South Wales in better shape. Certainly the Monaro people voted for the policies of the Labor Party. They approved our programmes for the restructuring of local government administration, for a boost to the tourist industry, for low-income housing, for improved transport and for the regionalization and decentralization of industry. During my campaign and since my election I have travelled widely throughout the Monaro electorate and have talked to as many people as I could about problems they are experiencing. Some of these problems will be resolved as a consequence of the initiatives that the Government is now taking; others reflect the neglect of the previous Government. One could be forgiven for thinking that Monaro was simply a forgotten corner of the State were it not for evidence that in other centres the State administration has also run down. Three common themes recurred in my talks with electors. There is high unemployment in many districts because of slackness in a Address in Reply-25 August, 1976 167

number of industries but particularly in the construction industry. The provision of State services, especially schools, roads and hospitals, has not kept pace with the growth of population, and local government financial problems received scant attention from the previous Government. Honourable members are probably only too well aware of similar complaints in their own electorates. The recent federal Government's heartless Budget has sounded the death knell of any hopes of recovery in the unemployment situation. That any government could deliberately plan to add to the already record number of unemployed is a disgrace. The citizens of Monaro are particularly hard hit by the federal Government's decision to cut back on government spending and to cut back on the size of the Commonwealth public service A large percentage of Monaro's talented school-leavers look to Canberra to begin their careers in the public service. These young people will now have the option of going straight on to the dole or staying on at school for another year. However, we are told by the federal Treasurer that there is no prospect of an upturn in the employment figures before Christmas 1977, if then. The city of Queanbeyan will be extremely hard hit by the federal Budget. Queanbeyan is virtually the width of a railway track from Canben-a, and A has been rightly said that when Canberra gets a chill, Queanbeyan gets pneumonia. For the people of Queanbeyan the outlook is grim. Already the percentage of juniors registered as unemployed with the Commonwealth Employment Service is 9.94 per cent within the city. This sorry record contrasts sharply with the pre-1975 election promise of the Rt Hon. J. M. Fraser to bring down the rate of unemployment by providing jobs for school-leavers. The young worker now faces the worst employment prospects since 1947. The adult male and female worker seeking employment can expect little comfort from the Fraser Government in Canberra, which has planned for an increase in national unemployment figures of 0.5 per cent. The city of Queanbeyan needs a permanent Commonwealth Employment Service office to cope with the ever- increasing numbers of unemployed. Figures for Eden and the far South Coast are more difficult to obtain, but the situation there is reflected in some alarming statistics of the number registered as unemployed in Bega. In June this year 982 people were registered for unemployment benefits, compared with 613 for the same month last year and only 21 l five years ago. Plainly lthe State Government must act to encourage industry to provide more employment opportunities, but there are limits to what can be achieved without some changes in federal policies. The Premier and members of Cabinet are to be congratulated for examining this problem and for making every effort to find work for the State's unemployed and for making the federal Government aware of its responsibilities. In the tablelands area of Monaro the five local councils-Cooma, Bombala, Bibbenluke, Monaro and Snowy River-are so concerned about the level of unemployment in the district that they are making a joint effort to find ways of getting work for unemployed people. These councils are to be cornmended for their concern. I am informed that approximately 200 people are unemployed in Cooma and district, which includes Bombala, Bibbenluke, Nimmitabel, Jindabyne, Berridale and Adaminaby. The second area of concern to the people of Monaro is the lag between the population growth and the provision of State government services. In all cases there is pressing need for the allocation of funds to finance adequate services. The needs include new hospitals, school buildings, upgraded roads and other State services. I note with pleasure that our Government has made a start to upgrade those services. Pambula hospital has been granted $10,000 for planning a new hospital, which it is hoped can be started in the near future. At each election during the past ten years the previous Gov- ernment promised to build new premises for Cooma hospital. The board of directors 168 ASSEMBLY-Address in, Reply

has now received an assurance from the Minister for Health that the new hospital has a high priority and that $20,000 has been made available to complete the master plan for the new hospital. Community health workers who are now starting work in Eden and Queanbeyan will fill a longfelt need in those areas of the electorate. The school buildings of the electorate have been allowed to lag far behind the education needs of the community. I was delighted, therefore, when the Minister for Education was able to accept my invitation and made two days available recently to inspect a wide selection of the forty-three schools in the electorate. The Minister was able to see for himself the necessity to upgrade the building programme for all types of schools. Time and again parents and citizens' associations showed us the written promises of the previous Government, which were not honoured-promises for new schools, classrooms, library blocks and renovations or augmentations. We have made a start in giving the parents of Monaro the facilities which will help give their children the type of educational opportunity that is considered adequate on present standards. The go-ahead for the second stage of Eden high school and the conversion of two classrooms to science blocks has been welcomed with enthusiasm by the citizens of the far South Coast. Tenders for this augmentation work will be called on 30th August. In Cooma, the new library-laboratory block for Monaro high school will be going to tender soon and I was pleased to learn of the announcement of the Minister for Education that he has agreed to a joint venture with the Cooma council in the provision of a coach-turning area in proximity to the school so that children may alight and demount from buses with improved safety. The opening of the new high school in Queanbeyan South will provide a tremendous lift to the educational facilities in the city. The Minister's announcement of $186,000 for conversions to the existing Queanbeyan high school will give the school three more classrooms, an art suite, staff study, store, improved administrative facilities and a larger food service unit. For some years the small but vital one-teacher school at Ando has been trying to have an unhygenic borehole-type toilet replaced. I was able to tell the Ando parents and citizens' association that following the Minister's inspection of these facilities a grant has been made for planning and site investigation to upgrade the toilet system. Many primary schools require urgent attention, including those at Pambula, Queanbeyan and Eden. There is still a need for further pre-schools in some areas, but I am hopeful that this early start to the upgrading of the educational system will continue. The demand for Housing Commission homes is also a serious problem throughout the electorate. The third major area of concern to the electors of Monaro is the problem of local government finance. The previous Government's lack of interest in this area has allowed a situation to arise where many ratepayers find it almost impossible to meet their financial obligations to their local council. This is especially true of pensioners, low-income families and nlral producers. Councils have all expressid concern at the ever-increasing complexity of the existing land-valuation and rate-levying systems. I have ascertained that our proposals to change the system of land valuation for rating purposes and for council amalgamations and the zoning of land by usage, are most acceptable to the eight councils in the Monaro electorate. The Minister for Local Gov- ernment and his local government committee are to be congratulated upon their fine work in this important area. I welcome on behalf of the tourist industry in the Monaro electorate the announcement by the Minister for Tourism that a Tourist Industry Development Bill will be introduced during this session of Parliament. This measure has been warmly received by all those connected with the tourist idustry. The decision of the State Government to provide $3 million to promote tourist development will be most Mr Akister] Adjournment-25 August, 1976 169 beneficial in the Snowy Mountains region and the far South Coast. It seems a shame that the existing accommodation in the magnificent Snowy Mountains is under- utilized in the summer months. There is a need to develop the concept of low-cost accommodation in the area for the tourists, fishermen and bush-walkers who could be attracted there outside the ski season. State Government support will also go to the visitors information centre at Cooma, which recently achieved the record of having helped over 1 million visitors to the Snowy region. There is also considerable tourist potential in the beautiful beaches of the far South Coast. Eden, Merimbula and Pambula are established resorts, and offer an escape from the more crowded cities of Sydney and Melbourne. One existing development in this area is a new village that will be called Tura to be constructed near Merimbula by A. V. Jennings and Company, a large construction firm. All connected with this project should be praised for their enterprise. This project will provide for future population expansion. More important, it will give a stimulus to the building industry at a time when so many construction workers and timber suppliers are desperately seeking work. A further State Government measure which will help the far South Coast is Cabinet's decision to guarantee up to $175,000 to the Eden Fishermen's Co-operative to provide working capital to enable the co-operative to enter the fish processing industry. The deep water port of Eden and its hinterland offer further attractive opportunities for development and industry. The roads of Monaro require substantial funding. All councils are concerned that the full potential for tourism and industry is not being realized, because many miles of major roads need upgrading. The tourist industry would receive a great boost if certain roads, for example the Alpine Way, Mount Darragh Road, and a road from the Victorian border to Bombala, were improved. Yass Road in Queanbeyan requires urgent attention, and I shall be pressing the Minister to have this work included in the 1977-78 State Budget. The Department of Public Works is co-operating with the federal Government in the design of a new bridge over the railway line on the main Quean- beyanxanberra access road. The Department of Main Roads will construct a link road to this bridge. It is, however, an indictment of the previous Government that work on this project has not yet started, even though the Commonwealth Government has completed the Canberra highway link to the New South Wales border. Queanbeyan lies in Canberra's shadow. I have already mentioned the growing unemployment problem in Queanbeyan. This has been created largely by the contrac- tion in Canberra's building industry and the clamps which the federal Government has placed on public service employment. Many of Queanbeyan's migrant families and building workers are now without jobs as a result of the get-tough policies being pursued by the federal Government in Canberra. The people of Queanbeyan now realize that cuts in government spending have a multiplier effect on all those dependent on government work for their livelihoods. It is unfortunate that they must suffer simply because the present federal Government espouses the philosophy that public service enterprise is bad. That Government's economic policies remind one of the keen but inexperienced first-aider who when confronted with a patient with a bleeding nose tightens a tourniquet around the patient's neck. Queanbeyan probably feels the effects of federal policies more keenly than other districts, but I am convinced that other centres are also becoming aware that the federal Government is not living up to its promises. I am especially sorry for the meat producers of my electorate who are suffering as a consequence of the current downturn in the market. It is to be hoped that the federal Government will honour its promises to find improved markets. In the far south around Delegate conditions 170 ASSEMBLY-Address in Reply

in the rural industry are very depressed. This area is linked climatically to Victoria, and is now a declared drought area. Many rural producers in this district are in an almost impossible financial position, and it is to be hoped that the State and federal governments can provide them with some assistance. Cooma pastures protection board has also just applied for the area under its control to be declared a drought area. The only bright spots among rural industries are the improved situations of the wool industry and of dairy farmers to the north of Eden, who have benefited from our Government's policies for reconstruction of the dairy industry. The decision to abandon zoning, and to redistribute milk quotas, has meant that these farmers can now face the future with confidence. This industry will not be lost to the district, as it may well have been, had the previous Government's policies been continued. The dairy farmers of the district took a great deal of interest during the election campaign, in the policies of both parties and the interest was expressed forcefully at the ballot-box on 1st May.

I have dealt with the three major sources of discontent in the Monaro electorate-unemployment, lack of services and concern about local government finance. Happily, I have been able to point to positive initiatives that the Government is taking to deal with these problems. I should also like to mention one or two other matters which are now receiving attention from the Government. In Queanbeyan there are large numbers of migrant families. Over 50 per cent of the children who live there have migrant parents. Most of these families have experienced language difficulties in adjusting to their new environment, and most of them have suffered some depriva- tion of cultural ties. The policies of the Wran government, designed to provide more direct services to migrants, will be most beneficial. It seems to me that in this speech I have painted a fairly gloomy picture of conditions in Monaro. Perhaps that is because Monaro is an area in which the population is expanding, and expectations are high. The growth potential of this region can be assured by the sympathetic attention of a government interested in people. The people of Monaro are confident that the future will bring an upturn in conditions, and that the present air of pessimism over the nation's economy will be dispelled.

I should like to finish with a little story which may show that New South Wales is larger than Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong, and a place in which people pursue different livelihoods, and have varied interests. My story concerns Bombala which lies in the far south of the State. The majority of people in Bombala work in the timber industry, in the production of scantlings, the frame timbers for housing construction. Because of the downturn in the building industry, things are pretty slow in Bombala at the moment. The mills have not stopped production but the concern of workers in the industry is growing all the time. Yet, on the 23rd October, this year, I know the people of Bombala will forget all about their troubles. On that day they expect the town's three hotels to be full, and a lot of visitors to arrive. There will be picnic races, and a marathon run. The occasion is no ordinary one. The visitors will include some of Australia's most eminent scientists, as well as many tourists. Bombala lies in the centre of the track of the total eclipse of the sun. It is the only town in New South Wales from which it will be possible to view this total eclipse of the sun, which is a rare event. On behalf of the people of Bombala I should like to invite any honourable members present to attend this event. Throughout history, total eclipses of the sun have moved men in strange ways. They have been viewed as por- tents. For the people of Monaro I trust that this eclipse proves to be a portent of another kind-a sign of better things to come.

Debate adjourned on motion by Sir Eric Willis. Mr Akister] Adjournment-25 August, 1976 171

ADJOURNMENT Cromehurst Special School Mr F. J. WALKER (Georges River), Attorney-General E9.501: I move: That this House do now adjourn. Mr Moore: Mr Speaker- Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I permit the honourable member for Gordon to address the House I should like to ask him whether he feels this matter is of some urgency. Although there has been a long-standing practice that the adjournment is not debated when the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply is being debated, it has been established that if a member has already spoken in the Address-in-Reply debate he may be permitted to raise an urgent matter upon the adjournment of the House. As the honourable member has recently spoken on the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply and the matter on which he now intends to speak was not urgent enough to warrant his mentioning it this evening when he spoke, I wonder whether it is of sufficient public importance and of such urgency that it should be debated on the adjournment. I should be interested to learn from the honourable member whether it is urgent. Mr MOORE (Gordon) [9.52]: There are two points. The matter I wish to raise is an urgent parochial issue relating to the welfare and lives of children in my electorate. This afternoon I spoke on matters with a broader context. The problem to which I wish to refer still exists and still endangers the lives of young children. Mr SPEAKER: Do you consider that there is no other procedure available to you whereby you can raise (this matter? Mr MOORE: Yes, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: I shall allow the honourable member to proceed. Mr MOORE: In my electorate there is a school for mentally handicapped children and children with specific learning disabilities. In that school are two old cottage buildings in an atrocious state of disrepair. Over recent months they have deteriorated rapidly due to climatic and other reasons. Mr Bedford: What is the name of the school? Mr MOORE: It is called the Cromehurst special school. The problems with the school are as follows: on the matter of safety there is an area of flooring next to a gas heater where there is a gaping hole. The floorboards are so rotten that even the lightweights of the Government would go through the floor, let alone a normal man. Children at the school suffer specific intellectual defects and cannot be permitted to be put in jeopardy. Those children would not appreciate the dangers of gas if a gas pipe were to be broken in the school. One of the walls of the buildings at the school has bricks falling out of it. The children have to play in that area. Again they run the risk of a brick accidentally falling on their heads or being put in danger through the inadvertent activity of playmates who would not appreciate that there was any danger. Mr Degen: That would be typical of the neglect of the previous Government. Mr MOORE: The neglect has arisen during the past three months. Another problem arises particularly through climatic conditions over the past three or four months, particularly the heavy storms in late May and early June. Mr Petersen: Is it at Port Kembla? Mr MOORE: No, they do not have schools for these sorts of children down there. The problem with the school is that heavy rain runs along the electrical wiring, through the light switches and the fuses are constantly blowing and putting the children at risk. Children of that school who have specific disabilities should not be the butt of jokes. They run the risk of having their lives endangered by the defective wiring at the school. Although there are a number of other minor maintenance matters that add up to impressive defects at the school, there are three specific matters that relate to the continued safety of handicapped children. The Government has promised a departmental investigation. Mr Degen: On a point of order. The honourable member for Gordon is reading from a newspaper and I take the point that he has not identified the source of the information in that newspaper. The standing orders enable me to ask for the name and date of it and my point is that if the newspaper were available this afternoon why was this matter not raised by the honourable member when he spoke to the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply? I submit that it is not a matter suddenly arising. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gordon cannot read large sections of a newspaper. He is allowed to refer to parts of the newspaper but he must vouch for the accuracy of the items to which he is referring or from which he is reading. I take it that the honourable member is vouching for the accuracy of the press report to which he is referring. Mr Moore: I am not reading from the newspaper. I have it in front of me because it has a charming photograph of the Minister for Education. I will be delighted to let the honourable member- Mr Degen: What is the date of it? Identify it. Mr Moore: Wednesday, 25th August-today. I am not reading from the paper. I will be happy to discard it or give it to the honourable member. Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled on the matter. The honourable member may continue. Mr MOORE: The lives of those children are being endangered daily by the inactivity of the Minister. He cannot cry poor mouth about pressing maintenance problems when those children are at risk. It is perfectly fair for the Government to defer maintenance matters that cannot be dealt with for financial reasons if they do not en- danger children, but those children run a risk, which is enhanced because of their intellectual difficulties, of being gassed or electrocuted as a result of the uncaring, unfeeling attitude of the Minister for Education.

Mr BEDFORD (Fairfield), Minister for. Education [10.2]: In reply to the honourable member for Gordon I must say that the House has been forbearing in allowing him to go on the way he has. It is only because he is a novice performer in the House that honourable members allowed him to have a gallop around tonight. I must say that this is one of the best kept secrets of this House. The honourable member for Gordon has risen to speak about a matter which he said has suddenly arisen. He speaks about the neglect of a building with rotten floor boards. If he can tell me that floor boards can rot in three months, I will accept that as an object lesson. If he can tell me that the building is falling down because the brickwork has come to pieces in a period of three months, short of an earthquake, I will accept it. That is not the only secret that the honourable member for Gordon has been keeping. Not having mentioned this matter in his remarks on the Address-in-Reply Adjournment-25 August, 1976 173 debate this afternoon, he now says that this unfeeling Minister and this unfeeling Gov- ernment will do nothing about it. He has not even written a letter. What am I supposed to do? Mr Moore: A letter was written on 9th July. Mr BEDFORD: The honourable member starts talking about a school in his district without even identifying it. He was ready to continue his remarks without letting us know which school it is. Mr Degen: What school is it? Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has the call. Mr BEDFORD: The Government would be most concerned, in the case of either a school for specific purposes or a normal classroom, if electrical faults could occur from water leaking on to an electric circuit. If this matter has not been reported to the Department of Education for attention, somebody is guilty of dereliction of duty. If the honourable member for Gordon could indicate who that person is, I shall be quite happy to have a look at it, but as yet no letter has arrived on my desk from the honourable member or from anybody else in connection with the matter. I should like to mention something further. The Health Commission is anxious to open a home for mentally handicapped children in Wahroonga but the Ku-ring-gai council will not approve it. Perhaps the honourable member, who is so keen to see that justice is done to all people, particularly those with any handicaps, might use his influence with that council to see if something can be done about that matter. Since the matter of this school is now perceived to have been raised officially, I will pursue it and let the honourable member know the position. Motion agreed to. House adjourned at 10.5 p.m.