Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Henry Murray) took the chair at 2.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.


Mr Speaker reported that His Excellency the Governor had been pleased to issue a Commission under the Public Seal of the State empowering the Speaker to administer from time to time as occasion may require to any member of the Legislative Assembly to whom the same shall not have been previously administered the oath or affirmation of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen required by law to be taken or made and subscribed by every such member before he or she shall be permitted to sit or vote in the said Legislative Assembly.

Mr Speaker reported also that he had received a like Commission empowering John Charles Price, Chairman of Committees, in the absence of the Speaker to administer the oath or affirmation of allegiance.


Mr Rogan took and subscribed the oath of allegiance and signed the roll.


Mr SPEAKER: I have to inform honourable members that I have approved as from today arrangements whereby up to a maximum of four still photographers from organisations accredited to the press gallery will be permitted to take photographs from four designated positions in the Speaker's gallery and the upper public gallery. Access will be available during the period when proceedings of the Legislative Assembly are being videotaped and at other times with the express permission of the Speaker. I understand that a copy of the guidelines relating to these arrangements was circulated to members' rooms earlier today.


Mr SPEAKER: I draw the attention of members to the presence in my gallery of a delegation from the State Education Commission of the People's Republic of China, led by Mr Haiji Li. The delegation is visiting as a result of a formal memorandum of understanding between the New South Wales Department of School Education and the State Education Commission of the People's Republic of China and is being hosted by the Minister for Education. On behalf of the New South Wales Parliament I welcome the delegation to the House.
Petitions praying that police be given the power to remove from the streets or public places between 9.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m. children under the age of 14 years who are not accompanied by a responsible adult; and that a system of uniform penalties be introduced for adults and minors with maximum and minimum penalties for specified crimes, received from Mr Jeffery, Mr Souris and Mr Windsor.

Petition praying that the Yarras Bridge be repaired, received from Mr Jeffery.

Petition praying for an immediate and permanent moratorium on the logging of all native old-growth and wilderness forests, and for legislation to change present forest management practices, received from Mr Whelan.

Petition praying that the mardi gras be abolished, received from Mr Souris.

Petition praying for the urgent reform of the school transport industry and the reintroduction of conductors on school buses, received from Ms Machin.

Petition praying for a moratorium on the licensing of private hostels, received from Mr Fahey.

Petition praying that additional police be allocated to Earlwood Police Station, received from Mr Moss.


Mr Speaker nominated the following honourable members to act as Temporary Chairmen of Committees during the present session: Ralph James Clough, Bryce James Gaudry, Wayne Ashley Merton, Patrick Allan Rogan and John Harcourt Turner.



Mr COLLINS: My question is directed to the Premier. Did the Deputy Premier have the endorsement last year of the Premier when the Deputy Premier described the New South Wales hospital
Page 28
system as offering stunning options? Does the Premier guarantee New South Wales voters that both he and the Deputy Premier will resign if they do not cut waiting lists by 25,000 to 20,000 by 4 April next year? Will the Premier give an unequivocal undertaking that the Government has not changed, and will not change, the method by which waiting lists were compiled by the previous Government?

Mr CARR: Resignations must be in the air. One has only to consider the list of Opposition members who are going: the honourable member for Southern Highlands is resigning -

Mr Cochran: On a point of order: it is very early in question time for the Premier to be setting an example - which obviously he will follow - by diverging from the substance of the question. I ask you to draw him back to the substance of the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved. The member is being somewhat presumptuous.

Mr CARR: Resignations are in the air. Fahey is going, Webster is going, Chadwick is going, and there are rumours that the great strategic genius Ted Pickering is about to depart.

Mr Cochran: On a point of order -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I realise the difficulty that today's sittings present for many members. However, I seek their cooperation so that question time may proceed in an orderly fashion. If the honourable member for Monaro seeks to rise again on a point of order, I trust that it will be different from the point he raised earlier.

Mr Cochran: The theme of the points of order is the same.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr CARR: Fahey, Webster, Chadwick, Pickering - names that once thrilled the State.

[Interruption]

Yes, and Zammit of Strathfield. They are the giants of their generation. As soon as the tumult -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! For the second time I appeal to members for their cooperation. I advise members that it would not be wise to continue to test my patience. Should any member be called to order on three occasions, that member will be removed from the Chamber.

Mr Merton: On a point of order: the question asked was quite clear; it was simplistic in nature. The Premier has not answered the question. He is following his own agenda.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have some knowledge of the frustration being felt by the honourable member for Baulkham Hills. However, I remind him of the robust nature of this House and that often members in Opposition find it difficult to accept criticism.

Mr CARR: One can understand the frustration of Opposition members. They have been boiling away. The tactics committee has been up all night sweating away on little questions for the Leader of the Opposition, and up comes this one. What is the question about? It is about hospital waiting lists. I am driven by necessity to look at the record of the Leader of the Opposition. Nobody knows more than I how hard the job of the Leader of the Opposition is. I had seven years as Leader of the Opposition. I would have been ashamed to ask such a predictable question. The Leader of the Opposition is getting advice from O'Doherty at this point.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai to order and direct him to resume his seat.

Mr CARR: Fahey, Webster, Pickering, Chadwick - all gone. O'Doherty rules the roost. The shadow minister for education wants to ban basketball.

Mr Beck: On a point of order: the Premier should have the courtesy to refer to Mr O'Doherty by his proper title.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. Members should adhere to the standing orders and address members by their correct titles.

Mr CARR: It is a matter of record that the former Liberal Government doubled the hospital waiting list. When the Liberal Party was in office the hospital waiting lists doubled -

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

Mr CARR: In seven years they blew out from 20,000 -

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

Mr CARR: - to almost 45,000.

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

Mr CARR: A record number of 45,000 people are on the waiting lists for elective surgery. Many have been waiting in pain for as long as two years for treatment in the State's hospital system. During the recent election campaign the Australian Labor Party produced to the public a pensioner living in public housing in the Maroubra electorate who had been told by the previous Government that he would have to wait more than 12 months for day-only knee surgery. Under the administration of the previous Government a 60-year-old western Sydney pensioner who was unable to walk up her back stairs because of an injured knee was denied knee replacement surgery. That is the condition in which the Liberals left the public hospital system. There is no need to send out a search party; those responsible for the doubling of the hospital waiting list sit side by side on the other side of the House.

Page 29

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

Mr CARR: The doubling in the hospital waiting list is the responsibility of the former Government.

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

Mr CARR: When the honourable member for Willoughby became the Minister for Health in 1988 -

Mr O'Doherty: On a point of order: I ask you to refer the Premier to the customs of the House. He should always refer to the honourable member for Willoughby by his correct title, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The Premier will address members by their correct titles.

Mr CARR: When he became Minister for Health in 1988 the hospital waiting list stood at 20,000. When his colleague the honourable member for Miranda -

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

Mr CARR: - became Minister for Health in 1991 the list had blown out to 30,000.

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

Mr CARR: And so the story continues. By March 1995 the list had spiralled to 45,000 - it had more than doubled in seven years. Let me make clear the situation with hospital waiting lists that the Leader of the Opposition bequeathed to this Government.

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

Mr CARR: In seven years the waiting lists doubled. Those are the agreed figures.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Hurstville should exercise some decorum while the Premier is attempting to answer the question.

Mr CARR: It is a great shame for the people of this State that the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy are not among the members on the Opposition side of the House planning their departure from Parliament. Last Friday I announced, with my colleague the Deputy Premier, and Minister for Health, the Government's hospital waiting list reduction strategy.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind members that this is the third occasion that I have felt it necessary to rise to restore order in the House. I have already a number of members on from one call to order to three calls to order. I have advised members also that it is unwise to try my patience today. For the past 20 minutes members have shown disrespect for the Chair by conversing with colleagues and not listening to the answer that the Premier is attempting to supply. Members persisting in that behaviour will be called to order. As my predecessor said on a number of occasions, members must set an example for the many young people who visit this establishment on a regular basis. I am sure that the contingent of young people in the gallery today are disgusted by the performance of some members in this Chamber. I expect the behaviour of those members to improve for the remainder of question time.

Mr CARR: The hospital waiting list strategy announced last Friday by this Government has been endorsed by, of all bodies, the Australian Medical Association. It is almost embarrassing: the Forest Products Association is endorsing what the Government is doing with forests; the New South Wales Farmers Association is supporting its drought initiatives; and the AMA is supporting its actions on waiting lists. This is the consensus style of government that the Labor Party is about. Where does the carping, whingeing and whining come from? It comes from members opposite.

After the 25 March election everyone across the State, except members opposite, has been imbued with a spirit of positive outlook as the Government makes inroads into the problems left to it by members opposite. The AMA, the Forest Products Association, environmentalists and the New South Wales Farmers Association are all getting on the cart, but not this whingeing, whining, bleating and carping figure, the Leader of the Opposition. Last Monday night I was at the State of Origin rugby league match with my old mate the former Premier.

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order: firstly, in no way did last Monday night's State of Origin match have anything to do with the question asked. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to bring the Premier back to the purport of the question. Secondly, the Premier has no knowledge of rugby league whatsoever and is out of his depth.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Mr CARR: I was at the State of Origin match having a beer with my friend the former Premier!

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

Mr CARR: I was watching the football with the former Premier, the honourable member for Southern Highlands, when I turned to him and said, "Isn't it a pity that you never see Peter Collins at a thing like this? It is very sad."

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member for Gosford to wait for silence in the House before putting his point of order.

Mr Hartcher: Though honourable members are very interested in the State of Origin football - none more so than the Premier - the Premier's answer is nonetheless not pertinent to the question put to him 15 minutes ago, which was about hospital waiting lists.

Page 30

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Ashfield will remain silent so that I can hear the point of order.

Mr Hartcher: The Premier is not addressing the question he was asked. He has digressed for several minutes, referring to the State of Origin match. I am sure that the House would like to hear about the match, but the House did not address that question to him.

Mr Kerr: On the point of order: as the honourable member for Gosford has said, the Premier's comments are not relevant to the question that he has been asked. Time and again the Minister for Police took the same point of order when he was in opposition. The Premier should realise that, unfortunately, New South Wales lost the State of Origin match and no more should be heard on it!

Mr Whelan: On the point of order: as I have been mentioned, I feel that I should take a point of order. The Premier was responding to an interjection and a subsequent point of order raised by the Leader of the National Party. For the past 15 minutes the Premier has ignored the whingeing of Opposition members about the failures of the previous Government. If members opposite think that day one will be the end of the matter, they are in for a surprise!

Mr Collins: On the point of order: obviously, some tolerance and latitude are allowed for the Premier and other Ministers to respond to interjections from time to time. However, the Premier's response has continued for far too long. My question to the Premier related to an unequivocal undertaking I was seeking and an assurance that he had not changed and would not change the method of counting waiting lists.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to repeat the point of order, which I was not able to hear because of the level of interjection.

Mr Collins: The original question, of which the Premier has obviously lost sight, given the interjections with which he has been coping, relates to an unequivocal undertaking I have sought from the Premier that the Government has not changed and will not change the method by which waiting lists were compiled by the previous Government. I draw the Premier's attention to that point and ask him to answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sure the Premier was about to address the nub of his answer.

Mr CARR: There will be no fiddling of hospital waiting lists, such as occurred when the Leader of the Opposition was in government. That is why the Australian Medical Association has endorsed the Government's strategy. The AMA, which is not part of a natural coalition of the Labor Party in this State, has endorsed the Government's strategy. Frankly, I am embarrassed by the level of third-party endorsement that the Government has received: farmers, foresters, environmentalists, and now the AMA, endorse it.

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

Mr O'Doherty: On a point of order: the Premier is trifling with you and with the House, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Mr CARR: The aim of Labor's program - endorsed by the AMA, the nurses and health professionals - is to perform an extra 40,000 operations over 12 months to April next year. This commitment to perform an additional 40,000 operations goes beyond the Government's election campaign pledge of treating 25,000 extra people over the next year.

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

Mr CARR: The extra procedures were spelt out. People will compare our commitment and our programs with the record of the Leader of the Opposition when he was Minister for Health: 140 public hospital beds were closed in Sydney's west, and 17 country hospitals were downgraded.

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Minister for Police to remain silent and the Premier to resume his seat.

Mr Armstrong: Under the standing orders 10 questions shall be answered during question time. The Premier in endeavouring to answer the question cannot get his act together. He has now been speaking for 20 minutes. I respectfully suggest that a number of your predecessors have established the precedent that answers should be cogent and to the point. Members of this House expect to be able to ask questions and receive succinct answers within a reasonable time frame as allowed under the standing orders. The Premier's answer is a gross abuse of the standing orders. Instead of setting an example to the public, as you so ably outlined a moment ago, the Premier is exhibiting a massive inefficiency and lack of capacity to address the subject.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved. The standing order provides for the answering of 10 questions.

Mr CARR: When the Leader of the Opposition was Minister for Health he implemented productivity cuts that starved the public hospital system of funds and produced this waiting list crisis. It was all his work. The Leader of the Opposition invented the notorious Christmas shutdown of the public hospital system.

[Interruption]

Is the honourable member for Miranda claiming credit? Last year 4,000 hospital beds were closed through use of the Christmas closure device invented by the Leader of the Opposition. The Government
Page 31
has a positive program in place to halve the waiting list it inherited. It will inject an extra $64 million to open hospital beds that were closed under the previous Government; it will increase staff numbers and expand operating theatre sessions. Patients who were neglected by the previous Government and who have been on the waiting list for more than six months will be given priority under the Labor Party's program.


Mr CLOUGH: My question is directed to the Premier. Will he inform the House of the current position with regard to the New South Wales drought and the initiatives of the Government to help communities coping with the drought?

Mr CARR: I welcome the question from my colleague the honourable member for Bathurst, who has always taken up the interests of country constituents and in particular the farmers, for whose interests he has fought so vigorously. Since its election the Government has made one of its key priorities a commitment to maintaining the viability of rural industries and rural communities during the current drought. One of my first acts as Premier was, with the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, to tour drought-affected areas of the State. In conjunction with the New South Wales Farmers Association we met with farmers at Temora, Ariah Park, Dubbo, Eumungerie, Armidale, Tamworth and Mudgee to assess the impact of the drought. This commitment, made at my first press conference as Premier, demonstrated the Government's absolute resolve to work for the interests of rural New South Wales.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much noise in the Chamber.

Mr CARR: I thought honourable members would be interested in the condition of the drought.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Lismore to order. I should have thought that as a representative of a rural seat he would have some interest in the answer.

Mr CARR: I thought the drought would be one issue that would hold the interest of honourable members.

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

Mr CARR: No wonder the Central Western Daily, which is hardly a Labor Party outlet, stated that the Labor Government had done more in two weeks for drought-affected communities than the coalition did in four years. The visit provided a dramatic portrait of our great rural lands and communities struggling to withstand one of the nation's most severe national catastrophes. The Ministers and I visited Eumungerie, near Dubbo, where the entire population came to tell the Government and the rest of the State about its plight, about how a community had come together to ensure that, where possible, no-one was forced off the land. We met true modern-day heroes, a family outside Tamworth hanging on to a threatened rural lifestyle enjoyed by three generations.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the Deputy Leader of the National Party and the honourable member for North Shore of their precarious position having regard to the number of times they have been called to order.

Mr CARR: Near Tamworth, with the honourable member for Tamworth, we saw an entire town almost devoid of water. In Mudgee I met with farmers who argued persuasively for the Central West to be eligible for exceptional circumstance drought relief. At every farm we visited in every town and city one thing was clear: the enormous courage, spirit and determination of the State's rural communities; men, women and children -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai to order for the second time.

Mr CARR: - fighting to maintain their farms, their way of life; ordinary people, asking not for handouts but for the short-term assistance needed to maintain the social fabric and traditions of our inland areas. During the tour I announced aid packages of $5 million to assist charities to meet urgent financial needs and an additional $10 million for transport subsidies. Already the New South Wales Treasury has paid $51.3 million throughout this drought to assist livestock producers by subsidising the cost of the transport of fodder, livestock and water. The additional funding for charities will help to put food on the table and pay basic bills such as electricity and water. The funds for transport will allow many farmers to feed stock.

Following last week's Cabinet meeting in Wollongong I urged drought-stricken farmers to apply for interest rate subsidies on loans for crop planting. The State Government has allocated up to $18 million for this purpose under the 1995 winter cereal crop planting assistance scheme. However, farmers have so far claimed only $500,000 of the $18 million on offer for crop planting subsidies. Farmers across the State should take advantage of the assistance offer and the timely rain, so that winter cereal crops like wheat, barley and oats can be planted.

I announce today that I have approved the allocation of up to $3 million to match funds from the Commonwealth under the rural partnership program. That means that up to $6 million from the State and the Commonwealth will be made available to rural communities for drought-proofing projects such as cleaning dams, putting down bores and risk management training. While the drought is not over, it is advisable that farmers and the New South Wales Government commence constructive measures to assist in drought-proofing our rural industries for the future.

I have also called on the Federal Government to review the criteria for exceptional circumstances drought relief. Officers of the Department of
Page 32
Agriculture have been working closely with the Commonwealth to more clearly define the Commonwealth's exceptional circumstances criteria. The aim is to provide more equitable access to special drought relief welfare payments and interest subsidies on loans for farmers facing severe financial difficulties as a result of exceptional drought. Following my tour, New South Wales Agriculture, with support from the New South Wales Farmers Association and rural lands protection boards, prepared detailed cases for an extension of drought exceptional circumstances assistance to large areas of central and southern New South Wales.

Yesterday the Minister for Agriculture met with his Federal counterpart, Senator Collins, and strongly put the Government's case for extension of the areas of New South Wales to be covered by the new exceptional circumstances criteria. Among the points he made were that, despite recent rains, farmers are unlikely to see a cash flow before January 1996, with many cattle producers not receiving income within 12 to 18 months. He also pointed out that the average crop grower debt in New South Wales was $437,000 and that the survival of some small towns may depend on the granting of exceptional circumstances. There is no doubt that this drought now rivals the shocking droughts of the early 1940s, with 67 per cent of New South Wales now officially drought declared for the month of May, an increase from 61 per cent drought declared in April.

Fortunately the recent rains have enabled sowing operations to commence in much of the southern and central west wheat belt. Department of Agriculture agronomists are forecasting over 3.9 million hectares of the State will be sown to wheat and other winter crops now that good sowing rains have fallen. However, colder temperatures will slow the response to the rain by pastures, particularly on the tablelands, where cattle herds and sheep flocks are in for a long, hard winter.

Mr Photios: Now he is a weather forecaster.

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

Mr CARR: Rural New South Wales will note that Liberal members of Parliament are treating as a joke the worst drought this century. I am sure the honourable member for Bathurst, who deserves to be congratulated for asking the question, will report to his rural communities the attitude of Liberal Party members opposite.

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

Mr CARR: Surprise for members opposite: they were in government until 25 March. What did they do?

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

Mr CARR: Some of the communities I visited said that I was the first Premier to go to the areas and talk to the people about their problems. That is a condemnation of the way the coalition took rural New South Wales for granted. The Government does not take rural New South Wales for granted. It will work with country communities to maximise assistance and see that New South Wales meets this great challenge.


Mr ARMSTRONG: Will the Minister for Health explain to the House how country hospitals, without the same sophisticated resources and specialist surgeons as city hospitals, can reduce waiting lists to compete for a fair share of the Minister's incentive package without forcing patients to travel unreasonably long distances to get treatment? Will the Minister give country New South Wales a guarantee that this unfair pressure will not result in a run down of country health services or force the closure of any country hospitals?

Mr Whelan: On a point of order: there are some very illuminating rulings by former Speaker Rozzoli about the length of questions. The question is clearly too long. It seeks too much information. It is far too -

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

Mr Whelan: Mr Speaker, I suggest you ask the Leader of the National Party to rephrase his question and ask it on a later occasion.

Mr Collins: On the point of order: the Leader of the National Party knows full well that the average length of questions permitted by Speakers in recent years has been about 100 words. Anything exceeding 100 words was always ruled out of order. Plainly, this question does not come anywhere near that limit. I submit that the question is within the limit of precedent rulings.

Mr ARMSTRONG: On the point of order: I submit that the question is both responsible and appropriate. It complies with the precedents, as established for a considerable time, as to the length of questions. I ask that in the interest of the community and in the interest of the due process of government -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members should refrain from interrupting a member who is speaking on a point of order.

Mr ARMSTRONG: - you allow this very reasonable question, which is well within the parameters established.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Previous Speakers have ruled that questions without notice should be succinct. I intend to follow that precedent. I shall give the Leader of the National Party the opportunity to rephrase his question.

Mr ARMSTRONG: Mr Speaker, may I do that now?

Mr SPEAKER: If you wish.

Mr ARMSTRONG: Will the Minister for Health explain how country hospitals, without the same resources and specialist surgeons as city hospitals, can reduce their waiting lists to compete for
Page 33
a fair share of the hospital package the Minister recently talked about? Will the Minister give country New South Wales a guarantee that there will be no closure of country hospitals or run down of services?

Mr Whelan: On a point of order: the question is far too long.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I allow the question, and I ask the Deputy Premier to answer it.

Dr REFSHAUGE: I understand that the Leader of the National Party has lost his driver; no wonder he has asked such a pedestrian question. The Leader of the Opposition has taken his driver from him. I am delighted to be able to outline to the House the Carr Government's waiting list strategy. Already we are reducing waiting lists in country New South Wales.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Government's plan has met support from every sector of the health professions and the community. The Opposition is embarrassed that within a few weeks the Government has been able to bring all the health professionals together. We have said, "This is the strategy. We want to work with you to achieve the aims". The former Government never achieved such cohesion. It never had the support of the professions. We have been able to get that immediately, and our strategy is going to work. I have bad news for the Opposition -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members should refrain from interjecting.

Dr REFSHAUGE: - and good news for the people of New South Wales: our waiting list reduction strategy will succeed.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: Waiting lists more than doubled when the coalition was in government - because of productivity cuts, underfunding and the closure, winding down or privatisation of many hospitals. The public hospital system that we inherited needs more operating theatre time, more beds, more nurses. We have committed $64 million of new money for the waiting list reduction strategy.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier and the Leader of the Opposition should not interject while the Deputy Premier is on his feet.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The $64 million of additional funding means 40,000 extra operations can be performed within the next 12 months. It means that we will halve the waiting list. That money will be distributed in a way that the former Government never thought of. We will have performance-based funding for our hospital program - major reform, and at the same time delivering to patients. We will expand the use of diagnostic-related groups as a management tool. Again, this was not done by the former Government. We are going to bring in internal competition. Again, this was never thought of by the former Government. We will be going for a best practice approach, including streamlined admission and discharge practices - never thought about or contemplated by the former Government.

It is a comprehensive package which delivers desperately needed reforms. These are reforms that the two failed health Ministers - the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition - knew were needed. Every participant in the health system knows that the reforms are needed. That is why such people are backing a Carr Labor Government to bring in those needed reforms. The previous Government lacked commitment and breadth of vision.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: It did not bring in these important reforms; it cut hospital budgets.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: It reduced the number of hospital beds and closed hospitals to patients. To add insult to injury, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party issued a press release on 3 April advising that only gross manipulation of the figures - typical of his administration - would succeed in reducing the waiting list. We will not do any of that Liberal-style fiddling; our strategy is achievable and it will succeed. It is not surprising that the Leader of the Opposition believes our commitment is achievable only through deception. However, we will achieve it in a transparent way, a way that is audited by an independent body. Under the previous Liberal Government the collection of figures and reporting of waiting lists were so debased that they undermined the health planning of the whole country. To stop the Liberals manipulating the figures, the Federal Government was forced to intervene by asking the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare - a totally independent body - to set up nationally agreed and independently audited waiting list figures. Let me inform the House of the way in which the former Government fiddled the figures.

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order: the Minister has in no way addressed the purport of the question and I ask that you bring him back to somewhere within its parameters. He is obviously having difficulty. He is obviously talking from prepared notes which were not prepared for this question -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member should come to the point of order without comment.

Mr Armstrong: I ask that you bring the Minister back to the question and prevent him from rambling on from his script, which was prepared for another question.

Page 34

Dr REFSHAUGE: On the point of order: the Leader of the National Party has a very short attention span. He actually asked about the accuracy of the figures. I intend to explain about the accuracy of the figures.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved.

Dr REFSHAUGE: Let me go through the way in which the former Government fiddled the waiting list figures.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: When the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was Minister, he made endless claims of reducing the waiting times. He used to say that he would reduce the waiting times to 25 days. However, to achieve that, he included people who had been waiting for less than one hour to be admitted to hospital. He also claimed that 40,000 extra procedures were performed.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Leader of the National Party, who asked the question, to refrain from conversing with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as he has been for the past 30 seconds. As he posed the question, I suggest he listen to the answer.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members who question my rulings may find themselves leaving the Chamber earlier than they expected.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Leader of the Opposition well knows that the 40,000 extra operations were not performed in the past year - and I shall explain that in a moment, too. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition claimed that he reduced waiting lists every year. In reality, he changed the definition of waiting lists every year.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: It is important for country members to realise that if they want their hospitals to be able to perform, they need to know the real figures. As Minister for Health the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made a great creative accountant. He knew that the best way to reduce average waiting times was to include on the list people who had been waiting for very short periods. Who did he include on the list to try to reduce the waiting times? Firstly, he looked for every person who had been waiting for less than 24 hours. I have opened the files and found his fiddles.

If it was recommended that a patient who came to the emergency department have an operation within 24 hours, and the patient went home to pick up his jarmies, the former Minister included that patient in the waiting list. Those types of patients who went to the emergency departments were counted as very short waits. Under the previous Government's regime beds were closed and operating theatres were not available, but if a patient went to a local hospital, needed an operation and had to go to another hospital, the time taken to go from one hospital to another was counted as a wait. It might have been a very short wait - 10 minutes, 20 minutes, or 45 minutes. That was the way to reduce the waiting lists.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is still far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. The Minister might refrain from answering until the House comes to order.

Dr REFSHAUGE: If a doctor recommended that a patient he had seen in the outpatients department be admitted to the hospital, the patient then had to go to admissions to get booked in; that 10-minute walk was counted as waiting time. It is no wonder that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as Minister came up with 25 days waiting time, when in reality people waited 18 months or two years for their hip replacements or to have their cataracts removed.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! For the second time I direct the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai to resume his seat. The honourable member is not at liberty to wander about the Chamber engaging in conversation. That is the prerogative of the whips - a position he does not hold. If the member does not remain seated, I shall put him on three calls and have him removed from the House.

Mr Cochran: On a point of order: in relation to the order you have made -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the member canvassing my ruling?

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the honourable member for Monaro. My question is: is the member canvassing my ruling?

Mr Cochran: I am simply seeking clarification of your ruling regarding the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai.

Mr SPEAKER: If you require clarification, you may see me in my rooms after question time.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Opposition has claimed that patients will be forced to travel for their treatment, particularly from country areas. That is a fabrication. No patient will be forced to travel.

Mr Merton: On a point of order: the question was confined to country hospitals. The Minister has not answered the question; he is subjecting the House to a harangue. I ask you to direct him to answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Dr REFSHAUGE: For the benefit of the honourable member for Baulkham Hills, I said that no country patient will be forced to travel. The honourable member might like to listen. Unfortunately, because of the cutbacks, the winding
Page 35
downs and the closure of so many country hospitals, it is difficult for many patients to get operations in their local hospitals. We are prepared to offer patients options if they, their local general practitioners and their specialists are happy for them to travel to another hospital to have operations done.

There is no doubt that, because of the winding down of 25 country hospitals by the previous Government, it is difficult to make the whole of the country health system work. There is also no doubt that we will be ensuring that growth areas get their fair share of health funding. It is not surprising that the Opposition is desperately trying to undermine this program - a program that the former Government should have thought about and a program on which it failed to deliver. Patients in New South Wales have not only welcomed the change of government; they will continue to do so for a long time.


Mr GAUDRY: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Can the Minister outline the progress in honouring the Government's election commitments in relation to forest policy?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister might refrain from answering the question until there is complete silence in the House. The behaviour of the honourable member for Upper Hunter is disrespectful. He is on three calls and in danger of being removed. There is room for humour in the House, but the behaviour of some members is unacceptable.

Mr YEADON: The honourable member for Newcastle has always displayed a keen interest in forest policy and, indeed, in the environment in general. Since the election the Government has commenced implementing all aspects of its forest policy. That policy, which represents an historic agreement between this Government, the conservation movement and timber workers, has two key fundamental objectives: the preservation of our high conservation old-growth value forests and wilderness, and the establishment of a viable and internationally competitive timber industry.

We have begun implementing our policy. Firstly, we have ceased logging in all areas of identified wilderness in New South Wales. Currently there is no logging in identified wilderness in New South Wales, and that will remain the case in the future. That is an election promise fulfilled. We have done more for rural New South Wales in seven weeks than that mob - the previous Government - managed in seven years. On 11 May we stopped logging within the Deua wilderness, in the Dampier State Forest in the State's south-east. Deua includes catchment areas for Georges Creek and Diamond Creek.

This ban will end the destruction of identified wilderness areas that was sanctioned by the previous Government. The Government has therefore honoured its commitment in relation to wilderness areas. It has also protected areas of old-growth forest which were scheduled for logging under the previous Government. The Government is currently working on a major rescheduling strategy to shift logging out of old-growth forests which will be announced in a matter of weeks.

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

Mr YEADON: The Government has investigated claims by conservationists who have argued that logging has continued in old-growth forests. Unlike members of the previous Government, we go out and look at what is happening in these areas and deal with the problem in a practical way. We have initiated a thorough assessment process in all areas of controversy. Where those assessments have indicated that old-growth forest is being logged the Government has ceased such operation. This honours another aspect of our forest policy.

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

Mr YEADON: The Government has protected old-growth forests in the Styx River and Stewarts Brook regions. Logging ceased in old-growth compartments in the Styx River on 6 April and in Stewarts Brook on 10 April. Equally, when assessments have found that areas are not old-growth forests or wilderness, those compartments have been released for logging.

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

Mr YEADON: I emphasise that where it has been identified that old-growth or wilderness forests do not exist those compartments have been logged.

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

Mr YEADON: I inspected and released for logging a compartment in the Glenbog State Forest in the south-east after a thorough assessment was undertaken by me and agencies within the Government. That assessment clearly indicated that that particular compartment was not old-growth forest.

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

Mr YEADON: The Government has done what it was committed to do and has taken advice from all relevant Government agencies to ensure that a balanced and fair assessment has taken place in relation to forest policy. At all times industry and environmental considerations have been taken into account. The Government has acted to pursue its joint policy objectives of conservation and industry reform. The approach of the Government to the forests stands in stark contrast to the behaviour of the coalition controlled by its National Party rump. The previous Government presided over a decline of 650
Page 36
jobs in this industry. What were the National Party and Liberal Party backbenchers doing during that seven-year period?

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

Mr YEADON: The coalition was doing absolutely nothing. So much for the Opposition's shallow criticism of the Government's approach to restructuring the timber industry. The Opposition watched the old-growth forests being destroyed.

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

Mr YEADON: The Government will not be diverted from its progressive, historic and forward-thinking approach to forest policy, despite the endeavours of extremist groups on both sides of the debate to derail this process. Those within the industry who understand the Government's policy and the fundamental need for change have indicated their willingness to work with this Government to implement reform.

Mr Peacocke: On a point of order: so far four questions have been asked, and whilst I appreciate this is the Minister's maiden speech in question time, I am an expert on turgid diatribe. I have heard this part of his answer for the fourth time. I ask that you direct Ministers to restrict the time taken to answer questions.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! My ruling on the point of order taken by the honourable member for Dubbo is the same as given by former Speakers when he raised a similar point of order.

Mr D. L. Page: On a point of order: the Minister is clearly outlining -

Mr Langton: On the point of order: Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will resume his seat while the honourable member for Ballina is speaking on a point of order.

Mr D. L. Page: The Minister is clearly outlining future Government policy in the forestry area. As such this response is much better suited to a ministerial statement. I ask that he provide it in that form.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Mr YEADON: The honourable member should pay more attention; for the past five minutes I have been talking about past events rather than the future. The honourable member should clear his ears out and listen. Unlike the mob opposite, those who understand our policy and who understand the need for change have indicated their willingness to work with the Government to implement reforms. I quote from a statement made earlier in May by Mr Col Dorber, the Executive Director of the New South Wales Forest Products Association:

The fierce criticisms being made in recent days by Opposition politicians and the National Forest Protection Society . . . is doing nothing to help our . . . attempts to work with the new Government to bring about the best result for the native forest industry.

Mr Dorber certainly could not be described as a Labor man; he is a self-confessed card-carrying National Party man. That is no problem; I respect Mr Dorber's political allegiance. He is telling the Opposition mob to pull their heads in and get out of it, so that this Government can get on with the job that the former Government failed to do. The Government is keenly aware of the importance of the timber industry to many workers, their families and rural communities. The Government is committed to creating employment in a restructured industry.

As to the cost of implementation, the Government is confident it can meet all of its policy goals within the funding arrangements announced prior to the election. The costings prepared by the previous Government were baseless and politically motivated. Since election to Government the Labor Party has worked to implement the industry reform aspects of its policy. Today I announce that we have met representatives of the hardwood industry and put in place processes to implement the industry reform on a cooperative basis.

[Interruption]

In response to the honourable member who interjected I can say that those processes are absolutely sustainable. From the files that are now available I will give more information about how unsustainable the timber industry was under the previous Government. The Government has obtained commitments for the transfer of workers from the hardwood sector to the softwood industry to alleviate some of the restructuring that will occur in this industry.

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

Mr YEADON: The Government has also met its commitments to reform the way in which relevant Government agencies operate. We have ensured a coordinated approach to forest policy across government.

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

Mr YEADON: There has been an unprecedented level of cooperation between State Forests and the National Parks and Wildlife Service, which are now pooling their environmental databases. This will ensure better assessments and analyses of environmental information. The Government has commenced discussions with the Commonwealth on the implementation of a national forest policy statement. Again, this is in stark contrast to the inactivity of the coalition.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the National Party knows full well that it is disrespectful to speak when the Chair is on his feet - as he has been
Page 37
doing for the past five minutes. As the Leader of the National Party he should be setting an example for others to follow. I am having difficulty hearing the reply from the Minister because members are conversing among themselves. Again I ask members to refrain from engaging in conversation so that the Minister can have a definitive answer recorded by Hansard and heard by the people in the public gallery.

Mr YEADON: The situation I have just outlined indicates clearly that the Government is getting on with the job of implementing its forest policies.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again I seek the cooperation of members to allow question time to proceed in an orderly fashion. The behaviour of a longstanding member of this House would, under normal circumstances, result in his removal from the Chamber. However, I warn him that any member disrespectful of the wishes of the Chair in the future will leave the Chamber forthwith.

Mr YEADON: I will conclude my answer with a challenge to the Leader of the Opposition. What is his policy on forests? Does he accept the decision of the people of this State on 25 March to vote for the conservation of our old-growth forests? Does he endorse the action of the Government to restructure the timber industry, or is he a weak, frightened, uncertain leader simply going along with the National Party on forest policy?

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

Mr YEADON: In his weekend speech to the State Council of the Liberal Party he said nothing about conservation or forest policy. It is fair to conclude, in the absence of Liberal Party policy, that he will be the pawn of the National Party.

Mrs SKINNER: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Has the Minister fiddled waiting list figures by now excluding dental procedures and medical treatments to artificially depress the elective surgery waiting list figure from 49,800 on 3 April this year to 44,706 the next day?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members should remain silent while questions are being asked. I ask the honourable member for North Shore to restate the question.

Mrs SKINNER: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Has the Minister fiddled waiting list figures by now excluding dental procedures and medical treatments to artificially depress the elective surgery waiting list figure from 49,800 on 3 April this year to 44,706 the next day? Do those patients no longer count in the New South Wales hospital system?

Mr Langton: On a point of order: the question clearly provides information rather than seeks it, and therefore is undoubtedly out of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is correct. However, I will allow the question. In so doing I invite members to read the standing orders, which state that the object of question time is to seek information, not to give it.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The honourable member for North Shore should stop listening to failed Ministers for health. The Leader of the Opposition and the deputy in the Liberal Party are failed Ministers for health. The honourable member for Miranda was such a failure as Minister for Health that the Leader of the Opposition would not allow him to remain in that portfolio. He was such a dud that he was stripped of his portfolio. Never before has a Minister for Health been so far down the pecking order.

Mr Tink: On a point of order: the Premier is flouting your ruling by carrying on a conversation in the Chamber when the Deputy Premier is answering a question. He should abide by your ruling and listen to the Deputy Premier.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! All members should abide by my ruling. However, leniency is extended to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Premier, who are at liberty to talk to their backbench. The Premier should be as quick as possible when discussing matters of state.

Dr REFSHAUGE: Never before has the portfolio of health been so far down the list, but that has happened because the Leader of the Opposition knew that his deputy was a dud. I give this advice to the honourable member for North Shore: if she wants to joke about health, she should see Pete and Dud.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: But if the honourable member for North Shore wants some real advice, she should talk to the people that we have been talking to: the people who run and work in the health care system, and the patients who need the health care system. That is where she will get real advice, not from the two failed Ministers for health - the jokes sitting on the Opposition front bench. She should ignore them. If she wants to fail in her political career, she should talk to Pete and Dud. But if she wants to make her mark, she should start talking to the people who really matter - the people in the health care system: the patients, the doctors, and the nurses.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: The honourable member for North Shore talked about fiddling figures. Every year for seven years honourable members opposite fiddled the figures. The first time they counted only those on teaching hospital waiting lists.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: Then they started on other areas. At one stage they were counting people from the day they were booked in; everybody was counted.
Page 38
The next time, if patients had been waiting seven days, they were not counted at all. On one occasion they decided to count everybody. On the next occasion, if patients had been waiting seven days, even if they eventfully waited three years, they were not counted. Honourable members opposite said, "Forget about them," in relation to a particular group of patients. They were not interested in them at all. They fiddled the figures every time they possibly could.

Mr Collins: On a point of order: the nub of the question is why 5,000 people disappeared overnight from the Government's hospital waiting lists.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved. I warn members that frivolous points of order such as that taken by the Leader of the Opposition are disrespectful to the Chair and will not be tolerated.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The people who developed the idea of fiddling the figures sit on the Opposition front bench. They invented the idea of fiddling the figures. Year in and year out they maintained the pinnacle of figure fiddling. The Leader of the Opposition, who is walking out of the Chamber, walked out on the patients of New South Wales. He said he would produce waiting list figures every six months. That promise was ditched. It took him at least twelve months to recognise that there was a problem with waiting lists, and then he decided to fiddle the figures. Eventually, after constant and painstaking action by the Labor Party in Opposition, the former Government was forced to realise that it had been fiddling the figures every year. Every year a fiddle! The Federal Government had to step in, because it realised that waiting lists were a national issue.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Federal Government called on the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare to be the independent determiner of waiting lists. Because the definition and determination of waiting lists is outside the control of State governments, the Government has decided to use the expertise of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and its definition of waiting lists. The definition of waiting lists will not change. The Liberal Party when in government eventually recognised the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare definition. The Government recognises the same definition, and the definition will not change.


Mr RUMBLE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads. Will the Minister outline the events that led to the former Treasurer approving a Government-guaranteed $15.3 million loan to Luna Park Amusements Proprietary Limited in October last year?

Mr KNIGHT: The honourable member's question has certainly wiped the smiles off the faces of the Deputy Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Mr KNIGHT: The Liberal Party claims smugly that it is the party of business, the party of managerial flair and competence, and the party that knows how to get things done. Nothing the previous Government did in its entire seven years in office, from the Eastern Creek debacle to the fiasco surrounding the International Garden Festival, provides one shred of evidence to support its self-publicity. So it is with Luna Park. Before I go on, I should point out that the Labor Party when in Opposition always supported moves to restore Luna Park to its former glory.

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

Mr KNIGHT: The Government still wants Luna Park to operate as a viable family fun park for all people.

Mr Photios: You're a bunch of wowsers.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ermington to order for the fourth time. As it has been necessary to call the honourable member for Ermington to order on at least three occasions, I direct the Serjeant-at-Arms to escort the honourable member from the Chamber. As this is the first occasion that the Chair has been required to remove the honourable member for Ermington this session, I will allow him to remain in a designated area within the precincts, from where he may return to the Chamber after question time.

[The honourable member for Ermington left the Chamber, accompanied by the Serjeant-at-Arms.]

Mr KNIGHT: From the outset, the previous Government's redevelopment of Luna Park was a drain on the public purse; a bungle of the worst kind.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order to enable members to hear the Minister's reply. I warn those members already on three calls to order that they will not have the same leniency extended to them as was enjoyed by the honourable member for Ermington.

Mr KNIGHT: In December 1991 honourable members were told that the initial stages - the refurbishment of the heritage buildings - would cost $25 million. However, the exposure of the taxpayers is now in the order of $50 million - more than twice what was claimed by the previous Government. The Opposition has a sordid history of financial mismanagement. Its grandiose plans, such as those which resulted in the Eastern Creek Raceway fiasco, were never matched with fiscal responsibility. If members of the former Government had been running a development enterprise they would have been out of business; they would have been chased up the street by a television crew from The Investigators. Who is
Page 39
to be found at the centre of both the disaster with Eastern Creek and the Luna Park catastrophe? The Deputy Leader of the National Party. What do you do for an encore, George? Thank God they never let him near the Olympics.

I shall now reveal to the House how the exposure of the New South Wales taxpayers is in the order of $50 million. Let me now take honourable members on the ride of their lives with the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the Leader of the Opposition, and the temporary and soon-to-depart honourable member for Southern Highlands. The official government files tell the whole story. The files reveal how the Deputy Leader of the National Party, who was the Minister for Conservation and Land Management in the former Government, took the most unusual step of approving the creation of Luna Park Amusements Proprietary Limited while acting as both the Treasurer and the portfolio Minister - that action which exposed taxpayers to millions of dollars in potential losses. The same files reveal -

Mr Souris: Rubbish!

Mr KNIGHT: George does not need to listen. He can interject because he knows the story, but everyone else needs to know.

Mr Kerr: On a point of order: I ask that the Minister be directed, in accordance with the standing orders, to refer to members by their correct titles.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will refer to members by their correct titles.

Mr KNIGHT: The files reveal how the former Premier opposed the actions of the former Minister, warning that the trust was "never to be a partner, active or passive, in the operation [of Luna Park]".

Mr Langton: Who said that?

Mr KNIGHT: John Fahey, the honourable member for Southern Highlands, said that when he was the Premier. He is often maligned because he got some things right. He said that the trust was "never to be a partner, active or passive, in the operation [of Luna Park]". He said also, "If the investment fails, the Government is ultimately liable." The files tell us that, despite this warning from the former Premier, the former Minister told Treasury he had received the former Premier's approval, but he subsequently failed to provide any documentary evidence to support his contention. The files also reveal how Peter Collins took no action to intervene in the matter.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will abide by the standing orders. Ministers when replying to questions will refer to members by their proper titles rather than by Christian names and surnames.

Mr KNIGHT: I will, Mr Speaker. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would not want his name bandied about in connection with his sins in relation to this matter. The then Treasurer took no action to intervene -

Mr Rixon: Boring!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members who continue to interject by shouting out the word "Boring" will be removed from the Chamber.

Mr KNIGHT: That is the most electric comment honourable members have ever heard from the honourable member for Lismore. It is the most movement they have seen him make. It is about time his colleagues turned him over so that he does not get bedsores.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will return to his answer.

Mr KNIGHT: Despite these warnings, the then Treasurer took no action to intervene in the matter between November 1993 and August 1994 to either clarify the former Premier's position or the State's potential liability. The files also tell us how the then Treasurer, now the Leader of the Opposition, did not raise the matter with the former Premier, even as late as October last year when he approved a government guarantee for the $15.3 million loan from the ANZ Banking Group Limited. The files also reveal how the then Treasurer approved the $15.3 million loan and a government guarantee, knowing, as he set out in a letter dated 7 October 1994, the high risks involved.

Let me return to September 1993, when the Luna Park Trust terminated negotiations with the preferred tenderers, the Wittingslow syndicate, which included Schroders Australia Limited. The real reason for this breakdown in relations is unclear. The then Minister for Conservation and Land Management, the current Deputy Leader of the National Party, maintained that the deal did not provide a good enough return for the Government. Surprisingly, in the light of subsequent events, he also opposed a government guarantee for the major equity partners. But other stakeholders took a different view. According to Treasury files, Schroders said in a briefing note:

The trust believes that the Wittingslow [revenue] projections are conservative and that the project will be highly profitable . . . The investors believe Luna Park is a high risk project and the Wittingslow [revenue] projections are optimistic. The difficulty Schroders had finding equity investors suggests the general investor market views the project as risky.

Schroders continued:

The trust genuinely believe that they will be competent managers of Luna Park. The Wittingslow syndicate are adamant that the operator should be in control of all aspects of its business at Luna Park . . . The trust, as an arm of government, should not be running a fun park . . .

Everyone now knows how right Schroders was. The bank should have been listened to at the time. That was great advice from the bank, but it was rejected by the present Deputy Leader of the National Party and the present Leader of the Opposition, the former Treasurer. These two men put themselves forward as financial geniuses, and ask people to believe that they are able to run the future financial affairs of this State. That is about as funny as an Arthur Tunstall joke.

Page 40

Following the breakdown of the Schroders negotiations late in 1993, the former Minister put forward a new proposal: that a special purpose company be created to permit the Luna Park Trust to operate the park in partnership with Wittingslow. As the Sydney Morning Herald astutely observed last Saturday, that proposal would have led to the "bizarre effect of the trust paying itself [rent] for the privilege of operating the park". So Luna Park Amusements Pty Limited was created, with the trust holding 56 per cent of the shares and Wittingslow holding 44 per cent.

According to a Treasury brief, the company would be created on the basis that there would be ". . . no Government guarantees of operating funding . . . funding by private sector debt and equity [only] . . . and [with] no Government risk". The proposal was put forward to the former Premier in November 1993 by the former Minister, who was curiously wearing both hats as Acting Treasurer and portfolio Minister. In November 1993 the then Premier wrote a lengthy - and, I might add, prophetic - file note. It is worth recounting to the House. John Fahey said, "There seems to be a basic misunderstanding . . ."

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order: only a few moments ago you ruled clearly that the Minister should address honourable members by their correct titles. He has flouted your ruling by referring to the former Premier as "John Fahey". I ask that the Minister be directed to comply with and not flout your clear ruling.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will refer to members by their correct titles.

Mr KNIGHT: If only the former Premier and member for Southern Highlands would grace the House with his presence! He said:

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding here . . . I cannot distinguish between the Trust and Government . . . The trust was never to be a partner, active or passive, in the operation . . . Therefore I do not believe that the trust should invest in any way.

I shall repeat what the former Premier and member for Southern Highlands said:

. . . I do not believe the Trust should invest in any way.

He said also:

If the investment fails, the Government is ultimately liable. I'm happy to discuss this further.

He said he was happy, really happy! According to the former Minister, no further discussions took place, and the Premier ultimately approved of the proposal. That is noted on the file. But in December 1993 the former Deputy Secretary of Treasury, Michael Lambert, who is now the Secretary of Treasury, was evidently concerned. He wrote to the former Minister, the Deputy Leader of the National Party, stating:

The most appropriate course of action would now appear to be for you, as portfolio Minister, to write to the Premier to confirm your understanding of the agreed approach.

It would be appreciated if a copy of your letter and the Premier's reply could be provided to Treasury.

What could be fairer? The Minister says he had the Premier's agreement. The head of Treasury doubted it and said, "Show me a copy of the correspondence, show me that you are telling the truth." What a surprise! No such response can be found in either the Treasury files or the files of the Premier's Department. I quote from a subsequent Treasury briefing note:

Between November 1993 and August 1994 -

I ask honourable members to remember that I am quoting from a Treasury briefing note -

Mr Souris did not inform the former Treasurer as to the new arrangement concerning creation of the special purpose company or the activities of the Luna Park Reserve Trust in diverting Consolidated Fund monies to fund the development and construction of the roller coaster.

Does that really ring true? Because while the briefing note states that the former Minister did not inform -

Mr Longley: On a point of order -

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members will remain silent while a point of order is presented.

Mr Longley: This answer has so far taken a considerable period of time. I remind you that answers given in question time are supposed to be succinct. They are not supposed to involve inordinate amounts of unnecessary detail or undue repetition. I ask you to draw those matters to the Minister's attention, and to ask him to draw his answer to a rapid conclusion.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Police will refrain from interjecting to allow the Chair to hear the point of order.

Mr Longley: It is clear that the Minister's answer has gone on for too long. I ask that the Minister be directed to return to the subject of the question and to bring his answer to a rapid conclusion.

Mr KNIGHT: On the point of order: what has been going on for far too long is not only the taking of spurious points of order by members of the Opposition but also the behaviour of the former Minister who was responsible for this, and the former Treasurer, who want to cover it up from the people.

Mr Longley: Further to the point of order: the Minister is now usurping your prerogative of deciding on the validity or otherwise of the point of order by claiming that it is spurious. He is reflecting on the dignity of the Chair. Accordingly, I again ask that the Minister be directed not only to draw his answer to a rapid conclusion but also to cease reflecting on the dignity of the Chair.

Mr Nagle: On the point of order: this is a most important issue, as it reflects on every member of this House. It involves the expenditure of government monies in a totally irresponsible way. Every member
Page 41
should hear the truth, and the Minister is attempting to give them that. I ask that the Minister be permitted to continue with his answer until all honourable members know the truth.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved. The Minister may resume his answer.

Mr KNIGHT: Nothing that the Deputy Leader of the National Party claims covers his behaviour appears on the file. That leads to some discord between the two former Ministers, the former Treasurer and the former Minister responsible for conservation of land management. The former Treasurer then wrote to the former Minister:

I would like to stress that the need for my involvement in providing undertakings for the financing of the Luna Park redevelopment arose from your decision as Acting Treasurer . . .

He went on to admit the enormity of the former Government's bungle. He said:

In view of the above . . .

Mr O'Doherty: On a point of order: the answer contains material that reflects substantially on members of this House. That should be done most appropriately in a substantive motion. I ask that the Minister be directed accordingly.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Mr KNIGHT: In his letter the current Leader of the Opposition went on to admit the enormity of the former Government's bungle. He said:

In view of the above, the Government's commitment to Luna Park and the commitments already in place regarding the park and the amusement facilities, there is little option but for additional funding to be made available . . .

Mr Collins: On a point of order: the Minister is quoting selectively from the documents. I hope that it is his intention to table all documentation regarding Luna Park rather than to quote selectively.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition is well aware that the standing orders make that option available to the Minister.

Mr KNIGHT: The Government has the documents, and from time to time documents will certainly be -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will return to his answer.

Mr KNIGHT: Already there was trouble in paradise between the two. The Leader of the Opposition complained that he was locked into this decision because of the bungle and the behaviour of the present Deputy Leader of the National Party, who was then Acting Treasurer. But the former Minister wrote back to the former Treasurer:

I refer to your recent letter regarding . . . your comments that the financial structure of the trust was approved by me while Acting Treasurer.

Firstly, it should be noted that my decision was based upon Treasury recommendations.

That was denied by Treasury, by the way. He continued:

To ensure my impartiality over the recommendation, the file was referred to the Premier for his approval . . .

That is the sort of buck-passing that would do justice to Yes, Minister. As well as there being no correspondence between the former Minister and the former Premier - correspondence that the former Minister claims exists - there is no record on file to suggest that the former Treasurer raised these matters with the former Premier between November 1993 and August 1994. After approval for a government guarantee was granted, the clock ticked on to 31 January and the first completion obligation date for the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group. This was the Liberal Party in action, the party which claims to know how to conduct business and to cut a deal. All it has done is cut a hole in spending on health, roads, law and order and education.

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order: the Minister has now quoted from a number of documents which he has failed to identify. Standing orders provide that he should identify those documents and inform us on what date they were written. The Minister should be asked to establish from what documents he is quoting and he should be required to table those documents.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have already ruled on that point of order.

Mr Armstrong: Further to the point of order -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled on that point of order.

Mr KNIGHT: As we move towards the conclusion of this sorry affair, let us look at what Des Wittingslow, the operator of the amusement rides, said in a letter dated 5 April - well before the relevant deadline that the previous Government had failed to meet -

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order: the Minister is now referring to a letter dated 5 April. To whom was that letter written? The Minister should fully describe that letter so the details can be recorded in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order.

Mr KNIGHT: In his letter, Wittingslow said:

Since opening it has been impossible for the park to reach its agreed objectives . . .operating restrictions . . . coupled with the failure of the Luna Park Reserve Trust to fulfil its promise of providing additional attractions . . .like restaurants, buskers and special events . . .have severely undermined the park's commercial viability.

In that 5 April letter to the trust from Wittingslow - sent a month before this Government's announcement on Luna Park - he announced his intention to remove his rides and terminate his agreement with the previous Government, not because of this Government's actions but because of the previous Government's bungling. Could it have been that that
Page 42
Government, so eager for a good news announcement during the election campaign, was prepared to waste any amount of taxpayers' money on the media stunt that Luna Park became? This appears to be Des Wittingslow's publicly-stated view.

One thing is certain: if Luna Park survives this fiasco - and the Government certainly hopes that it will - it will be in spite of the previous Government. If it does not it will be fairly and squarely because of the way in which the Liberal and National parties, under their current leader and deputy leader, acted. Indeed, the scariest ride in the whole of Luna Park is the one that the former Government took the taxpayers on.


Ms MACHIN: I address my question, which comprises only 49 words, to the Minister for Local Government.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Such comment was unnecessary. The member will ask her question.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members should remain silent while another member is asking a question.

Ms MACHIN: Have Waverley and Randwick councils been investigated by the Independent Commission Against Corruption? Has the Minister employed a councillor from each of those councils as a policy adviser? Will the Minister assure the House that the employment of those two councillors in his office will not influence decisions concerning those councils?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind members that traditionally Ministers are not obliged to answer questions about the private activities of members of their staff, outside their role in the Minister's office.

Mr E. T. PAGE: The honourable member for Port Macquarie would be well aware that both Waverley and Randwick councils have been investigated by the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The Waverley Council investigation commenced about 7½ years ago because the current Labor mayor, Barbara Armitage, was concerned about that council's activities during the Liberal regime, when the famous Markhams were in control. Complaints were made at that time because of a bribe which had been offered to the town planner and chief engineer to approve a building on the corner of Oxford Street and Newland Street, Bondi Junction. That person was - I am not sure whether he still is - a member of the Liberal Party. Subsequently, that person pleaded guilty to the charge, as did the developer on the other side of the transaction.

[Interruption]

Now that the Premier has prompted me, I might say that, 20 years ago -

Mr Longley: On a point of order: one really must draw the line on relevance. The Minister is going back 20 years. Mr Speaker, I ask you to ask him to answer the question. He should not delve into a typical Labor rewriting of history.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has had a long association with local government - more than 20 years - and I will permit him to draw on his vast experience to answer the question.

Mr E. T. PAGE: Just in case Opposition members missed something, the person who pleaded guilty to accepting the bribe was a member of the Liberal Party. Twenty years ago he was a member of the National Party. He was quite eclectic; he shifted his allegiance around. He pleaded guilty, his sentence was suspended and he received a community service order. Just to bring honourable members up to date, the council is suing him for about $1.2 million. The council believed that the money which he took, which included the bribe money, belonged to the community.

[Interruption]

I will mention the ICAC matter first.

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

Mr E. T. PAGE: At the moment the council -

Mr Longley: On a point of order -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will resume his seat, and I will hear the point of order in silence.

Mr Longley: The Minister has just admitted that his answer is not relevant to the question. The Minister is supposed to be answering the question. He has just admitted that he is not doing that. Mr Speaker, I ask you to ask him to respond to the question that was asked. Honourable members are given some latitude during question time but, when a Minister admits that he is not answering a question, he should be requested to do so.

Mr E. T. PAGE: On the point of order: the question that was asked was in two parts. The first part of the question was whether the Independent Commission Against Corruption had been involved in investigations involving Waverley and Randwick councils. I was addressing that part of the question. The second part of the question concerned two councillors - one on each of those councils. I will answer that part of the question in a moment.

Mr Longley: And your staff?

Mr E. T. PAGE: And my staff. I do not have a problem with that. So that is the score on Waverley -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the Minister still speaking to the point of order? In any event, the Minister seems to have answered the question raised in the point of order.

Page 43

Mr E. T. PAGE: When the Independent Commission Against Corruption investigated Randwick Council the mayor was Margaret Martin, who stood as the candidate for the Liberal Party. To date, no charges have been laid. Those against whom aspersions were cast had nothing to do with the Labor Party. The Director of Public Prosecutions is presently determining whether charges will be laid. The two staff members who worked for me were not called as witnesses and were not mentioned in the ICAC report.

Mr Longley: So they do work for you?

Mr E. T. PAGE: Of course. We all have staff working for us. The two staff members who worked for me were not mentioned in the ICAC report, but members of the Liberal Party were mentioned.


Mr McMANUS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police. Has the police royal commissioner the ability to provide an interim report?

Mr WHELAN: In May 1994 Mr Justice Wood was given the power to inquire into the operations of the Police Service. The Premier recently announced that the reporting date of the royal commission would be extended to 31 December 1996. The royal commissioner will provide an interim report into police complaints by 31 January 1996.


M2 MOTORWAY BOUNDARIES

Mr TINK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing. Is there a proposal to raise the M2 carriageway by up to seven metres near Terrys Creek, which was not considered in the original environmental impact statement? Will the Minister guarantee that this will not -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will be silent while the question is asked.

Mr TINK: Is there a proposal to raise the M2 carriageway by up to seven metres near Terrys Creek, which was not considered in the original environmental impact statement? Will the Minister guarantee that this will not adversely impact on the riverine environment? Will the Minister call for a further EIS to enable an independent examination of this proposal?

Mr KNOWLES: I will obtain the necessary information and report back.


Mr PRICE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. How many Hunter Valley jobs will be created by the recent opening of the coalmine complex at south Bulga?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Question time has been lengthy and difficult. As this may be the final question, I ask members to remain silent for the duration of the Minister's answer.

Mr MARTIN: The Saxonvale Bulga open-cut mine originally began operation in 1981. Late last year a new underground mine at south Bulga began operations along with a coal preparation area to serve both mines. The Saxonvale Bulga mine produces 4.6 million tonnes annually and the underground south Bulga operation produces 4.3 million tonnes. This is one of the largest expansion projects carried out in the Hunter with more than $250 million worth of capital investment. The mine will provide employment for a work force of more than 600 people during the next 20 years, which is the expected operational life of the mine. This is a timely and good question from the honourable member for Waratah. I would like to continue that support for mining in the Hunter Valley region.

Questions without notice concluded.


Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [4.15]: I move:

That this House calls for

(1) Continued significant financial and infrastructure support being directed to assisting farmers, rural businesses and rural communities in combating the severe effects of the current drought; and

(2) The New South Wales Government in consultation with the Commonwealth Government, farming organisations and rural communities, continuing the development and implementation of constructive policies to improve drought proofing of the State's rural industries.

It should be noted that, on the first sitting day of this Parliament, the first urgency motion that was moved concerned the drought and the first question asked by a country member, the honourable member for Bathurst, referred to the drought. The honourable member for Gosford gave notice of a motion which was totally unrelated to the drought or to rural New South Wales. This motion clearly underpins what the Premier said only hours after being declared the winner at the last election. He said that the drought and its impact on rural New South Wales was the number one issue facing the State.

In May 30 millimetres to 150 millimetres of welcome rain fell throughout most of the State's wheat belt. Unfortunately, a few areas, such as the Liverpool Plains, require more rain to ensure the establishment of this year's wheat crop. The upper Hunter area and the northern tablelands have had inadequate rain. I trust that the current severe drought that has adversely affected our State's rural industry for nearly four years is at last showing signs of breaking. Before the rain fell in May, the driest periods ever recorded by many official weather stations were in March, April and last spring. No doubt this drought, which started in the northern part
Page 44
of the State in early 1991, can now be classified as a truly exceptional drought, rivalling even the shocking Second World War droughts in the early 1940s.

In May 67 per cent of New South Wales was officially drought declared - an increase from the figure of 61 per cent for April. Fortunately, recent rain has enabled the commencement of sowing operations in much of the southern wheat belt and the wheat belt in the central west. As we have now received good rain my department's agronomists are forecasting that more than 3.9 million hectares of wheat and other winter crops will be sown. This will continue the historical pattern of large crop sowings immediately after a drought as farmers try to improve cash flows as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, colder temperatures will slow the response of pastures to the rain, particularly on the tablelands where cattle herds and sheep flocks will experience a long hard winter. On my recent trip to Mudgee some farmers from the highland areas told me how, in many ways, the onset of cold weather negates some of the benefits of autumn rains.

The Government is aware that these rains will not immediately result in dollars. On my recent trip to rural New South Wales it was clearly stated to me that, though rain is falling, it is not raining dollars. Even with a successful winter crop, grain producers will not experience any major improvement in their cash flows until early 1996. Discussions with community groups and banks in rural areas have revealed that many businesses are in trouble. Many businesses in smaller country towns are closing down with little prospect of reopening. Larger businesses in towns such as Dubbo and Moree are carrying many customers and banks are expressing concern at the level of debt. Cattle and sheep producers will have to wait longer before breeding herds and flocks return to predrought levels. Some beef producers will take up to six years to return to their predrought profitability.

Heavy rains are also required to replenish supplies in the catchment areas of our major dams. Copeton, Burrendong and Wyangala dams have not had any significant inflows from recent rains; and a limited amount of water will be available next season for the irrigation industry. As at 22 May, as a result of recent rains, water storage levels were as follows: Copeton Dam, 2.6 per cent of capacity; Burrendong Dam, 11.8 per cent of capacity; Wyangala Dam, 35.2 per cent of capacity; Burrinjuck Dam, 56.6 per cent of capacity; and Hume Dam, 19.7 per cent of capacity. These restrictions continue to pose major concerns for cotton, rice and other irrigation industries in New South Wales. As at 12 May, 4,364 farmers in exceptional circumstance areas had received special drought relief payments while 1,571 had had interest subsidies approved. Officers in my department have been working closely with the Commonwealth Government - a refreshing change in some rural areas of New South Wales. [Quorum formed.]

For far too long the drought has been viewed by many people in New South Wales as a political issue. Recently, at Rylstone, it was put to me that the fight between members of the former coalition Government - in particular National Party members of Parliament - the State Minister for Agriculture and his Federal counterpart was counterproductive and the Federal and State governments did nothing to assist farmers. This Government will provide more equitable access to special drought relief welfare payments and interest subsidies on loans for farmers facing severe financial difficulties as a result of this exceptional drought. The drought is of such rarity that it can be classified as occurring only once every 20 to 25 years and it is of such severity that it will last more than 12 months.

Following these initiatives, the Department of Agriculture, with support from the New South Wales Farmers Association and the rural lands protection boards, prepared detailed cases for an extension of drought exceptional circumstances assistance to large areas of central and southern New South Wales. The Premier has submitted these arguments to the Prime Minister for the earliest possible consideration by Federal Cabinet. On 22 May I visited Canberra and made personal representations on this matter to Senator Collins, the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industries and Energy.

This Government, since its election to office on 25 March, has reassured the farmers of New South Wales of its commitment to maintaining the viability of rural industries and communities during these difficult times. I reiterate that commitment today. Following the Premier's drought tour, the Rural Assistance Authority appointed an officer in the Tamworth district to handle inquiries. This proved to be very successful. I will be directing the Rural Assistance Authority to place officers at Wagga Wagga, Dubbo and Tamworth until the end of June to assist farmers. In the early days of this Government, Premier Carr, the Minister for Land and Water Conservation and I visited key areas of New South Wales and met with farmers at Ariah Park at Temora, Dubbo, Armidale, Tamworth and Mudgee to assess the impact of the drought. These visits were organised in close cooperation with and the full support of the New South Wales Farmers Association.

The Premier has already announced further aid packages of $5 million to assist charities to meet urgent financial needs. The State's grant of $5 million will keep charities going for three to four months at the current rate of expenditure. Depending on the Commonwealth's response, this may have to be reconsidered in August or September. An additional grant of $10 million to the Department of Agriculture has already been approved to meet transport subsidies until the end of the financial year. Already New South Wales Treasury has paid out $51.3 million to assist livestock producers by subsidising the cost of transport of fodder, livestock and water. New South Wales has already provided a wide range of services to assist farmers to survive the current drought. The Government will continue to monitor closely the situation and will consider new and appropriate assistance measures, if they are required.

Page 45

The Government is well aware of the 1992 agreements reached by all States and the Commonwealth regarding a national drought policy. The Government is especially aware of the need to ensure that farmers are in a position and have the incentive to better manage droughts in the future. In Tamworth the Premier referred to the need for all rural industries to address drought and drought proofing. As Minister representing rural interests and agriculture I am particularly heartened by the Premier's recent announcements regarding decentralisation.

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order: Mr Speaker, I draw attention to the time.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will resume his seat.

[Time expired.]

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party) [4.25]: Not one new initiative was enunciated by the Minister in debate on this motion or by the Premier in answer to a question asked in question time, despite the fact that the Government has been in office for almost two months. To put it quite simply, people in drought-affected New South Wales - at one stage more than 93 per cent were affected, but the figure has been consistently above 55 per cent since this Government has been in office - have not received a cent from this Government that was not programmed by the former National Party-Liberal Party Government and the former Minister, the Hon. Ian Causley. The allocation of $5 million for charities and $10 million for the transport scheme have been articulated publicly by the Minister and by the Premier.

The former Government said that there would be an open cheque book - no limits - for all drought-affected areas in New South Wales until such time as the drought was over and the previous productivity and viability of farmers, rural businesses and country towns were restored. Two months down the track the Premier and the Minister - I have a fair bit of sympathy for the Minister because he is a genuine guy - are saying that something has been done for farmers when the Premier has only extended the programs of the former Government. Recent rain has considerably relieved the drought, but today neither the Premier nor the Minister mentioned the environmental remediation processes necessary subsequent to the worst drought in recorded history. When this Government was elected it said it would fix up environmental problems; that it was responsible for the environment. New South Wales has experienced the greatest environmental disaster in recorded history, yet the Premier and the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Land and Water Conservation did not mention the environment or allocate one cent for environmental remediation assistance.

The Minister, in his address today, mentioned the plight of country towns. He is quite correct. Though he acknowledged that the drought is affecting many small businesses, families and individuals in country towns in New South Wales, he has not contributed one idea or allocated one cent towards alleviating it. It was the Liberal-National Party Government and the previous Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Regional Development, Ray Chappell, the honourable member for Northern Tablelands, that introduced, for the first time in Australian history, an interest subsidy to assist small businesses during the term of a natural disaster. That was historic funding and an historic principle. The take-up rate of those funds by small businesses was something like 94 per cent; the rejection rate was less than 6 per cent. The initiative introduced by the previous Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Regional Development addressed in real and proper terms the viability of country towns and businesses. The present Government, two months after taking office, has not done anything. It has uttered not one word; it has spent not one cent.

The Minister for Agriculture missed a few matters today when he spoke about representations being made to the Federal Government. First, farmers throughout New South Wales were told on 22 May that Federal Cabinet would consider the granting of "exceptional circumstances" status to the south of this State. That consideration has now been postponed for a week. What does one say to a cow with an empty belly or to a sheep that is about to die because its owner cannot buy enough feed? Does one simply say that the Federal Government has postponed discussion on whether their owner will be given money needed to buy feed? The Federal Government and the Labor Government in New South Wales appear to think that the purchase of hay, grain or water for starving livestock can simply be postponed. Perhaps they think that one can simply postpone by a week or two the joining of female cows and the joining of female sheep for spring calves and spring lambs. They think that would present no problem and should be done because it suits a bureaucracy.

There is something else that the Government is not saying. Even if the Federal Government were to acknowledge "exceptional circumstances" status for the worst-hit parts of the State and the south of the State, another month will have passed by the time farmers apply for funding, are assessed and get money into their bank accounts to help them survive the drought - to help them provide feed, fodder and transport and sustain their living expenses. That will be more than three months, more than a quarter of a year, since the present Government came to power. For someone who is paying 15 per cent for his or her money, that means nearly 4 per cent extra on interest payments alone. When the new Premier came to power he raced out and made a big play. There is no doubt that his announcement was welcomed in country areas. But the Premier made hollow, shallow promises - it was 100 per cent rhetoric. How does one feed a family on rhetoric? How does one satisfy a bank manager with rhetoric? Where is the Minister's cheque book? Here is his opportunity. The lack of action is indicative of the Labor Party's
Page 46
concern for country people. The Sun-Herald of 14 May quoted the honourable member for Bathurst as saying:

We're not going to try to improve what is happening out here if they continue to put their faith in the National Party.

We're not suckers. We're looking for a genuine working arrangement between the Labor Government and country people.

That statement came from the honourable member who the Minister says has so much concern for and knowledge of country people. The honourable member for Bathurst made it patently clear when he said in the public arena, as quoted in the Sun-Herald of 14 May, that as far as he and the Labor Party were concerned it was all about politics. The sheep and the cattle will get a feed and the family will get bread on the table if the politics are right; it has nothing to do with drought, it is about politics only. The promises made by the present Government have been hollow and meaningless. They are promises that have not been honoured. If the Government is fair dinkum - and I sincerely hope that it is - it should get out its cheque book and acknowledge that the need is now. This is not a political matter, it is a matter of human and environmental need and of animal welfare.

It is no good for Government members to speak in the Chamber, looking for a line in the tabloid press tomorrow or the electronic media tonight, unless they are fair dinkum. At this stage, nearly two months since the election, there is nothing to indicate that the Government is sincere. That is a sad reflection and a poor start for the new Government. As I have said, I have some sympathy for the Minister because I believe that he is genuine. But does he have the capacity, and will he have support within Cabinet and within caucus to get agreement for the fundamentals that are necessary for rural New South Wales? This is a considerable test for him. I hope that Government members give him some support, because he is out there on his own at this stage. He has done the work, he is the fellow who has gone to Canberra. His colleagues have pushed him out in front and said, "You go to Canberra." In other words, if the Federal Government does not deliver, the Government will let the Minister take the responsibility.

The Minister certainly has a challenge in front of him if he wishes to match the achievements of the previous Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the honourable member for Clarence, who was able to facilitate through the Cabinet of the Liberal-National Party Government a commitment of more than $190 million for drought relief and, most important, an open-ended cheque book. I reiterate that there was no limit on drought aid. Why is the Labor Government now setting limits and trying to put figures on drought aid, and on policies and assistance that were already well established? The Government is trying to claim our assistance policies as its own. What is needed - and not tomorrow but today - are new initiatives and new money to assist those suffering from the drought. Such measures would be of assistance and would be appreciated by both sides of the House. The rhetoric and the hollow promises that have been heard so far have done nothing other than to create false expectations in the rural community and indicate that the new Minister for Agriculture will be left out and shopped by his colleagues.

Mr CLOUGH (Bathurst) [4.35]: The absolute hypocrisy of Liberal Party and National Party members now that they are in opposition astounds me. The previous Government abandoned the people in the bush, it walked away from them. Now members of the previous Government recount in the Chamber all of the programs that were implemented and say that the farmers and small business people in country areas have benefited. A businessman in Nyngan and I were discussing the $2,500 and $5,000 arrangements made by the previous Government for use by small business people in country areas to get counsellors and accountants to tell them how to work better and how to diversify. He asked me how he was supposed to diversify operations in his Nyngan farm machinery business: was he supposed to sell fish and chips? Last year the Labor Party introduced the Farm Debt Mediation Act -

Mr Amery: And who opposed that?

Mr CLOUGH: I am coming to that point. I notice that the honourable member for Clarence has left the Chamber. I am a little sorry about that because I wanted to give him a serve on the way past. His speech in Parliament opposing the farm debt mediation legislation - which was designed to help farmers who were experiencing not only the effects of the drought but also the merciless application of constraints and sell-ups by the New South Wales banking system - supported the banks. At the time, Mr Alan Cullen, Executive Officer of the Australian Bankers Association, sat in one of the ministerial advisers' chairs on the floor of the Chamber, in an unprecedented move, and passed the previous Minister notes on what he was to say against the horrendous farm debt mediation legislation introduced by the Labor Party Opposition to give farmers some help and some hope.

Out in the bush hope has gone, not because of anything the present Government has not done in the seven weeks it has been in office but because the previous Government could not organise proper relief for the farmers. I notice that even now - and I address this remark to the new Minister, a Minister who I know has the welfare of the farmers at heart because he has been out and had a look and knows what is happening out there - we are proposing to give the farmers interest subsidies. Who will benefit most from interest subsidies? The banks benefit most from the Government providing sure-fire payment of the money the banks are going to lend. Why should we do favours for the banks?

If we pursue our proposal of $60 a hectare up to a maximum of 600 hectares drawing interest subsidies of $36,000, and if the banks allow people to have that money at 12 per cent - which I doubt - on a $36,000 loan over five years the New South Wales
Page 47
Government would have to pay about $24,000 in loan interest to the banking fraternity. The farmer would get absolutely nothing and still finish up with a debt of $36,000. I address this remark to the new Minister: let us look at a different system of funding for farmers in drought conditions today; let us return to the Chifley years of 1944 and 1946 -

Mr Cochran: Most of your blokes do not understand the significance of his name.

Mr CLOUGH: The honourable member for Monaro would not know about this as he was a boy in those days. The Chifley Government introduced a system of grants in 1944 and 1946, and that had a positive effect on the national economy. That type of proposal was never made by members opposite because all they can think about is, "What will the banks get out of it? How will we back up our mates in the banks?" I am waiting for the electoral donation returns to come in for the Bathurst electorate to find out how much funding the National Party candidate received from the banks. Money came from the banks for that purpose.

The only way to help a farmer is to reduce his debt responsibility, and to give him the funds to allow him to replant and restock his property so he can become a viable part of our rural industry. Giving him more loans will only send him further into debt and, more important for members opposite, make more money for the banking system. That should not be done. [Time expired.]

Mr COCHRAN (Monaro) [4.40]: I listened with great interest to the comments of both the Minister and the Leader of the National Party. I am sure that people in the public gallery and members of this place have noted that the Minister read his speech; he continually referred to notes. He has just returned from the western side of the Blue Mountains and has had the opportunity to observe the tragedy occurring out there. It is patently obvious, at least to those on this side of the House, that he has no understanding of the real issues to do with what is happening in those places. By comparison, the Leader of the National Party, Mr Armstrong, without any notes, relayed to the House an interesting -

Mr Clough: On a point of order: on numerous occasions this afternoon the Opposition has drawn attention to the fact that members have been referred to by their names. The honourable member for Monaro should refer to his leader as either the Leader of the National Party or the honourable member for Lachlan.

Mr COCHRAN: In fact, I did refer to the National Party Leader, Mr Armstrong, and that will be recorded in Hansard. All I can say to Mr Clough is that he should wash his ears out.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order.

Mr COCHRAN: Undoubtedly this is painful for the honourable member for Bathurst and that is why he is leaving the Chamber. He certainly did not understand what has been said on this matter. We saw Bob and the contender on a flimsy jet heading west of the Blue Mountains and, lo and behold, they saw before them an acreage they had never seen before. It was part of New South Wales, but it was not Newcastle, Sydney or Wollongong. They saw before them farmland! They saw people they had never seen before. The Minister hopped onto the back of the truck with blind Bob and they addressed the gathering. To their great surprise they found out that these people were enduring a living tragedy. Members opposite had not witnessed that before; it was a road to Damascus trick for them. On going west of the Blue Mountains the Minister realised for the first time that the people out there faced great problems and needed assistance.

The remorseful Australian Labor Party fared very poorly in the western parts of the State during the recent election, so Labor Party members went there, slithering lower than a snake's belly, in an attempt to win back the vote of the rural people. Unquestionably, exceptional circumstances can be found in the western and other rural areas of New South Wales, and these problems are the child of Labor. Make no mistake about it: the problems in the rural areas of New South Wales were created by no other than Paul Keating and the Federal Labor Government, in conjunction with the drought. That should never be forgotten. The greatest problems faced by the people in western New South Wales, which the Minister is now trying to address, relate in part to high interest rates, in part to the withdrawal by John Kerin of the floor price for wool - a scurrilous sleight of hand which will never be forgotten by the New South Wales wool producers - and in part by the Federal Labor Government's denial of tax concessions to farmers.

In the short time available to me I will tell the Minister what he can do if he wants to be a can do Minister. Firstly, I pay tribute to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries for the comprehensive Public Accounts Committee report into the Rural Assistance Authority. It is a must-read for every member of this Chamber who wants to engage in debate on the problems of drought and the rural industry in New South Wales. It is a worthwhile report that provides some recommendations which should be adopted by this Minister.

I should like to draw attention to those recommendations. The committee calls for increased funding in three areas. It suggests additional funding for the Rural Assistance Authority's administration in order to provide a reasonable assessment of the problems of the rural industry. It states that additional funds are needed for the Rural Assistance Authority and other departments to extend core services to the rural industry. [Time expired.]

Mr BECKROGE (Broken Hill) [4.45]: I am pleased that the House accepted the urgency of this matter. Although it has rained, and everyone is happy about that, it has not rained dollars. Certainly, we have not had sufficient rain to provide the
Page 48
necessary run-off. We must face the fact that although the rain we have had is very welcome, rural issues certainly still need much more attention from the Government. I am pleased that the Minister for Agriculture, who is a friend of mine, was appointed to that portfolio. He listens to people and tries to act in good faith on any suggestion put to him. The Minister has been commended not only by me, but also by the annual conference of the Western Division of the New South Wales Farmers Association, at its meeting in Cobar, when Peter Comensoli stated publicly that he had great faith in the Minister; he said that he could discuss a matter with him, and that one or two days later the Minister could repeat the information he had been given. The rural people of New South Wales certainly have a listener in the new Minister.

The Opposition, after being in government for the past seven years, has much to answer for. The infrastructure and provision of government services in the western areas is not sufficient. People have been crying out for veterinarians in Bourke for a long time. I don't know how long I have been trying to get a vet for Bourke. The great wheat growing area of Walgett is lacking an agronomist. The previous Government should have seen the good sense in having an agronomist placed full time in Walgett. I am very conscious that the Government will consider these issues on their merits and realise that the provision of assistance is encouraged through not only the rural assistance schemes but also the Department of Agriculture and its extension services.

As a matter of urgency I would like to see extension services beefed up. Greater resources should be poured into the Department of Agriculture to ensure that scientists and extension people are in place to work with people on the ground. Also, an enlightened approach must be taken in government toward realising that the Western Division is a great production area of New South Wales; and we must encourage people to produce in a sustainable way. That will be a hallmark of this Government.

The former Liberal Government, in concert with the LandCare programs, has done a lot with regard to drought-proofing. I would like to see this Government continue the work that has been done through LandCare of using bulldozers and graders to rehabilitate scalds and land that has been degraded to bring them back into production or to provide ground cover. I hope the infrastructure introduced by the Government will attack the insidious problem of woody weed infestation. That would assist people on the land and would assist in providing wealth for the State and the nation.

It is not only National Party members who understand what is happening in the bush. Labor Party members who represent country electorates, like the honourable member for Bathurst and the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, have an abiding interest in seeing that all areas of New South Wales are looked after and that people have faith in the Government. The Parliament should be happy that the Minister for Agriculture is putting his best foot forward in helping to solve the problems faced by people on the land.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [4.50], in reply: It is particularly pleasing to reply to the Leader of the National Party. In my second speech in this House in about 1984, in a debate on the dairy industry, I made a comment that is as relevant today as it was then. I said that the Leader of the National Party always puts on a great performance, waves his arms around, and has everyone's attention, but does not really say anything. In the 11 years since 1984 -

Mr Cochran: What are you doing? Get on with it.

Mr AMERY: Why do you not call a division or some other frivolous -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Monaro, who has had an opportunity to speak, will listen in silence to the contribution of the Minister.

Mr AMERY: The Leader of the National Party says that everything that is in place in New South Wales is good news and was introduced by the former coalition Government. He commented that not one new initiative has been made by the new Government, that not one cent has been distributed. He said the former Government had an open cheque book and that it introduced drought relief. That is not the evidence that was presented to the Government on its drought tour. In Armidale we were confronted by farmers who were concerned about the inactivity of the former Government over the CFZ cotton trash contamination. They asked that representatives of the Department of Agriculture and the Government come to the area and help them out.

Mr Cochran: Who were they? Name them.

Mr AMERY: The honourable member knows the people involved. We could not get the former Minister, his department or his ground staff to cooperate with the farmers. It did not take much, it did not take big dollars; all it took was a bit of cooperation and work with the New South Wales Farmers Association for a proposal to be implemented. With a little cooperation and discussion some progress has been made with the CFZ. Reference was made by the honourable member for Monaro to the Rural Assistance Authority. If ever there was something that this mob would not want to talk about it would be the Rural Assistance Authority. The honourable member for Monaro was quoting from the report that was printed because the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries moved a resolution in this House which condemned the coalition Government's administration and operation of the Rural Assistance Authority. The damning report of the Public Accounts Committee -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Monaro, who has had an opportunity to speak in the debate, will remain seated and be silent.

Page 49

Mr AMERY: The damning report of the Public Accounts Committee condemned his Government and its administration of the authority, which resulted in only 29.7 per cent of applications for exceptional circumstance drought assistance being granted, compared with 60.2 per cent in Queensland. This State has been made a laughing stock in regard to drought assistance exceptional circumstances. This Government's review of the Rural Assistance Authority will be more hands-on than it ever was under the previous administration.

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

Mr AMERY: I announced today that officers of the Rural Assistance Authority are working where the farmers are. Under the previous administration, farmers had to write letters or come to Sydney in an attempt to receive assistance from the authority. Since the Government's drought tour, authority officers have been placed in Tamworth, Wagga Wagga and Dubbo. It is quite novel to the Opposition that people are now administering drought assistance in the areas where the problems are, rather than from some city-based organisation created by the Opposition.

I will not have enough time to talk about all the matters that have been raised by the honourable member for Bathurst and the honourable member for Broken Hill. Their commitment is not in doubt; they fight for rural New South Wales. They put their party politics aside, unlike members of the Opposition, whose strategy in the past 12 months has been not to do anything about drought-affected areas. Their simple solution has been to blame Canberra: it is Senator Collins' fault; it is because of exceptional circumstances. Have members opposite ever thanked the Federal Government for the substantial amounts of money that it has provided, through exceptional circumstances, to areas that have qualified for such assistance? Not once.

I hope this Government has a more positive relationship with the Federal Minister. The Opposition has referred to applications for exceptional circumstance assistance. The previous Government was thrown out of office on 25 March, but an application had not been lodged until as late as December 1994. With all the huff and puff and radio interviews about exceptional circumstances, the Opposition did nothing until December 1994.

Motion agreed to.


The Speaker reported the receipt of a message from His Excellency the Governor transmitting a copy of a dispatch from the President of the Senate of the Commonwealth of 21 May 1995 notifying that a vacancy had happened in the representation of the State of New South Wales in the Senate through the resignation of Senator Stephen Loosley, which occurred on 21 May 1995.

Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That Standing Orders be suspended to allow the following bills, notice of which was given this day for tomorrow, being brought in and proceeded with up to and including Ministers' second reading speeches, prior to Private Members' Statements:

Competition Policy Reform (New South Wales) Bill
Oaths and Crown References Bill
State Owned Corporations Amendment Bill

Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That Standing Orders be suspended to allow the following bills, notice of which was given this day for tomorrow, being brought in and proceeded with up to and including Ministers' second reading speeches:

Health Legislation Amendment Bill
Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography) Bill
National Environment Protection Council (New South Wales) Bill
Olympic Co-ordination Authority Bill
Fire Brigades Amendment (Contributions) Bill
Consumer Credit (New South Wales) Bill
Statute Law Revision (Local Government) Bill

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr CARR (Maroubra - Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs) [4.59]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

At the Council of Australian Governments meeting on 11 April 1995 all States, the Territories and the Commonwealth agreed to jointly implement national competition policy. Intergovernmental agreements were signed setting out respective obligations, and agreement was given to the Commonwealth progressing the Competition Policy Reform Bill 1995, which amends the Trade Practices Act and introduces new divisions dealing with access to essential infrastructure and pricing. The bill originated from negotiations between the Commonwealth, States and Territories at the Special Premiers Conference in 1991.

In 1992 the Commonwealth Government commissioned the national competition policy review conducted by Professor Fred Hilmer. The report was made public in August 1993. Since then the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments have been negotiating the policy through the Council of Australian Governments. Consultations with industry and the community have been extensive. The Hilmer committee, for example, examined 130 public submissions.

This bill has been drafted as a template for all States and Territories to apply the Commonwealth's Competition Policy Reform Bill in their own
Page 50
jurisdictions, creating a cohesive competition code to apply across Australia. I want to stress the importance of national competition policy for New South Wales and the Australian economy as a whole. The package of agreements and legislation establishes the processes and competition bodies that will see reform of the national economy in years to come.

Implementing extension of the trade practices rules to all businesses will see the removal of a longstanding anomaly that has interfered with the efficient operation of the Federation because of limits on Commonwealth power. The reforms will also see a rethink of the way government enterprises operate. Not only should they operate more efficiently but, on the whole, the delivery of services will become cheaper. Nevertheless, the reforms will not happen overnight. This is evident in the national competition and related reforms agreement, which provides for payments to the States and Territories over a 10-year period while the reforms are implemented. This allows the Government adequate time to develop well thought out policies to ensure that reforms occur smoothly.

There are those who question whether this is possible. However, as I have said, the agreements allow a period of 10 years to enable the policy to be fully implemented, as well as requiring a number of social and environmental factors to be taken into account. The competition principles agreement sets out a range of reforms that must be implemented over a period of years. These include a review of anti-competitive regulations and laws to ensure greater competitiveness of government and private sector agencies, and processes to ensure that where businesses and government agencies offer the same services to the public on a business footing the principle of encouraging competitive neutrality will apply so that neither private business nor government agencies will operate under an unfair advantage.

Tax equivalents and debt guarantees are already in the process of implementation. Structural reform of agencies is also a major issue. We will examine the form of large enterprises and determine how they might best be structured to provide efficient operation at a fair price to the community. Pricing will be examined to make it more cost reflective, and the Government Pricing Tribunal will have a key role in monitoring prices. The issue of corporatisation of such agencies could then be a further step in establishing greater efficiency. Price monitoring of government enterprises, utilising the Government Pricing Tribunal in New South Wales, will continue and be expanded.

I come to the provisions of the bill. The Competition Policy Reform (New South Wales) Bill gives machinery for enabling legislation permitting the restrictive conduct rules of the Trade Practices Act to be extended to apply to all businesses. Thus, unincorporated businesses will be covered for the first time; that is, small business, the unincorporated professional or tradesman, and industry and professional associations. The bill will also change the coverage of some organisations that were previously subject to the corporations power test. Clearly, there is no reason why any of these bodies should ever have been excluded.

The bill also includes a number of transitional arrangements designed to protect contracts entered into prior to 19 August 1994. There will be a two-year period of grace as a phasing-in period. Authorisation and notification for conduct inconsistent with the conduct rules can be sought in advance of the provisions applying to State agencies. A cogent case would need to be made out on public interest grounds. In exceptional circumstances exemptions applying to State Government conduct can be sought on an emergency basis to enable changes to existing arrangements that might take longer than the two-year phasing-in period.

There will be provision for permanent exemption from specific conduct rules. However, such exemption would be countenanced only in very clear public interest cases and would require special legislation. In almost all cases the imperative will be to change the conduct involved, not to exclude it. The prime thrust of the policy is to achieve economic efficiency and lift the performance of New South Wales and Australia in the international economic arena.

I am convinced that there is no inevitable conflict between the creation of a more competitive and prosperous society and one that gives equal place to compassion, equity and environmental issues. Indeed, I am convinced that attaining a more compassionate and equitable society, and attaining the goal of ecologically sustainable development, have as their pre-condition the creation of a robust and competitive economy. They can be different sides of the same coin. Over the next four years my Government will demonstrate that this is so. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Kerr.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr CARR (Maroubra - Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs) [5.05]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill embraces a range of undertakings I foreshadowed in March 1993 as Leader of the Opposition. At the time I introduced the Oaths and Crown References Bill 1993, which had the same principal objective as this bill; that is to make a number of symbolic changes to remove some of the obvious and significant references to the Crown in State legislation and administration. In particular, that bill sought to revise the oath of allegiance and the oaths of office taken by the State Governor, members of Parliament, Executive Councillors, judicial officers, police officers and various other State office holders.

Page 51

The bill replaces the oath of allegiance with a pledge of loyalty to Australia. It revises the oaths of office taken by State office holders to remove references to the sovereign and generally modernise their language. It enables criminal proceedings to be brought in the name of the State of New South Wales. It changes the title of the offices of Crown Advocate, Crown Prosecutor and Crown Solicitor by substituting "State" for "Crown". It dispenses with the words "God save the Queen" in proclamations and other documents, and it enables laws to be expressed as binding on the State rather than the Crown.

Of course, this bill does not attempt an exhaustive or complete amendment of all references to the Crown in State legislation; that is a much bigger exercise. I propose that a comprehensive review of all legislation be carried out with a view to modernising, as far as possible within the current constitutional framework, references to the Crown and sovereign. As part of that exercise there will be a complete review of the nomenclature that applies to land owned by the State. As I said, the changes made by the bill are symbolic rather than constitutional in nature. However, as symbolic changes they are significant because they make us focus on what it means to be Australian and how we articulate our commitment as Australians. The most important aspect of these amendments is the replacement of the oath of allegiance with a pledge of loyalty to Australia. The amendments to various oaths of office complement this change.

The Government is interested to learn how Opposition members will vote on this bill. The Leader of the Opposition declares that he is a republican but the groans and caterwauling from his colleagues earlier today when I referred to this legislation suggest that there is not sweet unanimity on the other side. It may be said on that side, "We are all republicans now," but I do not think that would be a fair description of the state of play as it exists on that side of the House, given the performance members witnessed earlier this day. Opposition members are put on notice. We will see how they perform.

The legislation provides a new oath of allegiance and a new pledge of loyalty. The oath of allegiance currently taken by our State Governor or members of Parliament, judicial officers and Executive Councillors is taken in the following form, "I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God." There would be few Australians now living, irrespective of their views on the monarchy, for whom that statement would represent a realistic expression of their loyalties, patriotism or commitment. It is altogether inadequate as a definition of loyalty in Australia in the 1990s.

The concept of allegiance implied is an anachronism, and that is why we are updating the wording. We want to replace it with, "Under God I pledge my loyalty to Australia", or simply, "I pledge my loyalty to Australia". What could be wrong with that? We will see how the Opposition performs when that matter arises. It will be an interesting debate. I expect that many Government members will speak in that debate. The change will be complemented by changes to the oaths of office taken by the Governor, executive councillors, judicial officers, police officers, and so on. It is important to note the difference of emphasis between the pledge of loyalty and the oaths of office: the first refers to Australia, the latter to New South Wales: that is, one declares one's loyalty to Australia, but one's service and duty is to the people of New South Wales. As an example, the judicial oath taken by all judges and magistrates will be:

I promise to perform the functions and duties of (my office) faithfully and to the best of my ability and to do right to all people in accordance with the laws and usages of the State of New South Wales, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.

Replacing the oath of allegiance will not in any way detract from the solemnity or importance of the promise. Nor will it imply less commitment. The pledge will be able to be taken in the same way as an oath or affirmation. I refer to other amendments in the bill. The bill amends the Criminal Proceedings Act to enable criminal proceedings currently brought by the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions also to be brought in the name of the State of New South Wales. The bill changes the titles of the offices of Crown Advocate, Crown Prosecutor and Crown Solicitor. The Crown Advocate will now be known as the State Advocate, the Crown Prosecutor will now be known as the State Prosecutor, the Crown Solicitor will be known as the State Solicitor, and Assistant Crown Solicitors and the Director of Crown Legal Services will be known as Assistant State Solicitors and the Director of State Legal Services, respectively. This will strike horror in the hearts of National Party members; do not overlook the effect that this will have on them.

[Interruption]

They are all out eating fruitcake, recovering from the strenuous performance of question time - the first of many for them in Opposition. Finally, the bill makes two further symbolic but significant changes, namely, amendments to the Interpretation Act which will enable the words "God Save the Queen" to be dispensed with on government proclamations and documents, and will introduce a mechanism to allow State legislation to be expressed as binding the State rather than the Crown. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr West.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr CARR (Maroubra - Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs) [5.12]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Page 52

The object of this bill is to amend the State Owned Corporations Act for the purpose of altering the existing State corporatisation model. In the context of implementing its economic reform agenda, the Government has identified a number of public authorities that are to be corporatised. This Government has a different model of corporatisation from that of the Government it replaced. Our different model was expressed comprehensively in our policy. Statutory State owned corporations will be established as corporations under their own specific legislation. They will not be registered under the Corporations Law.

The provisions of the Corporations Law will not apply to a statutory State owned corporation except to the extent that they are expressly applied under the State Owned Corporations Act or expressly applied to an individual statutory State owned corporation by that corporation's own legislation. A statutory State owned corporation will have two shareholders: the Treasurer and a Minister nominated by the Premier. As a matter of policy, portfolio Ministers will not be nominated as shareholders. The shareholdings of shareholder Ministers will at all times be equal, carrying equal rights.

Directors will be appointed by the Governor for a term not exceeding five years. At least one of the directors on the board of each statutory State owned corporation is to be an employee representative. The directors and officers of statutory State owned corporations will be subject to express duties modelled on those in the Corporations Law. Chief executive officers will be appointed by the Governor, with other senior executives being appointed by the statutory corporations themselves. Boards of statutory State owned corporations will be empowered to make recommendations to portfolio Ministers regarding the appointment of their chief executive officers.

The bill will ensure that this Government is accountable for the operations of a statutory State owned corporation. To this end, subject to the concurrence of the Treasurer, a portfolio Minister will be empowered to give written directions to the board of a statutory State owned corporation if satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the public interest. That is the kind of government we are. Boards will be required to ensure that such directions are complied with in relation to a State owned corporation and must also, as far as practicable, ensure that they are complied with in relation to the subsidiaries of a State owned corporation.

A statutory State owned corporation will have all the powers of a natural person. However, if a statutory State owned corporation acts contrary to any restrictions that have been expressly imposed on it, both the corporation and its relevant officers will be taken to have contravened the Act. The State will be liable for debts and other liabilities of a statutory State owned corporation and its subsidiaries only if, and to the extent that, the liability is expressly and lawfully undertaken on behalf of the State. In addition to any additional reporting obligations that are imposed on an individual statutory State owned corporation, the corporations and their subsidiaries will be subject to all relevant existing public sector reporting requirements.

All State owned corporations will be made subject to the equal employment opportunity provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. The structure of the two existing State owned corporations - namely, the Hunter Water Corporation and the Sydney Water Corporation - will be maintained. However, these bodies will be made subject to the equal employment opportunity provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act. As their ultimate shareholders, the people of New South Wales have a legitimate expectation that government enterprises will be required to operate in a commercially efficient manner.

At the same time, I believe that the public also expects that these bodies should be obliged to display a sense of social responsibility in the conduct of their commercial activities, and should be accountable for their actions. The Government is committed to ensuring that these public expectations are fulfilled. This bill establishes a framework that will be built upon in forthcoming corporatisation exercises for achieving the goal. It is another promise kept by, and another big tick for, this Government.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Jeffery.



Mr SMALL (Murray) [5.17]: I take this opportunity to speak on behalf of the land-holders whose properties front the Darling River anabranch, which is in the far western part of my electorate. Although these people are few in number, their concerns must be addressed. They rely on the anabranch for their water. It seems, however, that because they are out of sight, they are out of mind. The anabranch has dried up. Some water is being supplied to the region from flows down from the catchment of the Darling River and other northern rivers. However, little water has been able to be harnessed within the Menindee Lakes and Lake Cawndilla region to fill the anabranch.

There is not sufficient water and, of course, the evaporation rate is extremely high. Consideration must be given to providing in the long term a weir on the Darling River to divert water into the anabranch. Unlike the Darling River itself, the anabranch does not have a low river bed. Consequently, a weir would assist greatly to raise the water level of and provide a natural flow into the anabranch to service the needs of the land-holders and replenish the water supply requirements of that area. In response to my correspondence the Minister for Land and Water Conservation said that constructing a weir on the Darling River could cause environmental problems such as blue-green algal blooms.

Page 53

If the weir were controlled and managed in a way that the water level could be raised to divert water into the region, some of the problems could be overcome. It would not be necessary for the weir to hold the volume of water in the Darling River continually if a problem arose for fish movement upstream and downstream in the Darling River. Many of the matters referred to in the letter from the Minister are inaccurate. Keith Forster, the chairman of the Anabranch Water Trust, has pointed out the matters of most concern. I am disappointed to think that land-holders whose properties front the great anabranch could be required to pay for the pumping of water from Lake Cawndilla into the anabranch. The offer by Bob Smith from Landou to make his pumps available is appreciated by all.

Droughts are a fact of life and, unfortunately, because of man-made changes the Darling River does not receive the flow of water below the Menindee Lakes that it did prior to those changes. At times the river does not flow high enough to offer a spill into the anabranch. I urge the Government to construct a low-level weir to administer flows of water into the anabranch for the benefit of land-holders in that area.

Land-holders are feeling the effects of the most severe drought on record. Their demands and requirements for water are urgent. That area usually enjoys on average of nine inches of rain annually, but in the past 15 months it has received only 5½ inches. It is a godsend that some rainfall has been recorded in the region and the surrounding countryside is replenished with green feed. However, the prayers by the land-holders for water in the anabranch have not been answered. Environmentally the Government has a responsibility to provide people with a source of water necessary for their wellbeing and that of their stock.


Mr McMANUS (Bulli) [5.22]: I am pleased that tonight the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism - who was in Opposition the shadow minister for roads and who is well aware of the matter I am about to raise - is present to hear my first statement as a member of a Labor Government. In 1988 the Labor Opposition forced the coalition Government to extend the northern distributor from Wollongong to Bellambi Lane - a project that was undertaken over 40 years by several governments supposedly to ensure the safety of the residents of the northern suburbs of Wollongong. However, I was distressed that this action created more chaos than safety. Generally speaking, the job was half done by a half-baked Government which was not prepared to put additional funds into the northern suburbs of Wollongong. Last year the present Minister for Transport kindly visited the region and assessed the problems first-hand. There is a desperate need, on a number of grounds, to complete of the northern distributor.

In the past two years a number of public meetings have been held with business leaders, members of the community and parents of schoolchildren and teachers at schools within the vicinity - a clear indication of the unsafe traffic conditions created by the former Government in the area of York Street, Park Road, Gray Street, Campbell Street and Thompson Street at Woonona. Unless something is done in the near future, fatalities will occur. Numerous accidents have occurred already at these intersections and on these streets. The northern distributor from its existing completion at Bellambi Lane needs to be extended to Bulli Pass.

The Minister for Transport, who is also the Minister for Tourism, is well aware of the number of people who use Bulli Pass during the summer months to visit the beaches in the beautiful electorate of Bulli. Last year the Roads and Traffic Authority named the bottom of Bulli Pass as the one hundred and sixty-ninth black spot in New South Wales. The former Liberal-National Party Government took little notice that accidents continued to occur in this location. It is an absolute necessity that something is done before a fatality occurs.

I seek immediate action by the Government in the form of a feasibility study for the area. I suggested to the Roads and Traffic Authority in Wollongong that a survey needs to be carried out to assess local drainage problems. This week I will meet further with Mr Lamb, the Divisional Engineer of the Roads and Traffic Authority, in an attempt to ensure that the Government and the bureaucracy of the Roads and Traffic Authority are made aware of these problems. As my colleague the honourable member for Keira can confirm, in the last six months there has been one fatality and one near fatality on the existing northern distributor. I was involved in the latter accident, which took place a couple of weeks ago at Towradgi, opposite the Fairy Meadow Fraternity Club. If safety barriers are not constructed there will undoubtedly be further fatalities. When the northern distributor was built the former Government did not want to spend the money to ensure the safety of users of the northern distributor.

Mr Langton: That is why they were thrown out.

Mr McMANUS: Yes, indeed. Community and business leaders in the area support the construction of a safety barrier. I hope the Government will indicate that some action will be taken as a matter of urgency.

Mr LANGTON (Kogarah - Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism) [5.26]: The statement of the honourable member for Bulli is indicative of the concern he has for his electorate and the concern the Government has for the entire Illawarra area. On the very first full sitting day of this Parliament members from the South Coast and the Illawarra have represented their constituents in a most responsible manner, as they always have. As the honourable member for Bulli said, on many occasions I have visited the area to observe the road problems in that region. I am aware of the extension of the northern distributor. In 1988-89, the Liberal-National Party coalition, during its early days in Government,
Page 54
promised to complete that work. The Minister for Roads at that time, Mr Baird, promised that that work would be completed within 18 months or two years. But, like every other promise of the former Government, it was hollow.

I am aware of the problems associated with Bulli Pass. I have travelled to that area twice during the last few weeks. My colleague the Minister for Roads is also well aware of the problems with the northern distributor and Bulli Pass. He has assured me that he will continue to take into consideration the representations of the honourable member for Bulli. I am sure the people of the Illawarra will reap real benefits from a Labor Government in this State - unlike the situation that existed under the previous Government.


Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [5.28]: During the next three weeks, during this brief sitting of the Parliament, I intend to raise a number of matters of concern in my electorate, and I will be calling on the Government to honour commitments that were offered by the previous Government; projects that I have been working on as the local member; and projects that the community and the electorate of Ku-ring-gai deserve to have dealt with expeditiously by the incoming Government. I highlight firstly law and order. In the first few months of this year a number of serious and not so serious but concerning crimes have been committed in the Asquith area north of Hornsby. In recent months two murders have been committed in Asquith, crimes unheard of in the region until recently. Both matters are before the court, and I shall not refer to them in detail.

The death recently of an elderly lady in her home disturbed and shocked the community. This lady was loved by many in the Asquith community. Prior to that, a businessman going about his business on a weekend in the Asquith industrial area was also murdered. The number of incidents of vandalism and break-ins at the Asquith shopping centre has increased. Recently a teenager was shot in the neck when he was in the laneway behind the Asquith shopping centre. My question to the Government is this: will it give a commitment to provide more police for the Hornsby patrol, particularly in the area between Hornsby and the Hawkesbury River?

I draw the attention of the Government to the fact that there are part-time police stations at Berowra and Brooklyn. Some time ago beat police were removed from Berowra, and I have been campaigning for their return. I call on the Government to make a commitment to the return of beat police to Berowra, to additional police resources north of Hornsby and, in particular, to more police resources for the Hornsby patrol. As these issues - law and order, extra beat police, and increased patrols - were key commitments of the incoming Government, I will hold it accountable, and the people of Ku-ring-gai will call it to account. Secondly, health -

Mr Langton: On a point of order: I draw your attention to several rulings by previous speakers, particularly Speaker Rozzoli, who ruled clearly that only one matter could be raised in a private member's statement.

Mr O'DOHERTY: On the point of order: I am raising matters of concern to my electorate. I made a clear umbrella statement at the commencement of my contribution, and these are all matters of similar nature, that is, matters of concern to my electorate.

Mr Langton: Further to the point of order: the honourable member was lucky to get away with the first four issues; his first presentation contained four separate issues. He will not get away with more.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order.

Mr O'DOHERTY: I still have two minutes, Mr Deputy-Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member will confine his remarks to one issue, and conclude his statement.

Mr O'DOHERTY: I would be happy to, and on future occasions I will raise other matters. The people of the northern area of my electorate have been concerned for some time, and I have been speaking with them at community access meetings and in other places about the allocation of police resources within the electorate of Ku-ring-gai. One issue we have been discussing over the past few years with the police, and particularly those in the Hornsby patrol, is the allocation of police resources to that area, especially on weekends and at night. The previous Government provided an additional patrol car for the northern part of the electorate, and reached an agreement about regular staffing hours for the Berowra police station.

I believe that, in light of recent events - the increase in serious and other crime in my electorate - now is the time for additional resources to be given to the Hornsby patrol, as well as resources to cover the new part-time police station on the other side of the gorge. I call on the Government to honour its electoral commitments, not only to electorates that it won, but to electorates such as mine, because it must govern for all electorates in this State. Now is the time for additional resources promised by the Government to be provided to Ku-ring-gai and other electorates. I look forward to the assurance of the Minister that additional police resources will be given to Hornsby patrol generally, and specifically to the suburbs north of Hornsby.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [5.33]: On the first day that Parliament resumed, one could not have had a more hypocritical treatise before the Parliament. Where has the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai been for the past seven years? Did he not talk to the former Minister for Police about the problem that he is howling about? Did he not get any satisfaction from the former Minister? He may not get any satisfaction from me. All honourable members will be treated equally on a system of merit.
Page 55
The honourable member can write to me and tell me why he deserves meritorious treatment. He was a member of a government that failed the people of New South Wales. The former Government was in such a despicable state that senior police officers in New South Wales, whether from Blacktown, Bondi or Cabramatta, condemned it for a lack of resources. Almost daily police officers condemned the former Liberal-National Party Government for its failure to understand the problems confronting people.

Mr O'Doherty: You are in a position to do something about it.

Mr WHELAN: The honourable member can do much more to help his constituents, and I will give him some advice on behalf of 19 other Ministers: if he wants sympathetic consideration, if he wants his matters to be dealt with effectively, he should have the decency to ask Ministers to come into the Chamber to reply.

[Interruption]

The deal is off. I will not reply. I will not ring the Editor of the Northern District Times to tell him that the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai is a failure, because I will not do anything to assist him or to give him publicity. I am a member of a government elected on its promises. The Government will keep its promises, one of which is to keep honourable members opposite in Opposition.


Mr CLOUGH (Bathurst) [5.35]: A few moments ago in debate on the rural sector I made passing reference to the banking fraternity. I should now like to add to those remarks. No sector of the Australian economy is more determined to pursue a policy of keeping downtrodden those who cannot afford to keep minimum bank balances than the Australian Bankers Association and its member banks. Recently in a televised debate a bank spokesman said, "You do not expect Toyota to give people a free car and you do not expect David Jones to give people free clothing. Why should you expect a bank to give free service?" That is the most puerile argument I have ever heard from someone who is supposed to know what he is talking about. Mr Cullen, the Executive Officer of the Australian Bankers Association, supported that point of view.

The two organisations referred to do not take one's money, pay 2 per cent interest on it, and then charge 14 per cent to borrow. Only the Australian banking system does that. I had personal experience of the Australian banking system about two years ago when my wife had a business in Bathurst. She borrowed some money from the bank, at a rate of 22.75 per cent interest. A condition of the loan was that I put an equal amount on fixed deposit, on which the bank paid me 14 per cent. In other words, the bank charged both of us 8.75 per cent to use our own money.

I am very pleased to see the Minister for Agriculture in the Chamber, because the next facet regarding the Australian banking system concerns the rural area. Today, farmers in New South Wales are being belted around the ears by the banking system. In many instances, before farmers can apply for assistance from the Rural Assistance Authority, they must obtain a banking certificate. A few days ago I received a phone call from a farmer in Gilgandra who needed a banking certificate to make application to the Rural Assistance Authority, but the bank - the ANZ Banking Group - refused point blank to provide the certificate. In the past couple of weeks the State Bank of New South Wales, which used to be owned by the people of New South Wales but is now owned by an insurance company, has adopted the most bloody-minded approach to debt recovery of any organisation in the history of this State.

I quote the case of a farming family with whom I have come in contact. The family comes from Gilgandra where the rural action movement started. When it could not get any assistance from the National Party in the district, it approached the Labor Party, representatives of whom went to Gilgandra and spoke to the family. Although the family did not bank with the State Bank, it was able to borrow from that bank, under the bank's lending practices of the 1980s. In the last couple of weeks the family's properties have been taken from it and it has been left with absolutely nothing. The father, who is in his sixties and has been on the land all his life, has had a nervous breakdown. His family members fear that they will lose him. The bank perpetrating this atrocity - the only way to describe it - is the State Bank. Employees of the bank sit in its premises at Martin Place and discuss with some degree of derision the people up the Collie Road. They think it is a great big joke; they mercilessly attack the farming community.

I raise this matter tonight to alert the Minister for Agriculture, and the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism to the fact that it is time an approach was made to the Commonwealth Government to cut back the powers of the banks. The margin between what the banks pay people to invest their money and at which they lend it should not be used to obtain profits of the order of $1,000 million - the anticipated profit of the Westpac Banking Corporation this year. The banks are bastards and they always will be. [Time expired.]

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [5.40]: I am pleased to respond to the comments of the honourable member for Bathurst. He has been a consistent spokesperson for rural New South Wales and has highlighted problems faced by farmers, particularly those who have had difficulty with their financiers and especially the banks. I agree with his opening comments in relation to the bad publicity given to bank profits. I was surprised that on the day consumers and pensioners protested in the streets near Parliament House, Westpac Banking Corporation announced one of its highest profits ever. Honourable members will recall the debate on the
Page 56
Farm Debt Mediation Bill last year. Only hours after the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the Hon. Ian Causley, told the House that banks do not make profits, the National Australia Bank Limited announced the highest corporate profit in Australian history. Obviously banks have to address the public relations timing question.

As to the concerns the honourable member raised in relation to the rural community, I have already written to the banks. I will be meeting the chairman of the rural subcommittee of the Australian Bankers Association soon to take up many of the issues that the honourable member has raised. His concerns about the actions of the banks have been vindicated by the fact that the Farm Debt Mediation Bill, which was introduced only last year, has resulted in a substantial number of mediations being sought by farmers in difficulty. It should be noted that since 12 February 160 section 8 notices have been issued by creditors to farmers in financial difficulty. The previous Government told the House that each year only two or three people would require mediation. Mediation kits have been requested by 104 people. Of the two or three cases that have gone to mediation, each has been satisfactorily resolved. [Time expired.]


Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [5.42]: I raise some very real concerns about the timber industry in my electorate, and the rural community in general. I refer to the long-term effects of the dwindling supply of sawlogs. I am pleased that the Minister for Land and Water Conservation is in the Chamber tonight. I hope that he will be able to give me some good news. The sawmills in my electorate are running out of logs because access to compartments continues to be denied. The situation is desperate at Wauchope, Kempsey, Bowraville and other areas of my electorate. Some 27 forestry compartments which supply the Wauchope, Kempsey, Bowraville and Urunga areas are being held up for a number of reasons, including waiting for approvals from the Environment Protection Authority and from the National Parks and Wildlife Service, as well as delays in planning and in habitat protection assessment.

We need swift action on this issue. It is set to bring the north coast forestry industry to its knees. The forests on the north coast are held in trust for the people of New South Wales to produce top quality timber; they are not used to produce woodchips as the green lobby would have us believe. The timber industry is vital to the economy of the north coast. The industry is worth some $30 million a year in the Hastings area alone. In the Hastings area 310 workers are directly employed by the industry and 1,000 people are indirectly employed. They cannot afford to lose their jobs and the State cannot afford to lose the industry. We have the forests and quality timber; we must support a viable timber industry.

Some of these forests have been logged many times. It is a measure of the sustainable practices of State Forests that we are still logging them today. We do not intend to denude the forests of New South Wales. The forests are our future; they are the nurseries of future generations. They are renewable. We are nurturing species, not destroying our valuable flora and fauna. No resource is as environmentally friendly as timber: it is easily renewable, completely biodegradable, 100 per cent recyclable, and solar powered. Labor's promised hardwood plantations will take years to grow to replace our work in forests. We need to sustain a viable, productive timber industry, not just for Wauchope, Kempsey and Bowraville, but for New South Wales in general.

I also have very real concerns about the future of rural townships. Towns would disappear if the timber industry closed down. If the timber industry is further curtailed, mid-north coast towns reliant upon the timber industry will come to a virtual standstill. It is not just the timber workers who are affected; many supporting businesses such as transport, tyre services, engineering, fuel suppliers, et cetera, are affected. I was at Wauchope last Thursday night when 700 people attended a public meeting. The town has a strong financial interest in the timber industry. Delays are crippling the industry; they have a destabilising effect on the entire community. The Wauchope Chamber of Commerce has held meetings to discuss these very grave concerns.

I have invited the Minister for Land and Water Conservation to my electorate to witness first-hand the adverse effect the delays in having these compartments released is having on jobs and the economy. I am sure the Minister has received many faxes and letters asking for the immediate release of these coupes. Only last Friday I received two faxes from mills in the Bowraville area. One mill had only half a day's timber supply on Friday - 26 jobs were threatened. We have to think about these people - they have families and children. It is no good the Labor Party buying off the workers and closing the industry. The Greens want to lock all our trees away forever. Where is the true Australian spirit of invention and creativity that built this nation? Technology can help forest industries survive.

There is no provision for guaranteed harvest rights for the plantations of the future. Without such guarantees, who will undertake such long-term investment? Under so-called structural adjustment, the Labor policy sets out how it will close down the timber industry by offering an estimated $200 million payout - as revealed by freedom of information - administered by a compensation tribunal. The industry and timber workers do not want a cheap buyout; they want long-term jobs in the communities in which they live. I hope that the Labor Party is not now paying off the dark green movement for its preferences at the last State election. It is high time that the forestry debate was conducted at a more rational level with facts rather than politics influencing the outcome. I ask the Minister for Land and Water Conservation to come to my electorate, to see what is happening and to release some of these compartments. Wet weather is setting in now and we will not be able to supply the mills from the other compartments. We
Page 57
need it today. I ask the Minister to give an answer to the people who live in my electorate and who are dependent on these jobs. Give them a chance. [Time expired.]

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [5.47]: I point out to the honourable member for Oxley that there is only one Crown quota mill at Bowraville. It was previously Allen Taylor's, but it burnt down several years ago. The quota supply was transferred by that company to other Boral mills. The mill is still there and, as I understand, a supply of timber is going into it. A quota licence is being fulfilled. What Boral does with it is its business. The other mills referred to by the honourable member are non-quota mills; that is, they have no contract and there is no legal requirement on the Government to supply them. They are simply sold on a parcel sale basis and there can be no guarantee - there never has been under this Government nor was there under the previous Government - in relation to supply.

It should be made clear that the current shortage of logs at Mitchells Mills - one of the mills nominated by the honourable member for Oxley - is not due to Government action or licensing issues. It is a result of a supply shortage due to wet weather - as was mentioned by the honourable member - and a lesser log yield in the area than was predicted by State Forests. This situation is not due to any action or policy of this Government.

The honourable member referred to 28 compartments in the Oxley electorate. The Government has acted on only one, the Styx River coupe, since it came to office. We have removed ourselves from there, but other resources have been made available. The 28 compartments are held up for a whole range of reasons, by and large due to the environmental and regulatory processes that were put in place by the previous Government. The Government has done nothing with them; they were behind schedule. They have been systematically overlogged beyond sustainable yields, and now the price is being paid for that. I am most concerned about that, but it is not the fault of this Government.


Mr MILLS (Wallsend) [5.49]: Mr Deputy-Speaker, I congratulate you on your election to that office and to that of Chairman of Committees. I assure you of the cooperation of the House, and hope that you get satisfaction and pleasure indeed from doing a good job in that post.

I wish to speak tonight in support of the Newcastle Knights, our rugby league team in the Hunter. I want to speak particularly in support of the A-grade players, who almost to a man have signed loyalty agreements with the Australian Rugby League. The reason I am doing this is that apart from my opinions on the issue I am speaking in support of my constituents - the vast majority of whom are very interested in football - for whom rugby league is very much a part of their lives. It is their game. My constituents are very firm in support of the Australian Rugby League. That support is evident in the crowd support for the Newcastle Knights. Since the team came into the competition in 1988 its crowd support has been second only to that enjoyed by the Brisbane Broncos in their own area.

Rugby league is very much a part of life in the Hunter. I grew up in a rugby league town. It was part of my life as a kid out in the country. Playing rugby league my constituents learn sportsmanship, guts, courage and determination, just as I did when I was a child. They also learn about a pretty good game and what it is to love something. What we want most of all in our area is for the game to be a sport, first, and for it to be controlled by the sporting body we know as the Australian Rugby League. That loyalty to the ARL is very intense at the grassroots level in the Hunter. In my view, the Super League issue is all about pay television - entertainment first and sport second. I suppose eventually we will see the matter fought out in court on the issues of contracts and use of venues.

One of the better comments on this issue was made by the Prime Minister many weeks ago when he said that perhaps Super League was the best news since World Series Cricket. In hindsight, there is a fair bit in that comment in that there is a parallel. A lot fell out of my life and my summertime pleasure in cricket when the Packer circus called World Series Cricket kicked off in 1977. The best players were taken out of the game to a separate competition which was going to be the world's best. There is the similarity, the parallel. It took three years for that separate body to come back to join the official sporting body, the Australian Cricket Board. However, out of that came improvements, and the career of Allan Border. Out of the current dispute, certainly in the Hunter region, we are seeing the emergence of new careers, and I refer to the Johns brothers, and also to Robbie O'Davis who is playing for Queensland. It is not always an ill wind that blows no good.

On 10 May, 1800 people attended a meeting at the Newcastle Workers Club called by Knights supporters and organised by Barbara Davis and Duckie Williams. Brad Mellen and Terry Lawler from the Knights spoke, as did John Raper and Peter Barrack, Secretary of the Newcastle Trades Hall Council and President of the Newcastle Workers Club, which are major sponsors of the Knights this year. Also present were Ken Arthurson and John Quayle, as well as Graham Richardson. Some interesting things came out of that meeting. One was a second meeting, where an organisation was formed, Aussies for the ARL. A petition was circulated in the Hunter petitioning:

. . . Ministers for Sport in the Parliaments of Australia and New South Wales, to take up our fight in the Houses of Parliament to put a stop to any individual, particularly one of non-Australian citizenship, or any business corporations owning, or taking over the game of Rugby League. We believe it should be owned by the Australian people and run by the experienced Australian Rugby League. IT'S OUR GAME.

Page 58

When I speak to those intense supporters of rugby league, though I see a role for politicians in mediation and investigation, they do not tell me that they want legislation. I do not see a role for legislation either. We need a compromise that allows preservation in rugby league of the same dream that all other sports hold out to their followers in Australia, that is, the opportunity for the best talent to represent their State and country in sporting competition. We need to head in that direction in this dispute. Politicians can encourage an early resolution, but rugby league is a game of the people and a sport. I urge all interested parties to work towards that end. [Time expired.]


Mr KERR (Cronulla) [5.54]: I wish to raise the subject of promises that were made in the Cronulla electorate. Two aspects of those promises I wish to speak on are the dredging of Port Hacking and the upgrading of sewerage. Dredging in Port Hacking, which has had a siltation problem for quite some time, has had a fairly chequered history. The previous Government spent $500,000 on that problem. It was the former Federal Minister for Public Works who said the State Government would no longer provide funds for recreational ports.

Mr Yeadon: You were caught right out.

Mr KERR: I take it that the Minister was referring to Mr Brereton.

Mr Yeadon: You were caught right out.

Mr KERR: He was caught right out, because the Labor Party then came out and said it would provide funding for navigational channels within a year, in contravention of what had been said by the former Federal Minister for Public Works. I admit that the Minister is quite right in relation to his colleague's credibility. A promise was made that those navigational channels would be dredged within 12 months. I have had occasion previously to speak in this Chamber about the Sutherland Shire Council. Not only the navigational channels but also those for recreational boating, including the ferry that runs between Cronulla and Bundeena, require dredging. That dredging needs to be carried out so that many Sydney residents can enjoy the beautiful waterways of Port Hacking and not be restricted to the navigational channels and the public transport channel. The council should provide a wharf as has been promised by it in relation to the extension of that council facility there. That promise was made: that promise needs to be fulfilled. The second promise was about the upgrading of the sewage treatment plant at Cronulla. The Government promised that plant would be upgraded to provide tertiary treatment. At the same time a promise was made that there would be no further ocean outfalls. A commitment was made that at least $130 million would be spent on the upgrading of that facility.

Mr Nagle: That was your promise.

Mr KERR: The honourable member for Auburn is quite wrong. We certainly promised tertiary treatment if we were returned to government. We also have a very proud record on the upgrading of that facility with the expenditure of many millions of dollars since 1988. I would be quite happy to tell the honourable member for Auburn about all the improvements that have been made, but I am restricted by time so I will leave that to another day. The previous Government made millions of dollars available for sewage treatment upgrading. The present Government has to abide by its promise of tertiary treatment, and make a commitment for the expenditure of $130 million.

An environmental impact study is required into the engineering aspects of this matter and the social and health aspects need to be determined before a concrete proposal is put forward. The previous Government was responsible for ensuring considerable input by the community, through community consultation. I hope that the present Government will continue that community consultation, because those who live in the local environment should be able to determine the plans that are made to facilitate sewage treatment in that environment. This is not only an engineering matter but a social matter. [Time expired.]

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [5.59]: I have taken note of the comments of the honourable member for Cronulla. It is the intention of the Government to keep all of its promises and this matter will receive the Minister's attention. I understand that there is a bit of a logjam at the Premier's Department which is trying to fulfil all of those promises. I am encouraged by Opposition members who have spoken this evening. After seven years of not getting anything done, Opposition members are rushing into the House aware that the only way they can achieve anything for their electorates is by getting the Labor Government to keep its promises. The Government welcomes that confidence.


Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [6.01]: I raise a matter of grave concern to constituents of mine, Mr and Mrs Goodstate. The following extract is from an article which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of 18 March 1994:

The Minister for Health, Mr Phillips, announced the investigation yesterday after meeting 15 patients whose surgery had been inexplicably delayed, including . . . Mr Charles Goodstate, who has been told it will take two years before he can have a prostate operation at the Lidcombe Hospital . . .

On 10 May 1995 Mrs Goodstate wrote a letter to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health, who is at present in the Chamber. Mr Goodstate was first diagnosed with a prostate problem in February 1990. Mrs Goodstate's letter explains it all. She wrote, in part:

Page 59

On the 13th July, 1994 a phone call was received from Bankstown Hospital asking my husband if he would be prepared to come in if a bed was made available for him. Of course he said he would and went to the hospital and booked in the following day - 14th July, 1994. Up until the 12th April, 1995, the only calls he received from The Lidcombe-Bankstown Hospital in this time was to ask him if he wanted to stay on the waiting list. His reply always being "Yes, I have to have an operation." (Did they think he may have "passed away" and that it would help to reduce the number on the waiting list?)

Mr Goodstate went to hospital on 14 February 1995 and nothing happened. On 12 April 1995 he was told to report to the hospital on 21 April; the following day he was told to report on 20 April; and, ultimately, he was admitted on 19 April and he was operated on. At approximately 9.15 a.m. on 20 April Mrs Goodstate received a phone call from the doctor. Mrs Goodstate's letter continued:

Thinking my husband must have passed away on the operating table, I asked "What is the problem Doctor?" His reply was "It is cancer". I can assure you that this made me very angry. And for many reasons. Firstly, when my husband's problem was first diagnosed in 1990, the condition was benign, but he was told at that time he would have to be operated on in the future. Unfortunately, his doctor at that time died and he had to be transferred over to another doctor . . . at Auburn. He also recommended an operation but advised that my husband would have to be placed on a two year waiting list.

Her letter continued:

Now my husband has to attend Westmead Hospital for seven weeks (33 treatments) of radiotherapy which I feel sure could have been avoided if our disgraceful hospital situation was in better condition and the doctors were more caring of their patients.

Mrs Goodstate has also suggested that the Government should set up a clinic for people with prostate problems, similar to the breast cancer clinics for women. Later in her letter she said:

I am 70 plus . . . Both my husband and myself have never been a burden on anyone and feel we have a right to be treated as human beings and given the same respect attributed to all people.

In a covering letter to me dated 11 May Mrs Goodstate wrote:

I cannot tell you how disappointed I am that my husband was denied attention for his problem until now when it has become cancerous and he has the trauma now of having to have radiotherapy which we do not know will save his life. I have always been a person who believed in a fair deal for all people but I do not think my husband was treated fairly in his case.

Perhaps it is too late for my family but I hope conditions change in future and that others get a fairer deal.

It is a sad state of affairs that a person was put on the hospital waiting list because of seven years of neglect by the previous Government; and the former Minister for Health, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, is indirectly responsible for what has occurred. It is a tragedy for this family. If Lidcombe Hospital had not been closed by the previous Government for the purpose of grabbing the land, Mr Goodstate would have been operated on and would not now be costing the people of New South Wales a great deal of money for 33 episodes of radiotherapy - and he will probably have to receive chemotherapy. The old saying is that prevention is better than cure. I think it is to the shame of both the Greiner and Fahey governments that this situation has occurred.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [6.06]: This is another example of the previous Government having failed the patients of New South Wales. Under the Fahey Government hospital waiting lists were doubled, and because of the productivity cuts in hospitals and bed closures patients could not obtain the necessary treatment. On behalf of the Government I express deepest sympathy to Mr Goodstate and his wife and family.

It is difficult to be sure about what happens in each individual case, how much the delay makes a difference, but certainly there is enough cause here for one to be highly sceptical about whether there was any compassion shown by the former Government to make sure that a potentially cancerous condition was treated early so that what seems now to be a pretty traumatic and dangerous situation for the family could have been avoided. I propose to refer this matter to the Health Care Complaints Commission because I believe issues such as this need to be investigated. The competent and dedicated workers in the health care system need the resources that this Government will provide to enable them to get on with the job so that patients such as Mr Goodstate can get the treatment they need and deserve at the appropriate time.


Mr CHAPPELL (Northern Tablelands) [6.08]: When honourable members were here for the opening of Parliament a blockade was being conducted in compartment 195 of Forest Land State Forest, south-east of Tenterfield, by the North East Forest Alliance. That blockade led to an urgent meeting of business people and others in the community of Tenterfield, fearful of the impact of the blockade and the possible closure of the local timber industry as a consequence of it. At that meeting it was decided to hold a major community rally on 10 May. As local member, I was invited to become involved, together with the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, the Forest Protection Society and various other people.

That meeting went ahead and a good assessment of the number of people in attendance that day is approximately 2,000 out of a community of about 3,500 people in Tenterfield. I take that number not from my own count but from the count made by one of the media representatives who walked in and through the crowd, doing a count. So, the number is genuine. During the course of the rally in the town centre a reply was received from the Minister which indicated that the community's response on that day was the result of a cynical and destructive campaign of misinformation by a group called the Forest Protection Society. The Minister went on in his press release to say:

This is action by them to manipulate the situation within the community and to undermine forest policy.

Page 60

It was not a cynical and manipulative campaign. I should like to quote from a letter subsequently written to the Minister by the local Catholic parish priest:

The notion you imply that these people, including the Business Houses, could be manipulated by extremists, is laughable to anyone who knows Tenterfield and its people.

This Protest arose from a meeting of concerned Business People. The motion to close businesses for two hours as a Protest was their decision and it was unanimous. It was made, not because of influence by extremists but because Businesses are hurting through the ongoing drought and current economic hardship. They saw it as another example of a decision made in Sydney by bureaucracy without their views even being sought.

I can attest to that. The response was from a community genuinely fearful of the loss of another industry and desperate to protect it. When all the facts of the matter are known, the blockade by the North East Forest Alliance had nothing to do with old-growth logging. This area had been logged three times - and in one compartment four times. The protest was not about the emotional issue of woodchipping or wilderness areas. The area had been logged previously. The community believed that if the North East Forest Alliance was to succeed in having a compartment of regrowth logging locked away from the industry, it would succeed in locking up the hardwood industry throughout the length and breadth of rural New South Wales. This community feared for its own future and was genuinely concerned that the very nature of the blockade was intended to test the Minister and the Government, at the beginning of its term, on the ability of the timber industry to retain its place in the community and to be sustainable and ongoing - nothing to do with old-growth rainforest or woodchipping, but all about genuine forestry practice. The local parish priest did as I did: he extended an invitation to the Minister. In the close of his letter he said:

. . . come to Tenterfield, visit the Forest areas in question, obtain the facts for yourself first hand. Then you will know why your remark, the closure of Business Houses "was an example of a community manipulated by extremists", is laughable, and indeed a source of anger to many decent, hardworking, Australian people.

More importantly, you will be able to make a decision based on facts - free from any bias and one that takes into consideration the genuine concerns of a WHOLE and struggling community.

Again I extend an invitation to the Minister to visit the area. Twice in writing and twice personally I have invited the Minister to look at the areas and to meet the people so that he can understand that they are not intent on destroying the environment or on logging every tree standing in any forest. The community is reacting in a responsible way according to the controls and regulations that apply. [Time expired.]

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [6.13]: I make clear from the outset that I understand the concerns and fears held by people in rural New South Wales in relation to the forestry industry, particularly those in Tenterfield. A number of groups and people, including National Party members of this House, are cynically manipulating and exploiting that fear for their own short-term political opportunism. Environmentalists did blockade a compartment in the area. Police informed us that it would take some time to remove those people from the area and that it would result in disruption. An alternative solution was achieved. As a result of action by this Government, agreement was reached with the environmentalists that State Forests, or the logging contractor, could enter the area to rectify the situation and remove the logs that had already been cut down.

At no time did I call any of the ordinary folk of Tenterfield extremists, but certainly leaders of the Forest Protection Society - particularly the infamous Robyn Loydell - were in the area exploiting the fears of local people. Logging contractors have experienced minor disruption but no jobs have been lost. Restriction of resources on the north coast is simply the result of the policies of the previous Government. Members of the previous Government took the matter down to the wire, did not address the issue and had no plans, strategies or policies. Now the issue has come home to roost; it is on their heads. [Time expired.]


Mr HARRISON (Kiama) [6.15]: On many occasions I have expressed my concern at harvesting of kangaroos for human consumption. A public notice is to be inserted in the metropolitan media inviting comment on the possible impact on public health of harvesting kangaroos for human consumption. Recently a mysterious disease was detected in kangaroos in New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria. Though it is speculation at this stage, it is believed that the disease might be related in some way to choroid blindness. An in-depth investigation of the matter has not been undertaken. The beef export industry is extremely concerned that the disease in the kangaroo population might find its way into beef cattle and cause irreparable damage to the New South Wales beef cattle export industry - a totally justified concern.

It would be difficult for the Government to undertake an investigation of the disease and its possible transfer to beef cattle. I acknowledge the assurances by the meat industry, but kangaroos are wild animals and it is not possible to slaughter them in hygienic conditions in abattoirs. At night kangaroos are transfixed with a spotlight and shot. Obviously there is very little control over the way they are processed, but kangaroo meat makes its way to the dinner table and into the export market. The kangaroo meat industry should never have been established. Public health must be given paramount consideration. Funding should be provided for in-depth experimentation to determine the nature of the disease causing blindness in kangaroos.

If blind kangaroos are not eventually hit by cars, they starve to death because they cannot find food. That is a tragedy and obviously touches the hearts of anyone concerned about the native animal that
Page 61
comprises half of our national emblem. The notion of kangaroo meat being served on dinner plates and of the diseased meat possibly being consumed by human beings is extremely frightening. A moratorium should be placed on the harvesting of kangaroos for human consumption, but any such moratorium should have minimum impact on innocent people who have established a livelihood from this industry.

It would be appropriate for the moratorium to start in Parliament House, which still has kangaroo on the menu. Though I am concerned about the health of animals, I am concerned also about the health of members of Parliament and their guests. In particular, I am concerned about National Party members, who seem to have a penchant for ordering up big when kangaroo meat is on the menu; perhaps they are trying to prove a point. I never eat kangaroo meat and I doubt that many of my colleagues have even bothered to sample it. Even though members of the National Party and I have political differences, I do not want them to contract this disease. They are one-eyed and without much focus, but I would not like them to see them staggering around blind. As well as seeking funds for experimentation into the cause of this disease, I ask for an immediate moratorium on kangaroo meat being on the parliamentary dining room menu. [Time expired.]

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [6.20]: I thank the honourable member for Kiama for the way he has presented this matter to the Parliament. I am pleased to announce that the honourable member is now a member of my agricultural caucus committee. I shall be giving him responsibility to monitor issues such as animal welfare, public health and related matters. In recent months a condition similar to choroid blindness has affected kangaroos and has been the subject of media attention. Reports of blind kangaroos have been received from New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria. The condition is indiscriminate, and affects red and grey kangaroos.

I am advised that kangaroos affected by the condition are not harvested for inclusion in the domestic food chain as the code of practice prohibits the taking of any kangaroo that looks or behaves abnormally. That prohibition seems a little light on and I shall be examining closely whether it is being properly policed. I shall seek a report from the Meat Industry Authority and request that it consult with the Department of Health should it consider there is any risk to public health. I am concerned also about the impact of kangaroo meat on the cattle industry, which was raised by the honourable member for Kiama. As Minister for Agriculture I will be doing everything in my power to ensure that the Meat Industry Authority consults with all relevant persons involved in this matter so that it can be thoroughly investigated. If any concerns are raised, I shall present a report later to the House.

Private members' statements noted.

[The Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 6.22 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [7.30]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The bill amends several pieces of health legislation to clarify existing legislative provisions, to achieve greater consistency in legislation, and to address deficiencies that have recently become apparent in the operation of various Acts. The amendments to each Act are set out in separate schedules to the bill. Schedule 1 contains amendments to the Medical Practice Act. In 1992, the Medical Practitioners Act 1938 was repealed and replaced by a new statute. The Medical Practitioners Act 1992 included streamlined provisions for the registration of medical practitioners and complaints and disciplinary action relating to medical practitioners. Both the 1938 Act and 1992 Act set out similar grounds for making a complaint against a registered medical practitioner.

The 1992 Act specifies that complaints can be made about a registered medical practitioner in relation to a criminal conviction, unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct, lack of competence, impairment or lack of character. While the 1992 Act specifies that a complaint may be made under any of those five broad headings, section 64 provides that suspension or deregistration is possible only in relation to complaints where the Medical Tribunal is satisfied that the person is "not competent to practise medicine" or is "guilty of professional misconduct". It does not allow the tribunal to suspend or deregister a medical practitioner on the basis of a finding about a complaint that the practitioner is not of good character or has been convicted of a criminal offence. That is what this bill proposes to correct.

The New South Wales Medical Board brought to attention this anomaly in the 1992 Act, which allows a complaint to be lodged that a registered medical practitioner is not of good character or has been convicted of a criminal offence and empowers the Medical Tribunal to conduct an inquiry into such a complaint but does not allow the tribunal to suspend or deregister a medical practitioner on the basis of such a complaint. In contrast, the provisions of the 1938 Act gave clear powers to suspend or deregister a registered practitioner where the tribunal found that the practitioner was not of good character or had been convicted of a criminal offence. The tribunal's power to suspend or deregister on those grounds was intended to be retained in the Medical Practice Act 1992. Similar powers exist in legislation relating to other health professionals.

There have been significant cases which arose under the 1938 Act in which a criminal conviction formed the basis for an order of deregistration or suspension by the Medical Tribunal. Similarly, a finding that a registered medical practitioner is not of good character has been of major significance in past
Page 62
decisions of the Medical Tribunal to suspend or deregister. Accordingly, schedule 1 amends section 64 of the Medical Practice Act to allow the tribunal to suspend or deregister a medical practitioner when it finds that the practitioner is not of good character or has been convicted of a criminal offence when the circumstances of the offence are such as to render the person unfit to practise medicine. This re-establishes powers to the tribunal similar to those under the Medical Practitioners Act 1938 and is consistent with powers under other Acts relating to the registration of health professionals in New South Wales.

The wording of the amendment in relation to a practitioner's medical conviction indicates that the tribunal's power to suspend or deregister a practitioner is restricted to criminal convictions which render the person unfit in the public interest to practise medicine. The amendment makes it clear that the tribunal's power does not extend to convictions for minor offences but would have no bearing on the person's ability to practise medicine and the tribunal's protective jurisdiction. The amendment thus restores the essential power to the tribunal to act to protect the public and ensures that the public interest is the guiding principle by which decisions to suspend or deregister a practitioner are made.

The bill makes a second amendment to the Medical Practice Act relating to the Medical Tribunal's power to award costs. The amendment will make it clear that the tribunal may award costs against any person entitled to appear in proceedings before the tribunal. At present clause 13(1) of schedule 2 to the Act provides that the tribunal may order the complainant, if any, the registered medical practitioner concerned, or any other person granted leave to appear at any inquiry or appeal before the tribunal, to pay such costs to such person as the tribunal may determine. The intention of this power to award costs was that it should apply to any person appearing before the tribunal. However, the wording of this part of the Act creates an anomaly because it fails to include one particular category of persons who may bring tribunal proceedings, that is, deregistered medical practitioners.

The Medical Tribunal will not always exercise its discretion to award costs under this provision. Examples of the types of circumstances under which the tribunal has exercised its discretion to award costs include: frivolous or vexatious proceedings, such as applications that repeatedly seek review of a single decision over a short period of time; proceedings that are considered to be an abuse of process; or proceedings that are withdrawn at the last minute, after detailed and time-consuming preparation has been undertaken by other parties. The Medical Board drew attention to this anomaly in a case in which a former medical practitioner, whose name had been removed from the register following a Medical Tribunal hearing, had brought proceedings under section 92 of the Act for a review of his deregistration.

The application was rejected, and when the question of costs was considered it was noted that, as the person was not then a registered medical practitioner or a person granted leave to appear, there was no power to award costs even if the tribunal had wished to do so. That is inconsistent with the tribunal's discretion to award costs as it sees fit against any other person appearing before it, depending on the individual circumstances of the case. The amendment makes it clear that the tribunal may award costs against any persons appearing before the tribunal, whether under a grant of leave or as of right, such as deregistered medical practitioners. The power to award costs is available against all other parties. That is seen as a significant deterrent to vexatious proceedings. The amendment was sought in 1994 by the then chairperson of the Medical Tribunal and by the president of the Medical Board.

Schedule 2 amends the Poisons Act 1966 to put beyond doubt the Governor's power to make regulations under the Act concerning the withdrawal or limitation of certain practitioners' authority to prescribe drugs of addiction. The regulations under the Poisons Act provide for action to be taken by the Director-General of the Department of Health when the conduct of practitioners - medical practitioners, dentists and veterinarians - who may prescribe drugs of addiction comes to the notice of the Department of Health through unsound practices of prescription of those drugs to addicts or through self-administration. In the majority of such cases, practitioners voluntarily agree to the imposition of controls on their authorities in relation to drugs of addiction. This may be by either total withdrawal of the authority to prescribe or imposition of conditions on prescription of those drugs. This power has operated in relation to these practitioners for many years, without challenge, under the 1967 regulations.

The poisons regulation was revised on 1 September 1994 as a result of the review required by the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989. However, in the process of revising the regulation the Parliamentary Counsel's Office expressed doubt regarding the certainty of the statutory power under the regulation to withdraw or restrict practitioners' authority to prescribe drugs of addiction. Schedule 2 to the bill will make minor amendments to section 24 of the Poisons Act to clarify that the regulations may prohibit the right of medical practitioners, dentists and veterinarians to prescribe drugs of addiction, in addition to regulating the authority of practitioners to prescribe. As the amendment will merely clarify the power of the existing regulation and confirm longstanding practice relating to prescribers' rights, no change to existing procedures will occur under this provision and it is not necessary to amend the regulation.

I turn now to the proposed amendments to the Public Health Act contained in schedule 3 to the bill. The amendments will improve procedures for the notification of diseases by hospitals. Section 69 of the Public Health Act places a duty on the chief executive of a hospital to provide the Director-General of the Department of Health with information concerning persons suffering from notifiable diseases. This provision targets all hospitals in New South Wales, both public and private, and is designed to ensure that action can be taken as soon as possible to protect the
Page 63
health of the community from the spread of notifiable diseases. However, as currently drafted the section is unclear regarding the nature and extent of hospitals' notification obligations. Specifically, the current provision does not provide a clear trigger for notification, a time frame for notification, or adequate sanctions when a hospital chief executive officer fails to notify. Advice from the department indicates that the inexactitude of these provisions has caused delays and other difficulties in the notification of diseases under section 69 of the Act and has made the provision difficult to enforce.

Many conditions of significance to public health have short incubation periods - some only a few hours, and others a few days. Public health units need early notice in order to respond effectively to minimise the spread of infection in the community. Some examples of highly infectious diseases which require a rapid response by public health units and which are dealt with under the notification requirements are acute viral hepatitis - including hepatitis B and hepatitis C - bacterial meningitis, cholera and plague. Problems with section 69 were highlighted by a case of transmission of hepatitis C at a private hospital. In December 1993 the Department of Health was notified of two cases of hepatitis C linked to an operating list 10 months earlier.

The delay in notification by the hospital prevented an effective public health response. The amendments contained in the bill will improve notification procedures by redrafting the duties imposed under section 69 into a clearer, more workable form. The provision will also allow for regulations to set out the specific reporting requirements for individual diseases, including the required time period for notification. The bill will also make it an offence under the Act for a hospital chief executive officer to fail to notify the director-general of the required information immediately the CEO becomes aware of a person with a notifiable disease which is related to treatment at the hospital.

Schedule 3 to the bill will also extend the time within which prosecutions must be made regarding offences under the Public Health Act relating to legionella and the notification of diseases. The case of transmission of hepatitis C at a private hospital highlighted the fact that the current limit of six months within which a prosecution must be commenced may limit the department's ability to act in the interests of public health. With offences relating to legionella and the notification of diseases, the facts of the breach and the consequences may often take more than six months to appear, thereby rendering prosecution impossible because it is out of time. The bill provides a maximum time span of two years to commence a prosecution under part 4 of the Public Health Act, which governs offences relating to legionella, and where hospitals fail to comply with notification requirements under proposed new section 69.

Subject to the passage of the bill, an education campaign will be undertaken by my administration to ensure that the obligations of practitioners and hospitals are understood clearly. All of the provisions of the bill were part of a similar bill introduced by the previous Government at the end of last year that did not find its way through both Houses of Parliament. Finally, schedule 4 to the bill contains amendments to the regulation-making powers under the Podiatrists Act 1989, the Physiotherapists Registration Act 1945 and the Dental Technicians Registration Act 1975 to enable regulations to be made for the adoption of infection control standards relating to procedures or treatment performed by podiatrists, physiotherapists and dental technicians respectively.

It is important to consider these amendments in the context of the Government's integrated approach to infection control. The Government is committed to providing an environment in the New South Wales health system which is as safe as possible for patients and health care workers. To this end, I have accelerated the process for the implementation of infection control regulations under legislation relating to the registration of health professionals and the implementation of a revised New South Wales Department of Health infection control policy. The infection control policy has been revised after an extensive consultation process involving learned colleges, organisations of professional health care workers, industrial organisations and other key stakeholders in the department and the health system. The policy will be released as a departmental circular to complement the introduction of regulations, and will apply to all public health care facilities. Private hospitals, nursing homes and day procedure centres will be required to implement the infection control policy as a condition of licensing. Regulations to this effect are presently being drafted.

The department has developed an implementation strategy for the infection control policy. The strategy incorporates provision for the development and implementation of training strategies; the establishment of statewide nosocomial and occupational exposure surveillance systems; the establishment of a 24-hour needle-stick support, information and referral service for health care workers; the establishment of an infection control reference centre; and the revision of skin penetration guidelines. In relation to health professionals, a regulation-making power under the Nurses Act 1991 enables infection control standards to be established for all nurses, including those who may operate independently, such as midwives. In addition, in 1994 amendments were made to the regulation-making powers contained in the Medical Practice Act 1992, the Dentists Act 1989, and the Dental Technicians Registration Act 1975 to allow for the enforcement of such standards of infection control for medical, surgical, dental and related procedures performed by medical practitioners, dentists and dental prosthetists respectively. Infection control standards for dental hygienists and dental therapists will be covered under the Dentists Act regulation-making powers as these occupations constitute a part of the practice of dentistry.

I directed the department to expedite the development of regulations for these health professionals to enhance public protection in line with
Page 64
the Government's integrated approach to infection control. Regulations have now been drafted for incorporation under the regulations for these health professionals. Final consultation on these regulations is currently being undertaken by the department with the Medical Services Committee and the Dental Board of New South Wales. However, currently no statutory provision allows for the enforcement of such standards of infection control for other registered health professionals whose practice could potentially include risks of cross-infection, namely, podiatrists, physiotherapists and dental technicians. Podiatrists perform invasive procedures on patients' feet and physiotherapists work with patients with infectious lung conditions and open wounds. The amendments to the regulation-making powers in relation to podiatrists and physiotherapists contained in schedule 4 to the bill will ensure that appropriate standards of public protection are provided and can be enforced.

It should be noted that the Dental Technicians Registration Act 1975 provides for the regulation of both dental prosthetists and dental technicians. Amendments made in 1994 to the regulation-making power under this Act in relation to infection control standards only applied to dental prosthetists with a direct clinical role in constructing and fitting patients' dentures. Although dental technicians do not have direct patient contact, the Dental Technicians Registration Board and the Association of Dental Prosthetists Incorporated have expressed strong concern about the potential risk of cross-infection which could be passed on to other patients or dental technicians. One example is when blood or saliva containing harmful bacteria is transmitted to a dental technician's laboratory by way of impressions and other materials which have been in a patient's mouth and have not been decontaminated. Currently the Act allows only regulations which specifically apply to dental technicians to cover hygiene to be observed by practitioners performing technical work. Earlier this year I undertook to seek an amendment to the Act to ensure that the protection afforded by infection control legislation to other dental practitioners is extended to cover dental technicians. This amendment is incorporated in schedule 4 to the bill.

During development of the proposals contained in the bill, the Department of Health consulted with a wide range of organisations, including health professional and medical associations and certain industry groups, which have an interest in various aspects of the proposed amendments. Each of these proposed amendments has been endorsed by the Medical Services Committee, which includes representation from the major medical professional organisations. In particular, the proposed amendments to the Medical Practice Act are supported by the Medical Board and the Medical Tribunal as the regulatory authorities administering the Act. The amendments to the Medical Practice Act are also supported by the Health Care Complaints Commission. The amendments to existing regulation-making powers in the Podiatrists Act, Physiotherapists Registration Act and Dental Technicians Registration Act have been sought by the respective registration boards.

In summary, the provisions of the bill will clarify and improve the effectiveness of the relevant principal Acts, which operate to promote or protect public health and safety. In particular, the amendments to the Medical Practice Act relating to the tribunal's power to suspend or deregister a medical practitioner provide an important mechanism for public protection and are consistent with the former legislation regulating this profession and other legislation relating to the registration of health professionals. The amendments to the Poisons Act, while minor drafting changes, clarify a significant aspect of the regulation of authorities to prescribe drugs of addiction. The amendments to the Public Health Act will assist public health action to protect the community from the spread of highly infectious diseases. The amendments will assist the Department of Health to investigate possible breaches by hospitals of notification provisions, and to prosecute offences relating to legionella bacteria and failures by hospitals to notify other specified infectious diseases.

Finally, the amendments to the registration-making powers in legislation regulating podiatrists, physiotherapists and dental technicians are required in the interests of public health as part of the Government's integrated strategy on infection control, and to provide the Governor with the same statutory power to make regulations concerning the standards of infection control to be followed by podiatrists, physiotherapists and dental technicians as the existing powers in other health registration Acts. The amendments will enhance protection of patients against HIV infection, other blood-borne diseases, and other types of infection. I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mrs Skinner.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [7.53]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography) Bill prohibits the possession of films, computer games and publications which contain child pornography. The introduction of an offence for the possession of child pornography accords with the recommendations of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence in its 1993 report, "Paedophiles and Child Sexual Abuse". The proposed offence provides for a penalty of up to $10,000, 12 months imprisonment or both. The proposed legislation will complement existing provisions contained in the New South Wales Crimes Act, which make it an offence to employ or procure a child to be employed for pornographic purposes.

More importantly, the proposed legislation will assist police in taking action against paedophiles. Previously police have largely relied upon powers in customs legislation to seize child pornography and to refuse classification material, where it could be proved that the material had been illegally imported into Australia. However, these powers are limited as
Page 65
it is not possible to prosecute for possession of copies of imported material. Repeat offenders have therefore not been deterred by existing laws. The bill provides that material suspected of falling within the refused classification category on the grounds that it contains child pornography must be classified by the Office of Film and Literature Classification before police can bring a prosecution.

That office currently classifies material in relation to the sale, advertising or publication of films, videos, publications and computer games, and it is considered preferable that the office continue this role in relation to possession. This will mean that the courts will not be placed in the position of having to act as censors. This approach also ensures that there is a degree of consistency in determining whether material falls within the prohibited category. The bill also amends existing censorship legislation in New South Wales for the purpose of clarifying the censor's discretion in determining whether material constitutes child pornography.

The present legislation refers to material which depicts a person who is, or is apparently, under the age of 16 years. The bill refers to "a child, (or who, in the opinion of the censor, looks like a child)". This change is intended to clarify the censor's discretion in refusing material where it is difficult to determine the age of the person depicted. This provision is particularly relevant in light of the increasing amount of material of this nature which is being imported from overseas. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Debnam.


Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That Standing Orders be suspended to allow the appointment of members as representatives to various university governing bodies and to establish various committees.

Motion for the suspension of standing orders, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That Standing Orders be suspended to allow for the appointment of 11 members to the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

(1) That the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee be appointed to inquire into, and if considered advisable, make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly, respecting the standing orders, rules, usages, customs, practice and procedures of the Legislative Assembly.

(2) That such Committee consist of the Speaker, Mr Beckroge, Mr Gaudry, Mr Hartcher, Mr Jeffery, Mr Kerr, Ms Moore, Mr Price, Mr Thompson, Mr West, and Mr Whelan.

(3) That the Committee have leave to sit during the sittings of the House.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

(1) That the House Committee for the present session consist of the Speaker, Mr Beck, Mr Beckroge, Mr Cochran, Mr Glachan, Mrs Grusovin, Ms Hall, Mr Hunter, Mr Schultz, and Mr Thompson, with authority to act in matters of mutual concernment with any committee appointed for similar purposes by the Legislative Council.

(2) That the Committee have leave to sit during the sittings of the House.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

(1) That the Library Committee for the present session consist of the Speaker, Mr Anderson, Ms Andrews, Mr Ellis, Ms Ficarra, Mr Slack-Smith, Mr Small, Mr Stewart, Mr Sullivan and Mr Watkins, with the authority to act jointly with the Library Committee of the Legislative Council in accordance with the Assembly's resolution of 26 November 1968.

(2) That the Committee have leave to sit during the sittings of the House.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That in accordance with Section 54(3) of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, the following members of the Legislative Assembly be appointed to serve on the Public Accounts Committee: Mr Cochran, Mr Glachan, Mr Rogan, Mr Rumble, Mr Tripodi.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [8.02]: I move:

(1) That in accordance with section 5(1)(b) of the Regulation Review Act 1987, the following members of the Legislative Assembly be and are hereby appointed to serve on the Regulation Review Committee: Ms Beamer, Mr Cruickshank, Ms Hall, Mr Harrison, Dr Kernohan, Mr Rixon, Mr Shedden.

(2) That a message be sent acquainting the Legislative Council of the resolution.

I indicate to the Opposition that membership of committees is currently being examined in an attempt to resolve certain procedural difficulties arising from the inequalities in upper and lower House committees. We are doing our best.

Motion agreed to.


Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That Colin William Markham, member for Keira, be elected as the representative of the Legislative Assembly on the Council of the University of Wollongong in pursuance of the provisions of section 9 of the University of Wollongong Act 1989.

Page 66

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That Diane Beamer, member for Badgerys Creek, be elected as the representative of the Legislative Assembly on the Board of Governors of the University of Western Sydney in pursuance of the provisions of section 9 of the University of Western Sydney Act 1988.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That Peter Richard Nagle, member for Auburn, be elected as the representative of the Legislative Assembly on the Council of the University of Technology, Sydney in pursuance of the provisions of section 9 of the University of Technology, Sydney, Act 1989.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That Joseph Guerino Tripodi, member for Fairfield, be elected as the representative of the Legislative Assembly on the Senate of the University of Sydney in pursuance of the provisions of section 9 of the University of Sydney Act 1989.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That John Charles Price, member for Waratah, be elected as the representative of the Legislative Assembly on the Council of the University of Newcastle in pursuance of the provisions of section 9 of the University of Newcastle Act 1989.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the Hon. Deirdre Mary Grusovin, member for Heffron, be elected as the representative of the Legislative Assembly on the Council of the University of New South Wales in pursuance of the provisions of section 9 of the University of New South Wales Act 1989.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That John Charles Mills, member for Wallsend, be elected as the representative of the Legislative Assembly on the Board of Governors of the University of New England in pursuance of the provisions of section 9 of the University of New England Act 1989.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That John Arthur Watkins, member for Gladesville, be elected as the representative of the Legislative Assembly on the Council of Macquarie University in pursuance of the provisions of section 9 of the Macquarie University Act 1989.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That Ralph James Clough, member for Bathurst, be elected as the representative of the Legislative Assembly on the Board of Governors of Charles Sturt University in pursuance of the provisions of section 9 of the Charles Sturt University Act 1989.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That Anthony Paul Stewart, member for Lakemba, be elected as the representative of the Legislative Assembly on the Council of the Southern Cross University in pursuance of the provisions of section 10 of the Southern Cross University Act 1993.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Ms ALLAN (Blacktown - Minister for the Environment) [8.06]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The National Environment Protection Council (New South Wales) Bill is an important landmark in the history of environmental protection in New South Wales and Australia. It marks the commitment of the Commonwealth and the States and Territories to work co-operatively to develop national environment protection measures. These measures aim to give all Australians the benefit of equivalent environmental protection and to ensure that investment decisions by business are not distorted by inappropriate variations in environmental standards between Australian jurisdictions, or so-called pollution havens.

Establishment of the National Environment Protection Council and the creation of national environment protection measures are part of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment to which New South Wales is a signatory. The objects of the intergovernmental agreement bear repeating. The agreement provides a framework to facilitate: a cooperative national approach to the environment; a better definition of the roles of the respective governments; a reduction in the number of disputes
Page 67
between the Commonwealth, the States and Territories on environmental issues; greater certainty of government and business decision making; and, importantly, better environmental protection through the integration of environmental considerations into the decision-making processes of all governments, at the project, program and policy levels.

The National Environment Protection Council (New South Wales) Bill is part of a package of complementary State and Commonwealth legislation to give effect to schedule 4 to the intergovernmental agreement. For ease of reference, the text of the intergovernmental agreement is appended as a schedule to the bill. The Commonwealth National Environment Protection Council Bill, which establishes the council, was passed by the Senate on 25 August 1994 and by the House of Representatives on 13 October 1994. Most States and Territories - with the exception of New South Wales - passed complementary legislation before the end of 1994 or in early 1995. The environment is a priority for the Carr Labor Government. This Government has made the establishment of the council a priority by bringing forward this bill with urgency.

Although a signatory to the intergovernmental agreement, the Western Australian Government has indicated that it will not be participating in the council. This action does not invalidate the national scheme, which will apply to the most populous and industrialised States on the east coast. The council will be empowered to make national environmental protection measures which will apply in each participating jurisdiction. It will be the responsibility of each individual jurisdiction to determine precisely how measures are to be implemented.

The National Environment Protection Council may make measures in relation to ambient air quality; ambient marine, estuarine, and freshwater quality; noise, related to protecting amenity where variations in measures would have an adverse effect on national markets for goods and services; general guidelines for the assessment of site contamination; the environmental impacts associated with hazardous wastes; motor vehicle emissions; and the reuse and recycling of used materials.

For the benefit of honourable members, ambient means surrounding and is used in environmental literature to refer to the receiving environment of a discharge and the wider environment. National environment protection measures may be a combination of goals, guidelines, standards and protocols. To put it simply, goals are the desired outcomes, guidelines are the means of meeting these outcomes, standards are the quantifiable characteristics against which environmental quality is assessed, and protocols are the processes for measuring environmental characteristics to determine whether desired outcomes are being achieved.

Consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development, and to ensure simplicity and effectiveness of administration, the council must develop measures through a public consultative process, having regard to a number of factors as specified in the bill. Important among these is the need to have regard to regional environmental differences. This will ensure that proper account is taken of the different properties of air, water, and land across the diversity of Australian environments in the setting of environmental goals, standards, and guidelines.

The council must assess the economic and social impacts of any proposed measure and consult extensively before adopting the measure. It must have regard to a social and economic impact statement relating to the measure and any public submissions received in relation to the impact statement, and to advice from a committee of Commonwealth and State officials. Decisions by the council, which is chaired by the Commonwealth, will be by a two-thirds majority. Measures will be disallowed if three or more members vote against a proposal put to the council.

As incorporated in schedule 4 of the agreement, a national environment protection measure agreed to by the council may be disallowed by either House of the Commonwealth Parliament. If not disallowed by either House of the Commonwealth Parliament, the measures will then apply automatically in each participating jurisdiction. As provided by the agreement, the measures adopted by the above procedures do not prevent New South Wales from introducing or maintaining more stringent measures to reflect specific circumstances or to protect special environments or environmental values within the State, provided that there has been consultation with the council.

I emphasise that point because concern could be expressed that this is an opportunity for New South Wales to lower its standards, measures, protocols, policies or programs to the level of those currently provided by States whose environmental record is not as good as ours. That will not occur under this legislation, because of the creation of the council. New South Wales might be able to continue to lead the country in a number of stringent environmental measures which this Government has adopted and will continue to adopt.

As well as creating national environmental protection measures, the council will have an important role to play in reporting annually to the Parliament of each participating State on its activities and its overall assessment of the implementation and effectiveness of national environmental protection measures in all participating jurisdictions. The council's annual report will be tabled in all Parliaments. The council will be advised and assisted by a statutory committee of Commonwealth and State officials - the National Environment Protection Council Committee - and by a small secretariat staffed by Commonwealth public servants, established as a separate service corporation and accountable to the council.

To recognise the important tripartite relationship between Federal, State and local government, the bill provides for the Australian Local Government
Page 68
Association to be represented on the committee. As long as the association remains a party to the intergovernmental agreement, the association representative will be entitled to attend and be heard, but not to vote, at meetings of the committee. In addition, the Australian Local Government Association is one of the groups which the council is empowered to consult. It is not proposed to create a substantial new bureaucracy for the development of national environment protection measures; rather, the council secretariat will draw upon the work being carried out in existing environmental agencies throughout Australia, such as the Environment Protection Authority in New South Wales.

The cost of establishing the council and developing measures will be shared between Commonwealth and State governments on a 50-50 basis, with States contributing on the basis of population. The introduction of this bill is an important step in the process of developing harmonious environmental law in Australia. The National Environment Protection Council will provide the means whereby New South Wales can work in partnership with the Commonwealth and the States and Territories to share the expertise, resources and decision making necessary to benefit environmental protection in New South Wales and across Australia. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Longley.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr KNIGHT (Campbelltown - Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads) [8.15]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Carr Labor Government comes to power at a unique time in Sydney's Olympic preparations. We gained office after the euphoria of Sydney's successful bid but our current term ends before the euphoria of the Games themselves. It is during the next four years that the majority of work to prepare the State for the 2000 Olympics must be done. To use an appropriate sporting analogy, these are not the glory days; these are the days when the hard yards have to be made. The previous Government is to be commended for its central role in the successful bid. However, the manner in which it conducted the bid, and especially the manner in which it behaved afterwards, have placed severe hardships on New South Wales taxpayers.

The previous Government ran a "win at all costs" bid. It was a bit like an old-fashioned 1960s style promise-them-anything election campaign. But, unlike what happens in an election campaign with extravagant promises, the Fahey Government signed binding contracts with the International Olympic Committee and New South Wales is required to honour these promises. It is worth noting that the agreements entered into by the last conservative Government include the following elements: first, New South Wales taxpayers have to fund almost all the facilities needed for the Olympics but these costs do not form part of the Olympic budget. Second, if the Olympic Games make a profit, none of that profit will go to the New South Wales taxpayers to offset the costs of building the venues. Instead, 10 per cent will go to the International Olympic Committee, 10 per cent will go to the Australian Olympic Committee, and 80 per cent will go to the Australian Olympic Committee trust fund to prepare athletes for future games.

Third, any operating loss from putting on the Games will have to be met by the New South Wales taxpayers. Fourth, it is the International Olympic Committee, not the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, let alone the New South Wales Government, that has control over the key revenue items that affect whether the Sydney Olympics make an operating profit or loss. For example, about half the income of the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games should come from international television rights, but the formal power to allocate those rights rests entirely with the International Olympic Committee.

In fairness to the previous Government, without its "win at all costs" attitude to the bid, Sydney probably would not have won. The final voting was so close that a harder-nosed attitude to the problems of putting on the Games would probably have resulted in a win for Beijing. However, this does leave the new Government - as it would have left even a re-elected Fahey Government - with massive difficulties in actually delivering the event in a manner which minimises the cost to New South Wales taxpayers.

The nature of some of the commitments entered into to win the bid are regrettable, but they are understandable. What is not defensible is the manner in which the last Government behaved after Sydney won the bid. The unseemly fashion in which the former Premier shouldered aside Bruce Baird as soon as the plane returning from the bid success touched down at Sydney airport symbolised what was wrong with the Fahey Government's approach: everyone wanted to cash in on what he or she perceived to be the Olympic glory. Almost every Minister and department wanted a piece of the action. What evolved from that time was not a structure best suited to the organisation and preparation of the Olympic Games venues but an uneasy truce between the various warring barons within the Liberal and National parties. It reflected the settlement of the turf wars rather than the dynamic approach needed to deliver the Games.

The nature of the Olympic movement and the magnitude of the Sydney 2000 Games mean that many organisations are involved. The International Olympic Committee, the IOC; the Australian Olympic Committee, the AOC; the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, SOCOG; the
Page 69
Australian Government; and the Council of the City of Sydney all have important roles to play. Within the State Government many departments and agencies as varied as the State Rail Authority, the Police Service, Tourism New South Wales, Pacific Power and Sydney Water have functions to perform. Treasury also has a key function in terms of financial oversight.

Inevitably, there will be many players and it will be a herculean task to coordinate them all. However, the Fahey Government further unnecessarily complicated matters by fragmenting its own core Olympic responsibilities amongst a plethora of Ministers, departments and agencies. This has not only added to the cost; it has also made it difficult to get effective action. There were too many cooks, which resulted in no-one taking responsibility for the broth.

The unwieldy structure we inherited had four Ministers and five separate agencies sharing the State's core Olympic responsibilities. These were: the Office of Olympic Co-ordination based in the Premier's Department; the Olympic Construction Authority housed in the Public Works Department; the Homebush Bay Corporation which was responsible for providing most Olympic venues; part of the Department of Sport and Recreation which had responsibility for delivering certain other new Olympic facilities such as the rowing course and velodrome; and part of the Department of Planning which was responsible for equestrian and mountain bike events.

In the lead-up to the recent election the Labor Party released a comprehensive policy for how we would manage the Olympics. A cornerstone of that detailed plan was the streamlining of the State's core Olympic responsibility into a single agency headed by one Minister. This bill gives effect to that commitment. It is significant that our proposals have been welcomed by the business community, by many sporting organisations, by SOCOG itself, and by the former Liberal Premier most responsible for Sydney's bid, Nick Greiner, and the former Liberal Minister most responsible for that bid, Bruce Baird.

The principal site for the conduct of the Olympic Games is at Homebush. The Homebush Bay area was a metropolitan backyard for Sydney before World War II. On the Olympic site there used to be a noxious waste dump, and the State brickworks, the metropolitan abattoirs and their stockyards; and the Newington ammunition dump occupies a lot of the central area of the site down to the Parramatta River. More recently, the Mulawa Correctional Centre at Silverwater was built nearby and a remand centre is under construction. A waste transfer station and Sydney's liquid waste treatment plant are also located next door.

But Homebush Bay and its redevelopment is not just for the Olympics. The Royal Agricultural Society will be moving in the next few years to new facilities at Homebush. The Easter Show will be held there in 1999. If some of the possibilities for Moore Park eventuate, the first Easter Show will be held sooner than that in a new Royal Agricultural Society Showground at Homebush. The redevelopment of Homebush does not finish with the Olympics and Paralympics. The Olympic village on the site will house a minimum of 5,000 people in a new suburb. The stadia, halls and other Olympic facilities we build in the next few years will be a focal point of Sydney's recreation for decades to come. We have to get the road and rail infrastructure right not just for the Olympics but for those future years as well; not just for a fortnight in September in the year 2000 but for a new suburb and for sporting facilities which will serve the whole of Sydney for years after that.

The previous Government's efforts at achieving this were not very impressive. The State Sports Centre, the Sydney Aquatic Centre and a new athletic track have already been built on the southern edge of the site. But that is only the beginning of the job which needs to be done. Those venues were commenced years ago by governments of both political persuasions. Nothing substantial has been built since the bid was successful. One classic example of this lack of effective action is the need for a master plan for Homebush Bay. The former Government spent literally years working on the plan and millions of dollars supporting investigations.

Its first official plan was released in 1988, followed by revisions in 1989 and 1991. Still unhappy with its own efforts, it launched into a protracted process in September 1992, where three alternative schemes were floated. The public was given a few months to comment on the alternatives, but it took the former Government until August, 1994 to make up its mind and endorse its preferred master plan. It then did an extraordinary backflip. Instead of settling down the whole process and getting on with the detailed work, another review process was initiated. In November 1994, before the ink had dried on the previous plan, international architects and other professionals were flown in to undertake yet another review with local identities.

However, what was meant to be a million dollar touch-up job raised more questions than it answered. The dust has yet to settle on this process. In its dying days the former Government decided to hire design consultants to sort out the mess. There must be no further procrastination on the master plan. The first task I will be insisting the incoming director-general of the OCA completes is the finalisation of the basic structural plan for Homebush Bay. While there will need to be some ongoing flexibility in regard to the location of some facilities, the location of key elements like the Olympic stadium, the showground, the athletes village and the rail link must be set and strictly adhered to.

There is no point in crying over spilt milk. I have no intention of spending the next four years looking backwards to the inadequacies of the former Government. Our task is to get on with and solve the problems that lie before us. I hope that the new Opposition shows an interest in playing a positive
Page 70
role. After all, the Olympics must be above partisan politics and should not be the plaything of any political party. Besides, as New South Wales citizens and taxpayers, we are all in the same boat.

The Olympic Co-ordination Authority, the new statutory authority which this bill establishes, has two principal tasks. The first is to build Olympic venues and facilities. The OCA, working closely with SOCOG and in accordance with the terms of the host city contract, will do most of this work at Homebush Bay but, if necessary, it will be able to develop Olympic venues and facilities elsewhere as needed.

It is worth making a few points about the relationship between SOCOG and the OCA. While there are some areas of overlap between the two - for example, both have to deal in a coordinated way with potential private sector sponsors of venues and the games themselves - they are separate organisations with distinct roles. SOCOG is the agency responsible for putting on the event, while the OCA is, among other things, responsible for providing the venues for that event. This is not a complete description of their roles, but it is helpful to think of the OCA as the group which builds the theatre while SOCOG puts on the show. The OCA has a broader coordination role, as its name suggests, but it must not, and under my stewardship will not, become a shadow organisation duplicating the role of SOCOG.

One thing which will make the task of the OCA much easier in working with SOCOG is the presence of Gary Pemberton as President. Contrary to some media reports, Gary Pemberton is not resigning as President of SOCOG. He intends to continue in that position but he has always made it clear that, at some stage, he will cease to fill the role of chief executive officer as the demands on that position grow. There are some matters to do with the management of the Olympics where I am critical of the behaviour of the former Government. But there is one thing that it got unambiguously right, and that is the appointment of Gary Pemberton as President of SOCOG. He has the Carr Government's complete confidence and my personal support. I look forward to working with Gary Pemberton and his team at SOCOG and I am confident that they will be equally happy working with the new director-general of the OCA and his or her staff.

The OCA's second principal function is the redevelopment of the Homebush Bay area, bearing in mind that much of the work to be done there is the provision of infrastructure, rehabilitation for industrial uses, and the provision of facilities for the Royal Agricultural Society. The Olympic Coordination Authority will be at the centre of government, where such a large and critically important capital works program needs to be. The bill will abolish the Homebush Bay Development Corporation. The Olympic Coordination Agency, at present a separate public service department, will have its functions and personnel transferred to the authority. The OCA will be an inner budget entity. Its functions will include coordinating and reporting on the expenditures and the Olympic initiatives of other government agencies and private organisations.

To reinforce this coordination function, the bill provides for an officers' committee. The membership represents the coordinating agencies at the centre of government. The Director-General of the OCA, the heads of the Premier's Department, the Treasury and the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, together with the President of SOCOG, will constitute that committee. This is a mechanism designed to resolve conflicts, not to institutionalise them. The OCA will be required to present a corporate plan each year and that will be public. The performance of the Government in carrying out the promises made by its predecessor will be visible and accountable. The Premier is determined that the Government will see the job done and ensure that Olympic venues and facilities, as well as the Olympic Village, are built to good standards and in good time.

The consent authority for development by the OCA will be the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, which was the case under the previous government at a time when the Minister responsible for Homebush Bay was also the Minister for Planning. This Government, in line with its policy that government decisions should be accountable, will require the Olympic Co-ordination Authority to submit development applications to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. We will not have the one Minister performing both the role of applicant and consent authority, as was the case under our predecessor.

In its development activity the OCA will be required to consult widely. It must take into account a wide variety of matters before carrying out a development. These include impacts on long-term planning strategy, use after the Olympic Games, consistency with environmental guidelines, arrangements and access for people with disabilities, consistency with ecologically sustainable development, and the impact on heritage, conservation and Aboriginal sites of significance. In particular I wish to emphasise the Government's unequivocal commitment that any decontamination or site remediation will be undertaken to the highest standards, as has been done in all such work up to now.

These works must be completed on time. We cannot ring up the International Olympic Committee and ask for a year's postponement of the Olympic Games. So the right of third-party objectors to institute appeals has been largely removed because of the absolute overriding deadline of the Olympic timetable. The authority is required to take all relevant matters into account. The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning has to give consideration to all matters set out in section 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, as with any other development. What needs to be considered will be considered, but the development timetable must stay on track.

Although the Olympic Co-ordination Authority will be dissolved after the Olympic Games, from now until then it will be an important central agency of the
Page 71
Government. It will be committed to delivering the most cost-effective, high-standard project we can manage and afford for the redevelopment of the Homebush Bay area and the provision of Olympic venues and facilities. The Labor Party's election platform promised that in government Labor would appoint a single Minister with responsibility for the Olympics and the Paralympics. That has been done.

We promised to streamline the State's disparate range of Olympic units and organisations into a single agency to avoid waste, duplication and inefficiency. That is what the bill does. I confirm the Carr Government's commitment to the green Olympics ideal. We will also maximise opportunities for the private sector to build and operate major sporting facilities and we want Olympic venues, the Olympic Village housing and other projects undertaken by the OCA to look beyond the Olympics to the future needs of New South Wales. The previous Government left us two Olympic legacies. On a fortunate note they left us with a winning bid. For that they deserve credit. But we have also inherited an inefficient structure, ill equipped to build the facilities to stage the Sydney Olympics. The Carr Labor Government is absolutely committed to delivering the best Olympics the world has ever seen and to doing it in a fashion which does not bankrupt New South Wales taxpayers. It will not be easy, but it can be done. The bill represents the first step on that important journey. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Armstrong.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services) [8.36]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Honourable members of this House may recall that a very similar bill to the Fire Brigades Amendment (Contributions) Bill was introduced by the former coalition Government late last year. However, the bill only proceeded to the second reading before the Parliament was prorogued. The Government has effectively decided to reintroduce the bill. In late 1993 amendments were made to the Fire Brigades Act to, among other things, alter the reporting base of premiums received by insurance companies from a calendar year to a financial year basis. This particular amendment brought into line the reporting requirements of insurance companies to both the New South Wales Fire Brigades and the Department of Bush Fire Services. The new arrangement was more administratively convenient to the insurance industry because it meant that insurance companies could report to both fire services at the same time.

The Insurance Council of Australia informed the previous Minister that the amendment had created an unintended consequence for the insurance industry. Insurance companies had incurred a double legal liability, estimated at $75 million, to pay a levy on premiums collected between July and December 1993. This assessment period was used to facilitate the alignment of the reporting periods of insurers to both fire services. In order to overcome this problem, it is proposed that contributions by insurance companies and local councils to fire brigade costs will be determined on a financial year basis rather than on a calendar year basis, which exists at present. This is the primary object of the bill.

The bill will also provide for advance contribution payments to be made by local councils to fire brigade costs. Such advance payments are already required from insurance companies. Other minor amendments of a financial nature are included in the bill. The legislation is simply machinery in nature and is designed to remedy an unintended consequence of a past amendment. Extensive consultations have occurred with representatives of the Insurance Council of Australia and the Local Government and Shires Associations. Both organisations have indicated their support for the legislation, and I commend it to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Hazzard.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women) [8.39]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Consumer Credit (New South Wales) Bill adopts the Consumer Credit Code as a law of New South Wales. That code was passed by the Queensland Parliament in September 1994, as agreed by the national Ministerial Agreement on Credit Laws, as the first step in the process towards achieving uniform consumer credit laws in Australia. Honourable members would be aware of the long history of this legislation. The honourable member for Port Macquarie introduced this legislation last year. We are introducing it again. I commend her efforts in that regard. It was recognised when the Credit Act 1984 took effect that the law was already outdated and the process would have to begin again, but on a different basis.

That knowledge has influenced the philosophy and structure of this legislation in a major way. It taught us that legislation must be flexible enough to accommodate major changes in government policy - in this case deregulation of the finance sector - and the demands of the marketplace for products which suit the present and future needs of the consumer. I am confident that this legislation will meet the needs of the credit consumer for the foreseeable future. I
Page 72
believe it will be effective in redressing the imbalance of power between the borrower and the lender. The market will work more efficiently than it does now, and both consumers and industry will benefit.

Honourable members would be aware that the Credit Act 1984 regulates less than 20 per cent of the consumer credit market. In New South Wales it applies only to credit under $20,000 and to certain farming machinery and commercial vehicles. Not all types of loans or credit providers are regulated. Housing finance is not covered. The majority of consumer credit purchasers in this State are therefore without protection. The bill seeks to protect the consumer without undue interference or over-regulation of the industry. Where it is considered that competition will not address a problem, that is directly regulated.

The bill is based on truth-in-lending principles. It aims to give the credit purchaser accurate and relevant information on which to make an informed choice of products. It also aims to inform potential debtors or guarantors of their rights and obligations under the contract. I am sure that honourable members would be aware that the most common complaint about financial institutions has been that they did not give essential information before the contract was entered into. The Consumer Credit (New South Wales) Bill will certainly ensure that debtors and guarantors will be properly informed in the future.

I mentioned in my opening remarks that the bill forms part of a legislative scheme which is to be uniform in all States and Territories. The scheme is based on the uniform credit laws agreement 1993 signed by Ministers of all jurisdictions. The agreement required that Queensland enact a uniform consumer code, and that the other States and Territories apply the code as the law of that State or Territory, or pass alternative consistent legislation. Therefore, it is intended that New South Wales adopt the consumer credit code passed by the Queensland Parliament as a law of this State. The code is appended to the New South Wales adopting bill.

Under the terms of the ministerial agreement any amending legislation must not be introduced by a State or Territory unless there has been a resolution of the ministerial council, passed by a majority comprising at least two-thirds of the members. Any jurisdiction which breaches this clause of the agreement ceases to be party to the scheme. Ministers also agreed that they would not submit legislation to the Parliament or make regulations which would conflict with or negate the operation of the credit legislation. The agreement therefore recognises the importance of laws that are consistent across all jurisdictions. Businesses and consumers will benefit from cost savings achieved by standard documentation in all States and the greater certainty of application which flows from uniform legislation.

However, certain matters are left to the individual jurisdictions and are not required to be uniform. These include the fixing of a maximum interest rate, the establishment of trust funds with designated purposes into which forfeited interest charges may be paid, the establishment of a scheme for the licensing or registration of credit providers, and the vesting in a tribunal of jurisdiction which under the code is vested in a court. I will address these matters further when I explain the specific clauses of the adopting bill. Honourable members may be aware that the Ministers responsible for this legislation have recently agreed to extend the date for its implementation to 31 March 1996. Due to the complexity of systems changes and new documentation - both of which rely to a great extent on regulations which are yet to be formally released - industry successfully put the case that more time was needed in order to comply with the legislation, and this was agreed.

It is heartening that industry has shown a determination in relation to this legislation to getting it right. There is little doubt that the Credit Act 1984 had no such support and New South Wales has seen a succession of credit providers in the Commercial Tribunal seeking reinstatement of credit charges. I hope we have come to the end of that era. The new legislation reflects a more mature industry and a more informed and rational consumer. I believe it is also true to say that the support for this code is due in great part to the extensive consultation which has taken place over the past few years. Both industry and consumer representatives have been closely associated with its development and will have a stake in its success.

New South Wales has had a major role in developing this legislation; in fact, it has been drafted in this State with the agreement of all jurisdictions. We can be confident that the legislation is fair and workable. There is, of course, much work remaining. In order that consumers get maximum benefit from the legislation, governments will have to ensure that they are educated as to their rights and educated in credit matters. To this end, the jurisdictions are pooling their resources to maximise them. I am committed to my department's full and continued involvement in credit education. An informed consumer is essential to the proper working of the credit market. I believe we will see the development of better products at better prices as a result of the transparency that the legislation requires. Governments also have to turn their attention to the administration of credit, and decide whether to continue with licensing of credit providers and finance brokers. This will require legislative changes before the code comes into effect.

I turn now to the provisions of the adopting legislation. Clause 1 names the Act the Consumer Credit (New South Wales) Act 1995. Clause 2 provides that the Act will commence on a day or days to be proclaimed. Clause 3 defines terms used in the Act. Clause 4 excludes the explanatory notes from the Act. Clause 5 applies the code as a law of New South Wales and names it the Consumer Credit (New South Wales) Code. Clause 6 applies the regulations under the Queensland code as regulations under the
Page 73
New South Wales code. The regulations are also uniform under the terms of the agreement. Clause 7 defines some expressions in the code as they apply to New South Wales. Clause 8 provides for the exercise of jurisdiction under the code to be by the Commercial Tribunal, if regulations so prescribe, or in other cases a court of appropriate monetary jurisdiction. Regulations conferring jurisdiction on the tribunal will be made shortly and are intended to follow the current policy of giving expert jurisdiction to the Commercial Tribunal and shared jurisdiction in other matters.

Clause 9 specifies that the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs should exercise the functions of the Government Consumer Agency under the code. Clause 10 continues the functions of the Financial Counselling Trust Fund in relation to the code so that amounts paid under the civil penalty regime in the code can be paid into this fund. Clause 11 allows a maximum interest rate to be prescribed. New South Wales intends to prescribe a maximum interest rate, but it is intended to review the current methods of prescribing that rate before it is applied to the code. Clause 12 provides for offences under the code or the regulations to be dealt with by a Local Court constituted by a magistrate sitting alone. Clause 13 binds the Crown.

Clause 14 provides that special savings and transitional regulations may be made for New South Wales. Clause 15 allows the Governor to make regulations for the purposes of this Act. Clause 16 gives effect to a schedule of consequential amendments. Clause 17 requires that the Act be reviewed in five years to determine whether the policy objectives of the Act remain valid. That is the extent of the New South Wales adopting legislation. The code has been fully described in its introduction in Queensland so I will not explain it on a clause-by-clause basis. I will, however, highlight the important aspects of the code.

The code will apply if a debtor is a natural person or a strata corporation and the credit is to be provided wholly or predominantly for personal domestic or household purposes. While the focus of the legislation is consumer credit, these provisions recognise the multipurpose nature of some loan products, so that if some of the credit is used for business purposes, as long as it is less than half of the proposed advance of credit, it will not prevent the application of the legislation to that product. Section 7 of the code sets out circumstances in which the code will not apply. These are: where the contract is for 62 days or less; credit without prior agreement, such as an overdrawn account; and, if the contract has both debit and credit facilities, that part of the contract relating to the debit facility; bills of exchange. While it is accepted that bills of exchange may be used for consumer credit purposes, it is doubtful whether they are in fact deferred debt and it was decided to exclude them. Certain aspects of such facilities are in fact regulated by the Commonwealth.

Insurance premiums by instalments are considered not to be a credit contract intended to be regulated by the code, even though they may fit the definition of credit, because the contract is in effect terminated by the debtor discontinuing the instalments and there is no outstanding debt. Pawnbrokers are also considered to be generally outside the scope of the Act and are subject to their own legislation. However, the unjust contracts provisions of the code will apply. Trustees of estates which give loans to beneficiaries are similarly exempt except for unjust contract provisions. Employee loans are exempt from the code except for hardship and unjust contract provisions, provisions relating to enforcement procedures and expenses, related sale contracts, and the miscellaneous provisions. Where the employer is a credit provider, the exemptions apply only if the terms of the contract are more favourable to the debtor than debtors who are not employees. These are all the exemptions; however, the code has a power to make regulations to exclude other types of credit should this be considered necessary.

Section 8 applies the code to mortgages which secure credit contracts or guarantees which are themselves covered by the code. If a mortgage also secures contracts or guarantees that are not covered by the code, the code will apply only to the extent that it secures obligations under the regulated contract or guarantee. Section 9 applies that same principle to guarantees in relation to obligations under the credit contract. I now turn to the pivotal part of the legislation: negotiating and making credit contracts. This is where the truth-in-lending concept has most relevance: before the contract is entered into. Section 12 provides, firstly, that the contract document should be in writing; however, section 13 implicitly acknowledges that technological developments may, at some time, overtake the written contract. It is not intended to deal with such a prospect until contract law has addressed the issues, but the power is there in the code to modify the rules should this become necessary.

Section 14 addresses the timing for the giving of information. It also requires that the information which is to be given is that which will be in the contract document, as well as a statutory notice describing the rights and obligations of the debtor and credit provider under the code. This means that all that a potential debtor needs to know about his or her financial contractual and statutory obligations will be given before the contract is entered into, or before the debtor makes an offer to enter into the contract. In addition, certain financial information will be required to be given in a tabular format so that the prospective debtor can see at a glance the cost of the credit being negotiated. This requirement has replaced the requirement for a comparison rate; however, the code allows credit providers to supply a comparison rate if they wish. If they do, it will be calculated according to the method required by the regulations.

The matters which must be contained in the contract document are set out in section 15. I will not detail all the information which is to be given to the
Page 74
prospective debtor since that is clearly set out in the code, but honourable members will note that the information which must be given is all the costs that are ascertainable at the time the contract is entered into. The code does not limit what can be charged but ensures that the prospective debtor is fully conversant with the arrangements. The disclosures are, I believe, comprehensive and will allow comparisons to be made between lenders so as to get the best deal possible. This is a primary objective of the code and will, I believe, result in credit providers being far more responsive to the needs of consumers so that, in future, products offered will give real value.

Division 4 contains two very important sections. Honourable members would have noted that the code does not specify what fees or charges can be charged; it merely requires that the fact and, where ascertainable, the amount of particular fees and charges are disclosed to the potential debtor. Consumer affairs Ministers were persuaded that competition would keep fees and charges to a minimum. Should this not be the case, or should a particular fee or charge be resistant to competitive forces, Ministers have the power under section 29 to prohibit particular fees or charges or classes of fees or charges. Credit providers should be aware that while Ministers are prepared to give the market the opportunity to control prices, they have the power and the will to act if it is clear that credit consumers are being cheated.

Section 30 reflects the code's response to an unacceptable practice. It has been noted that credit providers have in some instances inflated a fee or charge due to a third party that is passed on by the credit provider, thereby retaining for themselves that amount in excess of the actual amount payable to the third party. This is considered to be a totally unacceptable practice, and it is prohibited by the provisions of this section. Division 2 of part 3 is significant in the protection it affords to guarantors. Honourable members would be aware that a considerable number of actions before the courts in past years have been by guarantors who were not aware of the potential consequences of guaranteeing another's loan. This code will ensure that guarantors are properly informed about both their legal obligations and the financial commitments of the debtor whose loan they are considering guaranteeing.

The code provides firstly that the guarantee must be in writing. Before the guarantor guarantees the debtor's loan he or she must be given a copy of the credit contract which is to be subject to the guarantee. The guarantor can therefore be aware of the financial commitment that is to be undertaken by the debtor and make a judgment as to whether, in the guarantor's view, the debtor would be able to fulfil these financial obligations. The prospective guarantor will also be given a statement which explains the rights and obligations of the guarantor. This is a plain English document which should leave no doubt as to the risks involved in going guarantor. On the basis of these two documents the guarantor can make a rational decision about his or her involvement.

The next aspect of the code, part 4 - changes to obligations under credit contracts, mortgages and guarantees - represents something of a departure from the current legislation in order to more closely reflect the commercial realities of a deregulated finance market. The credit products of the 1970s and 1980s were relatively simple and few in number. Today, and increasingly, credit products are more sophisticated and closely tied to the movements of the market. The highly regulatory approach of the Credit Act 1984 resulted in significant market distortions and cross subsidisation. These may be exemplified by the fact that interest rates on credit cards were kept at a very high level when other rates had fallen dramatically. This reflected the inability of the credit provider to reflect costs in the fee structures, and to change rates without a substantial period of notice. This code has taken the approach that changes can be made under the contract, provided that the contract clearly states that this might happen. There is nevertheless one unilateral change which is prohibited under the code. Section 64(1) prohibits the method of calculation of early termination charges from being changed in a fixed rate contract. It is considered essential that credit consumers should have certainty in relation to break costs so that they can change credit providers if a better deal can be obtained elsewhere.

I believe the next division of part 4, changes on grounds of hardship and unjust transactions, is noteworthy in several respects. Firstly, the provisions with regard to the ability of the debtor to negotiate changes on the basis of hardship have been changed from those in the current Act to reflect desires of consumers to be allowed direct access to the tribunal where a credit provider declines to negotiate a change. Currently the debtor may ask the commissioner to negotiate on his or her behalf and be referred to the tribunal only if the credit provider will not negotiate. It was considered that there would be greater benefit to the debtor in making the process simpler and shorter, thereby reducing the amount of debt that might accumulate if the debtor were unable to make payments. The commissioner will of course negotiate if that is the debtor's wish, but there will be no statutory duty to do so under the code.

These provisions will, however, be limited to contracts where the maximum amount of credit to be provided is $125,000 or less. Given that the scope of the code is unlimited, it is considered that resources should be targeted where they are most needed. When a matter is before the tribunal, any enforcement proceedings can be stayed if it is thought appropriate. The credit provider will have the right to apply for a variation or renegotiation of the tribunal's orders under a hardship application. I would now like to direct the attention of the House to the provisions with regard to unjust contracts.

In legislation such as this, which relies to a great extent on market forces to achieve the desired outcomes, it is important to have strong redress mechanisms to help achieve a balance of the power relationship between borrower and lender. Section 70
Page 75
gives power to the court to re-open a transaction which gave rise to a contract, mortgage or guarantee, or a change to any of those contractual arrangements. The matters to which the court is to have regard in determining whether a term is unjust are detailed in subsection (2) and are based on those in the New South Wales Contracts Review Act. There is already a substantial body of law in relation to that Act which will assist the court in its deliberations.

I will not address each matter but would draw the attention of honourable members to one particular ground for reopening which received much public attention when it was first proposed. This is, and I quote, "whether at the time the contract, mortgage or guarantee was entered into or changed, the credit provider knew, or could have ascertained by reasonable inquiry of the debtor at the time, that the debtor could not pay in accordance with its terms or not without substantial hardship". This ground for reopening was added specifically to address that common occurrence of the 1980s: overcommitment. It was clear that many borrowers were being offered credit they could not possibly repay, simply because the credit provider did not make adequate inquiries about a potential borrower's financial commitments, income and expenditure.

This was a symptom of the intense competition for market share in the years before high interest rates and the subsequent difficulties experienced by many credit purchasers. This is not, however, to imply that credit providers are to be obliged to predict the future. This is a requirement that credit providers, on the basis of information made available to them at the time by the debtor, make a proper assessment of the potential borrower's capacity to repay the credit for which they have applied. That is not to say credit providers cannot use credit scoring, but they must do more. This legislative requirement makes good sense for both parties and merely reflects prudent lending practices. It is not a stand-alone provision. It is to be considered in the context of whether the contract, mortgage, guarantee or change is unjust. I say this because fears have been expressed that such a provision will prevent low-income earners or first home buyers from getting home finance. That is not the intention of the legislation. It is recognised that most people are prepared to make sacrifices in order to buy their own home.

What Ministers aim to do with these provisions is to ensure that credit providers do not take advantage of people who may not realise the dangers of overcommitment and who may be unfairly persuaded or allowed to take more credit than they can afford. I have alluded to the fact that the credit provider is not required to predict the future, and subsection (4) states that "in determining whether a credit contract, mortgage or guarantee is unjust, the Court is not to have regard to any injustice arising from circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable when the contract mortgage or guarantee was entered into or changed". I believe there is no ambiguity in that regard. I turn now to that part of the bill which has been highly contentious but which now appears to be accepted by all the major players. I refer to the civil penalty provisions.

Honourable members would be aware that the Credit Act 1984 has an automatic civil penalty regime which means that a penalty in the way of forfeited interest charges is imposed as soon as a breach of disclosure occurs. That legislation requires a credit provider to make application to the court before any interest charges can be reinstated to the credit provider, and the proportion which is reinstated depends on matters related generally to the conduct of the credit provider. This system is considered to have been instrumental in encouraging a culture of compliance in those institutions covered by the Credit Act. It does have, however, consequences that were possibly not foreseen by the drafters.

Systemic errors by banks have resulted in many thousands of contracts being affected. Applications to the Commercial Tribunal have been heard over a very long period and, as could be expected, at considerable cost in legal fees. In most cases there was little or no financial detriment to the borrower as a result of the breach. Another issue was the contingent liability incurred by the automatic nature of the penalty. While it is unlikely that a credit provider which applies to the tribunal will not have the major part of the interest charges returned to it, until the matter is determined the liability is the total amount of interest charges due under the contract, and this has all sorts of implications for the balance sheets of a credit provider's accounts.

On review of the legislation when the decision was taken to increase the scope, very real fears were expressed that the small institutions, such as some credit unions, might incur such a liability which, if it became public knowledge, could cause a run on funds which might cause a collapse. Clearly, this could not be permitted to happen. This was another matter in which Federal Treasury intervened in view of the serious consequences that could be foreseen, and a capped regime was suggested. This proved unworkable when worked through by practitioners during a period of consultation, and finally a scheme was developed which had the necessary incentives for compliance but did not threaten the viability of the institution.

The civil penalty regime in this bill is not automatic but relies on application by a party to the contract, or a guarantor, or the Government Consumer Agency, to the court for an order. It might reasonably be asked what incentive is there for a credit provider to comply in such circumstances. The incentive lies in two processes. Firstly, the penalty differs according to which party takes the matter to the court or tribunal. If the debtor applies, the penalty can be the full amount of credit charges due under the contract. If the credit provider applies, the penalty for a class of breaches Australia-wide is a maximum of $500,000.

Clearly, five single debtors with breaches of disclosure in relation to their housing contracts could have a penalty decided in their favour to the value of $500,000. If a credit provider or the Government Consumer Agency applied to the court, that same
Page 76
amount of penalty could apply in relation to thousands of contracts Australia-wide. There would be great benefit in a credit provider making the application first, in which case a debtor cannot apply for an order relating to that particular breach. The second factor that creates a compliance incentive is the list of factors that the court must take into account in determining the level of penalty which is to apply. These relate not only to the conduct of the credit provider, but also to a situation when the credit provider became aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware, of the contravention; any systems or procedures of the credit provider to prevent or identify contraventions; whether the contraventions could have been prevented by the credit provider; any action taken by the credit provider to remedy the contravention or compensate the debtor or to prevent further contraventions; and the time taken to make the application and the nature of the application.

It is evident from these criteria that the credit provider's efforts to comply with the requirements of the legislation will be significant to the consideration by the court or tribunal of the issue and the imposition of the penalty. Section 103 deals with the penalty if an application is made by the debtor or guarantor. In addition to the maximum penalty of all interest charges under the contract, or for the statement period if the contravention relates to a continuing credit contract statement, subsection (2) allows the court to impose a greater civil penalty if the debtor or guarantor satisfies the court that the debtor has suffered a loss. The amount of the civil penalty is to be not less than the amount of the loss. Section 104 provides that where an application by a debtor or guarantor is successful, the civil penalty may be set off against any amount outstanding under the contract, or if there is no amount outstanding, is a debt due to the debtor or guarantor.

I have noted previously that the penalty if the application is made by the credit provider or Government Consumer Agency is $500,000. Section 105(2) directs the court to determine the appropriate amount of penalty for disclosed contraventions in all jurisdictions and to determine the amount of penalty payable in each jurisdiction proportionately according to the number of contracts in that jurisdiction affected by the disclosed contraventions. This provision is especially important as it means that a credit provider need make only one application in one jurisdiction, and that will be a considerable saving with respect to the court's time and all parties' legal costs. Section 106 allows payment of a civil penalty, where the application is made by the credit provider or Government Consumer Agency, to be paid into a fund established for the purposes of this section. Honourable members would be aware that such a fund exists under the current legislation and the penalties paid into it are used for the purposes of financial counselling and education. It is intended that this practice will continue under the new legislation.

This brings me to the end of this important legislation. In conclusion, I would like to say that this code represents the very committed efforts of all stakeholders to provide a fair legislative solution to the very complex problems which exist in the financial marketplace. Inevitably some interests will not be satisfied but the Government is satisfied that the best possible compromise has been reached which will have positive returns for consumers, credit providers and the market. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Machin.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [9.13]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Statute Law Revision (Local Government) Bill is a necessary part of the local government reform package which commenced with the Local Government Act 1993 on 1 July 1993, and this has generally received the widespread support of all members of this Parliament. At the outset I should advise honourable members that this bill was presented to the previous Parliament. However, it was not finalised because of prorogation of the Parliament prior to the recent State election. I therefore anticipate that it will enjoy wide support in this House. I remind honourable members that the review of local government legislation is a continuing process, with the final major stage being the transfer of subdivision control and the regulation of outdoor advertising to the planning system under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

When the Local Government Act 1993 was introduced members of this House recognised that a degree of finetuning would be necessary to ensure that the operation of the new Act would be as effective and efficient as was intended. Honourable members will remember that the Local Government Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1994 was introduced in response to the then Government's commitment to monitor the operation of the new Local Government Act and to make all changes necessary to achieve this objective. As Minister for Local Government I am equally committed to this process and foreshadow to this House further amending legislation to reflect both Government policy and this commitment. Clearly this bill is a part of that process. Because of the commencement of the Local Government Act 1993 and companion legislation it should not be news to honourable members that the law relating to local government has changed significantly.

Page 77

This reform legislation, commenced by Janice Crosio about eight years ago, also made changes of a non-substantive or non-policy nature which have replaced references, terminology and language previously used in relation to local government with references, terminology and language more relevant to the times and more appropriate to the spirit and requirements of the new legislation. These changes should now be reflected in all other relevant State statutes. Accordingly, the primary purpose of this bill is to make non-contentious statute law amendments of a purely machinery nature to New South Wales legislation to take into account this practical impact of the Local Government Act 1993. This will create a much desired consistency throughout affected legislation and avoid any further possibility for confusion.

As honourable members will note, the proposed amendments have been incorporated into a separate bill rather than included in the general statute law revision program. This approach has been adopted because of the distinctive nature of the amendments which are now proposed in relation to some 192 pieces of New South Wales legislation. The bill will deal only with amendments which are necessary purely as a consequence of the commencement of the Local Government Act 1993. It differs only slightly from that previously introduced in that it contains additional but minor corrective provisions aimed at addressing anomalies and inconsistencies between the Local Government Act and other relevant statutes. These include incorrect cross-referencing between the Local Government Act and the Water Board (Corporatisation) Act 1994. It clarifies that a candidate for local government election and/or popularly elected mayor may not stand for election in more than one ward.

It also ensures that, to be eligible for registration as a political party, there is a requirement that at least one member be a councillor and not a member of Parliament, as appears to be the case now. It also makes it clear that the Auditor-General may be appointed as an auditor for a local council and clarifies the Minister's power to permit the variation in council's general income and charges for domestic waste services. Specifically, the bill deals with two main subject areas. The first area involves minor and non-controversial machinery amendments which the Parliamentary Counsel has considered suitable for inclusion in the bill. They are included in schedule 1. These amendments will provide that references to Acts and ordinances that have been repealed will be substituted with appropriate references to the Acts and regulations which replace them. The use of terms and language relating to local government and local office will be updated and brought into line with those used in the Local Government Act 1993. The bill also amends relevant legislation to reflect the recent changes to councils' corporate names.

The second subject area involves the repeal of 45 pieces of local government legislation which are either unnecessary or have no ongoing effect. These are included in schedule 2. The great majority of the legislation proposed for repeal is local government amending legislation where amendments have been incorporated into reprints of the former Local Government Act 1919. Accordingly, this legislation has no further practical utility. The local government rates and charges legislation included in this schedule does, however, have an ongoing effect. The Parliamentary Counsel proposes to retain this by inserting a transitional provision into the Local Government Act 1993. This proposed amendment to the Local Government Act is included in schedule 1 to this bill.

Honourable members may also have noted, as they no doubt did when the bill was previously introduced, that the City of Sydney Act is to be amended and the City of Sydney (Elections) Regulation 1993 is to be repealed. These are no more than machinery amendments made necessary by the commencement of the Local Government Act 1993. This bill will not make any policy changes to that legislation. However, I can foreshadow that it is likely further amendments to the City of Sydney Act will be necessary to ensure it facilitates the good governance of the city.

The Department of Local Government has carried out an extensive program of consultation with those agencies responsible for administrating affected legislation. I am pleased to report that the response to this consultation has been extremely encouraging. The vast majority of agencies responded positively and have found the proposed amendments to be satisfactory. Where concerns have been expressed, these have been considered in consultation with the Parliamentary Counsel's Office. Where reasonable and appropriate, the concerns have been taken into account in the bill.

In order to now complete this stage of the review of local government legislation, the Government wishes to ensure that the bill proceeds quickly and without difficulty, particularly as this is the second occasion on which it has been before the Parliament. Accordingly, honourable members are invited to examine the proposed amendments and to approach my office if any assistance is required to clarify matters referred to in the bill. However, as I have indicated, this is not a controversial bill, and honourable members should by now be familiar with its dimensions and purpose. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Jeffery.



Mr KNOWLES: Earlier today the honourable member for Eastwood asked me a question about a proposal for work on the M2 carriageway. I inform the honourable member that I have taken
Page 78
advice, as I indicated I would, and I now report that the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning understands that there may be a proposal to raise the M2 carriageway by up to seven metres near Terrys Creek. The department has not been consulted at this stage. However, the Roads and Traffic Authority will need to consider the significance of the variation and decide whether an environmental impact statement or other form of assessment will be required pursuant to section 111 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

I am sure the honourable member for Eastwood is aware that section 111 falls within part 5 of the Act. As a consequence of the policy of the previous Government whereby the poacher-gamekeeper arrangement was retained - prior to the former Opposition and Independent members combining to change that Act and the most recent amendments to part 5 of the Act, which separate the poacher-gamekeeper relationship - this matter still remains the responsibility of the Roads and Traffic Authority.