LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Wednesday, 28th April, 1993

______

Mr Speaker (The Hon. Kevin Richard Rozzoli) took the chair at 2.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Mr Speaker advised the House that he had received from the honourable member for Cabramatta notice of a matter of public importance, which would be set down for debate at the conclusion of discussion of a notice of motion relating to a matter for urgent consideration.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

______

MOBILE TELEPHONES IN SILVERWATER PRISON

Mr CARR: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Justice. Were two Silverwater Gaol inmates last month found to be in possession of mobile phones? Was one of the prisoners suspected of organising the export of stolen aircraft parts while on work release? Was this raised at a meeting of the corrective services commissioner and senior officers on 7th March?

Mr MERTON: I am not aware of those particular circumstances.

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEE ENTITLEMENTS

Mr SCHULTZ: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier and Treasurer. What action is the Government taking to preserve public servants' entitlements upon transfer within the public sector? Do the industrial relations reforms in this State assist in this process?

Mr FAHEY: It has long been acknowledged that there are considerable benefits in allowing public servants to transfer employment between State, Territory and Commonwealth governments. At the meeting of the Council of Australian Governments in Perth last December it was agreed that a working party of senior officials be convened to identify impediments to mobility of entitlements and ways to overcome them. New South Wales, having taken the lead on this issue, was asked to chair the working group.

A paper was submitted to the public service commissioners for their meeting in Sydney last week. It was agreed that in Australia, which has a small population base, a more flexible approach to public servants' mobility would enable the various administrations to attract and provide higher quality management. The benefits include injections of experience and skills into government authorities; better career opportunities that will attract more top quality staff; a boost for intergovernmental projects; and the transfer of professional skills to areas where they may be lacking.

The public service commissioners have now agreed to a national mobility strategy and the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victorian governments will develop a pilot program. Despite our contribution to that program for New South Wales, the Government is not willing to wait. I have, therefore, approved changed administrative procedures to take effect from 3rd May. These will enable the portability of leave arrangements when staff move within the New South Wales public sector. This encompasses all government agencies from the inner budget to the trading enterprises. Instead of having to be paid out for entitlements such as annual leave and long service leave when they move to another department, public servants will now be able to transfer their entitlements to the new position.

The rationale for the change is to ensure that the people of New South Wales receive better service from the public sector. We want the best candidates to be available for jobs. These changes will increase the pool of applicants and ensure higher standards. Of course, it is inevitable that the Labor Party will find something to complain about with these reforms. It is interesting to note that last week the Leader of the Opposition revealed his tactics - he confessed in a radio interview with Steve Chase from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that, "The media only reports an Opposition when we have got criticism of the Government". What an admission! Labor gets a run only when its members are whingeing and whining. Of course, they do nothing else; they do absolutely nothing else. The reason they do nothing else is that they have no policies; they have no constructive proposals. But, they are careful not to criticise the Federal Labor Government, their mates in Canberra.

[Interruption]

There is nothing to criticise, says the honourable member for Smithfield. The Prime Minister, of course, is slashing jobs in New South Wales left, right and centre. Only yesterday it was announced that 8,000 Commonwealth Bank jobs would go. The Prime Minister said he regretted the retrenchments. Last week he told business leaders that employers should stop retrenching workers. He said that employers should ask whether the human consequences and the social consequences were not too great, and whether the economic burden on the nation outweighed the benefits of productivity. Now, during the next eight months, 800 jobs will go from the Commonwealth Bank headquarters. That is just across the road and slap, bang in the middle of Sydney, yet we have not heard a murmur of protest from the Opposition or its Leader.

Page 1703

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

Mr FAHEY: Once again the honourable member is guilty of selective indignation. When a handful of State Government jobs are lost, the Leader of the Opposition is off the mark quicker than David Campese, down to the press gallery, complaining long and loud. But when 8,000 Federal jobs go there is not a whimper from him. He just turns a blind eye when 8,000 jobs go.

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

Mr FAHEY: What did he say when Qantas announced it would cut 7,000 jobs? What did he say when Telecom said that it intended to cut its staff by more than 20,000?

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

Mr FAHEY: What did he say when ABC management said it would cut 800 jobs at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation? What did he say when the Civil Aviation Authority pruned 3,500 jobs, or when Garden Island, also just down the road -

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

Mr FAHEY: - started putting off more than 1,000 workers? Not a word! Not a word on any of those matters, yet his is the party that is supposed to represent the workers. It does not care if thousands of jobs are cut, as long as they are Federal jobs.

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

Mr FAHEY: The workers are on their own when it comes to being in Federal jobs, under Federal awards or employed by the Federal Government. They are on their own, just as the New South Wales Opposition is on its own when it comes to industrial relations.

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

Mr FAHEY: Only last week the Prime Minister embarrassed the Leader of the Opposition once again. Last Wednesday the Prime Minister unveiled his vision for a new industrial relations system, with sweeping labour-market reforms. It contains most of the elements of the New South Wales industrial relations model. It was a humiliating rebuff to the New South Wales Opposition leader. He bitterly opposed the New South Wales industrial relations reforms and said he would repeal them, but now the Prime Minister has endorsed them. The Prime Minister highlighted the lack of workplace deals with non-unionised sectors of the work force and called for more enterprise agreements to be negotiated.

Of course, that is what we did in New South Wales. The Prime Minister accepted our concerns at the time. I might say that five years ago we were five years ahead of the Prime Minister on this issue. He accepted our concerns that under the old system 70 per cent of people who were not unionists had been ignored. The Prime Minister announced that the Federal Government would push for a standardisation of the industrial relations system right across Australia so that the New South Wales model could be working Australia-wide in the not too distant future. The Prime Minister said in his speech, and it is rather enlightening, that, "We need to find a way of extending the coverage of agreements from being add-ons to awards, as they sometimes are today, to being full substitutes for awards".

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

Mr FAHEY: The Prime Minister's statement was not vetted by Mr Kelty or by Mr Ferguson and now the real test will be just how fair dinkum the Prime Minister is, because we have seen all sorts of backsliding ever since. To sum up, this Government is committed to ensuring that a better public service exists in this State for the benefit of the taxpayers of New South Wales. The Government will continue to press ahead with its industrial relations policies - buoyed by the ringing endorsement it has just received from Canberra.

HOMEFUND DEPARTMENTAL ADVICE

Mrs GRUSOVIN: My question without notice is to the Premier and Treasurer. When the Premier was Acting Minister for Housing did he receive advice from Treasury and or from the Department of Housing that he should close HomeFund?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If honourable members will be quiet, they will be able to hear the question.

Mrs GRUSOVIN: What discussions, if any, did he have or has he had with the former Minister for Housing about this advice?

Mr FAHEY: As I said yesterday, if the honourable member for Heffron were fair dinkum - and we note from her efforts in all this that she is not - she would recognise that Treasury advises the Treasurer. As I said yesterday, when I was the Acting Minister for Housing, I was not the Treasurer. I did not receive advice from the Treasury. Any advice that was given during that period would have been given to the then Treasurer. I did not receive advice to suggest that I should close HomeFund. As to the matters that I have discussed with the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing - most of that advice relates to the disgraceful approach that has been taken by the Opposition; the hypocrisy it has displayed in all its workings on this matter; its complete failure to bring forward for at least a year those who have genuine complaints so that some attention might be given to them; the duplicity of its whole approach of trying to encourage people not to make payments and not to honour any obligations that they might have, at the same time ignoring the reality of the situation that if there were genuine complaints this Government has always been interested in dealing with them. That in the main has been the subject of my discussions with my ministerial colleague.

Page 1704

STATE BANK

Mr KERR: Is the Minister for Finance aware of criticisms of the State Bank by the Opposition's finance spokesperson? Are these criticisms justified?

Mr SOURIS: Mr Speaker, I notice the little rat is not in his usual position in your gallery today. I thank the honourable member for Cronulla for his question and in answering that question I would like to point out that -

Mr Whelan: On a point of order.

Mr Photios: You're a big rat, Benny!

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

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am trying to hear the point of order.

Mr Whelan: The first point of order is that I ask that you, Mr Speaker, request the honourable member for Ermington to withdraw those offensive remarks about me. The second and principal point of order is, as the Minister knows, that if the Minister is intending to criticise a member in another place he has to do so in accordance with the standing orders, that is, by way of a substantive motion. As the Leader of the Opposition was forced to apologise to you and to the House for what you regarded as intemperate remarks, likewise the Minister should also be required.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member for Ermington to withdraw the remark he made in reference to the honourable member for Ashfield.

Mr Photios: Mr Speaker, I certainly do not intend -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Ermington will withdraw without qualification.

Mr Photios: I withdraw and apologise unreservedly.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! In regard to the second matter -

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members will have a rapid exit from the Chamber if they continue to interrupt the Chair when a ruling is being made on a point of order. With regard to the second matter raised by the honourable member for Ashfield, I did not hear precisely what the Minister said as there was considerable interjection at the time. However, I gained the general impression and accept that it was unparliamentary language. Although it is questionable whether the rule about criticising members in another place extends to responses to interjections, or such things, I ask all honourable members to exercise decorum and to use temperate language in the Chamber. I ask the Minister for Finance to withdraw the remark.

Mr SOURIS: I withdraw the remark. The State Bank is constrained by confidentiality provisions, particularly within the Corporations Act and also by normal commercial practices and ethics, from forwarding any information to anyone about any of its clients. Therefore, as I said, none of the information I have has come from the State Bank. All the information I have has come either from the public domain or from files within my control. I have not, nor have any of my staff, sought any particular customer information from the State Bank.

The Hon. Michael Egan, in another place, has set himself the task of systematically attacking the State Bank - a most systematic and planned attack. He is continuing a personal vendetta which he started from at least 1987. The unbelievable hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party, the Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Michael Egan, in saying that they support corporatisation and privatisation and then to set about to subvert the process is unbelievable. They tried it with the GIO legislation by moving a series of amendments that would have destroyed the legislation. Indeed they succeeded with the Electricity Commission corporatisation and are now trying the same thing with the State Bank.

The Hon. Michael Egan talks dirty whenever he goes to boardrooms and talks to the private sector. He drafts the Australian Labor Party policy on privatisation - but there is no privatisation policy by the ALP - and they both attempt to destroy the process wherever and whenever they possibly can. The Hon. Michael Egan's attack on the State Bank is reminiscent of his attack on Sutherland Mitsubishi in the early 1980s. He made the outrageous and unsupported allegation that it was involved in a sales tax avoidance scheme, which was later proved to be false. According to a newspaper article of 7th October, 1982, his actions resulted in his paying the company between $17,000 and $18,000 that it had spent on defending itself against his allegation.

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

Mr SOURIS: He is repeating the same sort of tactics with regard to the State Bank. The Hon. Michael Egan has floated ideas on the method of constraints of privatisation which would prevent the privatisation. He is throwing dirt about particular customers, particular FM Australia and Austwide. He is threatening royal commissions.

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

Mr SOURIS: In short, he is seeking to destabilise the State Bank. I wonder whether the Hon. Michael Egan has a particular personal motive. I am in possession of proof that a personal vendetta is being waged by the Hon. Michael Egan against the State Bank whereby he is seeking to destabilise it at every possible opportunity.

Mr Carr: You had better table it.

Mr SOURIS: There is no need to table it because it comes from a copy of the -

Page 1705

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. If a member of this House has a serious matter to raise against a member in another place - and the Minister has spoken about a vendetta against a third party - he should do so by way of a substantive motion. A member must use the proper forms of the House to make an attack upon another member.

Mr West: On the point of order. The standing orders provide that members may ask Ministers questions about their performance in regard to matters relating to public affairs. I submit that it also should be equally open for members to ask questions about matters that relate to the performance of other members, even if they are members of the shadow ministry in another House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There are ample past rulings to the effect that, provided material given in an answer is relevant to the question, the Chair has no power to control how a Minister answers a question. The only other matters that I should take into account are the length of time that the Minister has been speaking, and whether the Minister is about to embark on an attack upon a member in another place. If the Minister continues along that path, his remarks may not be within the ambit of a properly framed answer. With that advice to the Minister for Finance, I will allow him to continue his answer.

Mr SOURIS: My time has been eroded. The item I refer to is substantive and relates to the State Bank. That bank is within my care and control, partly as a shareholder on behalf of the people of New South Wales and also in my capacity as Minister for Finance. The fact that a member from another place is seeking to destabilise an agency within my care and control is a matter of particular relevance to me and to this House. I refer to a letter written by the Hon. Michael Egan in 1987 to the former Treasurer, the late Ken Booth. It relates to a period when the Hon. Michael Egan was President of the Cronulla Labour and Workers Club and refers to his failure as the President. The letter says, "I also pointed out that if the bank ever took the unconscionable decision . . . I would bludgeon it to death."

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection from both sides of the House.

Mr SOURIS: The honourable member threatened then, and he is carrying out his vendetta to bludgeon the State Bank to death.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order.

Mr SOURIS: In his last sentence he states, "The outcry caused by the bank's foreclosure on one or two farmers is nothing compared to what I, with great justification, would set out to do".

Mr Carr: Table it.

Mr SOURIS: There is no need for me to table that letter as the Leader of the Opposition in the other Chamber has a copy of it. Opposition members should ask the Leader of the Opposition in the other Chamber for his copy of the letter.

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

Mr SOURIS: This is proof of a personal conflict of interest against the State Bank. The honourable member should be sacked from the frontbench.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a long-held tradition of this House that the member with the call may express a point of view, make a contribution to the debate, or answer a question, as the case may be. Nothing that the member says, no matter how provocative or stimulating to the minds of those in the Chamber, gives those who do not have the call the right to participate by way of interjection in the manner that they have. Such interjection prevents debate proceeding in an orderly fashion. I ask all honourable members to co-operate and to allow question time to continue. No matter how invigorating they may find the Minister's answer, they must restrain themselves. They may make a contribution to debate on a matter at some other time, if they wish.

Mr SOURIS: Finally, on any standards of principle and integrity the honourable member should be disqualified from the frontbench of the Labor Party and be prevented from making any further comment on the State Bank.

TRAVELTEN CONCESSION TICKETS

Mr LANGTON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport and Minister for Tourism. Why has the Department of Transport directed the State Transit Authority not to sell TravelTen concession tickets to the unemployed? Will this decision force up fares for the unemployed by 66 per cent?

Mr BAIRD: I will obtain further information.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order.

Mr BAIRD: Concessions are available. I will find out how they are being used.

Later,

Mr BAIRD: Earlier today the honourable member for Kogarah asked a question regarding travel for the unemployed on State transit. The answer is that unemployed people can purchase single fare tickets with a 50 per cent discount on the normal fare. This rate is cheaper than the cost of a TravelTen ticket.

MURRAY RIVER SYSTEM POLLUTION

Mr SMALL: My question without notice is directed to the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads. What action is the Government taking to protect the Murray River system from the effects of pollution by houseboats and other recreational vessels? Will the Government consider installing pumpout facilities for such boats?

Page 1706

Mr W. T. J. MURRAY: I thank the honourable member for Murray for his question and for the interest he has shown in the Government's efforts to improve the quality of water and to protect the environment of the Murray River. As the electorate of the honourable member traverses much of the Murray River he has been a tireless campaigner for putting the right mechanisms in place to protect the river system from things such as salination and the depositing of untreated sewage into the waterways.

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

Mr W. T. J. MURRAY: The Public Works Department is committed to building seven pumpout stations on the Murray River system, from Albury to Wentworth, at a minimum cost of $1.4 million. The Public Works Department will fully fund each facility at a cost of approximately $200,000, while local councils will operate and maintain the stations once they have been established. The seven new stations will be located along the Murray at Albury, Tocumwal, Deep Creek - which is downstream of Moama - Murray Downs near Swan Hill, Wentworth, Euston and Deniliquin, which is on the Edwards River. The councils of Albury, Berrigan, Deniliquin, Murray and Wakool will be responsible for the seven new sites. They have co-operated fully with the Public Works Department in providing survey and other data for the investigation and design of the new sites.

These new facilities will be in addition to three other public pumpout facilities at Buronga, Wentworth and Moama, which will also be upgraded at a cost of $50,000. The facilities will enable recreational and charter vessels to discharge sewage into the stations so that it can be properly treated. The stations will be connected, through a series of pipes, to the main treatment plants in the towns. This is a major move forward towards addressing the pollution problem associated with recreational and charter vessels using the river. The construction of the new stations is also in line with new Maritime Services Board regulations and, from 1st July, it will be illegal for boats to pump sewage into the Murray River.

Boating enthusiasts will be able to deposit their sewage into existing facilities and private pump stations until the new facilities are completed in about 12 months' time. The provision of the new stations will significantly enhance the river, therefore encouraging tourism and increased recreational activity at no cost to the environment. The State Government's support is a further demonstration of its ongoing commitment to make a significant contribution towards a better, cleaner environment for the Murray River, not only for this generation but also for future generations.

NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PERFORMANCE

Ms ALLAN: My question without notice is directed to the Premier and Treasurer. Why did he recently advise the Minister for the Environment and the Director of National Parks and Wildlife that he was dissatisfied with their performance and lack of strategic direction?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for the Environment to order. The Premier has the call.

Mr FAHEY: Recently the Minister for the Environment and I had a discussion, just as I have had discussions with all Ministers about the review of portfolios, which is part of the good management of government.

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

Mr FAHEY: That discussion, which was about work that was being carried out by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, highlighted the fact that, because of meddling by members of the Labor Party and because of constant efforts that have been made to undermine the work of the National Parks and Wildlife Service -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the second time.

Mr FAHEY: Because of constant disruption caused by members of the Labor Party in relation to environmental matters it has been extremely difficult for the National Parks and Wildlife Service to maintain its targets and concentrate on its priorities, which are commendable. In that regard, an enormous amount of additional work has been given to the National Parks and Wildlife Service as a result of matters that have been raised in this Chamber and in the environmental debate generally.

After that discussion and review it was left with the Minister and the director to ensure that they were able to evaluate the priorities. There is no criticism of the work that has been carried out by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. It is a matter of the priorities and disruptions and dealing with those difficulties. The question endeavoured to create an impression that does not exist.

[Interruption]

Mr FAHEY: The honourable member for Blacktown interjected and said, "He is a joke".

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

Mr FAHEY: The joke is in relation to so many areas for which the honourable member for Blacktown has been given responsibility by her party. I refer to the question of pricing. Attacks have been made by the Opposition on the question of water pricing.

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

Mr FAHEY: Notwithstanding the views of the Australian Conservation Foundation and notwithstanding the success in the Hunter area with water pricing, the honourable member for Blacktown has continued to endeavour to create concern about pricing on the basis of submissions made by the Water Board. She ignores the fact that in 1982 a member of her own party, the late Paul Landa, said that a user-pays system was a simple and elegant pricing system which would result in great benefit to the consumers Page 1707 of the board. He said that the lower Hunter region would lead New South Wales into a system of payment by use in respect of water.

The honourable member for Blacktown was criticised in the Newcastle Herald, as was the Opposition generally, because of its disruption in that area. The editorial stated that it was time members of the Opposition stopped politicising the issue or they would be seen as hypocrites and vandals. Opposition members are seen daily as hypocrites and vandals. If the Opposition is concerned about pricing, it should acknowledge the Government Pricing Tribunal and make submissions to it. The Minister for Transport was forced to write to the Leader of the Opposition recently, telling him to put in a submission and give the Government Pricing Tribunal the benefit of his views. Everyone knows that when the tribunal makes its decision, it then makes recommendations to the Government.

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

Mr FAHEY: It is hypocrisy, just as that question in relation to the Minister for the Environment reeked of hypocrisy.

INTERTIDAL INVERTEBRATES

Mr JEFFERY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Natural Resources. Is the Minister aware of concerns about the increased collection of shellfish on the State's coast and foreshores? If so, what action is the Government taking on this matter?

Mr CAUSLEY: I thank the honourable member for Oxley for his question. I am sure a number of honourable members on the Government side of the House share his concern about this matter. I know that members representing North Shore electorates and my colleague the Minister for Community Services are concerned about the matter.

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

Mr CAUSLEY: Last week I met with the honourable member for North Shore and the honourable member for Manly to discuss this very important issue. It has come to the attention of New South Wales Fisheries that a number of people throughout the community are denuding many of our foreshores of our intertidal invertebrates. It has become the fashion to have a barbecue on a beach, pick everything moving off the rocks, and have a pot boiling to make sea soup. This is causing problems with the population of intertidal invertebrates along the foreshores.

In discussions with councils from the North Shore and with my colleagues representing North Shore electorates, it has been agreed that areas should be identified where intertidal invertebrates will be protected. It will be a two-pronged attack. We acknowledge that many intertidal invertebrates have been used for many years as bait by amateur fishermen, and bag limits will be placed on species used for fishing. Amateur fishermen are being asked to assist by taking only as many of the invertebrates as they need to use for bait, so that the populations of the species can be protected. Other members of the public also are being asked not to take bucketfuls or bagfuls of these invertebrates for eating.

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

Mr CAUSLEY: I know that the honourable member for Broken Hill comes from a region where frogs have not learned to swim for six years, but I should explain to him what these intertidal invertebrates are. I shall go through the list.

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

Mr CAUSLEY: I shall start with cunjevoi, starfish, scallops, abalone, pipis, mud worms, sand worms, and I could go on - they are all intertidal invertebrates.

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

Mr CAUSLEY: If the honourable member for Bulli wants to know the bag limits, I shall go through them. I once accused the honourable member of living in a cave, but he might have come out of it now. The bag limits that have been put in place are: abalone 10; beach worms 20; cunjevoi 20; pipis, cockles and mussels 50; and sea urchins 10. I have the other bag limits available. For the benefit of the honourable member they will be distributed in a document and will even be translated so that the honourable member can understand them.

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

Mr CAUSLEY: It is acknowledged that one of the problems is educating the community so that they understand the reason for the imposition of bag limits.

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

Mr CAUSLEY: I acknowledge that education is necessary so that people will understand the reason for introducing the bag limits. The New South Wales Fisheries acknowledges that need and will distribute pamphlets to the community that explain these matters. The pamphlets will be made available to schools, for obviously it is necessary to tell children why the intertidal invertebrates should be protected. The pamphlets will be printed in many languages because many people in our society do not understand English.

I acknowledge that North Shore councils have agreed that one of the problems is the policing of controls. The councils' ordinance officers will help Page 1708 the department. I have held the view for some time that volunteers should assist the department's officers at weekends by telling people that they are breaking the law if they take in excess of the limits. That is done successfully in Western Australia, where volunteers give people information and help them to understand the need for bag limits. I thank the honourable member for Oxley and other members on this side of the House who support this important policy change. I am sure all honourable members understand that by protecting intertidal invertebrates we will ensure the continuance of those species, and that generations to come will be able to use them for bait and will know what they are.

SYDNEY MARKET AUTHORITY PRIVATISATION

Mr MARTIN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear the question in silence.

Mr MARTIN: Does the Minister intend to privatise the Sydney Market Authority, including Paddy's Markets in the city? Did he tell the group People for Paddy's on Monday, 22nd March, that privatisation was not on the agenda? What is the Government's position?

Mr ARMSTRONG: For the record it is worth while pointing out that in approximately 61 months in this Parliament the Opposition has asked no more than 12 questions about agriculture. This is the thirteenth question asked in five years and one month. I congratulate the honourable member for Port Stephens. Who wrote the question for him? It was anticipated that the honourable member for Port Stephens, as the so-called shadow spokesman on agriculture, would ask a question today about the wool industry. There is no more important subject regarding agriculture in Australia.

Mr Martin: On a point of order. I can repeat the question for the Minister. It was about Paddy's Markets.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved. I am sure the Minister for Agriculture is cognisant of the question.

Mr ARMSTRONG: The honourable member who speaks on behalf of the Labor Party chooses to ignore the problems in the $3.6 billion Australian wool industry and wants to talk about a subject that he should have addressed years ago. He failed to do so because he was aware of Labor's abysmal track record in that regard. Today the Federal Labor Government has shocked the members opposite in regard to wool and left them hanging out to dry. It has brought in a package that is totally deficient of any capacity to help the New South Wales wool industry. However, to accommodate the honourable member, I should inform him that the New South Wales Government has the benefit of an interim report by a team of consultants commissioned under the Government's trading enterprise arm. That report is under consideration at present. The Government will make an announcement about Paddy's Markets and the Sydney Market Authority when it has completed its deliberations on the report.

TUBERCULOSIS

Mr YABSLEY: I ask the Minister for Health whether he is aware of an increase in the incidence of tuberculosis in New South Wales. What action is the Department of Health taking on this important health issue?

Mr PHILLIPS: The honourable member for Vaucluse has asked an important question about a public health issue. Worldwide there has been great concern about the association between AIDS, or HIV, and tuberculosis. In some areas of the world, for example parts of the United States of America, up to 30 per cent of those infected with tuberculosis also have the AIDS virus. The problem is of international concern. I am pleased to report that New South Wales has a very low cross-infection rate compared with parts of America. To support that information I report that in New South Wales only 2 per cent of tuberculosis notifications are associated with the AIDS virus, compared with 30 per cent in other countries. Over the past 30 years the overall rate of TB infection in New South Wales has fallen.

Between 1963 and 1989 the number of TB notifications fell from 30.5 cases per 100,000 of population to 5.8 cases. That is a commendable record. However, since 1989 there has been a small increase in the incidence of tuberculosis. The number of cases of TB now stands at 6.9 per 100,000, compared with 5.8 cases per 100,000 of population in 1989. One of the main reasons for the marked reduction in the rate of tuberculosis infection during the past 30 years has been the use of antibiotics. They have been the great weapon in reducing the rate of TB infection. The Department of Health is carefully monitoring the effectiveness of the relevant antibiotics - and all members should take note of this important point - because in the United States there is concern that the TB virus may be developing resistance to antibiotics - and I emphasise "may".

At the moment this does not seem to be a problem in Australia. In New South Wales only 5 per cent of TB reported cases were resistant to antibiotics. However, it is vital that New South Wales maintain its proud record in relation to all public health issues. With this in mind - and also in response to emerging tuberculosis issues - the department has reviewed TB services. The New South Wales Tuberculosis Advisory Committee, along with a host of other experts in the field, have co-operated and assisted in developing a statewide strategy for controlling TB. It is important that we continue our excellent work and remain ahead of the market in the control of TB.

Page 1709

The key goals of this strategy are to reduce the annual incidence of TB by two-thirds - an ambitious target, but we believe an achievable one - and to be able to cure 99 per cent of cases by the year 2001. As an aside to that target, we must have a cultural change in health. We must cease talking about buildings and beds, and constantly pouring money into health without setting clear targets for health outcomes for our community. That that is being done with cancer, heart disease and asthma will ensure effecting spending of health money - almost 30 per cent of the budget - to improve the health of the community.

The Government's strategy will ensure that: first, the New South Wales infectious disease surveillance system database will be expanded; second, all active cases will have treatment initiated and ceased by, and be discharged from medical care by, a specialist physician at the nearest chest clinic; third, routine screening in localities where chest clinic sisters are not based will be undertaken by local hospital or community health staff; fourth, the area health service and regional TB co-ordinators will be appointed to be responsible for routine program evaluation and ensuring the implementation of statewide policies and guidelines; fifth, there will be a New South Wales TB co-ordinator's report to the New South Wales Department of Health on TB program indicators for the State; sixth, updated State policies and guidelines for testing, contact tracing, migrant and refugee follow-up, vaccination and screening of health care workers, will be distributed to New South Wales health services in a policies and procedures manual; and, seventh, consensus guidelines will be developed through consultation with clinicians relating to first line drug regimes and indications for chemoprophylactics, the role of supervised chemotherapy and duration of case follow-up.

The implementation of this strategy is aimed at ensuring that New South Wales maintains what is an excellent record in infection control in this State. This ambitious program is aimed at reducing the TB rates by two-thirds and by curing 99 per cent of discovered tuberculosis cases. It is worth while supporting. I thank the honourable member for Vaucluse for his important question on this major public health issue.

______

PETITIONS

Capital Punishment

Petition praying that the Government will hold a referendum on the reintroduction of capital punishment in extreme cases of murder where there is absolutely no doubt that the offender committed the crime, received from Mr Windsor.

F6 Freeway Emergency Telephones

Petition praying that the House will consider the installation of emergency telephones on the F6 Freeway from Yallah to the north of Wollongong, received from Mr Rumble.

Serious Traffic Offence Penalties

Petition praying that the House review the laws relating to road accident fatality or grievous bodily harm and institute severe penalties, received from Mr Newman.

State Rail Authority Heritage Buildings

Petition praying that heritage buildings in the Newcastle region be allowed to be used by arts and crafts people and that Newcastle Contemporary Artists Incorporated be given approval to occupy a building on the Honeysuckle land for use as a gallery of contemporary art and cultural workshop, received from Mr Gaudry.

Hunter Valley Railway Line Privatisation

Petition praying that the House support the retention of the Hunter Valley railway line in public ownership and that the rail line between Civic railway station and Newcastle railway station not be closed, received from Mr Gaudry.

Newcastle Rail Services

Petition praying that the rail line between Civic railway station and Newcastle railway station not be closed, received from Mr Gaudry.

Public Housing Tenant Water Charge Liability

Petition praying that the House reject the proposed amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act to charge public housing tenants for water consumption, received from Mr Sullivan.

Newcastle Acute Hospital Beds

Petition praying that the House support the provision of increased funding for acute hospital beds in Newcastle, received from Mr Gaudry.

Cabramatta Police

Petition praying that the House support an immediate substantial increase in the number of police and patrols in the Cabramatta district, received from Mr Newman.

Sydney Casino Slot Machines

Petition praying that the House not allow the proposed Sydney casino to operate slot machines, received from Mr Face.

Caroline Bay Multi Arts Centre

Petition praying that the House order the establishment of a commission of inquiry under the Environmental Protection Act to consider the environmental and fiscal effects of the Multi Arts Centre proposed for Caroline Bay, East Gosford, order a half-term election for the ten aldermen of Gosford City Council on 18th September, 1993, and order the council to cease expenditure on the centre until the results of the election become known, received from Mr McBride.

Page 1710

RURAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

Consideration of Urgent Matter

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.8]: I move:

That this House condemns the Government's reorganisation of rural health administration.

The Government is setting up rural New South Wales for massive privatisation. It is getting rid of regional health offices and is setting up smaller discrete bodies that can be bought off by the private sector for privatisation. The Government's announced shake-up of regional health administration has sent shock waves throughout rural New South Wales. Its plan to abolish regional health offices, which currently run health services in rural and provincial New South Wales, has at the same time stripped many hospital boards of their powers. The six regions will be replaced by 22 new health districts. The Government could not get a buyer for the regional health offices but will be able to get a buyer for a district health service based on a base hospital with a few peripheral outpatients. That is all that will be left.

The new districts will be miles too small to effectively argue the case for better health services for country people. None of those chief executive officers in charge of district health services will have a chance to compete with high fliers in city areas, which have area health services backed by teaching hospitals. Every country member knows that his constituents will get dudded. Representatives of the proposed 22 health districts who seek to argue their case, because their areas will be too small to permit statistical analysis of whether they are getting a fair go, will be done over time and again by the big boys and girls in the city who know how to play the statistics game. These people are in the Minister's ear regularly. Recently the Minister set up an advisory group and all members of that group are city people, with the exception of one or two who may have another interest.

This proposal gives city area health services, backed by their teaching hospitals - which can grab headlines for a new advance - the chance to berate any Minister and get a better deal for city people. That means country people will miss out. As a consequence, the little hospitals, which used to have their own boards and budgets and provided the services necessary to look after the people in the area, will end up being a tea party. Those hospitals will not have any power, any budget, or any planning ability. They will be reduced to sorting out a few little problems with the staff. Members of the National Party - and the occasional Liberal Party member who represents country New South Wales - are delivering a massive kick in the teeth to the decent, hard-working people who have been members of hospital boards for years. Many of those people, who have been committing their time and abilities free of charge to make the hospitals work - many of them National Party voters till now - will give up their voluntary posts. Those people have done an enormous amount of voluntary work and been involved in fund raising.

Every country hospital in New South Wales can show where the money has been spent to improve that hospital. But the thanks they get is to be told: "We don't want you any more. You have no role to play. You can send a representative up to the base hospital if you want to". But the little hospital will get outvoted there. The fund raising activities of these hospitals will cease. In one major country town the provision of voluntary activities was estimated to be an amount of $500,000. Voluntary activities will go, year in and year out. The Government will lose that service. It is worth while saying thank you to the people who have been doing such a good job voluntarily bringing the community and the hospital together. They should not be kicked in the teeth. These comments are not just mine. Listen to what is being said in rural New South Wales and read what the newspapers representing the views of the people say. An interesting comment comes from a recent edition of the Cooma-Monaro Express, under the headline,"Bipartisan opposition":

It's not often that political opponents agree but Peter Cochran and Bob Kemp both oppose the NSW Government's rural health policy.

. . . Both men believe the centralisation of power into a regional hospital board bodes ill for local hospitals such as Cooma.

Mr Cochran said he opposed any moves to centralise power and claimed that hospital boards in the area were also apprehensive about the changes.

They got it right the first time. Only when the Minister got on to them -

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: - did they find they had to change their tune. The honourable member got it right the first time in Monaro; he knew he was on a winner until the people started to read the newspapers and he was forced to recant his statements.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: His recanting will not save him with his mates here.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: The people of Cooma did not believe him the first time and will not believe him the second time. The boards will have their powers reduced or totally removed under this proposal. Anyone who spends more than half a day in rural New South Wales will realise the importance of country hospital boards. The Cowra Guardian said:

Cowra District Hospital board members are apprehensive about radical new changes to rural health.

And so they ought to be. They know what health service is about - not some bureaucrat sitting in Sydney making decisions about rural and provincial New South Wales or some dopey Minister trying desperately to take his problems off the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald by talking about some reorganisation proposal. The Northern Star says:

Page 1711 But considerable dislocation will probably be experienced by the people redeployed or those who volunteer to take voluntary redundancy . . .

In the long run the future of small hospitals in small communities is probably limited . . .

Many people would regard the loss of their small hospital as just another nail in the lid [of the coffin] of their community - and they'd be right.

The Northern Star also got it right. The Northern Daily Leader quotes regional director Allan Jones as saying that the Tamworth regional office would be closed, shedding 20 jobs. The Premier earlier today spoke about job losses - shedding crocodile tears about job losses. Suddenly he is prepared to remove 20 jobs from Tamworth. How does the honourable member for Tamworth feel about that? Throughout the State the jobs of 130 chief executive officers, directors of nursing, chief clerks and other senior administrators would be abolished. The Forbes Advocate says that under Mr Phillips' demands existing hospital boards will lose all financial control, the office of the regional health director will be abolished and regional health officers will experience a drastic cut in their responsibilities. The newspapers this time are standing up for the people in the bush; they are standing up for regional and provincial New South Wales; they know that the Government has got it wrong. The Goulburn Post, the favourite newspaper of the Premier, says:

This is a knockout blow for administration in Goulburn.

The scheme is likely to mean the loss of about seven positions in the Goulburn office. And the Premier today spoke about employment! Seven positions in his own electorate will go, yet the Premier tries to tell that region's newspaper that it is a marvellous deal. The people of Goulburn will tell him at the next elections what they think about his marvellous deals and employment. Let me quote directly from Mr Dalziell, who is the chairman of the Bathurst Base Hospital. Last week he wrote to the Minister for Health and said:

The other matter is one of customer focus. Rather than this being improved the increase in centralisation that will inevitably follow the formation of the new district will either diminish access to facilities and services or will make access to them onerous and expensive. In particular the costs of travel and accommodation will be considerable.

These are people speaking on behalf of the base hospitals and small hospitals in country and provincial New South Wales. They know what is going on and they know they are getting dudded by the Government. They want a better deal. Hospital board members have been ringing me and telling me that no longer are they prepared to serve for free, as they have, under this Government's new plan. The honourable member for Ballina recently met with his hospital board. Some time ago he put forward a proposal to privatise the hospital in that area, until he was told to forget that idea. He was told very clearly by his board members that that was the wrong way to go. At last he listened to his board members, and ran away with his tail between his legs and said no to the privatisation. But when this new proposal is introduced those people will not talk to him, because they are losing confidence in him, the Minister and the department. No longer will they be giving of their time, free of charge, to provide the health services they have provided free for many years. This proposal will bring down the Government as it moves to its privatisation. [Time expired.]

Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Minister for Health) [3.18]: What I enjoy about matters of urgency is how urgent they really are. I must say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition spokesperson on health, welcome to the land of health planning. The planning for this proposal has been proceeding for 18 months. The Government has been embarking on a major consultation program with boards, regional officers, hospitals and chief executive officers. Further, pilot programs have been developed in the Moree area, with other areas around the State experimenting with different pilot programs to combine hospital boards and administrations across the State. Suddenly, three weeks after the announcement that we should do this around New South Wales, today it is a matter of urgency.

Though it will be some time before the proposal is implemented, today it is a matter of urgency. Let us get real about what is urgent in this Parliament and what is not. Let us put in perspective exactly what we are doing. This is the first time - it is a novel approach - that I have been accused of centralising power. It is exactly the opposite. This is not about centralising power. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is clearly demonstrating that he does not understand how the system works. The current system operating in country areas, under which hospitals and health services have their own boards - some of them are already combined - does not give those boards real power, because being able to decide where the money goes is the real power.

Who has the real power - the regional office, the regional director, a bureaucrat? The bureaucrat determines what money each individual hospital and health service will get. The bureaucrat decides how efficiency programs are implemented and will make applications to head office and to my office about capital expenditure proposals. Because there are about 150 boards in the country, it is impossible for a Minister to be in the field discussing issues of country health. I must rely substantially on the advice of regional directors.

This issue is about removing the regional office and giving power back to the people. The Government is creating districts and getting rid of the six bureaucratic offices. It is creating 22 districts comprising partnerships of hospitals throughout the State. Each hospital board will have a delegate on the district board. Those local boards will be given the money and will determine how to spend it for their people. I will consult with them about spending priorities. They will have direct input with me and I will have performance agreements with them. They will not have a bureaucrat standing over them and New South Wales will not be broken into six regions with bureaucrats determining how the money will be Page 1712 spent and with those bureaucrats having the ear of the department and of the Minister.

Combining administrative resources and providing a substantial base to administer will result in the employment of more highly qualified people to manage the district. That will power up district management, provide better quality management in the country and give local people more power to determine how expenditure will be applied. This reform in the country has three central themes. I defy any member to deny that these three themes are being achieved in this reorganisation. First, the Government is reducing the level of administration associated with the delivery of rural health services, thereby ensuring that maximum resources are devoted to patient care. In the city, which accounts for 80 per cent of the health system, the cost of administration is in the vicinity of 7 per cent to 8 per cent, whereas the cost of administration in the country is of the order of 12½ per cent.

This program is about moving resources from administration to treating patients. The $30 million saved in administration costs each year in the country will not be taken from the country but will be redistributed into front line services. In the Government's view the patient comes first. The Government is not in the game of creating jobs for administrators, accountants or clerks, just for the sake of it. Those employed in the health system must have a purpose. The Government will be able to reduce administration, thereby saving $30 million, and that amount will go towards treating patients. I defy any member opposite to deny that that is the Government's direction.

The second theme relates to allowing greater responsibility for decision-making at the local level. As I said before, we are pushing aside the regional offices and creating 22 districts with their own administrations. We will have performance agreements with the boards. The local districts will get the money and determine how best to spend it to treat people in their districts. That is a very important change. Third - and this is the most important reason that the Government is making these changes - there must be a cultural change with health. We must change the focus. The Government is constantly saying that there must be a change of focus from buildings and beds. That issue is dead.

We have to look at measuring the quality of health based on the health services that we deliver. For example, the administrations of a network of six hospitals that are all competing through their respective administrations for survival will be formed into a district board containing representatives of each of those hospitals, with that board deciding how to spend the money to best service the health needs of that district. That dramatically changes the focus from people looking at their building or their hospital to looking at the health care of the people of the district. That revolutionises decision-making in health care. If country areas do not catch up with that idea, they will be left behind.

It was the Labor Party that in 1986 divided Sydney into health areas. It got rid of the boards altogether from every hospital and divided Sydney into areas. When elected to office in 1988 the coalition Government changed the system from 26 areas to 10 areas - the best thing this Government ever did. It revolutionised the decision-making process in this city in order to obtain more effective use of health expenditure and a better network of health services. That move was supported by Labor. This is what is now happening in the country. The focus of health care is changing and it is the most important thing that this Government can do.

There are seven key principles involved, but unfortunately the time remaining in this debate does not allow me to go through them. However, there is one very important issue. Since I have been Minister I have said - and I have stuck by it - that no country hospital will be closed by this Government. My view is that every town needs a focus for health care. The question is whether the services delivered by a hospital in a country town are appropriate to the changing needs of the community, bearing in mind that the community is ageing. Are they properly targeting health promotion and home care? All those questions are important. No country hospital will close while I am the Minister because country regions definitely need that health focus. Each hospital will keep its existing board. [Time expired.]

Mr CLOUGH (Bathurst) [3.28]: I have just listened to the Minister condemn himself. If any person in this place is responsible for the downgrading of health care in country New South Wales, it is this Minister for Health. This is a power-mad Minister for Health. He says: I have so many enterprise agreements; I have certain funds to make available; I have this and I have that. The Minister does not have a damned thing. What he has is the temporary approval of the people of New South Wales to administer the Department of Health. That is what he has, and nothing else. The Minister says that country hospitals will save $30 million in administration fees and that money will be applied to country hospitals to upgrade the level of country care, yet the Minister says that no hospital will be closed.

However, services available at the small country hospitals will be cut back until such time as it will be necessary for patients to go to one of the major hospitals to obtain service. Therein lies the problem. What a naive approach it is for the Minister to say that there were be 22 districts and, because representatives from every hospital will be on that board those hospitals will have a chance to put forward their case. Has the Minister not heard of the numbers game? Does he not understand what happens in these areas when parochialism takes over? Smaller hospitals with one vote are outvoted by a collection of other hospitals in the same area. What does the Minister think country people need by way of hospital services? Does he think it is all right that many Lithgow people must at the moment be transferred to Bathurst Base Hospital or Orange Base Hospital because facilities are not available locally?

Page 1713

Does the Minister think it normal for people to be sent to hospital to receive treatment from cities 65 kilometres or 130 kilometres away? What happens to the patients' families? How do they visit the patients? The honourable member for Monaro has a widespread electorate and he must have the same problem. The residents of my electorate are taken away from Lithgow District Hospital and sent to Bathurst Base Hospital. The local hospital has an important role to play. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned that he has had contact with representatives of the Bathurst Base Hospital. They have also been in contact with me, as they have with the Minister. Recently they came to Sydney at the invitation of the Minister for Housing in another place, who decided that he would head the deputation. I have reminded both the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Minister for Health that I am still the honourable member for Bathurst. I think they will take that on board. I sincerely hope that all of the initiatives taken by the Minister for Housing in another place come to fruition because, if he stands as a candidate against me, he will be the fourth sitting member whom I have defeated.

The Government has one or two problems. Not so long ago the Minister promised that the Ambulance Service would not be removed from Bathurst. However, in the past few days he has issued a press release saying that the promise was redundant. What is the definition of a redundant promise? The definition is, "One I made having no intention whatsoever of keeping". His promise is redundant. His scheme to emasculate country hospitals is just as redundant. It is a backward step and country people are fed up with this Government, which has a suburban-based intelligence and is quick to take away services.

Mr Phillips: How many country members does the Opposition side have? Two?

Mr CLOUGH: Two, but they are very good members and are more vigorous in support of the country people than the National Party members. They sit on the Government benches not saying a word and not coming forward with any defence. I admire the honourable member for Monaro; at least he has the guts to speak out and act like a true member.

Mr Phillips: He supports it.

Mr CLOUGH: I know he might, but he is forced to support it because his party tells him to. The Government has not had a hospital board in Lithgow hospital for how long - two or three years?

Mr Phillips: I do not know. You are telling the story.

Mr CLOUGH: It is two or three years since the Government has had a hospital board in Lithgow. The hospital is now being run by the Chief Executive Officer of Blayney District Hospital because his hospital has been reduced to a nursing post. People in the Blayney district who require health care have to travel to Orange Base Hospital and their families have to travel to Orange to visit them. The Government says it will improve the situation; it will get rid of regional boards.

Mr Phillips: There are no regional boards.

Mr CLOUGH: Regional offices. Within the past 18 months of planning the Government gave an undertaking to the people of Bathurst that the regional office would not be moved. [Time expired.]

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [3.33]: As a country member of Parliament I strongly condemn this motion and strongly support the actions of the Minister and the Government. I believe the reforms that this Minister and this Government are putting in place will deliver substantial benefits to country people. These proposals are about shifting administration dollars into the forefront of health care. They are about reducing the size of the administration in country health services and putting an additional $30 million into the delivery of health services across country New South Wales. I defy anyone to say that is not a good thing.

Having heard the honourable member for Bathurst speak, I am of the opinion that he does not know what the proposals are; he certainly does not understand that there will not be any regional health boards. There are district health boards and local health boards. The local health boards, despite what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said about local health boards not playing a meaningful role, will remain and they will play a meaningful role. Administration costs account for 12.5 per cent of the total health budget in country areas compared with 8 per cent in the city. The Government is trying to get those dollars out of administration and into direct health services. Is that not what we ought to be about as responsible members of Parliament?

I strongly support the Minister. I know my support is not isolated. Support for this proposal has come from the Rural Doctors Association, the Health Services Association, the United Hospitals Auxiliary and the Australian Community Health Association, which is generally regarded as a Labor-oriented group. That group is supportive because under these proposals there will be a clearer distinction between the administration of community health and the administration of traditional medical services. It is important that a greater focus be placed on community health because if people can be kept out of hospitals it will be to everyone's advantage.

The thrust of the Federal Government's rural incentive program and its rural incentive grants scheme is totally consistent with what this Minister and this Government are about. Members of the Opposition are out of touch with their Federal philosophy, and I strongly implore them to familiarise themselves with what the Federal Government is doing in this area. A number of principles outlined by the Minister go to the heart of this issue but I will not repeat them. The Minister was restricted by time in identifying a number of important things that country people should remember about these changes. Page 1714 First, no hospitals will be closed; and second, individual hospitals will keep their existing boards, guaranteeing no loss of community involvement in local hospitals. I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that I have been out there and I have discussed with my local boards and hospitals -

Dr Refshauge: They are not happy with you.

Mr D. L. PAGE: They are happy with me. When the Labor Party was in government the North Coast region received $146 million but under this Government it will receive more than $200 million. Do not talk to me about what this Government has done for rural health. Country people understand that the North Coast has had a better deal under this Government than it ever had when the Labor Party was in government. I have been talking to the members of my boards and they do not have any problems with the proposals. They have said to me, "Don, if we can get this money out of admin if you close down the regional offices, and we can get a slice of that cake, we are all for it because we care about the delivery of health care to people. We do not care about the politics".

The Opposition is interested in creating dissension and rumours; it is not about delivering health benefits to rural people. The proposal also involves an equal representation for each hospital. That is very important because there has been concern that the small hospitals would be swamped. Small hospitals will not be swamped; they cannot be swamped under this proposal. If anything there is almost a disproportionate representation so far as guarantees for small hospitals. Regional health units will do away with the administration side of regional health, maintaining the public health unit for the very important function that it serves. There will be no staff sackings. The savings generated within the new administrative arrangements will be quarantined and guaranteed within those districts for a period of at least two years. That is a good incentive for those areas. Whatever the district boards save they can keep for themselves. [Time expired.]

Mr MILLS (Wallsend) [3.38]: When I listened to the Minister answering this motion I thought: spoken like a true accountant. I also thought: what a monumentally naive idea the Minister has about these savings. He said that we will save $30 million for frontline services. He blames a bureaucrat for making a decision, yet here he is stirring the soup, but it is the same brew; it will be the same quantity of jobs - going from six regional offices to 22 district services. How can $30 million be saved in that way? It is monumentally naive to trust that that will happen. It just will not happen.

The other monumental naivety was the Minister's boasting, "We did the best thing we ever did in coming from 26 metropolitan areas down to 10". Yet, he is going in completely the opposite direction and boasting about increasing country services. His inconsistency is also monumental. He is closing regional offices and establishing district services. In each of those districts one major hospital will dominate. Each hospital, large or small, having a representative on that district board will, nevertheless, be dominated, in a service sense, by that base hospital or main hospital.

The honourable member for Monaro and others have referred to the fact that the role of local hospital boards will be greatly diminished. They will still have a role, but it will be diminished. The co-ordination role of regional offices will also be diminished. What will happen, for example, to migrant health services when a region is broken up into 22 units? What will happen to sexual assault services? We have had no explanation from the two Government speakers who have contributed to the debate. Most important, what will happen to community health services? All those services will be so diluted that only lip-service will be able to be paid to them.

Local communities are good providers of funds for their local hospitals; they raise a lot of funds for equipment and services. This is certainly the case in areas outside the Sydney metropolitan area, including my home base in the Hunter. Local communities also raise money for ancillary support services and give moral support to staff, workers and administrators. They lobby the regions and lobby the Government in support of their district. The Minister still does not understand the feeling that people have for hospitals outside the metropolitan area. Even after the events that surrounded the closure of the Wallsend hospital the Minister does not understand that local communities have a sense of ownership and a sense of belonging in relation to their hospitals.

Recently I was in Balranald with a group of people led by the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs. We attended a meeting of Balranald Shire Council. The president gave us a list of that council's concerns, one of which was the new country health arrangements. Members of that council who were involved in the hospital board take great pride in their hospital's achievements, the care given and the quality of the staff. Those people are upset, disappointed and disillusioned with the changes. They understand, even if the Minister does not, that their community, their board and their hospital will suffer a loss of autonomy. They are left wondering whether their fundraising efforts over the years have been in vain. They know that their representative on the district board will have to travel many kilometres. People in Balranald are upset about the Government's decision.

People in Port Macquarie are also upset about the Government's decision. The proposed Macleay-Hastings district, which will include Port Macquarie, Wauchope and Macleay Valley hospitals, will obviously be dominated by the privatised Port Macquarie Hospital. Mayne Nickless will be running one of the 22 district services. I remind honourable Page 1715 members that we still have not seen the contracts for that hospital. I have also heard that Macksville hospital, which is in the mid-North Coast district, wants to join the Macleay-Hastings district. I think it has heard that there will be extra money for the Port Macquarie area. If the new Port Macquarie hospital is privatised, it will not be as easy to identify cuts in other districts. The situation in Port Macquarie again highlights that something needs to be done about community health services. After these changes will the Taree district service run community health services for Port Macquarie and further north? The locals are even asking whether Wauchope and Kempsey hospitals will be downgraded to cottage hospitals or geriatric hospitals. These changes have not been thought through. They are a "you beaut idea" by the Government, but the areas now have to be carved up. [Time expired.]

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.43], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions. It is surprising that the first question I asked - what is to happen with the new districts as there is a potential for privatisation? - has not been answered by the Government. If the Government wins the next election, there is no denying that these units will be available for privatisation. Mayne Nickless will be eyeing off Kempsey, Wauchope and other hospitals with a view to expanding its empire. Not one Government speaker has denied that privatisation will not be on the agenda.

Having listened to what was said by the Minister and the honourable member for Ballina, I think it is important for me to put on the record that the Opposition has no hesitation in supporting the removal of excessive, bloated bureaucracies and putting the money saved into frontline services. The Opposition has been arguing for that for years. However, that does not mean that the structures that protect people in that area should be removed. That is what the Government is doing. Earlier the Minister praised his predecessor for reducing the number of district areas from 22 to 10. He said that that was a good administrative thing to do in the city. All of a sudden that is a bad thing to do in the country. Instead of having 22 areas the Minister thought 10 was a great idea because there would be a bigger area to ensure total service provision. The Minister has had a go, but he wants another go at that.

The Minister has said that it is not good enough to have the same ideas in the bush. He wants to diffuse the situation. He wants to spread out the service areas. But everyone will be fighting and will have no idea of what is going on. There is no way that those services will be able to be provided on a regional basis. My colleagues talked about a range of services, sexual assault services, services for Aboriginal people, services for migrants, services for particular groups such as those suffering from AIDS. The Government wants all those services nicely and appropriately organised at a regional level. This would not necessarily involve a large number of people, but they would certainly need those services. That is why we need a regional focus.

All of a sudden the Government wants these services to be run by 22 districts. Full-time people will not be employed to perform these services. There might be a part-time employee or someone who works one day a week in these areas to perform these services if his or her agenda permits it. The Government is attempting to dilute and downgrade quality services that have been built up by successive governments in New South Wales. I pay tribute to the Minister's predecessor for his good work in some of those areas. The Government realised that these changes would be totally inappropriate in public health units, so the Minister had to say, "We got it wrong for the public health units. We will have to have a regional structure for public health units".

The Minister has it wrong all the way. He should not throw the baby out with the bath water. Some protection should be retained for rural New South Wales. The Minister is not interested in rural New South Wales. He does not want rural New South Wales to get a fair go. The Government is comparing 22 districts for equity. The Government has divided its resource allocation - a matter which honourable members on this side of that House have supported in general. How will the Government obtain any statistical analysis to establish whether every one of those 22 districts is getting a fair go? The Government will not have the ability to do that because it will be swamped.

The Minister regularly states that the bureaucrats keep on getting things wrong; that the regional director makes all the decisions. Why does the Minister want his job? Does he want to be in charge or does he want to be a figurehead? There will be plenty of monuments for him if he steps aside. The Minister wants to push this issue aside and say, "I am not responsible". That is what this Government is about. This Government is about two things in regard to health services. The first is an abrogation of its responsibility. The Minister's constant refrain is, "Give it to someone else. I do not want to take it. It is not my problem". Health services are the Minister's problem but he is trying to say that they are not. The second thing the Government is about is privatisation. Again the Minister has not answered a question I asked earlier - whether these districts will be set up for privatisation.

There is no way that that will happen because in about two years' time this Government will reap the benefits of its decisions by being thrown out on its ear. We will have a new government that has a commitment to rural New South Wales - a government that does not follow the bidding of the honourable member for Burrinjuck to change the system. I am prepared to ensure that bureaucracy does not burgeon and that we get frontline services, but I will not throw the baby out with the bath water. [Time expired.]

Page 1716

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 46

Ms Allan Mr Markham Mr Amery Mr Martin Mr Anderson Mr Mills Mr A. S. Aquilina Mr Moss Mr J. J. Aquilina Mr J. H. Murray Mr Bowman Mr Nagle Mr Carr Mr Neilly Mr Clough Mr Newman Mr Crittenden Ms Nori Mr Doyle Mr E. T. Page Mr Face Mr Price Mr Gaudry Dr Refshauge Mr Gibson Mr Rogan Mrs Grusovin Mr Rumble Mr Harrison Mr Scully Mr Hunter Mr Sullivan Mr Iemma Mr Thompson Mr Irwin Mr Whelan Mr Knight Mr Yeadon Mr Knowles Mr Ziolkowski Mr Langton Mrs Lo Po' Tellers, Mr McBride Mr Beckroge Mr McManus Mr Davoren

Noes, 50

Mr Armstrong Mr Morris Mr Baird Mr W. T. J. Murray Mr Blackmore Mr O'Doherty Mr Causley Mr Packard Mr Chappell Mr D. L. Page Mrs Chikarovski Mr Peacocke Mr Cochran Mr Petch Mrs Cohen Mr Phillips Mr Collins Mr Photios Mr Cruickshank Mr Rixon Mr Fahey Mr Schipp Mr Fraser Mr Schultz Mr Glachan Mr Small Mr Griffiths Mr Smiles Mr Hartcher Mr Smith Mr Hatton Mr Souris Mr Humpherson Mr Tink Mr Jeffery Mr Turner Dr Kernohan Mr West Mr Kerr Mr Windsor Mr Kinross Mr Yabsley Mr Longley Mr Zammit Dr Macdonald Ms Machin Tellers, Mr Merton Mr Beck Ms Moore Mr Downy

Pair

Mr Shedden Mr Hazzard

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

ASIAN CRIME

Matter of Public Importance

Mr NEWMAN (Cabramatta) [3.52]: I move:

That this House notes as a matter of public importance the necessity to direct further resources to fight the growing incidence of Asian crime in our community.

May I say from the outset that I am not here to target the Minister for Police. I realise he has his finger in the dyke at the moment, attempting to assist by conventional means. It is very important that the House take note of my appeal for special resources to be directed not only to the Cabramatta electorate but to the State to deal with the growing incidence of Asian crime. The Asian community in New South Wales, indeed in Australia, has had a peaceful settlement. This Government and past governments have not appreciated the growth in the Asian population in New South Wales and Australia. In 1947, 0.3 per cent of the population in New South Wales were Asian; in 1976 it increased to 1.1 per cent, or 54,000 people; in 1986 it increased to 3.2 per cent, or 172,000 people; in 1993 there were 220,000 Asians in New South Wales. I predict that in the year 2000 there will be 350,000 people of Asian background. The large proportion of those people are peace-loving families. They are a credit to Australia and to New South Wales. Their children are coming through the school system with top marks and will be future leaders in our society.

It is a sad and shocking indictment of the law enforcement powers-that-be in New South Wales that in the span of the past 12 months 34 home invasion robberies have taken place - four in the past month, three of which took place in close proximity to the Cabramatta area. I briefly outline eight ways of dealing with the problem: first, reinforcing the Cabramatta police patrol; second, establishing an Asian crime investigation unit; third, promoting confidence in the Asian community to report crime; fourth, encouraging police to become familiar with Asian crime operations; fifth, offering a reward for information leading to the arrest of the gang currently involved in home invasion robberies; sixth, targeting Asian gang growth in western Sydney by use of consorting laws and undercover operations; seventh, targeting the importation of pure heroin currently being sold in the streets of Cabramatta with a combination of Federal and State resources; and eighth, having the Director of Public Prosecutions appeal for deportation orders in every conviction applicable under Section 55 of the Immigration Act.

Warning after warning has been directed to the Minister for Police and to the Commissioner of Police. I do not only target the Minister for Police; the Commissioner of Police is the chief operations manager, the general manager of the Police Service. He is responsible for the resources of police throughout the State. I have given warning after warning in the House and direct to the Minister to do something about the growth of Asian crime.

Page 1717

On 30th March, 1992, I wrote to Commissioner Lauer and suggested that he get an Asian crime force under way, to do something to establish such a force on a permanent basis. In February this year, prior to the blow-up that occurred, I wrote again to him. It is important that I refer to that correspondence. On the front page of the local newspaper an article appeared entitled, "Heroin death alarm". In that article Inspector Leek made a public appeal and said that things were out of control. He said that drug users were coming from everywhere to buy heroin in Cabramatta because it was freely available. He said that the police were doing their best but could not eradicate drugs from the area. That plea resulted in a paltry response; five police officers came from other centres; some took leave to do so and were inexperienced in dealing with this type of problem. They were completely useless.

Last year six deaths occurred from heroin use in six months. This year to April three further deaths have occurred from heroin use. That is a sad indictment of the system. The Minister for Police has received constant warnings from me. I have warned him about the increase in the number of guns in Cabramatta. Since the introduction of the new regulations there has been a 53 per cent increase in the number of licences for pistols in Cabramatta. I sent the Minister letters I had received from people who said that one only had to walk down the street to see drug trading. On 3rd February I invited the Minister to come out to Cabramatta and witness what happens. That was at the height of the activity. All I got was a letter from the Minister thanking me for my letter and saying he would come out to the area at some time and that a staff member would contact me. The Minister finally came out to Cabramatta but he met and walked around with the wrong people. Some of those people were of dubious reputation.

Mr Griffiths: You went off to Queensland.

Mr NEWMAN: I shall tell the Minister some of the people he walked around with. One had international prostitution links.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Police will have an opportunity to speak in the debate.

Mr NEWMAN: He had international prostitution links; another had drug involvement; another was involved in standover tactics in Cabramatta. Those are the people the Minister chose to walk around with, instead of the people I had with me: a chemist shop owner, a newsagent, and other people involved in business in Cabramatta who were waiting to see the Minister. The Minister should not yell at me. He has been yelling at me for the past two weeks. I should not be his target; the criminals should be his target, or perhaps those police officers who tried to give him tickets. He was with Mayor Ficarra, and he turned to them and said, "Tear up those tickets. I am the Minister for Justice. Don't you know who you are talking to?"

Mr Griffiths: What tickets?

Mr NEWMAN: It happened at the Riverwood Lions Club. You walked out and said, "Tear up those tickets".

Mr Griffiths: You lie.

Mr NEWMAN: You said, "Don't you know who I am" and the officer said, "I don't know who you are".

Mr Griffiths: You lie.

Mr NEWMAN: You asked them to tear up those tickets.

Mr Griffiths: Do you want to talk about criminal convictions?

Mr NEWMAN: You can. You can talk all you like.

Mr Cochran: He is trying to get down to the real issues, not talk about parking tickets.

Mr NEWMAN: He opened his mouth and he deserved it. The Minister must come to grips with this matter. I refer him to an interview on radio station 2GB that was most interesting. The Minister and the Commissioner for Police should listen to that interview. It was an interview with Robert Swanson of the Los Angeles Police Department, dealing with the difficulty the police have in tackling this type of crime and the need to have specialised people in the force. A number of people have contacted me about wanting to get into the police force. I even had a former Hong Kong policeman who is now living in Queensland ring me and say that he was available to join the force. That man was in the Hong Kong police force for 18 years. That is the type of person the Minister should consider - Rajah Chueng from Bald Hills, Queensland. A Vietnamese youth, Huan Nguyen, came to see me. He had only a school certificate and had applied to get into the police force in 1988 but was rejected. The Minister should be fostering Asians to come into the force. He is not doing that at present. His record has not been that good. I come back to what Robert Swanson said:

I think you need people that speak the language frankly, you cannot go into a community that's very limited in English and expect them to have the rapport or trust with someone that you can go there that they can identify with both by language and culture. I frankly believe that that's indispensable at the start. After a while you might be able to pair up an Asian speaking with a non Asian speaking officer and they can work as a team . . .

The Minister should understand those comments. I suggest that the Minister examine the matters I have mentioned. I do not know why a reward has not been offered for information about the gangs that are terrorising Asian families. I am very concerned, and I am very sinister about it. I wonder, if the Asian community were not involved, whether the Minister would have acted by now. Perhaps he would have.

Mr Griffiths: You are sinister.

Mr NEWMAN: I am cynical as well. I refer the Minister to the statements I have made and appeal to him to take action. [Time expired.]

Page 1718

Mr GRIFFITHS (Georges River - Minister for Police) [4.7]: It does not surprise me that the honourable member for Cabramatta has admitted to the House that he is sinister. I accept his comment. I shall respond to the motion moved by the member for Cabramatta. The motion should be firmly rejected by the House, as it is misconceived and, frankly, naive. This member would have the Government pour police resources into his electorate for his own political ends. Perhaps the motion should conclude with the words, "to fight the growing incidence of crime in Cabramatta" so that it accurately reflects the member's real intention. This is a serious subject and one that has an enormous potential to divide the community. There can be no disputing the fact that there have been a number of recent and disturbing incidents involving offences by people of Asian background, both as offenders and, more important, victims. However, it is misguided to call for a massive injection of police, and I shall outline why I know that to be the case.

The member for Cabramatta would only be satisfied with having 1,000 uniformed police patrolling the streets of Cabramatta. I have said already that 1,000 police could not be as effective as enlisting the community in a co-operative effort to meet the threat to that community. The honourable member does not seem to understand that concept. He believes that community based organisations are part of the problem, not the solution. Nothing could be further from the truth. Though the injection of massive numbers of police into the region may appeal to the honourable member's self-interest, it would achieve nothing towards solving the real challenges facing communities such as Cabramatta. That point must not be lost sight of in this debate. Problems of crime in this State's community are not confined to Cabramatta; they are shared by all communities. The answers do not lie in fracturing the various ethnic components of the State, rather in dealing with community challenges by looking at the big picture and putting in place co-operative strategies to protect all community members. In recent times the honourable member for Cabramatta has distinguished himself by putting forward extraordinarily naive propositions to deal with the difficulties in which his constituents find themselves. He has proposed a special Asian police force.

Asian police for Asian crime, has become his automatic cry to the media. Having lived in the Cabramatta community for some time, he should know better than to make generalisations. The Cabramatta patrol officers speak many different languages and come from various cultural backgrounds. When the honourable member says, "Asian police for Asian crime", does he mean Vietnamese police for Vietnamese crime, Cambodian police for Cambodian crime? Yet again that is a simplistic answer aimed at gaining maximum media exposure. But the real answers to the problem have not been considered. How long will it be before the honourable member calls for special ethnic laws? The honourable member for Cabramatta takes his inspiration from a few junkets around the world. This is a classic case of a little knowledge being extremely dangerous.

The honourable member for Cabramatta has fallen for the obvious trap: he has tried to make a solution fit the problem. Undoubtedly, the use of officers with an intimate knowledge of cultural issues affecting the Asian community would be of enormous benefit. The use of such specialised police, even recruited from South-east Asia, is not opposed by the Government; but the criteria for their use must include Asian law enforcement experience. Without that, such people would be ineffective. A number of former Hong Kong police now work with the State Crime Commission in task force 5, a specialist group that operates in the investigation of drug distribution. However, the prospect of a special Asian police force is one that ignores the fact that each and every member of the Cabramatta community is a member of the wider community of this State.

As such they are entitled to the same protection as every other citizen of this State. We only have to look at the woefully inadequate response of the former Labor Government to this question to realise just how cynical this motion is. Under the former Labor Government Cabramatta had only 24 police. The honourable member for Cabramatta has been the member since 1986. Under this Government Cabramatta police numbers have increased to more than 84 officers, with two ethnic liaison officers. In addition, the Government has moved to double the number of ethnic community liaison officers from two to four. Whilst this is a significant increase where it is needed, it is not a complete answer to the problem. The honourable member would be aware of a much broader strategic approach to be finalised before 30th June. That plan will encompass real improvements never imagined by this one-issue member. Those elements will encourage community participation and proper victim support, and will place a strong emphasis on youth issues. I have made it clear that the commissioner will develop that plan by 30th June to address all those vital issues. In other words, the Government will be looking at the causes, not just the symptoms; it will look to prevention, not just a cure.

That is not all that this Government has achieved. Recently I announced the expansion of task force Oak, a specialist group focusing on Asian-related crime across the State. That task force has been expanded from 18 to 30 investigators. Its terms of reference have been refined to give greater focus to crimes such as extortion, home invasion and fraud - offences that this Government finds abhorrent. In addition, the task force will recruit specialist support officers fluent in the language and culture of the home country. The honourable member for Cabramatta keeps talking about linguistic skills. This is not a linguistic problem; it is a cultural problem. If any honourable members opposite had ever lived in South-east Asia they would have an understanding of it, but the honourable member has failed in that respect.

Page 1719

The Police Service is not only taking those initiatives. Officers from task force Oak and task force 5 have undertaken extensive overseas studies of this problem. The commander of task force Oak has recently returned from an international conference on Asian crime. Officers of the SAFE group are today attending a meeting with Victorian police to discuss a co-ordinated attack on Asian crime. Senior operations support officers are currently attending a National Crime Authority meeting on the same subject. The Police Service maintains liaison with the Hong Kong police and the Hong Kong ICAC. It also has an exchange program with officers from Hong Kong and Japan. There are regular visits by officers from the Royal Thai Police.

All these initiatives demonstrate that our police are aware of the problem and that the Government is undertaking effective and appropriate reforms to deal with the problem. The honourable member for Cabramatta and the ALP will stand condemned in this House for this reckless action. The honourable member for Cabramatta will be remembered as the local member who beat up a crime problem for his own political gain. He will be remembered as the local member who, almost single-handedly, created an Asian crime problem from his own mouth. He will be remembered as the local member who further isolated his community, a community that will remove him at the next election. He has created fear and suspicion within his community and has further alienated those Australians who could least afford it. Following the next election he will need to be remembered, because he has no future in the electorate of Cabramatta.

The member for Cabramatta is an amateur playing in a professional's game. His frivolous and, to most of the community, offensive offer to be a special constable of police demonstrates his dangerous, vigilante attitude to these difficulties. However, appointment as a special constable is a significant matter. Because it was a member of Parliament who applied, we considered him; we put him up against other applicants. Competition is stiff and the honourable member for Cabramatta failed. He did not meet the requirements. I shall not say publicly why he did not meet the requirements, but he knows why. He did not provide sufficient competition to those who applied. This motion is fear-mongering and ridiculous. It should be treated with the contempt it deserves and be totally dismissed out of hand. Police will not solve the complete problem. It is a community and cultural problem, and until the community takes responsibility for it, it will not be solved.

The honourable member for Cabramatta has failed to provide leadership in his electorate. However, the Asian leaders have now stepped forward to take leadership and responsibility to solve the problem. The first thing they seek is to remove the honourable member from this House and to have an Asian member elected to it. That will be significant, and the appointment will probably be to the Government side of the House, because the Asian philosophy is to deal with real problems, not to scare communities. These are real issues; real people. The Government is committed to solving the problem and it will ensure that appropriate resources and skills are available to deal with the problem. It will be done with real leadership, concern and compassion, and will be dealt with rapidly, effectively and efficiently. Once that leadership is given and an Asian member is elected to this House who can truly represent the Asian community, the problem will be dealt with more effectively.

Mr ANDERSON (Liverpool) [4.16]: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I am shocked that although the Minister does not have vast ministerial experience, he does not realise that there is no point in shooting the messenger. On behalf of my next-door electorate neighbour I should like to say that I am well aware of the problems in Cabramatta and beyond. What the honourable member for Cabramatta has told this House and said publicly is the reality. The Minister ought to visit the area and find out how many heroin-related deaths have resulted from the sale of pure heroin on the streets of not only Fairfield but my electorate of Liverpool.

The honourable member for Cabramatta is not beating up the problem; it is a reality that exists and it is time the Government responded to it. The honourable member did not create the problem, and the problem has to be addressed. Instead of this continual attack upon him, the Government should respond to the problem. That is not only my view or the view of the honourable member for Cabramatta. Yesterday's editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald said: "It is easy but misleading to think that the problem of `home invasion' is something primarily for the victims themselves to deal with". Further on it states:

The fundamental reason for failure in this special area of policing is failure to penetrate the culture of the criminals and their victims. That, in turn, can only be the result of a lack of will on the part of the Police Service and the State Government.

The article continues in a similar vein. It is even more important to read today's Fairfield City Champion. It states:

The Minister purports to represent the views of the people of Cabramatta.

Mr Griffiths: Do you believe that? Do you believe it is lack of will on the part of the police?

Mr ANDERSON: On your part, yes. In today's Fairfield City Champion, its senior journalist, Damon Leach, wrote in a major article:

A political pointscoring exercise is one way to describe the recent visit to Cabramatta by NSW Police Minister Terry Griffiths . . .

- Mr Griffiths jumped at the chance to accuse Mr Newman of encouraging shopkeepers to take up arms.

The Minister accused Mr Newman of scaremongering.

My reaction to Mr Griffith's attack was one of disgust.

Damon Leach wrote two columns of praise, not for the efforts of the Minister or the Police Service, but Page 1720 for the efforts of John Newman, the member for Cabramatta.

Mr Griffiths: Who is he?

Mr ANDERSON: Damon Leach is a senior journalist for the Fairfield City Champion. Is the Minister going to shoot that messenger? It is time he woke up. When the coalition Government sat on the Opposition benches in September 1984 I stood in this House and warned about the triad.

Madam DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Police to order.

Mr ANDERSON: That is why the National Crime Authority had an ongoing reference and why there was a joint Commonwealth task force on drug trafficking and a Drug Law Enforcement Bureau. Task force 5 has enough to do. The Minister should tell us about other Asian crime. One of the Minister's former mates, a former Minister, has a mate who has been arrested for extortion. That was used as an attempt to get to me when I was the Minister. The Government should start dealing with the real problems of Asian crime, whether it is in Chinatown, on the North Shore, or in Cabramatta. The honourable member for Cabramatta, not the Minister or Mr Pickering, was responsible for the construction of Cabramatta police station and he should not be attacked. The Government should not use the nasty trick about police numbers, because when one considers how many are in the totality of what was the Fairfield police district -

Mr Cochran: On a point of order. The motion before the House is very specific. The Opposition spokesman for police is deliberately deviating from the motion and quite deliberately attacking the Minister. He is not attempting to solve the problem and is not addressing the motion. I ask that he be drawn back to the motion.

Madam DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Liverpool is in order.

Mr ANDERSON: The fact is that the number of police in the totality of what was the Fairfield police district does not vastly differentiate from what is now there in totality, because there has been regionalisation and a devolvement of the highway patrol and other district resources. So do not come in and pull that silly numerical stunt.

Mr Griffiths: It has tripled.

Mr ANDERSON: It has not been tripled. The trouble with the Minister for Police and the Hon. E. P. Pickering is that they could not tell the truth. I warn the Minister that the honourable member for Cabramatta is the Minister's Freddy Krueger; he will be the Minister's nightmare. The Minister will wake up late at night dreaming of him.

Madam DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Police to order for the second time.

Mr ANDERSON: The Minister will dream of the honourable member for Cabramatta, because he is telling the truth; he represents the views of his electorate and the people of New South Wales. The Minister can continue to shoot the messenger, but at the next opportunity the people of New South Wales have the chance to vote the Minister will be swept from office. He will not listen; he is arrogant; he does not know what is going on. The Minister went out to Cabramatta surrounded by failed Liberal politicians and dudded the honourable member for Cabramatta. [Time expired.]

Mr Cochran: Madam Deputy-Speaker -

Madam DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Under sessional orders the honourable member for Cabramatta has the call in reply.

Mr NEWMAN (Cabramatta) [4.21], in reply: I am astounded at the Minister's contribution to this debate. I thought this was an ideal opportunity for him to make up ground that he had lost in the past month. Minister, I am appalled at your contribution. Heroin as pure as 86 per cent is still being sold in the streets of Cabramatta; that is going on right now under the eyes of the public and in some cases under the eyes of the police. Home invasion robberies are being planned. Minister, home invasion robbery is one of the worst experiences that could be imagined.

I relate the worst that happened in the past month. A family was held up in its home, its pet dog's throat was cut, and the eldest in the family had his hands cut until such time as he revealed where the money was. These are the types of terrible crimes that are being committed in the Asian community. Minister, you need to set a reward so that information will come forward. Extortion is still taking place in Cabramatta. Minister, due to your statement about immediate police reinforcements arriving, the community believes the police reinforcements have arrived. They have not.

It is not entirely a community problem. The Cabramatta community has done its bit over and over again. The Cabramatta community has reinforced its efforts by constantly putting petitions before the House. Two years ago this community raised $35,000 to purchase a mobile police station - a van - for the local police force. Minister, I had a big hand in that, with the auction that was held and working with community groups to get that money together. Unfortunately, the van was empty many a time because of a lack of police numbers.

Heroin is still being sold on the streets of Cabramatta. It will not go away. It is still killing people: as I said earlier, three deaths in the past three-month period. That is a shocking indictment of what is happening in that community. The local police inspector has publicly declared that heroin is freely available in the area and cannot be eradicated. Minister, it is very disappointing that conventional reinforcements are still being considered for that community. Minister, you are out of touch completely with the number of police that were at Cabramatta many years ago.

Page 1721 I have correspondence dated 26th July, 1992, from Minister Pickering telling me that there were 36 police officers there in 1988. On 6th January, 1988, Chief Superintendent Poulton in the Fairfield City Champion said that there were 69 officers. As far back as 24th November, 1987, the then Minister, George Paciullo, wrote to me saying that there were 39 police officers at the Cabramatta patrol. Minister, you are out of touch on that, the same as you are out of touch with the method of fighting Asian crime.

Minister, you mentioned the Victorian police. Years ago, way before your time, the Victorian police took the time to examine Asian crime, it established a task force, and it was well under way with looking at this problem. Minister, the community of Cabramatta holds you in contempt, frankly, because of the assertion that you made that it is their fault that this crime is going on. It is your fault, Minister. You ought to have a good look at the problem in the sense of the lack of police numbers that they have had to endure for years and years since this Government came to office.

I have done everything I can to inform the Minister of the position. Even the day prior to the arrival of the Minister in Cabramatta I wrote a full submission indicating the key points he had to tackle. Minister, you are ignoring those key points. The crime will continue until such time as non-conventional means are adopted to fight the crime. Minister, I ask you to put yourself in the place of shopkeepers who have gang members walk in, take a watch, try on Reebok shoes, take children's clothing, put on clothing and then walk out with it; and then have the gall to send their friends back for more of the same. [Time expired.]

Motion agreed to.

FAIR TRADING (LAY-BY) AMENDMENT BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Conservation and Land Management, and Minister for Energy), on behalf of Mrs Chikarovski [4.27]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to remove undue restrictions on lay-by sales transactions by repealing the Lay-By Sales Act 1943, and to provide for a simplified lay-by scheme by amending the Fair Trading Act 1987 to incorporate appropriate provisions. The Lay-By Sales Act was reviewed last year as part of the consumer law review program, to determine whether the Act was still necessary. An options paper was published for community consultation and discussion. It outlined the major features of the current Act and its problems, and also debated key questions such as whether to retain the Act, or to substitute it with a code of practice, or to modify the scheme in some other way.

Of the submissions made to the review, most favoured the retention of some basic requirements for lay-by transactions, but agreed that these should be simplified and made more effective through fair trading legislation. This bill now represents that community consensus. The old Lay-By Sales Act stands on framework which prescribes what arrangements to make, how to make them, where to put the goods and where and how to keep the money and the records. It is a general "how-to-do" list.

However, those provisions are not clear enough for most people to understand what their rights might be under the Act. It is enough to say that the review found the old Act to be cumbersome, incomprehensible and outmoded. It is overly-prescriptive. It is not actively enforced, because it does not provide any deterrent to offenders, or any remedies for consumer loss. Lay-by transactions are a growing part of retail business, providing to customers a convenience which is competitive with arrangements involving credit. It is a system of trading worthy of preservation. In recessionary times in particular, lay-by arrangements are to be encouraged as an alternative to the over-use of credit cards. The major area of dispute between the supplier and the consumer in recent years has continued to be about the amount, or the lack, of refund upon cancellation, or what happens when the goods are unavailable after completion of payment.

The fault seems to lie in the lack of clear information at the agreement stage as to who is entitled to what costs or refunds. The proposed amendments to the Fair Trading Act will rectify this problem. The new part will give specific consumer protection by providing for remedies to the buyer in the event that the seller fails to give a written statement upfront with all the relevant terms of the arrangement. The new scheme will retain the idea of no fault cancellation, subject to any cancellation fee declared by the supplier in advance. It will also include a refund procedure in the event of cancellation by the supplier. The placement of provisions in the Fair Trading Act will avoid duplication in a separate Act of those provisions which already exist in the Fair Trading Act and the Sale of Goods Act, add provisions which do not exist elsewhere, and enable the use of remedies available in the Fair Trading Act.

The bill proposes the repeal of the Lay-By Sales Act and the amendment of the Fair Trading Act, with appropriate savings and transitional provisions, for commencement on a day to be proclaimed. There is a need to allow enough lead time for retailers and suppliers to prepare for the changeover in printed materials and to undertake a proper and adequate education program. There will be further consultation with the Retail Traders Association to ensure that promotional materials are consistent for both suppliers and consumers. I would propose commencement in August, assuming of course that the bill is supported without undue delays here and in the other place.

The bill proposes a new part for the Fair Trading Act - part 5B. Proposed section 60E defines a lay-by. It retains the elements of the traditional arrangement whereby the consumer makes instalment payments Page 1722 toward the purchase of goods of which he or she does not gain possession until the final payment is made. The proposed definition is similar to the existing definition in that it covers sale agreements which expressly or impliedly allow a consumer to make payments in between the deposit and the balance over a fixed period, even though the consumer might not actually do so. This also means that a lay-by arrangement may exist despite the absence of a written contract or statement. If an arrangement is proven to exist, in a dispute the consumer will be entitled to exercise those rights applicable to a lay-by. The definition of lay-by is not intended to include a c.o.d. sale or a deposit and balance arrangement. Also, the proposed new definition makes it clear that the goods ordered under a lay-by need not be in existence or in the supplier's possession at the time the lay-by is entered into.

Proposed section 60F provides that a supply of goods is a lay-by if it is described or advertised by the supplier as a lay-by, even if it does not fall within the definition of lay-by. It is intended to include a transaction which may resemble a c.o.d. sale because of its deposit and balance arrangement but where the supplier has said it is a lay-by. The importance of this is that, if the supplier has persuaded the consumer into the transaction by calling it a lay-by, then the consumer has the right to cancel the arrangements under the new lay-by provisions. The proposed section 60G requires the consumer to be given, at the time of entering the transaction, a written statement - a lay-by statement - containing the terms or a summary of the terms of the lay-by, in plain English, or it may be another language if understood by the consumer. What the statement looks like is up to the supplier. It could be printed on a sales docket, a receipt, an invoice, an envelope, or in a booklet.

Costs and charges are usually the main issues of dispute when a buyer cancels a lay-by. Therefore, the success of any lay-by transaction, or later dispute resolution, depends on the upfront disclosure of all relevant information. Without prescribing the particular details, the provision allows the supplier to decide what is relevant and what is not. The provisions give some examples as a guide, such as the cancellation charge. Some suppliers may find it pertinent to add terms relating to matters such as storage arrangements or inspection rights. The consequences of the absence of a lay-by statement or any relevant term, or the inclusion of any false, misleading or deceptive terms, are dealt with in the proposed section 60J, which I will mention later. That section also allows the cancellation charge to be specified either in a fixed dollar amount or by way of some other calculation or formula. It may be, for example, a certain percentage of another sum.

Proposed section 60H allows the consumer to cancel the lay-by at any time before the goods are delivered, subject to the refund provisions in section 60J. The section specifies that the cancellation must be in writing, but allows the supplier to accept cancellation by another method. The intention of the requirement for written notice is to assist in the event of any subsequent dispute. These provisions together confirm the traditional concept of no-fault cancellation, subject to the cancellation charge, if any, as detailed in the lay-by statement. The new scheme provides certainty for both parties and overcomes the confusion in the present system about deductible costs and who gets them. It gives information to the consumer, who can decide to enter the transaction or not, knowing how much it will cost if he or she changes his or her mind. It allows the supplier to charge a cancellation fee to cover whatever the legitimate selling costs are and any loss in value of the goods.

Proposed section 60I allows the supplier to cancel if the consumer breaches a term of the lay-by - for example, missing a payment. This will also be subject to the refund provisions in section 60J. The supplier cannot just renege on the deal and expect to keep the money. The provision requires that the supplier's cancellation notice be in writing, unless the consumer accepts it in some other way. The supplier's cancellation is allowed on the proviso that the consumer is given an opportunity to rectify any breach within at least seven days. In the event of a dispute, it will be the supplier's responsibility to show that there was a valid cancellation with notice upon the consumer's default. The proposed section 60J creates the refund structure in the event of cancellation by either party. It allows the supplier to keep any cancellation charge specified in the lay-by statement if, first, the consumer cancels the lay-by, from a change-of-mind, as provided under section 60H, or, second, the supplier cancels because of consumer default, as provided under section 60I. All other payments must be refunded to the consumer.

Furthermore, the supplier is not entitled to keep the cancellation charge in three general circumstances: first, if the supplier has breached any term of the lay-by, such as by supplying goods which are not those ordered; second, if the goods were not supplied at all; or, third, if there was no written lay-by statement, or no specified cancellation charge, or any term was misleading, deceptive or materially false. The proposed section 60K limits the supplier's rights and remedies in a lay-by transaction to this part, that is, the entitlement to a cancellation fee, only if specified at the beginning of the transaction and only if the consumer cancels or defaults. The proposed section 60L provides that the supplier is not entitled to demand full payment before the date provided for final payment by the lay-by statement. This is an added protection for the consumer against unfair early termination of the contract. It is consistent with the idea that the supplier should not be able to bluff the consumer into withdrawing from the transaction, by demanding immediate early payment when the consumer might not be able to afford to pay the lump sum.

Proposed section 60M imposes a limit on the cancellation charge payable when the lay-by is cancelled. The charge is not to exceed the supplier's reasonable selling costs and an amount for any loss of value of the goods. The onus is on the supplier to Page 1723 establish his or her reasonable selling costs, and the loss of value, and that the loss of value could not have been avoided by reasonable diligence. This provision is intended to counter the event that a supplier specifies an artificially high sum or percentage as a cancellation charge, thinking that it can be rightly charged when the consumer cancels. At the same time it caters for legitimate losses by the supplier. If suppliers and consumers are willing to observe these lay-by provisions in spirit and intent, there is every reason to expect that the incidence of lay-by disputes will diminish. With the removal of unnecessary restrictions, it will be a challenge for the suppliers to get it right, at the beginning.

Proposed section 60N prohibits lay-by statements from containing any term which would exclude, modify or restrict the operation of the new part 5B. Also known as contracting out, it will be an offence for a supplier to do so, risking a penalty of up to $5,000. Proposed section 60O makes it clear that the new provisions do not affect any other rights that the consumer may have, for example, under other provisions of the Fair Trading Act or the Consumer Claims Tribunals Act. Proposed section 60P provides that the new provisions do not affect any other laws to the extent that does not exclude, modify or restrict the operation of the new part. The bill provides for miscellaneous amendments to the Fair Trading Act to extend the enforcement and remedial provisions of that Act to the new part. It also includes transitional provisions to continue the application of the existing lay-by law to lay-bys which were entered into before the commencement of the new part.

As the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Assistant Minister for Education said, consumers are returning to lay-by. It is a move the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Assistant Minister for Education encourages because it can benefit both traders and consumers. Lay-by is a useful marketing tool for large department or variety stores as well as smaller businesses. It brings consumers in. For consumers the benefits are many. Not least is the fact that lay-by can be used as a sensible and inexpensive alternative to the abuse of credit cards. This bill clarifies the lay-by system by spelling out the rights and obligations of both traders and consumers. On behalf of the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Assistant Minister for Education, I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Amery.

TRUSTEE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Second Reading

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [4.41]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The object of the Trustee (Amendment) Bill is to amend the Trustee Act 1925 to enable a trustee to hold or invest in securities by means of the Reserve Bank information and transfer system, commonly known as RITS. RITS is an electronic system which has been developed for trading in securities. Currently the system only applies to Commonwealth Government securities. Section 14A of the Trustee Act 1925 lists securities in which a trustee is authorised to invest unless expressly forbidden to do so by the trust deed. In recent times doubts have been raised by the trustee industry regarding the ability of trustees in New South Wales to participate in RITS. In particular, the question has been raised as to whether, in using RITS, a trustee is complying with the authorised trustee investment provisions contained in section 14A of the Act.

The Attorney General has subsequently been advised by the Crown Solicitor that a trustee's use of RITS would not meet the authorised trustee investment provisions of the Act and, accordingly, a trustee is therefore not permitted to participate in RITS other than when specifically permitted to do so by the trust instrument. The introduction of this amendment will make it clear that, unless expressly forbidden to do so, trustees in New South Wales will be able to utilise RITS when dealing in securities which are authorised as investments by the Trustee Act. As RITS is operated by the Reserve Bank, and trustees will only be able to utilise this system to invest in securities already authorised as investments by the Trustee Act, there will be no increased risk for investors as a result of this amendment. As I am sure members will appreciate, this bill does no more than recognise that the advance of technology is being felt even within the normally staid fields of authorised trustee investment. I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Neilly.

MOTOR VEHICLES (THIRD PARTY INSURANCE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [4.44] : I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The proposed amendment to the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act 1942 follows the decision of the Court of Appeal in Nikolovsky v. GIO which was handed down in August last year. The background to the decision is as follows. The Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act 1942 was amended in 1984. Part 3A was inserted to prescribe discount rates for calculating the amount of damages in actions against the GIO and to provide for certain other restrictions on the amount of those damages. Additionally, section 14 was amended to require common law actions for damages for personal injury from motor vehicle accidents to be brought directly against the GIO. The GIO was the third party insurer at the time.

The second reading speeches introducing the 1984 amendments indicate that the changes to section 14 were intended to be procedural. That is, they were designed to remove the fiction whereby the plaintiff sued the owner or driver when, in every Page 1724 case, the defence was actually assumed by the GIO. In Nikolovsky v. GIO the Court of Appeal decided that substituted section 14 also applied to common law actions for work-related motor vehicle accidents. It was generally the practice that the employee sued his or her employer for breach of the duty of care arising by virtue of the employer-employee relationship.

The effect of the decision has been to overturn the previously accepted interpretation of section 14. Whereas prior to Nikolovsky's case it would have been possible to make a claim against the employer, as well as a third party claim, actions of this type may now only proceed as a third party claim. As a result, the plaintiff is not entitled to unrestricted common law damages by suing the employer. However, in making its judgement the Court of Appeal acknowledged that Parliament may not have intended the section to be interpreted so as to apply to work-related motor vehicle accidents. The proposed amendments to the Act will reverse the effect of the decision in Nikolovsky v. GIO, but without affecting the orders of the court in that case.

The proposed amendments will ensure that employees injured in motor vehicle accidents during the period 1984 to 1987, to which the Act still applies, will retain the right to sue their employer instead of the GIO only, or in addition to bringing an action against the GIO. In the case of pending proceedings against the GIO, the plaintiff is given the opportunity to proceed against the employer despite the fact the limitation period for bringing the action has expired. The proposed amendments also make it clear that the rules concerning dual insurance and contributions between insurers continue to apply. Accordingly, both the workers compensation insurer and the Transport Accidents Compensation Fund will, in cases where either could be liable, be obliged to contribute to the damages recovered by the plaintiff. I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Neilly.

ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY (INTERIM COUNCIL) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [4.46]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Entertainment Industry Act 1989 to postpone the date on which the Entertainment Industry Interim Council is dissolved, and by which it must exercise its general functions under the Act to 1st January, 1994. The Entertainment Industry Interim Council was established under part 2 of the Entertainment Industry Act 1989 for the purpose of developing a regulatory body controlled by members of the industry and assisting that body with the development of ethical guidelines and principles to be adopted within the industry.

The principal Act was originally based on an argument between representatives of theatrical agents, theatrical employers and unions concerned in the entertainment industry, following an extensive review of the industry instituted in response to a high level of concern expressed within the industry over both industry practices and anomalies in the previously existing legislation. The objects of the principal Act are to promote the development and growth of the entertainment industry; to develop a framework to provide for the self-regulation of the entertainment industry; to provide for the development of codes of ethics for the entertainment industry; and to provide a forum for the hearing and resolution of complaints in the industry. The primary work of the Entertainment Industry Interim Council has been to foster the development of an industry based self-regulatory body.

Under the legislation the council was required to furnish a report on the establishment, composition and functions of this body to the Minister for Industrial Relations within two years of commencement of part 2 of the Act, which was 18th May, 1990. The council was to be dissolved within three years of that date under the provisions of the legislation. The council has found that its resources did not allow it to pursue all of the above activities simultaneously and it therefore proceeded with the administrative and regulatory functions, which required extensive consultation within the entertainment industry, prior to proceeding with the report. The council has indicated that it will require until 31st December, 1993, to finalise the report. The Government made a firm commitment on the introduction of the Act to providing guidance and support to enable the industry to achieve self-regulation. Accordingly, I propose the amendment of the legislation to extend the life of the council to 31st December, 1993, to enable it to fulfil its obligations under the Act. I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Neilly.

MINES INSPECTION (AMENDMENT) BILL

In Committee

Consideration of Legislative Council's amendments.

Schedule of amendments referred to in message of 27th April.

No.1. Page 2, Schedule 1(1), lines 23-24. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(2) Despite subsection (1) the manager of a mine at which persons are employed, or are to be employed, below ground, may determine the hours of work so as to require persons to work below ground in the mine for more than 8 consecutive hours or for more than 48 hours in a period of 7 consecutive days and may determine the associated working arrangements. If this requires any alteration to the hours of work or associated working arrangements of persons employed below ground at the mine then no such alteration may be made until the manager has consulted with them and with any representatives nominated by them and has obtained agreement to the alterations or not less than 65% of the persons employed below ground. The general rules may make provision for or with respect to the manner in which Page 1725 the persons employed below ground and their nominated representatives are to be consulted.

No. 2. Page 3, Schedule 1(1), line 2. Omit "fixing or altering", insert instead "determining".

Mr CAUSLEY (Clarence - Minister for Natural Resources) [4.52]: I move:

That the Committee agree to the Legislative Council's amendments.

Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [4.53]: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 1 be amended by omitting all words after "arrangements of persons employed" and inserting instead -

"underground at the mine then no such alteration may be made until the manager has consulted with those persons and with representatives of any trade unions representing them and has obtained agreement to the alterations of not less than 65% of the persons employed underground. The general rules may make provision for or with respect to the manner in which the persons employed underground and the representatives of trade unions are to be consulted."

It is not the intention of the Opposition to delay the House, but I indicate that this amendment is similar to the amendment moved by the Government. The amendment that was agreed to in the Committee stage was prepared by Parliamentary Counsel. The legislation then went to the Legislative Council, where two amendments were made to it. Those amendments are now before the Chamber. The view has been expressed that the effect of the first amendment may be to require all mineworkers to agree to an alteration to their hours of work. Apparently the wording of the Opposition's amendment will enable a court to rule that all mineworkers, whether or not at work, have to be in agreement with the change of hours to be worked underground - the eight hours or the 12 hours specified in the Act.

The Opposition's amendment is not intended to have that effect, and should not be interpreted in that way. I am not a lawyer, but I concede that there may be grounds for it to be amended. The Opposition is still insistent that trade unions should be consulted. That should be specified in the legislation to give protection to workers - protection which might not be available in the Government's proposed amendment. There should not be a strong ideological difference between the Government and the Opposition on this matter. Industry accepts that unions should represent the workers. This is certainly the case in the mining industry. I would have thought the Government would have been prepared to accept that.

Without canvassing the debate that took place in the Legislative Council or in this Chamber, I think it is fair to say that when the original amendment was moved I took the view that, because of new technology in the underground workings of metalliferous mines, mineworkers had to agree that conditions were safe. They had to agree that a 12-hour shift could be worked with safety and that it would be of benefit not only to the company but also to the work force. The only proviso the Opposition will be seeking - the Opposition's amendment will seek to insert this - is that the union representing the work force be consulted and be part of the consultation process. Without consultation with unions, it is possible for an unscrupulous employer to take advantage of a work force. Mineworkers could be intimidated by the threat of the closure of a mine or other threats.

Their safety might be compromised by management getting them to agree to an increase in their hours of work. If a union is consulted it will be there to ensure that conditions that are detrimental to the safety of the work force will not be agreed to. That is a safeguard against unscrupulous employers. For time immemorial that principle has been accepted by industrial tribunals and employers. I believe this Government should also be prepared to accept that principle. I put it to the Minister that, for the reasons I have outlined, the Government should accept this amendment. I urge all honourable members to support the Opposition's amendment.

Mr CAUSLEY (Clarence - Minister for Natural Resources) [4.59]: To what lengths will the Opposition go to stay on the gravy train? Only one point can be made in this debate. When this legislation went to the upper House it was pointed out to members in that House that the Opposition amendments moved in the Legislative Assembly, after the Opposition managed to con the Independents, were unworkable. The honourable member for East Hills did not tell members in the upper House the truth. They have come back to me, have asked a few questions and have said, "That is not what we were told". This Opposition amendment is about union bosses and keeping them on the gravy train.

Recently I visited Tasmania and examined the fishing industry. Lo and behold, the hotel where I was staying was taken over by the union industry. All the fat cats were down there having a great time while the poor old workers have to sweat it out underground and pay exorbitant union fees. The fat cats are on the gravy train. The only union in New South Wales opposed to the legislation is the Australian Workers Union.

Mr Gaudry: Ask them what they get for their fees.

Mr CAUSLEY: They get absolutely nothing for the fees. Let us talk about the rights of the workers themselves. What is the Opposition afraid of? The Government's legislation states that a worker has the right to use a union in negotiations or can agree to accept a committee of his peers to negotiate. An option is provided in the system. The Opposition is saying there should be absolutely no option, that matters must be dealt with through the union. The Opposition is afraid that if there were to be a vote, the unionists might vote against them. The Opposition speaks of democracy. Is that democracy?

The Government could talk about some of the electoral rorts at which the Opposition is expert. At the Woodlawn mine the AWU stood out against all the other unions. The workers voted and opposed the union. The union told the workers that they do not have a right to think for themselves. That is what it Page 1726 is all about - to protect the union bosses. It is incredible in this day and age to have to live with the sixteenth century attitude of the Labor Party.

During the Federal election campaign the Prime Minister tramped all round Australia warning people to beware of the conservatives, beware of the coalition, beware of the coalition's industrial relations policy because it would deprive people of their rights. He wrote to teachers and nurses in the last few days of the election warning them to beware of the coalition because it would introduce a terrible industrial relations policy. Five weeks after the election that grand master the Prime Minister decided that the coalition's policy was not bad after all, so he wants it implemented. The Opposition is silent now. So much for the truth. The truth does not matter with the Prime Minister. All he wants to do is sit in the sunlight all the time, and he will tell any lie and do anything he can to stay there.

Mr Gaudry: You are a union basher.

Mr CAUSLEY: No, I used to belong to the AWU. I am not a union basher. I am saying that if the workers decide they want to negotiate through the union - and that might be their decision, and probably a wise decision - they should have a right to make that decision. They should not be told by the Opposition that they must go through the union. I do not want to be pedantic and oppose this amendment. If the Opposition is adamant that it wants to live in the Dark Ages and is adamant that it will not allow its members to have the right to vote and to have a choice, the Opposition can wear it. Its own members have already voted against it at Woodlawn; let them vote against it again.

Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [5.3]: It seems now that the Government may be prepared to accept the amendment, but I disagree with the Minister on one point. The very point he makes supports the arguments I have put. He referred to the statements of the Prime Minister regarding enterprise agreements. The basic difference between the position of the Prime Minister and that espoused by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hewson, is that the unions must be involved. The amendment proposes that the unions should be the safeguard. I rest my case, because the Minister has supported the very argument I put.

Motion by Mr Rogan agreed to.

Legislative Council's amendment No. 1 as amended and amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Message

Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it that the Legislative Assembly agrees to the Council's amendment No. 1 as amended by the Assembly and requesting that the Council agree to the Assembly's amendment, and advising that the Assembly agrees to the Council's amendment No. 2.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

IMPOUNDING BILL

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL

ROADS BILL

TRAFFIC (PARKING REGULATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27th April.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [5.7]: There is no doubt that it is time for a change to the Local Government Act 1919. It is now 74 years since that Act was proclaimed. Since that time countless amendments and ordinances have been introduced. It has been a very confusing piece of legislation, particularly for lay people. Local government is that part of government which is closest to the people, and ordinary members of the public often find it difficult to understand how the Act is constructed and how it impinges upon them. First, the Act is not people friendly in the way it is written or set out. It is written in a language of another time. It is certainly not relevant to 1993 or to the changes in the ways communities operate. People feel that a far more open process should operate, that there should be community involvement in the decisions of council, and far more streamlined processes within the council. Those are the opinions of residents who are keen to have their residential amenities upheld. They are also the opinions of the development industry and individuals interested in development. These people perceive difficulties in having matters dealt with by councils in an orderly and streamlined process.

For some time moves have been made within governments of both political persuasions to reform the Local Government Act. I pay tribute to the former Ministers, Kevin Stewart and Janice Crosio, for their work in directing the change. I pay particular tribute to the Minister for Local Government for his approach to the bill and to the bipartisan committees that have been involved in the process of introducing the legislation. This process has been a tortuous one. There have been exposure drafts, comments from the community, which the committee has dealt with, and then the further draft. When the bill was introduced in 1993, together with the cognate bills, it was accompanied by a fairly thick document enclosing the changes to the bill since the package of November 1992 so that it would be comprehendible in its new form. I congratulate the committee and the Minister for that action.

I have a copy of amendments that will be moved by the Government, the Opposition and the Independents. I understand that a further 100 amendments will be moved by the Government and another 70 by the Independents. The Committee stage will be extremely complex. The principal approach to the bill should be to get it as right as is possible. Though it will not be a bible when it is proclaimed, it will be much more comprehensible and open and will provide a format for accountability. The bill will Page 1727 make the work of councillors, as they are to be called, much easier. I did not have a career in local government before becoming a member of this House, but I understand that the role of councillors will be complex as they grapple with the difficulties associated with balancing the need for development and the need to preserve the environment and the amenity of citizens. I hope the bill will make things better for them.

Many provisions of the bill are commendable, especially those dealing with the need for councils to have a firm management plan. I am aware that Newcastle City Council, which is in my electorate, for some considerable time has had a management plan that sets out clearly the role of the council and its targets. Adopting that approach the council has introduced many initiatives for Newcastle by setting aside in its budget designated amounts. I mention particularly the local traffic management schemes in Newcastle and the city enhancement plans. The aldermen and the community have devoted considerable time to the drafting process and have allowed the opportunity for public comment as part of that process. The bill will standardise that procedure for all councils; it will standardise many other activities of councils. As a person with a background of involvement with councils as a member of the community I welcome the positive approach of opening the relationship between councils and the community.

Meetings of councils will be open, except for the exemptions that are provided which will permit councils to have specific matters heard in private. Councils need to be open and must give the community the opportunity to listen to their proceedings and provide a means for the community to influence council decisions. Council polls and constitutional referendums will give the community a chance to have its say; though frequently that say will be determined by councils, which will still receive submissions about management plans, development applications and building applications. Newcastle City Council holds regular access meetings. I would welcome further openness of councils through such things as precinct meetings, which allow people to hear about developments and discuss them with proponents before they reach the application stage - when councils have the greatest difficulty. I pay tribute to the former Lord Mayor of Newcastle, Alderman Joy Cummings, who was the first female Lord Mayor in Australia, for her commitment and for the work she carried out during her term of office. I commend many aspects of the bill. The city of Newcastle is undergoing generational change. The structure of its industries is changing, as is the city itself, with the development of urban shopping centres and the reconstruction being carried out following the impact of the earthquake.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Tink): Order! It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to sessional orders the debate is interrupted.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS ______

SUGARLOAF POINT RECREATION AREA

Mr PETCH (Gladesville) [5.15]: I draw the attention of the House to the gross hypocrisy of the litany of lies being peddled in the Gladesville electorate by the honourable member for Blacktown. The matter I refer to originated about eight weeks ago when an article appeared in the Northern District Times suggesting that the Government would take over the recreation area at Sugarloaf Point, that a conference centre would be built, and that all sorts of things would happen that would lead to overdevelopment of the site. The article suggested that Ryde City Council had adopted a similar position to that of the Government. Nothing could be further from the truth. The suggestion had no foundation. I wrote to the newspaper and enlightened the people of Ryde about the facts. In the same newspaper today a headline appears "Save Sugarloaf-Opposition to call on union help"

The article suggests that the Labor Party will get the unions to intimidate the people of the Gladesville electorate and Ryde and beat them into submission in regard to an area that is already zoned as open space recreation. For the information of honourable members, I should say that Ryde City Council has written to the Department of Conservation and Land Management asking that the site be zoned open space, existing recreation. The council wants a range of general use that incorporates accommodation, public recreation, low key passive community use, and conservation that is appropriate to the Sugarloaf Point Reserve. The council has never suggested that there will be conference centres on this site. That has never been suggested by the Government either. It is convenient for Labor Party members to compound their lies. If that is to be their formula until the next election, we know where they stand. The people of Ryde and Gladesville also will know where the Labor Party members stand and will not wear the lies.

Lies peddled by the Labor Party have cost it votes in the Gladesville electorate at each election. If members of the Labor Party read the report from the Department of Conservation and Land Management, they would understand that the canoe club wants to have access to the land in question so that young people can put their canoes into the Lane Cove River from this reclaimed land. The land was formerly a mining site. The honourable member for Blacktown has suggested that this is virgin land that must be added to the national park. That is a nonsense and shows the honourable member's gross hypocrisy.

Ryde City Council is aware of the report, which I have read. I agree with the council on this issue. I have met with representatives of the local environmental group. Their main concern is to have no access available for vehicles to get to Sugarloaf Point. I have agreed to go with them and assess the issue. I realise that land near the escarpment is environmentally sensitive. I spoke to the Minister for the Environment about that land. He is willing to Page 1728 take action to have it incorporated in the Lane Cove National Park. It would be ridiculous for the unions to come in and threaten the people of Ryde over this reclaimed land on the waterfront from which kids launch their canoes. This matter has to be exposed, as I am doing now.

The hypocrisy being peddled through the Gladesville electorate is a disgrace to the Labor Party. The report from the Department of Conservation and Land Management states that the flat foreshore area is ideal for passive recreation purposes associated with the adjoining body. It is a large open area surrounded by native vegetation and provides safe, easy access to and from the river. It would be complemented by the Great North Walk and by the heavily used Buffalo Creek Reserve just to the south. Other recreational facilities exist in the area. The Great North Walk and boardwalks traverse the mangroves so that bushwalkers are able to enjoy the environment. The council, Government and other bodies have provided facilities for the locals, yet the unions will interfere and say, "Stop work". It is Russia repeated! Hammer and sickle on the job, black bans and everyone is out. That is what will happen. Honourable members opposite know what it is all about but the honourable member for Blacktown is selling the hypocrisy, and it is about time everyone woke up to it.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Conservation and Land Management, and Minister for Energy) [5.20]: I fully understand the reasons that the honourable member for Gladesville became so excited by this matter. It is a credit to him that he has brought to the attention of the House another one of the big lies consistently peddled by the Labor Party, in particular by the honourable member for Blacktown. She peddles these lies consistently right round the State. Honourable members need only to consider the press release put out on 3rd February by the honourable member for Blacktown. She has said that the Government will build a restaurant, conference centre, hotel accommodation and a car park and that it wants high-rise development. None of the reports prepared by the department or the Ryde council suggest there will be high-rise development. The honourable member for Blacktown seeks to frighten people by peddling those lies. She should begin to come to grips with the reality of life.

The Great North Walk to which the honourable member for Gladesville referred is one of the most significant historical walks promoted by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. It pulls together remnants of Crown land to provide people with the benefit of bushwalking and to highlight the important development that has occurred in this State in its early times. In that regard bringing together these remnant pieces of land is vital. My department and I will be discussing with Ryde council and the honourable member for Gladesville the concept of development of the Great North Walk to ensure that the interests of the constituents of the honourable member are best served.

RESTORATION OF THE VESSEL BERRIMA

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [5.22]: I bring before the House a matter of interest, intellect, dedicated voluntary work, and ideas. I do this on behalf of one of my constituents, David Noreen. Recently, I was invited to the Lidcombe Lions Club changeover night. Alex Ramsbottom is the president of that club, but unfortunately he is dying of cancer. David Noreen was seated at the same table and we started talking about the old survey launch, the Berrima. The Sydney Maritime Museum seeks to restore the Berrima to be a Sydney icon typical of the timber work boats built at La Perouse by Fisher 50 years ago. Unfortunately, because of warm temperatures - 17 degrees Celsius to 22 degrees Celsius - along the New South Wales coast toredo worms infiltrated this particular boat and it has become unserviceable. Mitch Spooner and David Noreen wish to retimber the boat to enable visitors and Sydney residents, including schoolchildren, to witness the beauty of Sydney Harbour. Also, this will be an attraction if Sydney wins the bid for the Olympic Games in the year 2000. Many people have volunteered their time and efforts to renovate the boat. I shall read extracts from a letter written to me by David Noreen following that meeting. He said:

Naturally in these difficult times money is hard to come by and although the Museum enjoys some Government funding naturally it does not go far, considering the cost of tools, insurance, some wages, light/power bills and fuel costs.

Laurie Brereton (hope I spelt that correctly) was right behind us and unfortunately the change of Government in 1988 threw a lot of the promises out the window.

David Noreen commented that it was unfortunate that assistance had not been provided and suggested that the Premier and the Minister for Conservation and Land Management may be in a position to assist. As a consequence, on 15th April I wrote to the Premier. I am pleased that the Minister for Conservation and Land Management is in the Chamber. The timbers necessary to restore the vessel are grey gum, spotted gum, celery top pine, Huon pine, red river gum, grey box, black butt and tallow wood. The Forestry Commission has recommended those sturdy timbers for this vessel because of the warm temperatures and the infestation of the toredo worm. They are better timbers than oregon or teak, which are imported, and it is hoped they will be available from the Forestry Commission.

Many people have been willing to put time and effort into this project gratis. Perhaps the Government could come to the party by supplying the timbers or, as suggested by David Noreen, perhaps companies could donate the timber. A company which supplies timber will be eligible for classification as a sponsor to the museum and have such privileges as tax deductions, outings on museum vehicles and extensive visual advertising exposure at Darling Harbour and in the quarterly Sea Heritage magazine. Perhaps the Government, through the Forestry Commission and private enterprise, could assist in the voluntary work of restoring the Berrima to its original state - a survey vessel used extensively up and down Page 1729 the coast and on Sydney Harbour. I ask the Minister, in conjunction with the Premier, to consider the matter. Any assistance that can be given to volunteers of the Sydney Maritime Museum to relaunch the Berrima would be greatly appreciated.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Conservation and Land Management, and Minister for Energy) [5.27]: I acknowledge the case the honourable member for Auburn has put before the House tonight in respect of a project being undertaken by the Lidcombe Lions Club to refit this old survey vessel. I acknowledge also that he has made representations to the Premier. Though I have not been made aware of them at this stage, I will follow them through. It is interesting that honourable members opposite use private members' statements to continually ask for assistance. The honourable member is seeking assistance for timber from forests. The way his colleagues keep behaving there will be no forests left in New South Wales from which that timber can be logged.

It is about time that honourable members opposite started to weigh up requests they make on behalf of very worthy community groups. The honourable member for Auburn seeks this assistance, yet lines up with his colleague the honourable member for Blacktown and the rest of his Australian Labor Party colleagues to prohibit logging in the forests. Labor Party members should get their priorities right. If they do that, the Government will be able to look after Labor constituents; but until the Opposition starts aiming up, the community will not be able to trust it. If it does, it can rest assured that the Government will do its best to help. But it should leave some forests to log!

MANNING VALLEY WOMENS GROUP COUNSELLORS

Mr TURNER (Myall Lakes) [5.29]: I bring to the attention of the House a request for assistance for the Manning Valley Womens Group that oversees the child sexual assault unit in my electorate. That group presently has one counsellor, who performs a marvellous job. The situation has now arisen where the workload is such that regrettably a moratorium has been placed on the counsellor's caseload for three months. The request by the group is that the funding it now receives from the Department of Community Services be extended so that it can employ two more counsellors to do the work.

The Manning Valley Womens Group has managed the child sexual assault unit since January 1990. The unit has always been a community based service covering a large area of my electorate and part of the Port Stephens electorate, including Hawks Nest, through to Bulahdelah, Gloucester and up to the Johns River area in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Port Macquarie. It centres on some of the population centres of Forster, Tuncurry and Wingham. The population in that area is 70,000, and the client base is children to the age of 16 years and their non-offending families. As my correspondent said to me, it is indeed a mighty undertaking.

The service offered is professional and unobtrusive, which is most important in country areas; it is a confidential and non-institutional service that does not allocate in any way a sick role to child victims or their non-offending families. That is an important factor, of course, because families in this situation are overwhelmed with a feeling of shock, disbelief or powerlessness. This unit is able to take some of the hurt out of that situation.

The unit presently has an excellent, well-trained counsellor who works far in excess of her allocated hours; at times ridiculously so. She has a dedicated committee of the Manning Valley Women's Group that gives assistance where it can; but of course this work is of such a nature that professional expertise is most important. The group conducts normal fund-raising, but sufficient funds cannot be raised in this way to engage extra employees. The group is now at crisis point, and the counsellor works unrealistic hours. This is not in any way demeaning the assistance the group is receiving from the Department of Community Services; it just happens to be a demand that has arisen within the community.

The unrealistic working hours may lead to burn-out of the counsellor, who does other work in addition to counselling children who have been subject to sexual assault. She also has duties whereby she assists in court time, the preparation of court reports, school visits and school liaison, the preparation of victim compensation reports, support for workers of other agencies, and many other duties. The role of this worker is very wide and very vital to the community. Because of the workload placed upon her at the present time, with approximately 34 active cases, regrettably the Manning Valley Women's Group must inform the department that it cannot take on any further work.

The correspondence I have received says that although there may be a moratorium on the work these people can do, unfortunately there has not been a moratorium on child sexual assault in the community. The children are suffering, and I have raised this matter with the Minister. I know it is difficult to accommodate all requests for money but it is my view that this group has performed an outstanding job in my electorate - they are unobtrusive and work well within the community. I therefore ask the Minister to give some consideration to allocating additional funds to provide more counsellors for this organisation and assist the very valuable work now being carried out by the sole counsellor.

Mr LONGLEY (Pittwater - Minister for Community Services, and Assistant Minister for Health) [5.34]: I thank the honourable member for Myall Lakes for raising the matter of counselling and other support services to children who have been the victims of sexual assault. I am sure that all members of this House will share my view that it is a most serious matter. The responsibility for providing support and counselling to children who have been the Page 1730 victim of sexual assault is one which is shared among several departments, including the Department of Community Services, the Police Service, the Department of Health and the Department of School Education.

In 1991 the New South Wales Child Protection Council produced interagency guidelines for child protection. The guidelines clearly indicate the integrated approach required of all sectors, both governmental and non-governmental, in providing support for children and other family members in instances of child sexual assault. The usual responsibility for the provision of child sexual assault services under these guidelines falls upon the Department of Health and through it to local health services. However, a number of specialist services across the State operate under the community services grants program.

Child sexual assault counselling services on the mid-North Coast are provided through the community services grants program of the Department of Community Services. This is the program through which the services referred to by the honourable member for Myall Lakes receive funding. Whilst I advise the House that there are no growth funds available under this project, the Department of Community Services advises me that a similar child sexual assault counselling service based in Coffs Harbour was recently successful in obtaining funding for an additional position through the area assistance scheme. This additional support was received within the past 12 months and recognised the increasing need for such services in the Coffs Harbour area.

I have therefore arranged for officers of the Department of Community Services to contact the Manning Valley Womens Group, which serves as the auspice body for the child sexual assault unit, to advise it of the potential availability of funds from this source, and to assist it in making an application. I advise the House also that there has been liaison between the general manager of the Department of Community Services in the northern division and the regional director of the North Coast region of the Department of Health to review arrangements for child sexual assault counselling services on the mid-North Coast. I commend the honourable member for Myall Lakes for his concern in this matter. [Time expired.]

STATE RAIL AUTHORITY REVENUE PROTECTION OFFICERS

Mr NEWMAN (Cabramatta) [5.36]: I raise a matter of concern to rail commuters from Cabramatta and Canley Vale. Two railway stations service rail travellers in my electorate: Cabramatta and Canley Vale. For some time I have been concerned about security at Cabramatta station. Patrols have been increased in respect to that station. Canley Vale station also has problems because, with the spotlight on Cabramatta, some of the villains have gone down the line and caused heartache to travellers from Canley Vale station.

I draw to the attention of the Minister for Transport and the House my concern about the conduct of revenue protection officers of the State Rail Authority. Approximately 300 such officers are employed in that department. Some time ago I wrote to the Minister for Transport asking what training these people received in dealing with members of the public who might be questioned about fare evasion. It has been brought to my attention that on 1st March a commuter from Cabramatta station, Van Pin Tran, was assaulted at Town Hall station after he was discovered not to have the correct rail ticket. During the interview, which resulted in him being issued with a $1.50 infringement notice, he was assaulted. The assault resulted in his being knocked unconscious and suffering damage to three teeth and bruising to the face.

Mr Tran was taken by ambulance to Sydney Hospital, where he was treated for shock and concussion and allowed to leave after six hours of observation. I seek a complete examination of procedures undertaken by State Rail Authority officers, with emphasis on good manners and respect for individual rights. Another case referred to me relates to a pensioner travelling from Cabramatta to the city. This lady contacted me after returning home, not having completed her journey. She was stopped by a revenue protection officer - that is a terrible name; they should be called ticket inspectors. The lady was reduced to tears when her handbag was emptied on the seat opposite in an endeavour to find $1 to pay for her journey to Central station.

The lady was so embarrassed that she did not continue her journey to the city. In my opinion that treatment showed a total lack of respect for people who might innocently be caught without a ticket. The lady later found her ticket, but the inspector simply walked off, completely disregarding the incident, but leaving that little old lady devastated to such an extent that she rang my office. She did not leave her name, and I have not been able to get to the crux of that matter. The Minister should reply to my correspondence of 8th March and let me know what sort of public relations course fare evasion officers undertake. The case involving Mr Van Pin Tran could have been an isolated case but I believe that fare evasion officers should undertake a course of instruction at the Goulburn police academy so that they understand what powers of arrest and detention are available to them.

The incident with Mr Van Pin Tran must not be repeated. It was an insulting manner of dealing with the public. I drew that matter to the Minister's attention, and I understand that someone has been charged in relation to it. I ask the Minister to look also at the situation at Canley Vale station, where automatic ticketing machines are being installed. Will the Minister give me, the Canley Vale Chamber of Commerce, local aldermen and commuters an assurance that staff will not be removed from the station. Last Monday, when I inspected that station, the assistant station master told me that 40 syringes had been found in and around the station and that Page 1731 some low life character had put a syringe under a toilet seat. Someone could have sat on it and been infected with whatever the needle might have carried. I am very concerned about that matter and draw it to the attention of the Minister. [Time expired.]

KOORAGANG ISLAND LOCOMOTIVE MAINTENANCE FACILITY

Mr BLACKMORE (Maitland) [5.41]: Last Friday I had the pleasure of representing the Minister for Transport, the Hon. Bruce Baird, at the opening of a locomotive maintenance facility at Kooragang Island at Newcastle, which will be vitally important to the coal industry and in particular to State Rail. Clyde Engineering, in a consortium with EMD, won contracts worth $700 million to supply Freight Rail with 29 of the 93-class locomotives for its coal operations, and 55 of the 94-class locomotives for general freight on a ready-power basis. I might add that this class of locomotive has 4,000 horsepower and is probably one of the most powerful locomotives available in Australia.

Baulderstone Hornibrook, the construction company which is working on Sydney's third runway and on the Glebe Island Bridge, won the contract from Clyde for the construction of this important facility. That construction work will create 60 local jobs. It is pleasing to note the presence in the Chamber this evening of my colleague the honourable member for Newcastle. Any proposal that provides 60 local jobs is to be applauded, particularly in the Hunter Valley. The facility will be state-of-the-art. It will feature a fully self-contained environmental management system. All water used to wash locomotives will be fully recycled, and no wastewater will be discharged. This is vitally important for the ecological system of Kooragang Island as well as for Newcastle Harbour and the surrounding foreshores.

The maintenance facility will complement the fully computerised self-diagnostic systems in the new locomotives. This investment is vital for the success of the Hunter Valley coal chain and demonstrates this Government's commitment to improving the competitive edge of the coal industry in New South Wales. The benefits of the restructuring program undertaken by State Rail four years ago are being shared by vital export industries such as coal, and the taxpayers of New South Wales. Former Premier Wran made a statement that by the mid-1980s all coal will be transported by rail. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. I am very pleased to announce that the amount of coal that goes to the Port of Newcastle coal loading plant is now 110,000 tonnes a day; that is a lot of coal. In the Hunter Valley there is much pride in every shovelful of coal - 110,000 tonnes of it.

Mr Schipp: I thought Mr Keating said there was no pride in coal.

Mr BLACKMORE: That is correct, but I want to correct that statement by saying that there is an enormous amount of pride in every shovelful of coal produced in the Hunter Valley. At the opening ceremony last Friday, the general manager of the north region of Freight Rail, Mr Bruce Hall, outlined some of the massive changes in the industry and the enormous investment program that has been undertaken to change the way railways have operated for the past 100 years or so. These changes are fundamental and have secured Freight Rail's position as the most efficient transport operator in northern New South Wales. The new, more powerful locomotives that will be serviced at the facility are the best available for Freight Rail's needs. With the state-of-the-art maintenance facility, they will provide a reliable, safe and efficient operation for the region. There is no doubt in my mind that this facility will assist in State Rail's drive to operate a world-class railway system. This has been largely brought about by this Government's investment and commitment to the transportation of coal, to make it a leader in the industry. [Time expired.]

TUMBI UMBI HIGH SCHOOL

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [5.46]: I wish to record my community's disappointment at the progress in the establishment of the Tumbi Umbi high school. Since my first day as the representative for the electorate of The Entrance, I have been made aware constantly of the desperate need for this school. Representations were made by the parents and citizens organisations of The Entrance High School and of Berkeley Vale Community High School that those schools are being forced to carry the burden of excess pupils in this area. I refer honourable members to question No. 668, placed on notice by the honourable member for Wyong and answered on 30th June, 1992. The question was:

When will a new high school be constructed to alleviate the overcrowding at Berkeley Vale Community High School?

In conclusion, the answer states:

I am satisfied that the need for a new high school is being closely monitored and planning for a new high school will be instigated at the appropriate time.

In effect it was a non-answer. The only person satisfied with the present situation is the Minister. The final paragraph of a letter dated 5th March from the parents and citizens association of Berkeley Vale Community High School in its letter to the Hon. Virginia Chadwick, Minister for Education and Youth Affairs stated:

It takes many months to build a high school, and since no statement of intention to build has yet been made, the minimum time we can expect any real relief to this problem is 1996. This is totally unsatisfactory as far as this P. & C. is concerned. It is not enough to "closely monitor" the situation any longer. We want a more definite answer.

On 26th March the parents and citizens association had this to say in a letter in reply to me:

Dear Grant,

Thank you for your recent letter regarding the overcrowding at our school . . .

As yet, I have had no reply to my letter from the Minister for Education, Mrs. Chadwick. I was concerned to read the comments of the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Assistant Minister for Education which stated that boundary changes in 1992 restricted our enrolments to 1150. Our present enrolment Page 1732 is 1197 students.

The letter went on to give details of residential developments in the area that will have an impact on school enrolments. Further information I have received indicates that the figure of 1,150 students was exceeded in 1992. But more to the point is that the core size of Berkeley Vale Community High School is 850. At a loading of 1,197 students, the school is 40 per cent above the design limit. The situation at Lisarow High School is similar. The Entrance High School is an old style regional high school with a design load of 1,150 students.

This high school is also in excess of its design load. Further, this loading is regarded as the absolute maximum in terms of current thinking in education circles. The feeder zones for these high schools have been rejigged many times to accommodate continuing growth in the region, but even that option was exhausted this year when students from the Bateau Bay area were redirected to Terrigal High School. Students are now being transported by bus up to 8 kilometres as the crow flies to attend school. To get to Terrigal High School these same students are taken by bus past the site acquired by this Government in 1991 for the Tumbi Umbi high school.

This situation is clearly ridiculous. The Minister announced this week that planning is proposed for the Tumbi Umbi high school, but again no commitment is given for a high school at Tumbi Umbi. The politicking on this issue has to stop. The Government has to bite the bullet and give an unequivocal commitment to construction of this school. Delaying will not solve the problem. The issue will not go away. Growth is endemic to this region and the Central Coast. Here are some growth statistics: the Central Coast is growing at the rate of 4 per cent per annum; age groups which have particularly increased are the aged and the young; in the late 1980s the annual increase in the number of births was averaging 6 per cent; Wyong Shire Council area population has doubled each decade for the past 20 years; growth in Wyong shire now exceeds the Gosford City Council area; and Wyong shire is the fastest growing local government area in the Sydney statistical zone and one of the fastest growing areas in New South Wales.

The Southern Lakes area around Berkeley Vale, Tumbi Umbi and Killarney Vale has the highest growth rate in the shire. From 1986 to 1991 the growth rate of this area was almost twice that of the shire. The growth rate for 15 to 19-year-olds in the same period was 61.5 per cent and the growth rate for 0 to 10-year-olds was 38 per cent. Projected growth for the next 10 years is 22 per cent. I ask the Minister for Education to give a commitment to the construction of Tumbi Umbi high school. The need is now and the need will not go away. I urge the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing to convey this message to the Minister for Education.

WOOL INDUSTRY RESTRUCTURE

Mr CHAPPELL (Northern Tablelands) [5.51]: Last evening I received a telephone call from a constituent explaining his extreme financial position as a result of the disastrous situation with wool prices and advice he received about the sale of his wool in Brisbane. He is a good young farmer who has been developing and improving his land, developing and improving his flock, increasing his productivity, working his heart out for himself and his family all his life. Now he is facing the most extreme prospects of his career. He is happy for me to share his plight with the House so that perhaps more members of this Parliament will begin to understand the extreme situation, the emergency, the crisis facing him and many other people throughout the country areas, his business, his industry and his country. It is happening right now.

This farmer sent 166 bales of wool to the Brisbane sales; 158 bales were sold and eight were passed in. The 158 bales of wool that were sold were good wool, not rubbish, and brought a total of $84,464 gross, $70,774 net. That is an average of 301.11 cents per kilogram gross or 287.21 cents net return for his wool. This is wool that three or four years ago was bringing 800 cents 1,000 cents or 1,100 cents a kilogram. His top price was 441 cents for 18-micron wool with 77.8 per cent yield and 0.6 per cent vegetable matter. Those figures may not mean much to people in this House, but they indicate excellent wool; premium quality, fashion garment wool.

His $70,000 for 158 bales of good fine wool is probably equivalent to what would be received for about 300 bales of western wool. One has to remember that from the gross income for the wool he still has to deduct transport costs, shearing costs and so on. Therefore, the $70,000 is nothing like the net profit on his operation. This is a disaster. My constituent has, in a very short time, run up a considerable overdraft of $50,000 at a high interest rate. By the time he pays out his overdraft from his wool cheque he will have $20,000 to run the farm, his home and his family, and to pay interest on what will undoubtedly be a rapidly growing overdraft in the coming financial year. Can he survive? That is really the question to which this House has to turn its mind, as the Federal Government should have done in the past 24 hours. Sheer guts and effort and bloody-minded determination say he will survive, but reality says the opposite. He is one of the better doers in his area, with an above average clip.

Whilst his income has been collapsing from between $150,000 and $180,000 to $70,000 per annum this year, his costs have continued to increase. Every one of his input costs have been going up relentlessly and there does not appear to be any end in sight as far as cost increases are concerned. Is it any wonder that this constituent and his many wool-producing neighbours and woolgrowers throughout the State are deeply distressed by the current state of their industry? They are crying out for help. As the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs said in this House yesterday when bringing statistics to the Page 1733 attention of the House, the purchasing power of wool farmers has plummeted over the past few years and they are in an absolutely critical financial position.

Yesterday the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs was calling out for the Federal Government to give real and meaningful assistance in this difficult time to woolgrowers throughout New South Wales, many of whom have no other income to call upon. What has happened? Today things were patched up with an extension of the rural assistance package and very little more. It calls upon the State Government, and I believe rightly so, to also participate in the recovery package, but it really leaves all of our wool producers, and certainly those who have high debt levels at the present time, in an unsurvivable position, without any real promise of assistance. Another talkfest, another three months waiting for someone to talk about restructuring the wool industry, which means: let them die off and we won't have so many to worry about.

That is the answer of the Federal Government. It is absolutely criminal that the Federal Government has walked away from the wool industry. The industry with one of the proudest traditions in this country for many generations has not been given the level of support it should have received. I call upon the Federal Government to review that package urgently with a view to the survival of many of these woolgrowers who have their hearts in their industry and are simply trying to survive. [Time expired.]

Mr SCHIPP (Wagga Wagga - Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing) [5.56]: I thank the honourable member for Northern Tablelands for raising this very serious matter which, as he pointed out, was spoken about in the House yesterday. It was also mentioned today by the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs, when he called on the Opposition to take a glove and a guernsey in this particular issue and use its influence with the Federal Government to emphasise the urgency with which this matter needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, it seems that delaying tactics have now been adopted by the Federal Government in establishing a review committee for three months. The problem will obviously get worse during the three months and what more will be learnt than is known now?

This is an issue which has been growing for a long time; it has not suddenly arisen. The Federal Minister and the Prime Minister know all about it and they should be doing something right now rather than using delaying tactics. I repeat the challenge made by the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs today for the Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition spokesman on rural affairs, and Opposition members generally to use their influence within the ALP right through to Canberra to have this question addressed. As far as this issue is concerned it is past midnight and it is a sad indictment on those opposite that not one question has been raised on this very serious problem.

NEWCASTLE MAY DAY CELEBRATIONS

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [5.58]: I join with my colleague the honourable member for Wallsend, who yesterday paid tribute to the trade union movement in Newcastle and its celebration this Saturday of 100 years of May Day in that city. It will be celebrated by the traditional march, a festival, and a toast to May Day dinner on Saturday night. It represents 100 years of working together by the trade union movement and workers in Newcastle to ensure for themselves better wages and conditions and a better quality of life for them and their families in the Hunter. The trade union movement has a proud tradition in Australia and I would hazard a guess that that tradition will continue for a long time. No doubt if members of the public read in today's Hansard the disgraceful attack on the trade union movement by the Minister for Natural Resources they will understand why the trade union movement will continue to protect both the rights of workers and the quality of life of workers.

The honourable member for Wallsend referred specifically to the May Day tradition. Tonight in Newcastle the "Carnival and Unity: Labour Days in Newcastle, 1892-1914" photographic exhibition will be opened. That exhibition includes photographs by eminent photographer Ralph Snowball which show the workers of Newcastle celebrating Eight Hour Day and May Day. The photographs of those two celebrations depict workers fighting for wages, conditions and a better quality of life. The May Day theme clearly depicts the wider concerns of the labour movement. In previous marches workers in Newcastle and people in the trade union movement expressed concern about and said that they will struggle for the following issues: war and peace, justice, health, education, racism, Aboriginal land rights, the environment, the right to work, Medicare, women's rights, child care, abortion and law reform. That photographic exhibition depicts events that have taken place over 100 years. The Newcastle Morning Herald of 20th October, 1892, stated in one of its columns:

Again the festival of the workmen of Newcastle comes round with its usual accompaniments, and with banners waving and trumpets sounding. Its music, however, tells not of the battle field, of carnage, agony, and garments rolled in blood; but of the beneficent victory of a principle . . .

The principle referred to is eight hours' work, eight hours' play, eight hours' rest and eight bob a day. That was the original concept of a fair day's work and a fair day's pay. Newcastle has a proud industrial tradition. The exhibition to which I have referred also has photographs depicting the following themes: the Smelters Union in 1911, which has as its subtitle, "Why do we export ores?"; the One Big Union Movement in 1918; "5 x 8 makes 40. That is what we want", in 1918; and the Co-operative Movement and Stockton Surf Club in the 1940s. Those photographs depict people carrying out normal, everyday activities and show also their interest in the May Day procession. Another photographic theme "Peace and progress" was depicted on the float of the Workers Club movement. In 1963 the May Day holiday was taken away and Labour Day became the official holiday. The photographic exhibition also Page 1734 depicts Greek workers saluting May Day and calling for democracy in Greece. [Time expired.]

SCHOOLS IN PARLIAMENT PROGRAM

Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [6.3]: Tonight I will speak about the schools in Parliament program, an issue I raised in this House four weeks ago - on Wednesday, 31st March. I praise not only the Government but also the Speaker of this House and the President of the Legislative Council for the use of the Council Chamber. It is fair to say these days that praise is pretty rare in the community and especially in this House, but praise is deserved by the staff of this Parliament who offer their services and assist in the implementation of this program. The schools in Parliament program commences this Sunday - the first day of Law Week 1993. From 10.30 a.m. until 6 p.m., 60 school finalists will prepare for the parliamentary team that will be the eventual winner of the program.

On Sunday at 11 a.m. there is an official opening of Law Week. At 2 p.m., the New South Wales school parliament will be sitting in Parliament House in Macquarie Street. The following Tuesday, 4th May, from 9.30 a.m. to 3 p.m. - legal studies day - all schools will be in attendance at Parliament House. The schools in Parliament program has now been in place for a few years; certainly since this Government has been in office. It is fair to say that this Government has displayed a concern for children. It desires to teach them that the parliamentary institution is important. On Monday, 29th March, I had the privilege of participating in this program. Brigaidine College, together with some other schools in my electorate, debated a number of issues of concern, the principal issue being the Young Drivers bill.

Other secondary schools in my electorate, including Turramurra, Killara and St Ives high - not to mention Ravenswood and Pymble Ladies College, which are private schools - should participate in this worthwhile program. Some of the issues that were debated by students included: young drivers' licences, speed limits, the importance and effect of driving after dark, the role of passengers, care and responsibility for passengers, parking, the effect that smoking may have on driving, what happens when drivers are disqualified and the effect that may have on future driving licences, the seizure of vehicles, various other proceedings concerning motor vehicle legislation and traffic matters generally, and incidental regulations.

One of the matters eloquently raised by students on that day - the program was held at Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council chamber - was "Speed that thrills is the speed that kills". Facts presented by those students showed that motor cyclists were 20 times more likely to have an accident than car drivers. Students also raised statistics concerning the effect of drugs and alcohol on driving capabilities. Issues as diverse as promoting the family and lowering the incidence of joyriders were also traversed. It is important for this program to be encouraged. I was acting as Speaker on that day, but without the wig. Included in that program were community representatives, teachers, and various other students who acted as Government, Opposition and Independent parliamentarians. The object of the bill that was presented was to familiarise students with legislation and the processes involved in having legislation passed. This important practice must be encouraged. It is fitting that this is the first program to commemorate and open this important Law Week 1993. [Time expired.]

NEWCASTLE JOCKEY CLUB

Mr FACE (Charlestown) [6.8]: I thank the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing, who is in the Chamber, for acquainting me with some of the matters that I will be raising in the House tonight. Newcastle Jockey Club, which is one of the largest clubs in New South Wales and which has a history spanning 130 years, is at the crossroads. The club, hit hard by the recession, is anxiously awaiting a decision by the Totalizator Agency Board in Sydney in relation to the vital Saturday public holiday subsidy issue. Unless the current subsidy is greatly increased the club's survival is in peril.

For many years the Newcastle Jockey Club and the Illawarra Turf Club have carried the burden of being the only clubs in New South Wales outside the metropolitan area to conduct Saturday public holiday TAB racing. However, in providing such an important service to the racing industry - a second meeting in close proximity to Sydney - both clubs are paying a heavy and totally unfair price. Due to a number of factors, principally the general decline in racecourse attendances, coupled with the dramatic downturn in on-course tote turnover, which is a legacy of the current severe economic climate, these Saturday public holiday meetings are hardly viable propositions.

Under the existing arrangements for Saturdays and public holidays, the NJC cannot hope to survive. Something positive must be done. The NJC and the ITC receive a flat $4,000 subsidy, which emanates from the provincial pool, as an incentive to race on Saturdays and public holidays. That is not much of an incentive. Newcastle Jockey Club last year averaged losses of $22,048 on 21 Saturday-public holiday fixtures, which grossed $17.5 million turnover on the New South Wales TAB. The slide in on-course turnover has meant that 17 similar meetings this financial year are averaging losses of $32,000. Those 17 meetings have grossed nearly $14 million on the TAB. The depth of the recession has meant that the on-course tote turnover has dropped from $14.6 million to $11.5 million for 29 meetings at Broadmeadow this financial year compared with the same period in 1991-92.

It is a ridiculous anomaly that Newcastle receives $4,000 for a current Saturday TAB average hold of Page 1735 $821,000, yet our Victorian provincial counterparts receive a $24,000 subsidy, for an average TAB holding of just over $700,000. Unlike New South Wales, where the Saturday subsidy is funded solely from the provincial pool, the entire industry contributes in Victoria. A relatively small percentage, 0.25 per cent, is taken from the thoroughbred turnover on the Victorian TAB and is directed into the Country Assistance Fund. Currently, the Saturday provincial club benefits to the tune of $24,000 and other clubs racing on that day, non-TAB, receive $16,000.

Newcastle Jockey Club is a large employer of casual labour at these race meetings, with race day wages ranging from $10,000 on a Saturday to $20,000 on public holidays, including totalisator staff wages. While New South Wales Saturday TAB provincial clubs receive only $4,000 as a subsidy, Tuesday and Thursday provincial meetings attract an entirely different remuneration. Clubs receive 1 per cent over $500,000 of total TAB turnover - a far greater reward than the Saturday incentive. In the current season, 10 Tuesday meetings at Newcastle have grossed $20,857,828 on the TAB. The return to the NJC as a result of the 1 per cent is $158,578 - or an average of $15,857 per meeting - which is nearly four times that of the Saturday subsidy.

During the many discussions on the Saturday subsidy, the AJC has lauded cross-track betting - Sydney on-course tote punters betting on Newcastle-Kembla events - as a real answer to the problem. Last September the AJC-STC computer centre approached the NJC about cross-track betting, offering 6 per cent commission, and it was envisaged that the service would start in early 1993. The NJC agreed, but the service still has not started. At a further meeting in Sydney on 26th March the AJC committee assured the NJC that the system was ready to go straight after the autumn carnival. The NJC still has not had confirmation of a starting date. In fact, the manager of the AJC-STC computer centre says the system is still not ready, and could not give a definite date for its introduction. Gosford, Hawkesbury, Wyong, Newcastle and Kembla Grange are five clubs which share in the provincial pool.

Newcastle and Kembla Grange not only carry the Saturday-public holiday burden but do not have a chance to participate in the more profitable Thursday dates. Again the situation is different in Victoria, where 15 out of town clubs share 50 Thursday dates. Why should three clubs alone in New South Wales share the Thursday dates? Would it not be a fairer system for all five clubs in the provincial pool to share the racing week? Clearly, the present situation represents a real imbalance as far as Newcastle and Kembla Grange are concerned. Newcastle cannot do any more to retrieve it. To allow a contribution to continue without due reward is simply ensuring that the NJC is on a one-way track to disaster. I thank the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing for being in the chair. It has cost $750,000 annually to maintain Broadmeadow, 65 per cent of which can be attributed to training costs. There is a minimal return from trainers for use of the tracks. [Time expired.]

Mr SCHIPP (Wagga Wagga - Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing) [6.13]: I thank the honourable member for Charlestown for raising this matter. I am conversant with this matter, having dealt with officials since last year and having raised the issue with the AJC and the TAB on behalf of both the Newcastle Jockey Club and the Illawarra Turf Club. Since then much effort has been made to find a resolution to the problem. This matter has been considered by the racing subcommittee of the TAB and will be brought before the TAB on Monday or Tuesday next week, when a final resolution is expected in the form of an assistance process. Following that, a recommendation will be made to me. I am hopeful it will provide a compromise or a favourable result.

It is not fair to draw comparisons with the Victorian racing system. Victoria has about 69 race clubs to service through the TAB system. New South Wales has double that number. It is difficult to apply Victoria's principles and funding system to those of New South Wales. The honourable member for Charlestown raised the question of cross-track betting. This is outside the province of government at this stage, because it refers to tote systems that the AJC has been working with in an attempt to provide proper installation of compatible systems. I understand from speaking with the chairman of the AJC, Mr Bob Charley, that the AJC is working hard to resolve that situation. It is as frustrated as the honourable member for Charlestown is. [Time expired.]

Private members' statements noted.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Tink) left the chair at 6.15 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

IMPOUNDING BILL

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL

ROADS BILL

TRAFFIC (PARKING REGULATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [7.30]: I was referring to the difficulties faced by local government in a rapidly changing community that has many difficulties associated with the earthquake. I shall highlight that by mentioning a matter that was considered and passed by the Newcastle City Council last evening: the development application for the construction of Warabrook railway station. The application had full community involvement. The Federal Government provided funding of $2.5 million; the State Government through State Rail, which will operate the station, owned the land; and local government had the role of reviewing the development Page 1736 application by State Rail and carrying out its full and proper role as the representative of the community to ensure that the development application met all requirements. Also involved were the transport committee of the Newcastle Students Association, the Department of Transport, the State Rail Authority, Newcastle Buses, private bus operators, university representatives, representatives of State electorates, and the community.

Historically there has been a dearth of suitable low cost accommodation for the 15,000 to 20,000 students who attend the university. After the earthquake in Newcastle the shortage of accommodation worsened. As early as 1980 the honourable member for Waratah had been advocating the construction of a station at Warabrook to service the Warabrook estate and to meet the needs of the university students. The drive to have transport available to service the accommodation culminated in 1991 when the university students conducted a concerted campaign. It was generally acknowledged that a railway station at the Warabrook site would meet the needs of university students travelling from as far afield as Maitland and the Central Coast. The location would enable them to have a public transport train station close to the university. Students would be able to walk from the station to the university. The Federal Government supported the proposal. [Extension of time agreed to.]

The Federal Government made available a grant of $2.5 million towards the cost of the construction of the station. The proposal was supported by every local member, for it would provide a rapid transport system from Newcastle City where accommodation is available in the suburbs of Hamilton and Merewether, and in the city itself. The former nursing accommodation establishment, Irene Hall, had accommodation for 180 students in the city proper. The railway station would answer the transport needs of the university. Through State Rail the Government submitted a development application in June 1992. Concerns were raised about the project with the Newcastle City Council. One of those related to a link between the station and the university by means of a properly constructed pathway. Another concern raised by residents of Warabrook was that they would not be able to gain direct access to the station.

At the end of November a check was made to determine what had happened to the development application. It was found that it had been deferred because CityRail had not responded to a letter the council sent in August asking for further information about access. Over the holiday period the State Department of Transport engaged a consultant to carry out a study. The advice of the consultant was that other transport options might be available. The council sent a further letter to CityRail seeking advice about the development application. By February no decision had been made, because by that time CityRail had not responded to the council's request for further information. The university students were concerned that the application had not proceeded and engaged the Hunter Valley Research Foundation to conduct a survey, especially of residents in the Warabrook estate. Members of the community were approached to determine whether they were interested in having a railway station to service their needs. They indicated strongly that they were in favour of the proposal.

The thrust for the construction of the station by the local community, State representatives, university students, the university association and almost everyone in the area with the exception of the private bus companies - which were concerned that the station might impinge on their operations in transferring people from Maitland - continued. On 6th April Newcastle City Council again called together the major players. They included the groups I have mentioned: representatives of the students and all the public authorities involved with the proposal. General agreement was reached but the council still required answers to questions it has raised about access to the university and to Warabrook estate. It was decided to hold an inspection. That was done on 13th April and resulted in a satisfactory conclusion. It was decided that the construction of the station should proceed and that the proposal should go before the council. The problem regarding access to the university was to be addressed by the university and funds were to be made available. It was agreed that access to Warabrook station should not be at the northwestern end, as was originally planned, but moved to the southeastern end of the station. That would give more satisfactory access for residents in the Warabrook estate.

Last week, to our surprise, we were informed that the Government would not continue with building the station and that it may not continue to provide for its construction on that site. The decision went against the wishes of the university community, State members and the Federal Government, which had allocated $2.5 million for the project. Last night the matter was discussed by Newcastle City Council, which had been awaiting further information. A resolution was passed that State Rail could proceed with construction of the station, despite there being some concerns about the development application in its initial form relating to access to the station. The situation is now satisfactory and State Rail has been given approval to commence work. The proposal now has the support of the local community and, in particular, university students who live in Hamilton, Maitland and on the Central Coast. They will now be provided with better access to the university and have the opportunity to live in areas previously not readily accessible by public transport. [Time expired.]

Mr CRUICKSHANK (Murrumbidgee) [7.42]: I am pleased to speak to this important debate and about the relationship of the State Government with those bodies that attract the name of local government almost universally as a third tier of government. I do not think I can add a great deal to the debate because honourable members on both sides of the House have covered the relevant matters. Despite being the third generation of a family who has served in local government, I seek to take a slightly different approach to the Local Government Bill and perhaps Page 1737 embrace a few other aspects of local government that have not been canvassed in this Parliament by either side.

When I was first elected, I had the misfortune to comment that I believed local government should be granted constitutional recognition. I do not think the subject was ever mentioned again within my hearing. The broad gist of what was said to me was that my proposition meant that State Parliament ran the risk of being confronted with 177 or so mini-parliaments throughout the State of New South Wales, each and every one filled with practising small-time politicians or very poor copies of State parliamentarians. In my nine year parliamentary career I have often pondered this politician's nightmare, this subconscious fear that State politicians have of local government and all who practise within it. I still believe no good reason has been advanced as to why local government should not be running its own show - in short, to have its own constitution.

State governments do not attempt to usurp the powers of the Commonwealth - the other way round, if anything. Many people believe that with local government having greater power, more appropriate legislation would be enacted for particular areas. I do not refer to quantity - because we have enough of that - but I refer to quality. It would involve less interference by people who are not in a position to know the right solution for such diverse situations. The operation of the Parliament does not allow for specific solutions to each problem, in particular, when many local government activities are so remote from the main centres of legislative powers in Australia. All that is needed is to define areas of responsibility and give local government a constitution.

So far, State politicians feel quite safe because they are in complete control of the Local Government Act. There will be no constitutional recognition nor reduction of power at the expense of the State Government. More than just the politicians will see to that. The status quo will remain and local government will continue to be a creature of the State Government for as long as is possible. Will it always be thus, though? I was once taken to task for saying that it should be the subconscious desire of every Minister to work towards eliminating his own department. That is impossible, not in all cases but in most. If that wishful goal is not there to guide Ministers, it is one less constraint on the bureaucratic imperative to constantly reproduce and expand itself. Departmental annihilation should be the secret desire of every Minister. However, I suggest there is fat chance of that because departments and governments are entrusted to spend large amounts of taxpayers' money. Every now and again they get caught doing the wrong thing. This problem becomes more frequent and widespread as government grows. Increased size of government always means less scrutiny.

The call to decrease the size of government must be a never ceasing duty of all parliamentarians and, in particular, Ministers. The growth of government is the greatest single enemy confronting any modern developed democracy. However, it is an ongoing contention among State parliamentarians that it is those wretches in local government who are always doing the wrong thing with their money and, if they were left to go on their own sweet way, would perform in a disastrous manner. If local government is always going to be tied to the apron strings of Big State Brother and being constantly supervised on being correct and proper in the way they disperse their funds, Big State Brother will always be disappointed. He will always be changing and instituting more laws, rules and regulations to counter the disobedience of those local government miscreants.

This, in turn, will spawn more inspectorial pleas to oversee as many areas as possible of local government. The goals of the bureaucracy, that ever present other agenda, will continue to be sustained. I also wonder, if these aldermen and alderwomen are so incompetent, how can their performance be improved? To be that bad, they must belong to a different race of people, a race hallmarked by an unfortunate and ongoing inadequacy. If aldermen and alderwomen are never let loose on their own, they will never learn. Of course, the reality is that they will develop more expertise on how to run their business of local government, and they might even become a threat to State governments.

A great myth pervades the population of this land that uniform legislation is the answer to all our governmental problems. That is dead wrong. Uniform legislation is the centralist, socialist quick fix. That is the solution that says, "To hell with the rights of the individual and to hell with democracy". In this fast-changing world there is a key word that describes the key concept ever relevant to the needs of government today, but unfortunately it is the hardest to achieve - that is, flexibility. Nowhere is this less comprehended than in the world of legislation, in particular, State legislation, at whichever level one chooses. It is not in the nature of politicians to be able to comprehend flexibility. Politicians are prisoners of their own institutions and pronouncements; and most lack the ideological road map so necessary to get through the political minefield that they inhabit.

"The king never dies" and "The Parliament is the supreme lawmaking body" are two phrases embedded in the foundation of our Westminster system. Those phrases mean that the rule of law never ceases and the supremacy of Parliament to make laws must always be recognised. That recognition incorporates democracy, stability, continuity and the rule of law. The Parliament is always cognisant that only carefully thought out solutions that do as much good as is possible for the majority of the community will be entertained, and it will only be done with the greatest care and deliberation.

Page 1738 However, as the sphere of government grows - even good government - it also develops rigidity, inflexibility and a search for easy options, all of which detract from the stated concepts. The last manifestation is perhaps the worst enemy of imaginative and flexible government. When these characteristics are coupled with the vast geographical distances in this State, democracy is very quickly shortchanged. What better way to rein in legislative excesses and insensitivities of big government than for government to divest itself of some areas it cannot handle well - areas in which State politicians overstretch themselves, cannot be efficient and should not be involved?

What is wrong with a diverse number of solutions to many different problems? If different shires and municipalities achieve different solutions to the problems, that will be the distillation process that will finally get the best solution for all concerned. Better still, it will show that the same answers are not universally applicable or even acceptable. Would the local government not be the supreme example, the best place to start removing government from the hair of the people? The people are beginning to see through us. Politicians are not really the flavour of the month, as everyone in this Chamber, and particularly the people outside it, would recognise. It would be a huge step for democracy if we started to acknowledge that there should be constitutional recognition for local government.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith) [7.51]: I compliment the Minister and his staff on the mammoth task and superb job they have carried out in the reform of local government. This legislation has been dabbled with for many years and no one has really completed the task. The main bill is not perfect and I shall draw attention to certain matters. Opposition members get very few opportunities in the Chamber to thank Ministers of the Government for doing things they believe are right. I take this opportunity to inform the House that the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Cooperatives is held in high regard by the city of Penrith.

When I was mayor of Penrith City Council it was in the process of building the $32 million civic centre under the eye of the former Premier, who was most concerned about the cost. At that time the council was located in four buildings paying $20,000 a week rent. The council was in need of being consolidated into one building. With the consent of the Minister, the department gave the council the $7 million kick-start to the project. The people of Penrith at some future date will thank the Minister for that decision. Penrith council was building a $32 million civic centre in the 1990s because all other councils of western Sydney were building new civic centres. It commenced another project to sewer its city during the growth period of the 1960s.

The Water Board would not sewer the city of Penrith. If Penrith wanted a sewerage system, the council had to be responsible for its construction. The good aldermen of the day - and I was not one of them - chose to sewer the city of Penrith through the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. When that project was finished the Water Board took control of it. Penrith City Council was therefore left in the 1980s and 1990s to build a new building for our ever-increasing population. As the Labor mayor of the city of Penrith I would have fallen foul of the former Premier, and whether the Minister realises it or not, he saved my bacon. Perhaps he might not have consented to funding the construction of the civic centre if he had known he was helping me.

It has been said many times that the Opposition in general supports the main bill The reform of local government has been long overdue. The modification of the language of the bill is a progressive move. One glaring omission detected in the bill relates to the funeral industry. Regulations in the bill govern the funeral industry. Some members of that industry have approached Opposition members expressing concern that if the bill remains silent on the funeral industry regulations, that industry will continue to be unregulated and at the hands of unscrupulous people. As the honourable member for Lakemba said, this is one of the industries where there cannot be any slip-ups, because it is important not only to the grieving relatives but to matters of public hygiene and health. We must get it right.

The Government expected the Electricity Corporations Bill to be proclaimed late last year. The Local Government Bill is silent on the relationship between electricity councils and their constituent councils; no overlap exists between the two. Some of the powers of the electricity councils are provided by the Local Government Act. If those powers have been written out of the bill, the councils will be left in a parlous circumstance. I am pleased that the honourable member for Blue Mountains is in the House because I shall take him to task on a couple of matters. The honourable member and I share the Blue Mountains area. Certainly the vast majority of the Blue Mountains area is in his electorate; a small part at the beginning of the mountains falls within my electorate. I was appalled to hear and read the comments he made about my aldermanic colleagues on the Blue Mountains City Council.

It is fair to say that there is a difference of opinion among the people of the Blue Mountains. Some people are there to protect the environment and others will develop every single square centimetre of the area. Those two groups have always been in the mountains. They will never agree because they are diametrically opposed. Some aldermen on the Blue Mountains council protect the environment and others consider that development at any cost is the way to go. It does not behold any member of this House to call people ratbags and bums when they disagree with our point of view. The Blue Mountains council has specific and special problems. The honourable member is well aware of those problems - a group of hamlets along a stretch of highway sitting on rich land inside a national park, with a residential rate base, very little industry and very little commercialism. The biggest industry in the area is tourism. Every Page 1739 time anyone has attempted to tax the tourist industry, that industry has paid out on those people and said visits will be stopped. I remember former mayor Peter Quirk said he intended to tax people to look at the Three Sisters. Operators within the tourist industry said, "You can keep the Three Sisters, we will not bring our busloads of people here anyway".

The council is struggling on with residential rates in an endeavour to keep buoyant one of the biggest tourist industries in the State. Suitable rates are not applied to the 150 amenities blocks in the area. The time will come when a government - this Government or one in the future - will look to different administration for the Blue Mountains. The area is unique in New South Wales, probably in Australia, and needs separate administration so that the Blue Mountains council can collect the revenue and provide the services for a huge tourist industry. The problem exists because there are not enough dollars to provide the services the community needs. The comments by my colleague about the increase in the number of building and development applications are true. Another truth is that the brother-in-law of the honourable member for Blue Mountains was a member of the corporate management team at the time building and development applications were increasing. Present management structure is different and the building and development applications are being cleared.

Mr Morris: What has my brother-in-law got to do with it?

Mrs LO PO': It makes one wonder. You did not tell the facts. You were ready to point the finger at aldermen who could not defend themselves.

Mr Peacocke: On a point of order. I ask that the honourable member be brought back to the bill. She is straying far from it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. I am sure the honourable member for Penrith will return to the bill.

Mrs LO PO': Compulsory contracting out concerns many of us. Councils in western Sydney spend a lot of time attracting companies in order to create employment. Councils are in the fortunate position of being large enterprises that create local employment. Contracting out to private enterprise will not serve the communities well. I will give the House an example. A council near mine contracted out its cleaning to a private sector group. The cleaning is done in a certain fashion, though not to the standard achieved by in-house cleaners. When the seventh floor is untidy, the contactor is telephoned and asked to give special attention to that floor, and he does. Some time later, if the tenth floor needs cleaning, the contractor is telephoned and the same process is carried out.

What has happened is that the council has become the supervisor for the cleaner, though that was never in the contract. The council thought it would save money by contracting out cleaning. It now has a building that is not as clean as it used to be and the council is supervising the cleaners. That makes no sense to me. When that council had in-house cleaners it had a very clean building and the supervision was in-house. But the contractors have been very clever in working out that they do not need supervision. They did not allow for the cost of supervision in the contract, and the council has become the supervisor of the cleaners. I see many problems with compulsory contracting out. If it were optional, I would see it as a different matter.

The Opposition believes that the maximum size of a council should be 15 aldermen. Certainly it makes little sense to have less than 15 aldermen in some areas of Sydney that have huge councils. For example, Blacktown City Council has 210,000 residents. It makes little sense for a council such as that to have less than 15 aldermen, because it covers an area that is virtually the size of an electorate. The Opposition contends that 15, certainly not 13, aldermen is an appropriate number for growing councils in western Sydney. Other councils are of a similar size to Blacktown, for example, Sutherland, Fairfield, Campbelltown and Penrith, all of which are growing. A city on the outskirts of the city in which I live is projected to grow to the same size as Bathurst. If the ADI land proposal goes ahead, there will be another city also the size of Bathurst. Growing councils need an appropriate number of aldermen.

The Opposition believes that the proportional representation system of election should be retained. The equal value system is wrong. I am surprised that the Minister did not include in this bill a clause similar to that found in the Newcastle legislation. Under the City of Newcastle Act, if an elected member of council retires or resigns, there is no need for a costly by-election. At a full election, a number of aldermen are appointed to the council and a list is published of those who will be appointed next if a vacancy arises. Under the City of Newcastle Act that works very well. However, at present in all council areas, other than those covered by the City of Newcastle Act, every time a vacancy occurs councils must spend a huge amount of money on a by-election for one alderman. I cite a case that occurred in April 1989 in Penrith, when a by-election was held for one vacancy in a ward at a cost of about $40,000 or $50,000. [Extension of time agreed to.]

At about the same time in Wollongong, which has a large ward across the city, one person had to be elected to fill a vacancy, and the cost was close to $250,000. It seems to me that if the Government is keen for local government to save money, it should not put it to the onerous task of conducting by-elections. The honourable member for Blue Mountains would know that next Saturday his local council area will hold its third by-election in 18 months. It would have been such a simple matter if after the last full election a list of those to be appointed next had been compiled and published. Then everyone would have known who was to be appointed, rather than have the expense of by- Page 1740 elections. As I said, this is covered in the City of Newcastle Act. It is either working or it is not working. If it is working, why was it not included in this bill? If it is not working, why are we not amending the City of Newcastle Act?

Everyone knows that the current rating system has flaws, and I agree that it has. It has anomalies, it is not a perfect system, but anything that has been suggested has, on investigation, been shown to be even less perfect. I believe we should stay with the rating system we have and certainly not move to the two-part system proposed by the bill. Another matter that should be taken into account but is not included in the bill is the LEAP program, dealing with local ethnic affairs policy statements. I do not believe that enough respect is paid by certain councils to ethnic ratepayers. In some councils about 60 per cent of the ratepayers have a non-English speaking background, and insufficient notice has been taken of where those people fit into the scheme of things. In Committee the Opposition will move amendments to provide for local ethnic affairs policy statements, as well as environmental statements.

The reference in the bill to the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal should be deleted. Fees for councillors should be fixed in the same way as is prescribed in the present Act: by the council, subject to a maximum yearly aggregate fee prescribed by regulation; and mayoral allowances should be able to be increased by an existing amount. Though basically the Opposition supports the bill, it will deal with other issues in Committee. Preparation of the bill has been a huge task, but it is not complete. One difficulty with a bill such as this is that the day it is written and put on the shelf it is obsolete. That happened with the previous bill, which was amended on a number of occasions. I suspect we will go through the same process with this bill. As soon as it is passed by the Parliament, people will note that things are missing from it or that other things need fine-tuning, and we will go through the process of amending it. In another 10 years, when the Minister and I might not be here in this Chamber, another Minister will go through the whole process again. I congratulate the Minister on undertaking a huge task that has been well done, but the bill certainly is not perfect.

Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie) [8.7]: I would like to address a few remarks to the bill and focus on a couple of specific areas. Along with many members, I believe it should be pointed out that this is timely legislation. The rewriting of the Local Government Act has been a long process and has been carried out thoroughly. The bill will be examined as it proceeds through the House. Last week the honourable member for Smithfield referred to the percentage of local government representations that local members receive. I estimate that it would be at least 30 per cent of matters that constituents refer to me.

Local government is a level of government that affects all our lives each day, sometimes to my chagrin and probably to the chagrin of other local members who would like to get on to State Government business from time to time. In the past, local government has not been well perceived. It has been seen as amateur, at times crook, bureaucratic, and difficult to deal with; a level of government that is inclined to get in the way rather than to have a can-do mentality. I believe the reality is different and that many councils are adopting many of the principles set out in the bill. Clause 8(1) probably summarises that intent. It states that a council has a charter:

to provide directly or on behalf of other levels of government adequate, equitable and appropriate services and facilities for the community and to ensure that those services and facilities are managed efficiently and effectively.

I guess that leaves it pretty wide open, if you took it just at that; but the bill then specifies limitations. The bill legitimises existing practices with regard to polls at local government level and clearly establishes practices for polls and constitutional referenda. I am particularly interested in polls because they have featured quite highly in the Hastings municipality in the past year or so. The Port Macquarie poll was mentioned regularly, whenever it suited people. It is important under the Act that polls do not bind councils, as is now the case; and it is up to councils to decide whether to proceed on the basis of the outcome of the poll. If councils are to conduct a poll, which obviously involves expenditure of ratepayers' money, they ought to do so only on matters over which they have direct control.

Councils could run a poll on everything from rocket science and men on the moon right down to the colour of footpaths, but unless it is something within their control and they are prepared to do something about it, I do not see the point of their conducting a poll, as was the case with the Port Macquarie hospital. A lot of politics were involved in the poll on the Port Macquarie hospital, and sadly that is the case with the whole of that issue. It should be borne in mind that the mayor at the time was a candidate at the recent Federal election and was obviously keen to embrace the views of all in the community and not offend anyone. The poll was held, the results are being misused, and the issue is continuing to divide the community. If a council is to conduct a poll, the subject should at least be one over which it has some control.

Tendering and contracting out has been raised by a number of members but I do not share the concerns expressed by some members opposite, which I think tend to verge more on the philosophical rather than the practical. The approach in the bill is fairly practical. It recognises the difference between tendering for relatively minor projects under $100,000. They do not necessarily have to be tendered out but I am sure that if the council wants to, it can tender for smaller projects. If a project is worth more than $100,000 it must be tendered out, but the council is not excluded from doing the work. It shows the ratepaying public how its money is being Page 1741 spent and ensures that the public can measure the council's performance against other bodies or private sector companies. That means the council has to measure up favourably, or the ratepayers will start asking questions. It is a good way of keeping the council efficient and ensuring it constantly monitors its practices to keep up with the private sector.

Many councils are moving towards tendering out and have done so for a long time. The Hastings Council is very keenly awaiting the passage of this legislation, as are many councils around the State. Hastings council is proposing to make one department within the council tender for a project for another department, thus forcing individual departments within the council to compete and to justify their costs. Earlier in the debate some honourable members expressed concern about the loss of jobs if councils contract out and accept more competitive tenders.

It was also said that if the work goes to the private sector it will be to the detriment of jobs at local councils around the State. No tier of government, including local government, can afford to be seen as welfare organisations. They do not exist to provide jobs in the community if those jobs cannot be justified, if they are not real jobs, and if people should not be employed. It is fallacious to argue to the contrary, though it is a fairly common argument from the Labor Party. I suppose that is fair enough because that was the Labor Party's constituency, but the ratepaying public expect better. They no longer want to see councils providing a person with a job just for the sake of it, any more than they want to see the State Rail Authority, the Public Works Department or the Roads and Traffic Authority doing that.

In relation to tendering, the Act applies to general water, sewerage and drainage works. It also gives the private sector more opportunity. I am aware of one constituent who has been a little annoyed with one of the councils in my area. He wanted to undertake a development and called for tenders from the private sector to install some of the drainage or the sewerage works. In this case the county council told him he could not do that, that the council did the work. It may well have been that the council would have come up with the best quote, but he was not given the opportunity of obtaining a private sector quote to use as a yardstick. I know that some councils are allowing that to happen, and I am sure that this legislation will progress that movement in the community.

I want to comment briefly about rating, which is not an area about which I have a great depth of knowledge. However, I am a ratepayer, like many members of Parliament, and many constituents come to me at certain times of the year, usually when they receive their rate notices or their valuations, to complain that they have increased. They only complain if they do not want to sell their house; when they are selling their property they are happy, so it is always a bit of a double-edged sword. Lately water and sewerage rates have been an issue in some parts of my electorate, particularly in the Hastings, which has a mix of properties. There are many valuable properties on beachfront areas and on canal estates, whereas in other parts of the town there is permanent unit or flat accommodation as well as holiday accommodation and other multiple occupancy type buildings.

Many constituents have made the point - and I think fairly - that their water and sewerage rates increased significantly. Some people have had large increases, more than 100 per cent, in water and sewerage rates in the last round of notices, whilst in some parts of town the rates have not increased as much. I am told that the current Act and the old Act do not peg rates because the philosophy is that users should pay. However, if one is talking about flushing a loo and using the kitchen sink and the bathroom, a retired couple, even if they live in a million dollar house on the waterways, obviously will not use as much water as a block of units downtown that is fully occupied. That is something that the council will have to, and has the capacity to, address. The council is aware of the problem and further down the track it will have to make some hard decisions. We do not know what the answers are. Toilet taxes have been proposed in other parts of the State but they do not seem to be terribly practical.

Mr Peacocke: No one likes them.

Ms MACHIN: As the Minister said, no one likes them. But I think my constituents have made a good point, that they are subsidising others because they happen to live in an affluent or a more valuable part of town. That is an anomaly but, as I say, the Act provides flexibility to enable the council to address it. Another measure that has remained pretty much the same is the capacity to raise a special rate. This has been put to very good effect in many parts of the State. Hastings council has used this capacity for many years to raise a special tourism fund, and the Minister has increased that on one or two occasions in the past. It has worked very effectively and I am sure it will continue to do so. I am glad it is retained in the bill.

I am also interested in garbage, which, unlike water and sewerage rates, is pegged. I find that a little inconsistent. I am a member of the Joint Select Committee Upon Wast Management and these matters have been to the fore of our discussions. One of the things coming quite clearly from people who have made submissions is that we need to reflect the true cost of garbage disposal in the charges levied. Levies will vary around the State and councils will set charges as they see fit. But local government has made the point that it is restricted in the rate it charges and that in many cases it has to take more money out of other areas to subsidise or operate recycling schemes and so on. That is one area that will certainly be the subject of recommendations from the committee. I know it is the subject of a number of amendments that will come before the Committee.

Page 1742 Garbage rates, the whole issue of garbage and council recycling rebate lacks impact in country areas. Because we live in the country we should not think we have unlimited space and will not have any waste disposal problems. We do indeed have such problems. I think the North Coast will become more of a problem in the not so distant future because of the shortage of available land and the rapid growth of the population.

Both councils within my electorate are taking steps to address this problem. One council has established a regional depot and has recently put out a discussion paper on recycling and reuse options. But the problem is that there are no markets for much of this material. Without markets there is not much point in collecting it, especially in the country where there are the added problems of transport costs. For example, paper recyclists basically are saying: "Why bother? There is no point. We cannot stay in business, because we cannot sell it. We cannot compete with the city guys because of the transport costs". If we are fair dinkum about waste minimisation, reuse and recycling we have to start looking at incentives for country areas as well as the city. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Another matter that was brought to my attention in documentation - I am not sure whether it was in the Act; the Minister might clarify this for me - is the definition of hobby farm. In some of the material that I was reading in conjunction with my colleague the honourable member for Ballina I found that there was a two to 40 hectare limit on properties. Anything that fell within the two to 40 hectare category was to be a hobby farm.

Mr Peacocke: That is not so. It is rural residential.

Ms MACHIN: The Minister says it is rural residential, which I believe is preferable. The only point I wish to make is that in places such as the North Coast that would be quite limiting. A number of people derive an income from a property of around 40 hectares.

Mr Peacocke: That is also covered in the Act.

Ms MACHIN: That is good. I am sure that the kiwi fruit growers and others farming on fairly small acreages in my electorate will be happy to hear that. I am interested also in the issue of who may vote. That is set out clearly in the Act. An issue that arose a long time ago, when I was living in the city and spent a few years in North Sydney Council - most members in this House have been members of councils - was the big business vote versus the little community vote. In an area like North Sydney, which is relatively peculiar in New South Wales, small communities were living side by side with big business communities.

Clause 268 specifies who is an owner of rateable land. That provision, which will ensure that whole corporations, trustees or nominees of corporations are not able to vote, is relatively equitable. Property-owners will certainly have a say but, as I read this provision, it is fairly evenly distributed in areas such as the city where there is a mix of ratepayers. I commend the Minister, his staff and his department for the work that they have done. I pay tribute also to the former Minister for Local Government, Janice Crosio, who commenced this process. But it is fair to say that the bulk of the work has been done by this Minister.

This bill is landmark legislation. The amount of consultation that has taken place has probably exceeded that which occurred on a few other major bills introduced by this Government. I commend the Minister also for the readability of the bill. Much of the legislation that goes through this Parliament, particularly legal bills presented by the Attorney General, would be beyond the comprehension of most intelligent people. The Local Government Bill is a very practical document which can be used as a working document. It is easy to read and easy to follow. I know that that factor has been commented on by many members during the debate and by many people outside the Parliament. It is certainly true. This legislation is good and workable legislation. I thank the House for giving me an opportunity to speak in the debate on this most important legislation because of the impact it will have on all our lives.

Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong) [8.24]: It is a great pleasure for me to speak in the debate on the local government legislation. That is mainly because of the bond of brotherly love that exists between the shire president of Wyong Shire Council and the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Cooperatives. That same bond exists between the shire clerk, Mr John Dawson, and the Minister. Having listened to debate on the Local Government Bill it has become obvious to me that the gestation period for the legislation has been long and arduous. However, I congratulate the Minister on bringing it to fruition. That is not to say that the Opposition supports every aspect of it. Nevertheless, the bill is a significant reworking of the Local Government Act 1919.

Very few people in this State would have thought that the 1919 Act, with all its amendments, addenda and everything else, was really workable. From my experience, public servants in the Department of Local Government and Co-operatives have had to work full time trying to work through the maze of the 1919 Act. There are certainly a lot of things to work through. A positive aspect of this bill is that it was the subject of the first legislation committee in the New South Wales Parliament. As I understand it, that legislation committee worked efficiently and effectively.

Before the last State election I spent a lot of time listening to the concerns of people in the electorate I now represent. People were concerned about the outrageous price hikes and taxes imposed by the then Greiner Government. Increases in electricity charges and car registration were of paramount concern. But people were concerned also about issues that pertained Page 1743 to their local area. They were vitally concerned about footpaths, kerbing and guttering, the filling of potholes, and bus shelters. It is all very well for us to sit in this Chamber and become engrossed in the great issues of the State, such as the Noxious Weeds Bill, the Stock Medicines (Amendment) Bill, which dealt with hormone growth promotants in cattle, and the Crimes (Common Nightwalkers) Amendment Bill.

We, as parliamentarians, must recognise the needs and concerns of the community. Obviously, the issues that affect a lot of people relate to the areas in which they live. Many years ago I read an autobiography by the former Speaker of the House of Representatives in the United States of America, Tip O'Neill. The recurring theme in that book was that all politics come back to how people are affected at the local level. I believe that to be the case. People are vitally concerned about their areas and they want the best possible deals for them. I turn now to three aspects of the Local Government Bill which concern me. The first is the so-called ministerial orders provision. The second is the compulsory contracting out provision. The third relates to the election of councils and the retention of proportional representation.

On the first issue the Labor Party will move amendments to provide that ministerial orders should be made only where there is a genuine and serious emergency or where, in the public interest, such intervention is required. By way of analogy, the best example I can think of to show why the Labor Party will move this amendment relates to area health boards. Under the health legislation area health boards are charged with the management function of the area health services to which those boards relate. In effect, the Minister has an overriding dark-hand influence. Consequently, area health boards are not entirely sure whether they fill an advisory capacity or whether they truly have a management role. Nick Greiner used to say, "If you are going to get a manager in, you should let him manage".

The Labor Party believes that councils should be allowed to manage their affairs without some dark hand hanging over them all the time. By way of constructive comment, I recommend to the Minister the establishment of relevant performance indicators to give the Minister a baseline of trends for when intervention may be appropriate. Public sector performances, particularly in areas where market structures do not fully provide competitive incentives for efficiency, can be overcome by using performance indicators. After all, one cannot always rely on the intimate relationship between, say, the president of Wyong Shire Council and the Minister to ensure that council is progressing well.

Performance indicators fulfil three major functions. First, they provide an agreed baseline from which to measure trends. Second, they enable comparisons between councils and similar organisations interstate. Third, they facilitate the identification of efficient and inefficient management practices. Performance indicators not only provide information to councils and to the government but also demonstrate a commitment to ensuring that councils are efficient and effective. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a careful distinction must be made between indicators relevant for the entire industry, for all councils, and those relevant for individual councils or internal management purposes.

The difficulty with intercouncil comparisons is that they do not take account of disability measures within councils. For example, to compare Wyong Shire Council with Woollahra Municipal Council is like comparing apples with oranges or chalk with cheese. Woollahra would most likely have been fully kerbed and guttered at the time the 1919 Local Government Act was promulgated. Wyong Shire Council is addressing the issue of kerbing and guttering as well as it can, because of the additional problem of the Tuggerah Lakes system that separates the shire to a fair extent, as well as the significant population growth.

I turn now to the second aspect relating to contracting out. The Labor Party will move amendments to remove the provisions which require compulsory contracting out. I was staggered to read in the legislation that a council must not, itself, provide goods, materials, services, facilities or works which are estimated to cost less than $100,000 or such greater amount that may be prescribed by the regulations, unless the council: first, has invited tenders for their provision; second, has itself prepared a tender for their provision; and third, has compared its own tender with any other tenders received. This provision will put councils in a straitjacket with no room to manoeuvre.

In many country councils where the Labor Party may not have elected representatives, but has a great interest in the welfare of the residents, if a contract did go to tender there could well be only one provider of the particular service required, and over time that provider could increase the cost to council of that service because there would be no competition - the competition would be effectively eliminated. I think the honourable member for Port Macquarie missed the point when she said the Labor Party was on about featherbedding and setting up some sort of quasi-welfare organisation. It is on about making sure that a short-term gain does not lead to a long-term loss.

The challenge for the Opposition is to ensure that situation does not arise. To do this, it is vital that councils continue to be free to provide an effective alternative to the outside contractor whenever or wherever it is appropriate. In any event, who is to say contracting out is always the most efficient and effective way to go? A few years ago the Water Board decided to contract out the laying of pipes, but unfortunately all the i's were not dotted and all the t's were not crossed. The pipes that were laid were inferior and the work had to be done again. Obviously that concerns many honourable members because most employees in local government have been hired to perform a physical job. They are not employed as contract administrators to write watertight contracts; they are there to get on with the job. One cannot suddenly click one's fingers and become an expert contract administrator.

Page 1744

Wherever appropriate, Wyong Shire Council tenders out contracts for services that are best carried out in that way in their particular region. I stress the phrase "in their particular region". The Opposition does not say local governments throughout the State should not be compelled to operate this way just because it is appropriate for Wyong Shire Council. It realises the need to provide sufficient freedom to adjust solutions appropriate to local authorities. It is to be hoped that the State Government can be persuaded to reach a similar conclusion.

It should not be thought that Wyong Shire Council opposes contracting out a project where it is in the best interests of ratepayers and residents to do so. It tenders out the indoor swimming pool complex at Toukley, which comprises heated swimming pools. Mr Brian Hutchins, Mrs Pam Hutchins and Mr Donald Metcalfe have the contract to run and operate the pool. They do so in a very efficient manner. The pool is always clean and tidy. Community groups such as the multiple sclerosis and disabled groups use the pool on Tuesdays. Two prominent swimming clubs - the Toukley Amateur Swimming Club and the Tuggerah Titans - use the pool complex every week for their competitions.

The contractors are vitally involved in promoting the indoor swimming pool, making it a better proposition and providing a better service for residents of Toukley and surrounding districts. They are looking forward to using their own money to construct an additional pool, with Federal Government assistance. The moral of the story is that a blanket approach must not be adopted. If councils are to manage, they must be allowed to manage. If a problem arises, I am confident that the ICAC provisions in the bill will sort out that problem. As professional politicians, honourable members are aware that proportional representation is a reasonable approach, especially when the electorate is small and diverse elements seek representation. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Proportional representation sometimes works in an informal way. For example, after the last Federal election, the National Party leader, Mr Fischer, told Dr Hewson that the National Party had increased its number of parliamentary members relative to the Liberals and, I might add, this was largely due to the Liberal losses in Hume and Riverina Darling. Nevertheless, there was an increase and Dr Hewson accepted the proposition that because of the increase in parliamentary representation in the National Party there should be an increased presence of the National Party in both the shadow cabinet and shadow ministry at the Federal level. Do honourable members opposite wish to deny the voters the sort of system they believe is best when their careers are at stake?

Some aspiring Liberal backbenchers might like a winner-take-all approach. However, I am certain National Party members would prefer the existing system. Even a certain section in my own party, when in the minority, requests proportional representation. Being a true subscriber to the democratic ideal, I support that aspiration as well. I support it when I am in the minority; more importantly, I support it when I am in the majority because democracy is not about winner take all. However, the Government is proposing in this legislation to provide for a referendum to be held on whether the winner-takes-all approach should be adopted. That approach is definitely dangerous because if all the people in a council are of like mind, it is highly unlikely that much real debate would take place.

Is the Minister prepared to say that if the Greiner Government had controlled 100 per cent of the seats in this Parliament, that is what the people would have wanted? At the Federal level, while I am very pleased that the Keating Government has been returned, I certainly do not think it would have been in the best interests of democracy if all the members of the Federal Parliament elected had been Labor members. After all, Joe Stalin loved the winner-take-all approach. He wanted total control. On reflection, I think the Minister for Local Government has more in common with me than he does with Joe Stalin. It comes back to whether we genuinely support the idea of community involvement. I do. Do we trust the community? I think we have to. Democracy is not just about winning elections. In a democracy, the majority should determine where we are heading, but it is equally important that we do not set out to exclude minority viewpoints. This is particularly true at the level of local government where the number of voters is small, where the people are more likely to know the candidates for whom they are voting and proportional representation is more appropriate than it can be at any other level of government.

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [8.40]: In addition to congratulating the Minister for Local Government, his staff and his department on bringing forward this voluminous legislation, I wish to compliment the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, who spoke earlier in the debate. I share many of the views he expressed. When I first became a member of Parliament I was of the view also that there should be constitutional recognition of local government. It is my hope that when the accountability mechanisms are in place and people at the local level have more confidence in local government than they do at present, there will be an incentive to move towards constitutional recognition. Though I do not agree with everything the honourable member for Murrumbidgee said - most of which was not relevant to the bill - his contribution was useful as a means of pointing the way to go five or 10 years hence, after this legislation is proclaimed.

Unlike many honourable members of this House I have enjoyed a fairly good relationship with the councils with which I have had the pleasure to work. I recall one massive argument I had with Byron Shire Council over the issue of ridings. At a referendum the people voted in favour of returning to the system of ridings. The council showed its contempt for the people and refused to implement the recommendations. I am pleased that under the Page 1745 proposed legislation that will not be able to happen. Councils will not be able to disregard the will of the majority of the people and proceed as though no referendum had occurred.

In the past 12 months a great deal of progress has been made in the development of the Local Government Bill. The recent consultation process has been exhausting for all of those involved. The consultation reinforced my view that it was desirable to make changes to the Act where appropriate. Considerable debate has occurred on the form of the draft bill. Much of the debate has been robust and, for the most part, constructive. I compliment the Minister on his tenacity in seeing the matter through. It has been a long process. I welcome the fact that as part of the democratic process and as a result of the debate the exposure draft bill has been improved significantly. Not all of the amendments that were sought have been included in the redrafted bill. It will be obvious that it is impossible to get complete consensus among 177 councils. In some sections of local government there continues to be considerable resistance to change.

The outcome of the process will be that the legislation will serve to increase the efficiency of councils and raise community perception of councils as responsible bodies working in the best interests of those they are elected to represent. In August 1991 when the Minister for Local Government, Gerry Peacocke, released the discussion paper on the reform of local government in New South Wales, he described it as "the most significant reform of local government this century". That is so. In 12 months the Government has absorbed the recommendations in the reports of the legislation committee, synthesised the comments made by councils and those contained in more than 1,200 submissions received about the exposure draft bill, reworked the proposals, and tabled the redrafted Local Government Bill in the Parliament on 27th November, 1992.

I am not a great supporter of legislation for legislation's sake. Indeed, I believe too much legislation is enacted. However, few if any members would hold the view that the Local Government Act was not in need of serious repair. The debate has been about the fine-tuning of the significant series of amendments that comprise the bill. There was consensus on both sides of the House that reform was necessary. Many changes have been agreed upon, but some areas of disagreement remain, and it is those to which I shall speak. The Government has not accepted all of the recommendations and submissions that were received. I know that has been a matter of concern for some sections of local government. The Government did not reject the submissions out of hand. It rejected them only after considerable thought by the Minister, his department, Cabinet and the joint Government parties.

In my view the most contentious reforms remaining in the principal bill are in four parts. They are the proposed new rating system, the method of election of councils, the number of councillors, and the contracting out provisions. I shall therefore comment on those issues. The new rating system will provide significant options to councils, the main one being that councils will be able, if they wish, to impose a base rate of up to 50 per cent of the revenue to be raised from the relevant category or sub-category. Ad valorem rates will apply on top of the base amount or new minimum, so that in effect the rate will have two components: a flat amount to apply uniformly to each rateable assessment; and an ad valorem amount, which will be dependent on the land value of each individual assessment. I emphasise that councils may use, but will not be compelled to use, the new minimum system and will have flexibility in its use from category to category and from year to year. That will give councils the maximum capacity to adjust their rating structures to meet their particular circumstances and will give them a mechanism to adjust fairly the distribution of the rating burden.

The suggestion by the Opposition that a system that is completely optional and based on the ownership of land is, in effect, a poll tax, is patently absurd. The position in regard to the method of election of councils is simple. If a council wishes to retain the proportional representation system, it will not need to do anything. However, a significant number of councils desire to use either the preferential system or the equal value voting system. If a council wishes to change to either of those systems, it will hold a referendum. The result of any such referendum will be binding on the council. If the media - or at least a large part of the media - are to be believed, there is strong opposition to the proposal that councils have between five and 13 councillors. Only 20 of the 177 councils in New South Wales have more than 13 councillors. Only the Local Government Association and a few of those councils have complained about this issue. At least an equal number of councils support the Government's proposals. So far as I am aware, apart from the few councils I have mentioned and the State Opposition, no opposition has been expressed to the proposal.

It is interesting to note that the six million people in New South Wales are represented by 99 lower House members in this Parliament; that is, one member to 60,606 people. Even allowing for the fact that councillors are part-time, the arguments in favour of larger councils have been unimpressive. The contracting out provisions of the proposed legislation are not widely understood. All councils will have the right to tender for capital works and will not be compelled to accept an outside tender. The Government has given full consideration to the submissions made on this issue. I look forward with interest to the debate on that provision at the Committee stage. It has been determined that it is appropriate to retain this provision as it appears in the draft bill. Though the majority of the proposals contained in the legislation have received bipartisan support, the bill will be the subject of the usual rigours in its passage through the Parliament.

Page 1746

I wish to make a few comments about the future implications of the legislation. The bills will provide a framework for the operation of local government in New South Wales, enabling greater accountability, transparency and efficiency. No one would quibble with those objectives. The underlying philosophy of the legislation is to empower councils to respond to the needs of their communities. The framework of the philosophy will provide a change in methodology from the prescriptive legislation of the past to a more generous expression of local powers. Local government will be given much broader general service powers. These additional powers will bring with them, as they should, additional responsibilities and accountabilities to the community.

A clear distinction is drawn between the supply or service functions of councils and their regulatory functions. Councils will have considerable freedom in deciding which services are more relevant and affordable to their communities and will be able to design and staff their organisations accordingly. This is particularly important for rural councils, which often face different needs and challenges to those of their city cousins. Under the proposed legislation councils will be more accountable to their communities and less accountable to the State. Greater emphasis will be placed on transparency in decision-making and community involvement in the decision-making process. As I have mentioned, rural councils have particular needs and concerns that are quite different from those of large metropolitan councils. Roads, rating, contracting out, tendering and employment issues often vary between the city and the country.

I am confident that this new legislation provides a commonsense framework for all councils to look to the future and to make choices which best meet local needs. I should like to look to the future and comment upon how I believe councils will actually operate under the new legislation. In future, councils will have to find new ways of responding to the changes and challenges they confront. They will need to be both efficient and effective in the provision of goods and services to their ratepayers. Of course, the key to this whole exercise is planning. Councils will have to deliberately and consciously articulate the direction to be taken by their organisations. The council will do this by developing a draft management plan, which specifies the goals and objectives for the next three years. It will translate these goals and objectives into activities and programs on an annual basis.

Also, the draft management plan will consist of council's revenue policy for the next year. In it the council will set out its plans for the making and levying of rates and charges. Council will exhibit its draft management plan to the community for a minimum of 28 days and call for submissions - these may include objections or suggested enhancements - before adopting its plan. Planning is seen as an important role by councils as they focus attention on what needs to be achieved and signal the need for change to take place. Greater accountability will be achieved by councils through participation. The facilitation of effective and informed public participation will be achieved through the broad community right-to-know provisions contained in the legislation and translated into practice by councils. It will improve the quality of council decision-making. Increased credibility and public confidence in final decisions flows from public participation. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Operational activities are focused on achieving both the objectives set in the management plan as well as the legislative requirements. The new accounting standard, Australian Accounting Standard 27, has been introduced. Council will have to report on the new format. Financial reports for the year July to June will be submitted to council auditors, who will have been selected by tender. That is a change to the current arrangements. In addition, council will be in the process of completing the capitalisation of its infrastructure assets. Senior staff, including the general manager, will be selected on the basis of merit and placed on fixed-term performance-based employment contracts. An equal employment opportunity plan will be developed and implemented. Under the new legislative arrangements, elected councillors, as a body, will set policy and then delegate to the general manager or other people or bodies with the responsibility for implementing policy.

There has been concern, in particular in rural areas, that this legislation will mean a change in the balance of power between the elected councillors and the general manager; that councillors will not have the power they had formerly and the general manager will have all the power. That is patently not the case. Any power that the general manager has is by way of delegation from the council. For example, council will need to classify public land as either community or operational and the general manager will implement council decisions. After the commencement of the legislation, a code of meeting practice and a code of conduct will have to be adopted by council. A review of the organisation structure and of all council's delegations will have to be conducted by the new council. The legislation will provide councils with the framework for increasing accountability to its electors. Meetings will be open to the public, information will be more readily available and reporting requirements more stringent. The annual report will be used by councils to report to the community on the achievement of performance targets set for each of the principal activities identified in their management plans.

Details of proposed capital works, services, asset replacement programs, sales of assets, activities of a business or commercial nature, human resource activities, together with details of programs which are part of EEO implementation, will need to be provided. Councils must prepare the report for release prior to the end of November each year. On the issue of public participation, recently I attended a meeting of 350 people at Byron Bay. This was over the issue of whether council should approve a development by Club Med. The most important issue Page 1747 to come out of that meeting was the fact that people were concerned that the council was not listening to the public. As legislators, we should do all in our power to improve the opportunity for public participation in the decision-making process. However, full public participation having occurred, it is only reasonable and proper - the council having made its decision based on all the facts - that people should accept the decision of the democratically elected body.

Public participation in council policy formulation and implementation will be encouraged, as evidenced by the strong involvement of community organisations. The community will be able to access council information and councils will need to implement the freedom of information provisions contained in the legislation. In addition to annual reports, councils also will have to publish an annual statement of affairs and twice yearly publish a summary of affairs. I again compliment the Minister for Local Government for his outstanding work and the former Minister for Local Government, Janice Crosio, for commencing this process. All honourable members view this as landmark legislation in terms of reform of local government. Local government will realise in time that these bills will make local government more efficient, accountable, responsible and popular in the public eye. As a result of the increased accountability provided through this legislation, it is hoped that one day it may be appropriate to give constitutional recognition to local government.

Mr GLACHAN (Albury) [8.57]: A number of members have spoken in this debate, and there are more to come. I would be surprised if there were many who did not mention that the legislation to be replaced by this 1993 model goes back to 1919. The legislation has been amended and altered over the years but, despite all the changes, it still does not fit the bill for local government in 1993. Many attempts have been made to bring about these changes. As long ago as 1987 I was told that the former Labor Government had on display a draft bill which attempted to deal with some of the problems of local government and bring the legislation into the modern era.

A number of Ministers have been involved in the attempt to reform local government legislation. Each one has made a valiant effort, and I commend them for their attempts. In particular, I commend the Minister for Local Government for the way he has carried out his task. He realised in the beginning that the task would not be easy. He paced himself for the long task ahead and carried it out in a reasonable and sensible way, indulging in wide community consultation. I attended meetings in my electorate where representatives of local government met with the Minister to put forward their views. He had the opportunity of hearing their views on the way the legislation should be framed.

Though there were common threads in some of the things they said, I came to the conclusion that it would be difficult to get universal acceptance of what was right, necessary and good for local government in this legislation. No matter what proposals are put forward, someone will object and complain bitterly. Complaints have been made about the way councils will be elected, the rating system, and almost every other aspect of the bill. The Minister has made a valiant effort to bring the bill together and present it to the Parliament with as much consensus as possible.

Amendments have been foreshadowed and much time will be spent arguing points for and against those amendments. When that process is completed people will be disappointed, will feel certain aspects of the bill are not right and will not be happy. Others will be delighted with the result the Parliament finally achieves for New South Wales. The important point to remember is that the bill will not be perfect, regardless of the time spent on it. The best to be hoped for is to get it as close to right as possible, and to then send it out to local government to put it to the practical test.

If the bill is found to be wanting at that time - and I admit in some areas it will - it is comforting to know that the Minister has undertaken to make the necessary changes to make it work for everyone. I commend the Minister for that undertaking and again congratulate him on his work. The terms used in the bill to identify people in local government have been the subject of some debate. Members of city councils wish to retain the title of aldermen and mayor; and members in shire councils wish to be known as councillors with the president as leader. Members see good reasons for those terms. Everyone understands the system and it works well. Certainly the terms "mayor" and "alderman" have a long history; they have been in use for generations, centuries in fact, and much historical importance is attached to them. But after all, they are terms only and there are more important issues that require attention.

One aspect of the bill upsetting some people is the provision for contracting out and calling for tenders for services with a value of more than $100,000. I personally believe that aspect of the bill is one of the best and that it will work to the advantage of the ratepayers in every community. When the tenders are received councillors will be given the opportunity to check in every practical way the efficiency of their in-house team and the cost estimates of the work the council is interested in carrying out. Contracting out presents no disadvantage at all. When Albury City Council considered contracting out garbage services it was a hot issue in the town. Parties were for and against the proposal; some parties were violently against any thought of contracting out that service.

The belief of people violently opposed to contracting out the garbage service was that as soon as the council got rid of its own employees, the contractors, having established themselves, would hold the council to ransom by continually raising costs over a period of time and therefore ratepayers would Page 1748 bear that cost. When the contract was due for renewal many private contractors applied for it and Albury City Council managed to hammer out a good deal for its ratepayers to receive what is now an excellent service - a service far better than the one council provided in-house. The equipment is the most modern and everyone in the area is delighted with the wonderful service provided by the contractors.

The new accountancy standards in the bill are changes that receive my support. Common sense should dictate that local government use a standard form of accounting. Why should councils have a form of accounting that is different from that used in general practice? Why should councils have a system that only they understand? Why not have a system that can be scrutinised and examined by everyone with a basic understanding of accountancy? Why not have an Australian standard? This aspect of the legislation receives my strong support.

Section 99 of the Act has needed to be addressed for many years. It refers to employees dismissed by council being examined at an inquiry. Though that seems a fair way to do things, at times it causes enormous problems for local government. One particular council in my area had a tremendous problem with section 99. A young woman working for the council was not performing her duties entirely to the council's satisfaction. Over a period council provided many opportunities for her to improve her performance. She was moved from one employment position within the council to another to give her a fair go and to allow her the opportunity to demonstrate she could be a useful employee of the council.

After some time moving her from one job to another the council came to the sad conclusion that she would never fit in and would never be the valuable employee they had hoped. So it had to dismiss her. The decision was made that an inquiry into the dismissal would be held. The council found itself in the position of not knowing if it employed her; it did not know what its future was or what was the future of that young lady. It took many months before an officer could visit the area to conduct that inquiry. Unfortunately, the inquiry lasted all day. At the end of the day, before he could make his decision, the officer had to leave to catch the plane back to Sydney. The council was left in the position of not knowing whether the dismissal would stand. The employee, of course, did not know whether she had a job.

The officer returned to Sydney and the council could not get him to return to give his decision. The council made written requests for a decision on a number of occasions. I made representations on behalf of the council - not for a decision one way or another, let me hasten to say, but merely that he should give his decision. I was assured many times that the officer would return in the near future, when a decision would be given. The months passed and it seemed nothing could change the position that existed - the council not knowing if it still retained the employee and the employee not knowing if she still retained her job.

After a lengthy time the officer finally returned and made his report stating that the council was justified in the dismissal, but at the same time he said that in fairness the council should pay the young woman a considerable amount for lost wages because of what had happened. This result cost the ratepayers of that shire a great deal of money. That process, I believe, was of no advantage to anyone involved. The sooner this aspect of local government is changed, the better for everyone. In summary, some people are strongly in favour of the legislation as it stands, some have doubts about certain parts of it, and some are strongly opposed to it; but councils are anxiously awaiting for it to become law so that the new system can begin.

Many councils want this legislation passed and look forward to having it in place because they see great advantages flowing from it. It will allow councils to run their affairs in a more efficient and fairer way and, in turn, to serve the ratepayers better. After all, is this not all about trying to get a better deal for the ratepayers of New South Wales? I strongly support the Minister and this legislation.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [9.10]: It is an extraordinarily difficult job to draft a local government bill that will cover the diversity of councils in New South Wales. That is the challenge that the Minister for Local Government faced. I congratulate the Government on bringing forward this legislation. As I said to the Premier recently: this is one of the feathers in the Government's cap. The Minister for Local Government should feel very proud that as Minister with responsibility for local government he has successfully tackled one of the most difficult and complex legislative tasks - certainly, to my knowledge, the most difficult in the past 20 years. There will be many amendments to the bill. To tackle an Act such as the Local Government Act, which has grown like topsy over the years, to simplify it, to strengthen its mechanisms of accountability in regard to aldermen and councillors, and to make it applicable, so far as possible, to the wide range and diversity of local councils in New South Wales, is a feat indeed.

There is a proud history of voluntary service in local government. It is not a job that one enjoys at all times, because there are many demands for services and little money to provide them. Nowhere is that more true than in developing country areas. Such districts have huge areas but a small rating system and a small population base. Of course, with this proud history has come change to try to accommodate changes in standards, as well as the enormous number of additional tasks that must be performed by local government. One needed a degree to find one's way through the Local Government Act. The sections were becoming bigger and bigger, the content more and more complex, with the result that the Act was extraordinarily unwieldy. Review of the Act has been talked about for many years. But this Minister and this Government have tackled that review, and in my view have done so very well.

Page 1749

The Government should be most proud of its level of consultation in the review. It was a great challenge to give all councils an opportunity to consult on the wide diversity of circumstances that exist in a State as vast as New South Wales. The Government offered those councils the opportunity to comment, and it extended the time for those comments to be taken into account. It has tried to accommodate those views by amending the principal bill; and there will be more amendments before it passes through this Parliament. The Government should be proud of its record of consultation on this legislation.

A claim has been made that local government is the third tier of government and should be completely independent. If local government were, through a gradual evolution and by agreement, to become a regional government, I would favour that proposal in principle. For some years I have been on record as virtually voting myself out of office in State government by favouring regional government. If we had regional government, we would see complete autonomy, with policy being determined at the national level. To a very large extent this legislation is based on the Swedish model, covering things such as health, police, education, transport and a range of other things. To a lesser extent it proposes the system that operates in the United Kingdom. But until we reach that size and sophistication I do not believe there can be complete autonomy in local government. Though I would argue for autonomy, I believe that in some respects there must be a measure of government control. In that regard my voting pattern will be for autonomy in some areas that are covered by some of the amendments, but not in other areas.

One thing that distinguishes the Local Government Act from many other Acts is that it is prescriptive. The Local Government Act tells councils what they can do. With most Acts of Parliament, if a thing is not prescribed in law, one can do it. With the Local Government Act, if it is not prescribed in the Act, one cannot do it. As a friend of mine who is in local government says, "It is not what you can do in local government that is the problem; the problem is what you cannot do and what you are not able to do because of budgetary and other constraints". Of course, the key to any form of successful government is openness.

I pay tribute to the former mayor of North Sydney, Ted Mack, for setting the model for precincts and open local government. One can walk into North Sydney council and, except for a very narrow band of documents, one can read any document but cannot photocopy it. There was an expectation of legal problems but they did not materialise. There was an expectation of many objections on the grounds of there being an invasion of privacy - should my neighbour know what I am saying about the development that he or she wants to undertake next door, or the complaints that I am making to the council? Ted Mack's view was that if an appeal is made to someone in a position of power, for that person to use that power to specific general effect those representations should be public. He believed that, using the precinct principle, people should be involved in the process of not merely putting forward ideas but also of appreciating the problems of councils.

In the 1960s I was involved in forming the Shoalhaven Combined Progress Associations and was president of that organisation for 15 years. It was said that one could not run a non-party political organisation and could not hold disparate groups together because of their parochial interests. We did it successfully by putting some of the responsibility on to the individual organisations and asking them to nominate their three most urgent needs. That was the first point. The second was that if they could not achieve their most urgent need, they may have to accept the second, third or fourth option. I said that if I stood as a representative of the Shoalhaven Combined Progress Associations I would not accept instruction. I believe that is where the caucus system has let down local government.

Where party politics are involved in council affairs, particularly in Labor controlled councils, and where circumstances change on the floor of the council, party-political members are locked into a caucus decision. I used to say to the Shoalhaven Combined Progress Associations that they would not tell me what I would do. However, if I could not give them a good reason, in the public interest, why I had done a certain thing, I would expect to be belted over the head with all the power they could muster. I think that is the best one can expect of an elected representative. Ted Mack's concept of openness is based on a simple principle, that is, smart money will always find out. I believe that to be true.

Any planning or other decisions made in camera are difficult to keep confidential. Smart money will inevitably find out. As a Greek friend of mine used to say, "We have a saying in Greece that he who puts his fingers in the honey pot is bound to lick them". It is important to have tendering procedures, accountability and firm rules relating to pecuniary interests, especially statements relating to councillors' business involvements. I tried to do that by asking questions in the Parliament as early as 1973 or 1974. Finally, we have reached the stage where there are some very good provisions in this legislation which are aimed at weeding out the minority in local government who want to take advantage of their privileged position.

Another key to local government is election. I do not favour the first past the post and I will be voting against that. However, I do favour optional preferential voting and the proportional methods of voting. I favour candidates putting out a statement as to who they are, and the grouping of candidates and that group being placed on the ballot-paper. I also think that candidates who have an allegiance to groups or parties should put that allegiance alongside their names so that people are better informed. Serving in local government can be very onerous and often quite expensive, particularly for people in small business who find it difficult to give their time, and for people Page 1750 who give up their wages to attend council meetings. Therefore, for many years I have been in favour of paying honorariums, fees or allowances.

It is a step forward for the mayoral allowance to be regarded as a sustenance allowance as well as an expense allowance. It is ridiculous that the mayor of Newcastle, Sydney or Wollongong is prevented from giving full-time attention to the job merely because he or she has to account on an expenses-related basis rather than on a sustenance and an expenses-related basis. I should like the Minister to consider that where a deputy mayor acts in place of the mayor, in appropriate circumstances the deputy mayor should receive part of the mayoral allowance for that time.

Mr Peacocke: It is in the Act.

Mr HATTON: Yes, it is in the Act, that is true, but there is a problem because the money comes out of the mayoral allowance. A situation could arise where people, because of conscientiousness, have worked themselves into a sick bed and may be off work for a couple of months. That allowance may be inviting to keep them going, yet those people would be punished twice because they are in a sick bed, having worked themselves into that state of health by serving the community. On the other hand, they are deprived of any form of income. That matter needs to be addressed and I think it should be addressed by the council concerned.

Local government must come of age. There must be a general management structure. The general manager must have powers and must accept the responsibility that goes with it. This House should be alerted to the fact that mayors can, on occasions, be drunk with power and can issue instructions that, I believe, should be properly issued by the council. To some extent I disagree with one or two of my Independent colleagues in this regard. Unhealthy situations grow up in councils whereby mayors or shire presidents behave as though they are the council and issue instructions and, on occasions, assert improper leverage to get their own way. However, a decision should be taken by the general manager. The manager should take full responsibility for that decision, and other decisions should be taken whereby instructions are given by the council as a whole.

I am in two minds about having senior officers on contract, as I am about the senior executive service. Towards the end of the contract political leverage can be used on the officers concerned if they are worried about the renewal of their contracts. That has to be balanced against the permanent public servant who is there for ever. Aldermen come and go but public servants go on for ever. People become entrenched and some of them do not do the job - they are immovable and unchangeable. On balance, I favour the contract system. It has to be monitored because people can command a majority of votes on the council and use that leverage for improper purposes. I congratulate the Government and the Minister on the courage, tenacity, work and the application that has brought these bills before the House.

Mr PETCH (Gladesville) [9.24]: It is a great pleasure to speak on the Local Government Bill. I had no intention of speaking but five minutes ago someone said to me, "We need another speaker. Will you do the best you can for 20 minutes". I should like to congratulate the Minister on his initiative in introducing a bill that for 70 years other Ministers only dreamed of. Many other Ministers have attempted to do something, but they have never finished it. However, the present Minister has completed that objective. Some time ago I was honoured to serve on the Minister's local government committee. It was a very active committee and he was a good Minister to work for. In recent times my energies have been spent serving the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing. That has been very demanding on my time, and unfortunately I have not been able to give local government the time it really deserves. I cut my teeth in local government, having been elected to Ryde council in 1977 and served on that council for 10 years. It was one of the best and most rewarding times of my life - not rewarding financially, as aldermen received a mere pittance in those days.

The allowances for aldermen, to assist those members on the council who had day jobs and had to take time off, did not compensate them for loss of wages but it did provide some travelling allowance. I think it was $15 to attend a council committee meeting for a whole afternoon. That will give this House an idea of how the fees were important to some people. They were not important to me, because I was working for myself and I could re-arrange my business affairs to allow me to take time off. As the honourable member for South Coast rightly pointed out a few moments ago, it is fit and proper that people who give so much of their time to local government not only should have a sustenance allowance or an allowance for their services, but also should have something to keep them going. I am pleased that the Minister has given due consideration to that aspect in the bill.

Years ago local government was always considered to be a little suspect. It was a great playground for real estate agents and building developers. Today, when one looks at the inheritances of councils in terms of home units and buildings which should never have been built, it is obvious that someone was getting a greased hand. I remember serving on Ryde council and hearing the story that a big wad of ten-pound notes was rolling round the floor. At the council meeting I attended aldermen were kicking that roll of ten-pound notes from one to another because no one wanted to pick it up. That example illustrates that if a development application was before the council, the money was there for the aldermen who wanted to support it. That air of corruption prevailed but, thank God, today we can support local government and say, "That is all behind us".

Local government is very much like this Government - it is totally accountable. One of the very first things I had to do when I became a member Page 1751 of this Parliament was to sign a book and give a total financial account of myself in a declaration. That requirement is now apportioned to local government by law. I think it is a step in the right direction that each year everyone must make a statutory declaration, whether he or she be an elected member, an alderman, a member of council staff, a member of a committee, or anyone who has a pecuniary interest in the council's operation.

I remember a very fine building surveyor who is still alive, Don Rutherford. He was respected throughout the length of this State by other building surveyors because his knowledge of the Local Government Act and the building surveyors' application to it was incredible. Don could look at the Local Government Act and give you a clause that said something could be approved. But he could look at the same book and find another clause saying why it should not be approved. When one looks at the anomalies that existed in the Local Government Act during those years, it is obvious why it had to be redressed.

When I was elected as an alderman I remember being told, "Here is your Bluett's guide. You are now a fully-fledged alderman. The Bluett's guide will give you all the clues about local government and where it is going". I read that guide. Councillors then gave me the voluminous Local Government Act. I started to read the Local Government Act and asked other councillors, "What is this bit with all the stars in it?" They said, "That is where part of the Act has been deleted". The Act has been changed over the years. It is a hotchpotch of amendments, changes and deletions. A person would have to be a qualified local government lawyer to become an expert on the Local Government Act. The average man in the street would not be able to interpret it.

The Minister has deliberately ensured that the Local Government Bill is contained in one concise volume which anyone can pick up, read and understand. That is the sort of legislation we should have in this century. We do not need Acts of Parliament that are so convoluted and awkward that the average person does not have a clue what they really mean. People will know that, with this bill, they will be getting some measure of justice. I congratulate the Minister on his achievements. I had the opportunity to serve on the Local Government Association. I am pleased to see in the gallery tonight Murray Kidnie. Murray and his staff have always presented an excellent front for local government in this State. They run an excellent organisation.

When I was a member of the Local Government Association I had an opportunity to talk about aspects of the Local Government Act and, in particular, anomalies in that Act that applied to councils throughout this State. I have learnt a lot from my experience. I became aware of the shortcomings within local government and within the Act. That was an excellent training ground for me. We have gone a long way towards addressing the problems to which I have referred. Electricity distribution is another function of local government. I also had the great honour of serving as a councillor on Sydney County Council - the pinnacle of local government. At one stage it was a great honour for me to serve as its chairman. In those days councillors were elected from their constituencies. I had 111 aldermen in constituency No. 4, which extended from Parramatta to Mosman. Those 111 aldermen had to elect two representatives. I regarded it as a great honour to have the confidence of all those councillors. They endorsed me as chairman of Sydney County Council and re-elected me to that council for a number of years.

Sydney County Council not only had the Local Government Act to contend with; it also had the gas and electricity Acts. Today we have Sydney Electricity, so the mode of elections has changed considerably. We are heading towards corporatisation. That organisation, which stemmed from local government - originally it was the electricity department of Sydney County Council - is now providing electricity for all constituent councils. As I said earlier, my years in local government have given me a clear understanding of local government, its needs and its pitfalls. To the extent that it is humanly possible, all those matters have been addressed in this wonderful document called the Local Government Bill.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate on these bills. I endorse a lot of the remarks made by other speakers about certain aspects of the Local Government Bill. I can see that there is genuine support by all honourable members for this reform of local government. Councils have welcomed this bill. They now have a yardstick. They have a level of accountability, which is terribly important to them. It is easy for people in the community to cast aspersions on councils. Generally, councils are the whipping ground for the community. No matter what they do they will always upset someone. When I was a member of Ryde Council half the community was divided on the question of whether or not to put speed humps on roads. It became such a controversial issue that it determined who was to be elected at the next council election.

I am pleased that a new code of conduct, which has been introduced by this Government, will give local government an opportunity to stand proud in the community as a full tier of government - a government that is closest to the people and to which people in the community can relate. I had no idea that I was going to speak in the debate on the Local Government Bill, otherwise I would have put together a lot more speaking notes. Again I congratulate the Minister and those people on the local government committee who have put together this magnificent bill. They deserve the congratulations not only of members of this House but also of the people of New South Wales. The Minister for Local Government and Minister for Cooperatives, the Hon. Gerry Peacocke, the guiding light in this bill -

Mr Jeffery: The Minister of the century.

Page 1752

Mr PETCH: I agree with the honourable member for Oxley. In many ways the Hon. Gerry Peacocke is the Minister of the century. He has done a tremendous job in the reformation of local government. He should hold his head proud in relation to this bill.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [9.38]: I am pleased that I have an opportunity to speak in the debate on the Local Government Bill. I commend the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Cooperatives for the work he has done to bring the legislation to this point. I believe I am the last speaker on this bill - a matter about which the Minister would be greatly relieved. We will then have a lot of work to do in Committee. One of the reasons I stood for State Parliament in 1988 was that in 1987 the Government of the day interfered in the democratic process and dismissed a democratically elected council. I was outraged by this interference in the democratic process. So I have to thank Barrie Unsworth for my decision to stand for the seat of Bligh and to become involved in State Parliament.

I sought election because after seven years in local government I realised that local government, under the old Act, was impotent. If reform was to be achieved it had to be achieved at a State level. I welcome the work that has been done and I am glad we have reached the point that we have. There is no doubt that the old Act is outdated and restrictive. It has been an impediment in solving the problems of communities instead of an empowering tool, which is what I believe it should be. This new bill presents us with an opportunity that should not be missed.

The principal question in dealing with the new Act and with the whole process of reform and modernisation will be one of democracy. Whether or not the new Act will be a success, and whether or not the modernisation process succeeds will depend upon whether adequate provision exists for community involvement and participation, which is what grass roots democracy is all about. My experience in both local government and State Parliament has reinforced the view that democracy, genuine consultation - and I mean genuine consultation, not token consultation - participation, and open and honest decision-making are the crucial issues in determining whether any government initiative or reform project will eventuate and have the effect that the draftsmen and the Minister intend it to have.

The first question that needs to be asked in any reassessment of local government relates to the relevance of the institution. The common cry today is that we are overgoverned with our three-tier system, with its costs and inefficiencies, duplications, overlapping of functions, and bureaucracies. The question needs to be asked: What does local government give to the people that cannot be provided by other tiers of government? Until State and local governments are amalgamated and regional government is created, if one believes in people helping to shape their neighbourhoods and if people have the right to participate in the decision-making process, local government is not only relevant but essential. The reforms and changes therefore must be judged against that central principle.

Local government has improved, particularly in the last decade. I experienced councils being run primarily for party political or sectional business interests. This was my experience in South Sydney and in the city, and it is my experience with South Sydney today. The democratic processes in the past were closed to the public. The only way the community could know what was contained in committee papers was if they were read during a meeting, because if I gave them the item before the meeting I could be fined. In 1980 my council enjoyed doing this to me, because I believed in informing and involving people in decisions that were about to be made.

Council bureaucracies were inefficient and unresponsive; environmental decisions in the area to which I was elected often degraded rather than enhanced community life. In many cases change was achieved by community action or by State Government legislation. Eric Bedford introduced open committee meetings. This was an extraordinary breakthrough in the early 1980s. There was often a preoccupation with the mechanics of local government - roads, kerbs and guttering - to the detriment of local communities.

The challenge of the new Act is more than correcting past mistakes, or even responding to the demands of an everchanging society and the realities of the high cost of services in tough financial times. Forward planning and adapting to change are vital. Waste management, recycling, pollution control and traffic management are just some of the important issues to be addressed if life in our increasingly urbanised society is to be bearable. In assessing the reforms to the Local Government Act it is important to look at the past relationship between State and local governments - most often an unhappy relationship.

The book published to celebrate the sesquicentenary of Sydney City Council published recently shows that my own experiences of amalgamation and sacking during the 1980s have been the order of the day for that council, the jewel in the crown, for the last 150 years. We must therefore put the proposed reforms in the context of the history of one tier of government legislating for the "good" of another tier of government. It is natural that those honourable members who are vitally concerned with local government are wary, especially based on our experiences.

In the light of Victoria Inc, South Australia Inc, and Western Australia Inc, it can be asked whether State governments should be reforming other tiers of government. Often when State governments interfere in local government the analogy between the Commonwealth interfering in the State needs to be considered. I feel very strongly about this because as an alderman during the 1980s I was subjected to constant manipulation and interference - not by this Government but by the previous government. The Page 1753 book to which I referred shows that it has been the order of the day for 150 years. This is appalling, and the results are evident around the city.

In terms of housekeeping, the bill is a big step forward. It is streamlined and it is written in plain English. As the former speaker said, anyone can walk in from the street, pick it up and understand it. It creatively uses tables and chapter introductions and would be a useful document for new councillors trying to get a grip on the machinery of local government - in stark contrast to the existing Act. I congratulate the Minister. The fact that the bill sets out clearly the fundamentals for local government is also an achievement. The provision of a clear legislative framework and clarification of basic questions should not be underestimated at a time of great change for local councils. Many of these positive aspects of the bill are the product of a bipartisan process that has been under way since 1987.

However, the bill is not without its flaws. It is a very good beginning. It has some way to go in the Committee stage and, as the Minister for Local Government has already flagged, it is a first step, but subsequent changes can be made down the track. While provision for voters' veto has been removed, clause 177, which aims to discourage resident objections to applications, is retained and the provisions to allow first-past-the- post voting remain, as do a number of other provisions that require amendment. I also believe that several opportunities for reform offered by the process of the bill have been missed.

The full potential for achieving local government autonomy has not been achieved as the bill now stands. Autonomy, independence and competence are matters for which local government has been fighting, certainly for the decade that I have been involved with it. These topics have been hotly debated at local government conferences year in and year out. While numerous time-consuming provisions have been included to increase council accountability and council autonomy, the other side of the reform has not been increased. Full constitutional recognition is not dealt with, and the Minister's capacity to dismiss a council and intervene in other ways has not been effectively reduced. That is a great pity, because local government has fought very hard for it.

I wish to mention my foreshadowed amendments. Provision should be made to allow councils to use drainage reserves for purposes not inconsistent with their primary function. I welcome the Minister's acceptance of that amendment. Provisions which restrict the binding of the Crown should be removed. I regret that although the Minister may like to do that, he cannot do so at the present time. The Crown should have to obtain approval before it erects or demolishes a building. The Crown should be required to seek approval of the local council to use a building or a temporary structure as a place of public entertainment. Crown applications should be treated as applications generally, with no escape clause for the Minister to intervene. Some appalling buildings throughout cities and towns are the result of this process. I believe that there should not be one law for the community and another for government. I will fight it in Committee and hope to find some support.

The local government planning process can be improved by an amendment to clause 102 to reduce the time in which a development application lapses from five years to two years. Clause 162 should be removed. Legislation often prescribes minimum rather than maximum requirements. It is legitimate in many cases for council to adopt policies which result in more onerous conditions than result from the legislation, particularly when the regulations or legislation are silent. The provision for a remuneration tribunal should be fundamentally amended so that the independence of the tribunal is established. Provisions for mayoral and councillor fees in clause 239 can be improved. I welcome this aspect of the bill.

In the early 1980s, when I was a councillor of the Sydney City Council, which had a budget of over $100 million and made decisions about the future of the city, I was appalled that my fellow councillors would come in after a long day in their architecture firm or law firm, or wherever they were working, and would open their council papers for the very first time, because they had a full-time job; there was no remuneration for councillors. [Extension of time agreed to.]

My approach was different. I believed that my job as an alderman was so important that I gave up my job and took the $1,000 a year for a number of years so that I could do the work. I used to put in 20 or 30 hours preparing for those meetings. I did that for the City of Sydney. My fellow councillors would arrive at the meetings not having opened their papers and would proceed to make decisions about the city at the fag end of the day. I considered that was appalling. Local communities and councils deserve the best possible representation. The legislation will give people, not just the rich or those who are not prepared to do the work, but those who care about local government, an opportunity to make a commitment. They will be able to receive some remuneration, so that it will not be necessary for them to have a full-time job to support themselves and their families.

Clauses 253 and 254 give the Governor power to appoint an administrator in certain circumstances. I believe strongly that those clauses should be removed from the bill and that fresh elections should be called. That is a matter I have discussed with the Minister already. The provisions regarding the Boundaries Commission should be amended to remove the absolute control of the Minister. The nomination of local government representatives should be decided by the Local Government and Shires Associations. Clause 259 should be amended to replace the panel of eight nominated by the Local Government and Shires Associations in clause 260 so that the Minister picks two and the Local Government and Shires Associations directly nominates two.

Page 1754

Clause 259 should be further amended to put an end to the present situation whereby the Government can operate the Boundaries Commission without the appointment of a Local Government and Shires Associations nominee. Either we believe in local government being independent and autonomous or we do not. Clause 261 should be amended to allow the Boundaries Commission to hold an inquiry, not only at the direction of the Minister but of its own motion following submissions it receives. Unless those three amendments are approved, subclause 261(7), which prohibits judicial redress, should be removed. If the amendments are accepted, the ban on judicial redress should remain. The provisions regarding the role of non residential ratepayers should be amended to retain the status quo. Clause 319 of the bill should be amended to allow groups to register under the Act if they have 100 elected members, as opposed to the present minimum of 200 members which applies for State registration.

An amendment needs to be made to clause 551 to ensure that Crown land leased for commercial purposes is not exempt from rates. I hope that matter will be co-operatively resolved over the next few days. I shall move also a small number of non- contentious amendments to the cognate bills. I signal my intention to support a number of Opposition amendments. In particular I strongly support the amendments that will remove the option of equal value voting, to omit any compulsion from the contracting out clauses and to alter the punitive provisions of clause 177. The sum intent of the amending legislation is to provide for a local government system that will be more accountable, more autonomous and less restricted by State intervention and exemptions. Local government has been working towards such a system for more than a decade and that is what the Minister said is the basis of the legislation. I believe that the legislation, especially if the amendments to which I have referred are agreed to, will be one of the great achievements of the fiftieth Parliament. I conclude by congratulating the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Cooperatives and all his staff.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo - Minister for Local Government, and Minister for Cooperatives) [9.56], in reply: I am delighted to have reached at least this stage in the debate and to be able to draw together and close the second reading stage on the first major reform of local government in this State for more than 70 years. I have personally been accorded an honour that is not afforded to many members of Parliament, the opportunity to introduce this type of legislation. It has been my task, my challenge and my pleasure to introduce the bill as the key in a complete package of legislation. The basic philosophy of the legislation is to codify local government law in a way that will be understood by all people in local government and those who are subject to local government, and to codify the law that should apply to local government. A further element in that philosophy is to leave in other Acts that law that should apply to them. An example is the Roads Act. The legislation in the old Roads Act was replicated in the Local Government Act. That has been removed from the Local Government Act and returned to where it should be - in the Roads Bill.

The debate that has taken place since 11th March has disclosed that a range of amendments will be proposed for discussion in Committee. At the outset of the second reading debate I said that the Government and I were willing to consider the need for change at this stage and over the coming months as the implementation of the legislation proceeds. The extent of bipartisan support throughout the debate indicates the commitment of all honourable members to update the framework of local government in New South Wales. I have been delighted at the quality of the debate and that it has been conducted without rancour.

I have been pleased to be able to speak to Opposition members and Independent members about their amendments. Some have been agreed upon and others have been left to be debated. I hope that in Committee there will be no rancour and that all honourable members will accept the outcome without getting cranky about the matter. This legislation should be, and I believe is, a creation of this Parliament. This has been one of the few debates on a bill in this Parliament in respect of which one can say genuinely that there has been a productive effort by members on both sides.

Mr A. S. Aquilina: It is a credit to the Minister.

Mr Crittenden: Yes, it is a credit to you, Gerry.

Mr PEACOCKE: In that regard I must say that I would be less than human if I was not deeply moved by the kind remarks made by so many honourable members from both sides of the House about my involvement in the legislation. I even appreciated when the honourable member for Blacktown called me a dinosaur, because she qualified it nicely. This legislation is not my creation, nor is it the creation of any single person. It is the creation of many people and organisations who have put enormous quantities of work into it. I have been lucky to have had the oversight of the process. That has given me great pleasure. I should mention the members of my staff and the Department of Local Government and Co-operatives. Every member of that department has been involved in some way or another with the legislation. Though it is not possible to please all of the councils and get everything to suit every council, the councils were deeply involved in the process. The Local Government and Shires Associations, members of the public, Opposition members, Independent members and Government members have been involved also.

When I think back on the debate and the compliments received about the format of the legislation, I must remember that it was the office of the Parliamentary Counsel, particularly the Deputy Parliamentary Counsel, Mr Michael Orpwood, who Page 1755 put so much effort into creating legislation that people would be able to understand and which unveiled the mysteries that were hidden in the former Local Government Act. That was no easy task. I told the Parliamentary Counsel that we wanted people to be able to understand the legislation. The Parliamentary Counsel has done a monumental job, and I am delighted about that.

The bill is historic in a number of ways. It has been subjected to a consultative process of which I can remember no equal. We went to extraordinary lengths to make sure that people were able to have their say and to ensure that the legislation is as good as we, as human beings, can make it at this stage. In Committee the bill will be improved in some ways. Some 50 honourable members have spoken in this debate, and that must be a record in itself. The Local Government Bill was considered also by a legislation committee of the Parliament, and it is markedly the better for that process. That process happened to be another first in a system which was introduced by agreement between the Independents and the Government. And it worked! Not only did it work, but it brought together honourable members from both sides of the House and had them working in harmony on this legislation. I should like to congratulate my colleague the honourable member for Myall Lakes for the work done by his committee and for doing it in such a way that when the committee finished its deliberations all its members left as firm friends.

The legislation represents a reduction in the amount of law binding the actions of a council. When complemented by the significant reduction in the number of ordinances - or regulations as they will be - this will stand as an historic reduction of prescriptive legislation. In the end result, not all of these provisions will please the honourable member for Bligh but I think most of them will. There is no doubt that the legislation will contain shortcomings. However, we have said to local government and to the House that we have done the best we could with a difficult operation. The legislation will be made better by the amendments that we have agreed to and which will debated in Committee. However, we are only human beings and the evolvement of the legislation will take place over the next 12 months. For the first few months councils living under the legislation will be traumatised but will settle into it and will be in a position to inform Parliament whether the legislation is working.

There will be unintended consequences of the legislation. There is no doubt about that - it happens with all legislation. We honestly believe that by our process of consultation those unintended consequences will be reduced to a rockbottom minimum. I thank the legislation committee, everyone involved and every honourable member who has spoken on this legislation for the depth of thought given to the debate. I have been deeply impressed with the thoughtful and considered contributions from a number of members from both sides of the House. Though some spoke without any preparation whatsoever, they presented their material well because they have been part of the great system of local government that has gone on in the State for so long. They know from experience what they are talking about. I am surprised, even amazed, at the number of honourable members who have not only been aldermen and councillors but mayors and shire presidents, often of great distinction.

The honourable member for Coogee expressed his amazement at how well the legislation committee had worked. I must agree with him. He said it demonstrated how much common ground and how little conflict there was. As a Parliament we have a common purpose in this piece of legislation. I do not intend to recite the names of the 50 speakers in this debate. The variety of issues covered and personal experiences of honourable members demonstrate the extent and knowledge of the local government system existing in the members of this House. It is one of the few occasions when legislators are legislating about something they understand. I have been deeply moved by the kind words spoken about me. I appreciate them. I thank honourable members for their friendship in the process of this legislation. I know that my staff, members of the Department of Local Government and Co-operatives, Michael Orpwood and the Director of the Parliamentary Counsel's office, who exercised superhuman efforts to get the legislation before the House, deeply appreciate what has been said of them.

I now speak to the bill and its proposed amendments. At the core of the bill are three sets of benefits - those for the community, those for the council and those for the State. Many honourable members commented on improved provisions for public access to information and public participation. But it must be remembered when the amendments are being debated in Committee that the legislation is intended to cover, and must cover, the operations of 177 councils in this State - councils as different as Sydney City Council and Central Darling Shire Council, which has only 700 ratepayers. The legislation cannot always cover in fine detail issues that include the wide range of councils throughout the State. Honourable members when debating those issues upon which we do not agree should bear this fact in mind. To cure a problem in one local government area may well create enormous problems in another area if the matter is not considered properly.

Though we are seeking to create a system of local government that suits the people who participate in local government, we have an overriding obligation to ensure that local government legislation is of benefit to ratepayers and the elected people in this State, not merely those who serve as aldermen - or councillors, as they will be known in future. That is not an easy task. The honourable member for Bligh raised the issue of dismissal of councils. I do not want to dismiss any council in this State. It gives me no pleasure to receive more than 30,000 letters from people wanting me to do something about a council with which they disagree.

Page 1756

I have even received requests from councils about dismissal of other councils. Recently I received requests from a particular council complaining about the activity of its current head. I have had councils asserting that a neighbouring council is a shemozzle and should be dismissed. One cannot have it both ways. There needs to be an oversight of local government to some degree, even though most Ministers for local government would be very hesitant to intervene, except in the most serious situations. I do not need to tell honourable members of this House of recent occasions when a number of councils in this State came under close scrutiny for very good reason.

A number of members have indicated a desire for greater emphasis on councils developing plans to address the diverse cultures of their communities and reporting on such plans. Concerns have been expressed about increasing the extent to which councils are required to prepare plans and report under statutory requirements, because that is an extra burden on councils and their staff and is costly. Many councils already prepare plans for their communities in recognition of the special needs of people. Other councils do not, on the basis that a number of groups in their areas are small and their needs are addressed with less formality.

In that respect, the Government is concerned to ensure that local government is responsive to ethnic communities. It is keen to ensure that local government is responsive to Aborigines as another minority group. It is keen to ensure that local government operates in a climate that is responsible to the environment, doing something about the environment and always with environmental considerations in mind. But in considering what goes into this piece of legislation - the Local Government Bill - we must realise that there are other places for environmental issues, ethnic issues, Aboriginal issues and all types of issues, rather than in this legislation.

Some changes and amendments have been foreshadowed by the Opposition in regard to ethnic issues. Because of my concern to get the legislation right, I propose in the Committee stage to move an amendment to set up a committee comprising people representing ethnic communities - three nominated by the Opposition and three nominated by the Government - to work on those things that might be put into the Act for the benefit of ethnic and other minority communities. It is too important for that procedure to be done on the run or on the hop, but it can be done in the budget session. I have always said that if changes to the Act are proved to be needed, the Government will have no hesitation in introducing those changes. I am sure the Opposition and the Independents would agree that if something is demonstrated to be wrong, it should be fixed.

Obviously some environmental issues must be incorporated in legislation, recognising those issues as part of the charter that councils must address. But this is not the legislation in which those issues should appear. Clearly they should appear in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act - in Acts related to the environment. I am concerned that compliance by local government with some of the amendments proposed would impose enormous cost on councils. One must consider that possible cost. There is no doubt that the new bill will result in more costs for councils in some areas and, of course, we would hope significant savings in other areas. Those matters must be borne in mind when we are discussing the amendments in Committee.

Many amendments have been agreed to and present no problem. Others will need to be debated, not because there is any bitter and ideological antagonism but because they need to be debated further on the floor of the House. If anything, this bill has been the subject of far more consultation than any other piece of legislation I can recall in the past 40 years, or that I remember during the years that I was a lawyer before I became a member of Parliament. Following concern expressed by the press and by environmental groups, I asked my department what submissions had been received from those groups since these proposals for environmental changes were announced. I am informed that no submissions have been received from environmental groups about the local government legislation since early 1992, following the release of the first exposure draft bill.

Comments were certainly taken into account then and were considered properly and thoroughly, along with all other comments received. Since that time, no submissions have been put to me by environmental groups on the Local Government Bill I tabled in November 1992, or on the bill tabled in March. I understand that certain environmental groups made detailed submissions recently to the Opposition and the Independents, but as yet I have not received a formal communication or submission. In fact, my department obtained recent submissions by environmental groups to the Opposition only as a result of a specific request. I find that quite amazing. Any attempt to amend the Act on the run on an issue as serious as the environment is fraught with danger. If we amend on the run, we will certainly get it wrong.

Under my specific instructions, the department has been communicating with all sectors of the community. We have been listening and amending the draft bill. I can only say that I am most disappointed at the response by the environmental groups. Councils vary enormously across this State and it is important to remember that the bill governs each of the State's 177 councils. The requirements enshrined in statute bind each council equally. I have listened carefully to the proposals made by honourable members and I will consider them in the light of the need to cater for diverse populations.

The question of contracting out - or, as I prefer to call it, tendering out - has been the subject of much debate in the House, as it was when the draft bill was presented to the local government industry. The Government recognises that this requirement will impose a new regime on councils. However, the Government firmly believes that the benefits will Page 1757 outweigh any costs involved. The provisions of the bill are sufficiently flexible to overcome many of the issues raised. The threshold figure of $100,000 will be adequate for most councils. However, I am prepared to review that level on a regular basis if it proves too low in practice, because the Act states that the threshold is $100,000 or such sum as may by regulation be prescribed.

I well understand the concerns of many members of this House, particularly Opposition members, that it is possible that contractors will move into certain council areas, undercut the council's day labour costs and cause great problems if they are allowed to do so. I take the example again of Central Darling Shire Council. I mentioned that shire only because it has 700 people, a huge area to cover and it is isolated. It could be that a contractor could undercut that council's costs dramatically and, as soon as the council got rid of its staff and had all the work done by contract, the council would be at the mercy of that contractor. I understand that view very well indeed. It is for that reason that the legislation contains the clear provision that, although the council has to go through the tendering process, it does not have to accept the lowest tender. I imagine that any sensible council that would have good social reason or other reasons to avoid accepting an outside tender would be able to explain that to its constituents.

The size of councils has drawn much attention. During the course of the debate I indicated that the Government is willing to review the requirement for councils that already have more than 13 councillors. Of course, I am still utterly convinced that smaller councils lead to better management and more efficient decision-making. However, I accept the strong feelings about the number of councillors in areas such as Blacktown. I can assure honourable members that in Committee appropriate arrangements will be made for such councils to be allowed to have 15 members. I believe that to be a reasonable compromise.

I am well aware that a number of members of this House come from the Sutherland area. I am a bushie and I know the Sutherland area as Sutherland, but my friends from there tell me that everyone who lives in the district refers to it as the Sutherland shire. I had some doubts about that to start with, but I have never received more letters from any area of the State than I have from the Sutherland shire. Those letters have been overwhelming and convincing. I must say to my friend the honourable member for Sutherland how indebted I am to him for drawing my attention to the problem with the name of that area. However, there is a way, which he has kindly suggested, under the Act as it is, to overcome that problem - and that will happen. The honourable member can tell his constituents that the matter will be fixed. They need not write to me any more; I have enough to do without reading all those letters, as much as I appreciate them and like to read them.

Mr Packard: He is a good local member.

Mr PEACOCKE: He is a very active and very good local member; that is right. The argument for smaller councils generally is supported by some Opposition members. I agree wholeheartedly with the comments made by the honourable member for Bathurst and by the honourable member for Lakemba, who are both friends of mine and who have said what they think. The honourable member for Davidson made the point that smaller numbers lead to less likelihood of cliques being formed and that a strong customer service focus within council may reduce the need for elected representatives to deal with routine matters and allow them to concentrate more on providing leadership. Surely everyone in this House will agree that if there is one thing we need more than anything else in this country at all levels of government, it is leadership.

During my years in local government I remember being bogged down by trivia until I suddenly realised that that was the job of the staff to look after and that my job was to look after policy. I spent many hours bogged down in that way until I came to the blinding realisation: why the heck am I doing all this when we pay people to do it? My job was - and the job of every alderman or councillor is - to make the policy of the council and to see that that policy is carried out. The Government is not asking anything of local government that it has not been prepared to do itself. Honourable members will recall that the numbers in both Houses of this Parliament were reduced at the time of the last State election.

The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal has also been the subject of considerable debate, and that has surprised me considerably. The honourable member for Coogee indicated that the Opposition will oppose the establishment of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal. The Government is proposing the tribunal and has sought to allow local government to put a case for appropriate levels of fees and to have them decided by an independent tribunal in the same way as many other public officials and elected members have their payments determined. I do not want to be in a position as Minister to say: this is your band of fees. This House should not want to have to say that. Local government should be independent. I agree with the comments of the honourable member for Bligh that it is time that we were fair to mayors and councillors and paid them correctly according to their entitlement - not determined by us but determined by an independent tribunal and ultimately fixed by the council.

The subject of the filling of casual vacancies on councils was raised by the honourable member for Bathurst and by several other members who commented on the cost involved. The Government gave enormous thought to this problem. It knows the cost of by-elections and it knows the system that operates in Newcastle. Such a system is great if there is a political council, that is, a party system operating in the council, but it is not so good if such a system does not exist. But what happens if a by-election is needed, say, two years after the general election for council? Do the people who voted for the next person on the list still want that person, or have things changed so that they now want someone else? They are the types of problems with which we had to Page 1758 grapple. Unfortunately, we came to the view that a by-election would be needed in such circumstances. If that was the correct decision to arrive at, we need to provide in the regulations a means whereby costs of by-elections can be reduced, that is, perhaps by single polling places, extending the vote over a period of time, or other measures.

I assure the House that the Government will examine those issues in the regulations in an effort to reduce costs while maintaining the democracy of by-elections. I have noted the suggestion by some honourable members about postal ballots or restricted places for polling during by-elections. The relationship between elected members and staff aroused a number of comments and it is a crucial factor in the proper operation of any council. I do not want to recapitulate those provisions in the Act, because this is not the time to do it. There must be a clear distinction between staff functions and those of elected councillors. In Committee all honourable members should remember one fundamental point: that it is the elected body of the council that is given power under the Act. It is that elected body which decides whether it will delegate up to the mayor, or delegate down to the staff, with a few exceptions so far as the general manager is concerned.

Not only can the council delegate but it can also take away powers of delegates if those powers are used improperly or if there is some reason not to want to continue those delegations. The legislation defines clearly the responsibilities of elected members and staff, and I am sure that will lead to a clarification of their working relationships. I believe this system will attract more people, and perhaps better people, to stand for election to local government. That is not to say that I am denigrating any serving member of a council. There are some wonderful councillors and aldermen throughout this State but we do need more people to present themselves for election to council.

The establishment of an appropriate line of accountability, via the general manager, between the elected body and the staff is essential to the proper functioning of a council. One of the fundamental precepts of this legislation is that managers have to be allowed to manage. The bill proposes a new rating regime which will allow councils to use a combination of a base amount combined with an ad valorem rate. The honourable member for Coogee described that as a Thatcherite move and likened it to a poll tax. As the honourable member for Davidson quite rightly noted, there are two tests of fairness: either the user-pays principle or the ability to pay. These principles are sometimes at odds but the legislation provides the opportunity for each council to determine the way in which it sets its rates. The base amount concept cannot under any circumstances, or by any rational means, be equated with the highly unpopular United Kingdom poll tax. That poll tax was levied on every adult person rather than on the property, and it was mandatory.

I recall a couple of years ago going down to Wollongong and interviewing a number of retired miners who had a little organisation going. Many years ago those miners had bought land along the South Coast of Wollongong. They had not paid the earth for it because the land was relatively cheap when they bought it. They built their homes, modest homes, not mansions, on that land. That area became very popular with fairly well-paid bureaucrats from Canberra who started to pay big prices for land adjacent to some of these miners' houses. We all know the consequences - with increases in valuation. The ordinary people who lived there, trying to struggle along on ordinary pensions, were faced with enormous rates because the council did not impose differential rating. When they complained they were told, "Why don't you sell your land, get a lot of money for it and go and live somewhere cheaper?" If the home in which you have lived all your life suddenly becomes valuable, and you do not want to sell it, you should be entitled to stay living in your home without being crucified by rates. The Government is endeavouring to give councils another opportunity by putting another tool in their tool box to make fair rating more possible.

I should like to talk about a number of issues that were raised in the debate; for example, funeral regulations. I should like to be loved by the funeral directors. One day I will become one of their clients and I should like good treatment. Governments have been trying to abolish funeral directors' licences for years and reduce licences to a single business licence. This legislation seeks to abolish the licence while maintaining the health standards of funeral directors and without damaging their industry in any way. That ought to be considered when we are in the Committee stages. It has been a pleasure for me to discuss the bill and the amendments with the Hon. J. W. Shaw, the honourable member for Coogee, other members of the Opposition and the Independents to try to reach a happy conclusion. We have been able to agree on many of these amendments, but on others we have agreed to disagree and have put several matters before the House for majority decision. Whatever the outcome, I hope that the bipartisan spirit that has existed right throughout this debate remains and that ultimately the legislation will be the best legislation ever produced for local government.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a second time and committed.

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

HOMEFUND COMMISSIONER BILL

Bill received and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove - Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Minister for Education) [10.40]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Page 1759

The HomeFund Commissioner Bill has one overriding purpose: to help HomeFund borrowers, past and present. That is what this Government has been trying to do all along. While the Opposition has been playing political games the Government has been trying to assist individual borrowers by providing temporary relief or by providing expert financial counselling or information on how to refinance their existing loans and assisting in refinancing those loans through measures such as waiving stamp duty on new loans. This bill is a continuation of that commitment - a very real commitment by this Government to identify the problems faced by HomeFund borrowers and to do all it can to help them.

The bill will strengthen assistance for those borrowers who are facing financial difficulties. They will be entitled to temporary relief. The bill will also provide justice for those borrowers who believe that their legal or contractual rights have been breached. Their cases will be investigated and, where appropriate, they will receive compensation for monetary loss or through other avenues. Just as important, this will be done in a speedy, non-litigious manner by an independent conciliator and arbitrator. There is no doubt that the national recession has had an adverse impact on the HomeFund scheme. Unemployment, falling interest rates, low inflation and a halt in the upward trend in property values have all contributed to the difficulties faced by HomeFund borrowers. Inquiries into the scheme have confirmed poor origination of some HomeFund loans. Allegations have been made about deceptive, misleading and unfair conduct in respect of the promotion, origination and management of HomeFund loans.

The Government acknowledges that, in such a climate, there are HomeFund borrowers who have legitimate legal or contractual complaints which require resolution - not resolution through an interminably long and costly adversarial legal process; rather, resolution using the wide powers invested in the HomeFund Commissioner under this bill. The Opposition, with its own legislation - the so-called HomeFund Mortgage Relief Bill - claims to provide borrowers with access to a quick and inexpensive method of justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the bill proposed by the Opposition is nothing but a cruel political hoax. It will do nothing at all to help those borrowers needing help - borrowers who need help now.

The Opposition's bill is significantly flawed. It conferred on the Commercial Tribunal of New South Wales in respect of HomeFund mortgages not only all the jurisdiction and powers exercised by the Supreme Court under the Contracts Review Act 1980 but powers additional to those covered by the Supreme Court itself. That bill would have led to long and protracted litigation which would involve borrowers in continuing expense and not provide relief quickly. The Government is proposing a viable alternative in the HomeFund Commissioner - an alternative which focuses attention on the borrowers and the resolution of legitimate complaints in a manner that is accessible, quick, efficient, relatively inexpensive, fair and determinative. That is why this bill has been supported in principle by groups as diverse as the New South Wales Financial Counsellors Association, the Redfern Legal Centre, which represents certain borrowers, and the Trade Practices Commission. The Government's solution is the only solution to the problems faced by HomeFund borrowers.

I turn now to the provisions of the bill. Part 1 deals with the commencement of the Act and the definitions and object of the legislation. Part 2 provides for the appointment of the commissioner and his or her staff and allows for the employment of whatever expert assistance the commissioner requires to undertake his or her functions. Part 3 outlines the functions of the commissioner, the principal functions being: to receive complaints from HomeFund borrowers; to provide advice about the relief and remedies available to HomeFund borrowers; to refer borrowers to appropriate authorities where necessary; to investigate complaints; to conciliate complaints; and to make determinations in accordance with the Act. Part 4 deals with complaints and their investigation.

Clause 10 establishes the right of HomeFund borrowers, both past and present - including guarantors - to make complaints about the promotion of, negotiations for, entering of, terms of, or administration or enforcement of a HomeFund mortgage to which they are or were a party. Complaints must be made before 1st August, 1993. Clause 11 provides for the preliminary assessment of a complaint. Clause 12 sets out the factors to be considered when deciding whether or not to investigate a complaint. For example, an investigation may not be pursued if the commissioner is of the opinion that the conduct of the complainant does not warrant it, or the complainant has no entitlement to a legal remedy.

The commissioner is required to notify affected parties about an investigation, in accordance with clause 14, and has powers to seek information and require the production of documents from both the public authority, or a body such as a co-operative housing society or FANMAC Limited, in accordance with clause 16. Clause 17 authorises the commissioner to hold inquiries and, for this purpose, he will have certain powers of a royal commissioner. Clause 24 enables the commissioner to determine the procedures he or she will follow in exercising his or her functions. Speed and informality are to be the features of these procedures. Clause 23 provides that representation of the parties will be permitted only by leave of the commissioner. The aim is to avoid the costly, protracted adversarial proceedings of a court while preserving the rights of financially and legally unsophisticated borrowers to receive expert assistance in making a complaint.

Part 5 deals with determinations. Clause 25 authorises the commissioner to make a determination after investigating a complaint, but only if he has established that the borrower is entitled to a legal Page 1760 remedy. The determinations he may make are as follows: relieving a HomeFund borrower of specified obligations, including current or future payments and arrears of payments; setting aside or altering a HomeFund mortgage; setting aside a HomeFund mortgage and entering into a new transaction; and ordering the payment to a HomeFund borrower of an amount of money, whether by way of damages or compensation, or otherwise, for financial loss. Determinations will be directed to the contractual arrangements between HomeFund mortgagors and mortgagees or will apply to the parties to an ancillary contract involving a HomeFund borrower, including, for example, a solicitor or real estate agent, a co-operative housing society, or the Department of Housing.

Clause 26 limits the payment of money to amounts not exceeding $20,000. Clause 27 enables the commissioner to make temporary determinations that have the effect of suspending action to evict HomeFund borrowers from their homes. Such action will allow proper consideration of borrowers' complaints and circumstances without the threat of the imminent loss of their homes. Clause 28 provides that public authorities, such as the Department of Housing, will be bound by determinations. The private sector will also be bound, but only if parties have given prior consent to participate in the process and be subject to the commissioner's rulings. If a party chooses not to consent the commissioner will still make a determination which will be unenforceable against the non-consenting party. Nevertheless, it can be expected that justice will still result for the borrower. For example, if the commissioner found that a solicitor was negligent in his or her advice to a HomeFund borrower, the matter would be referred to the Law Society for appropriate action even if the solicitor had not consented to the determination.

Clause 29 allows the borrower to give consent after he or she has been told the terms of the determination. If a borrower does not consent the commissioner may still make a recommendation based on his or her finding as to the borrower's legal entitlement. The borrower will then be free to pursue other legal remedies, such as an application to the Supreme Court. If the borrower does consent he or she will be required to sign a release preventing institution of proceedings in another forum, in accordance with clause 31. Part 6 authorises the commissioner to make reports on matters arising in relation to complaints, including an annual report to the Minister and a special report to Parliament.

Part 7 deals with miscellaneous issues. Clause 37 enshrines in statute the appointment of the HomeFund Advisory Panel which will assist the commissioner in the exercise of his or her functions. Three persons - Betty Weule of Credit Line, Lyn Gain from the New South Wales Council of Social Service and Michael Gill from the legal firm Phillips Fox - have already agreed to become members. In recent days I have had discussions with a range of interest groups as well as the Independent members in this House, members of the Opposition and members of the minor parties in the Legislative Council. They have expressed concerns about aspects of this bill. In my view, there are no issues which cannot be resolved by further negotiations.

As I said at the outset, this bill is not about playing politics; it is not about using borrowers in a political crusade. The bill will bring justice to HomeFund borrowers who have a legitimate complaint about their involvement in the HomeFund program. When all is said and done the pre-eminent concern of this House should be to help those borrowers in need, to assist them with temporary relief measures and to ensure that their legal or contractual complaints are resolved speedily. I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mrs Grusovin.

House adjourned at 10.49 p.m.