Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Henry Murray) took the chair at 9.00 a.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.


Debate resumed from 23 November.

Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.00]: These bills provide the legislative substance for the Government's electricity reforms foreshadowed in the May electricity reform statements. They will establish the legislative framework for the industry, corporatise a new distribution and generation business, and establish the Sustainable Energy Fund. The move by the Government in this area comes because of steps taken by the previous coalition Government and the Commonwealth working together on micro-economic reform. In Australia electricity is one of the major fundamental changes that can occur in micro-economic reform. It is estimated that an improvement of 5 per cent can be achieved in government trading enterprises in relation to the gross domestic product. About 20 per cent of that 5 per cent can be related to electricity. The move by the Commonwealth and the States to reform the supply of electricity to make it a more efficient, competitive market, will have a significant impact on the Australian and New South Wales economy and, therefore, it needs to be supported.

The Hilmer report covered competition policy in Australia. People seem to be reading all sorts of inferences into that report. Hilmer gets blamed for anything to do with micro-economic reform, be it in the area of social welfare or electricity. Anyone who reads his report on competition reform should understand that there are fundamental areas, especially in Government trading enterprises, that need to be tackled to ensure the efficient delivery of services in Australia. Hilmer consulted with the States and his report led to the Council of Australian Governments agreement to head down a competition path. In delivering that competitive path a range of benefits is supposed to flow to the State. The Opposition, which started the program, is concerned that one of the fundamental bases of micro-economic reform and greater competition under the COAG agreement was that the States were to be reimbursed by the Commonwealth for a loss of income and a loss of opportunities for State budgets as the benefits in the main would flow to the economy generally and to the Commonwealth.

The Opposition expresses its concern again that this Government has sold out to the Commonwealth. In the next year or two the Government will find itself dramatically disadvantaged under the COAG agreement as the reimbursements from the Commonwealth are not sufficient to recompense the States for the loss of income that would normally flow to the States' coffers. The Government will regret that it did not fight harder with the Commonwealth for a greater share of the benefits that flow from this micro-economic reform. When one reads these bills in relation to electricity reform, they are a mere shell of information. They deliver a massive amount of power to the Minister, and to the Government, through regulation. There is little detail in them. Honourable members will have to wait to see what details come out of future reports. For example, how will the retail markets actually work? How will the new companies be structured? From a reading of these bills it is difficult to see how we are to move forward.

It is important to say at the beginning that we are entering a brave new world. I am concerned that people are being extremely optimistic about the huge benefits that are supposed to flow to consumers of electricity and how this will be of great benefit to the people of New South Wales. People who are overly optimistic at this stage should be more cautious because these major reforms are taking us into a brave new world - untried and untested. The problems and the benefits are absolutely unknown. It is mere speculation at this stage, an assumption, a belief, that great benefits will flow to the economy and that in the end the consumer will be better off - but no-one can be certain. The Opposition is concerned that the Government will barrel headlong along a path of reform under the name of Hilmer because of a little book that says that competition reform is good. So barrel along the road in this perfect world and things will fall into place! That is a nonsense.

People should not forget that the vast majority of the benefits of the dramatic reforms that have occurred in electricity in New South Wales are already in place. There has been an 80 per cent improvement in productivity by Pacific Power over the last few years. Some improvements are still to come. Most of them will probably come from new technology and better systems, regardless of whether Pacific Power is restructured or continues its current one-ownership structure. To say that huge benefits will flow to the community and that prices will come down because of a move from one manufacturer of electricity to a couple of manufacturers, and because of competition, is an absolute nonsense. But I will touch on that issue later. Hilmer, in his report, stated:

Page 4216

Before competition is introduced to a sector traditionally supplied by a public monopoly -

and the Government should heed these words -

there should be a rigorous, open and independent study of the costs and benefits of separating potentially competitive activities of the monopoly enterprise.

In spite of Hilmer's advice - the architect of competition policy - New South Wales has a scant report from Bankers Trust, and a report from the London School of Economics and Political Science. If one went to a corporation like Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited and said, "We are going to break up BHP", and used the BT report or the London school of economics report as a basis for that proposition, the board of BHP would laugh one out of the room.

The lack of business planning and the lack of risk management as we barrel headlong along this road of reform are an absolute disgrace. As I said, one would be laughed out of major corporations such as Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited if one suggested such major reform, with the lack of study that has gone into the report. Certainly, a rigorous, open and independent study of the costs and benefits of separating potentially competitive activities through monopoly enterprise has not been done. It is all guesswork and we all know what will happen. To demonstrate that the process is shonky the Government will put the legislation through, undertake the reforms and then announce a price cut in electricity. The Government thinks that people will forget. I think that $130 million was supposed to be passed on to consumers last July.

Mr Windsor: It is $137 million.

Mr PHILLIPS: I thank the honourable member for Tamworth for reminding me that it is $137 million. That is a cut in tariffs of about 5 per cent. But the Government put a freeze on it and said that the reduction would not be passed on. We know what will happen. The Government will put through the legislation, pass on the reforms and then announce that it has done well with a price cut. However, the price cut will be derived from reforms that occurred in the electricity industry under the previous administration. That is a clear indication of the dishonesty of the reforms. It is one of the biggest micro-economic reforms - if not the biggest micro-economic reform - undertaken in this State.

The Opposition is concerned that a major risk management appraisal of this major reform was not undertaken. A simple modelling exercise was done by BT Finance, comparing the different methods of breaking up Pacific Power. The alternative of not breaking up Pacific Power was not even considered. Have the risks and uncertainties been identified? How will they be managed? Is this important documentation available for study and comment? A strong business plan that considers a wide range of scenarios is part of good, informed and prudent business practice, and the people of New South Wales are entitled to it. It is also good government. Reform of the electricity industry must work, otherwise it will set back micro-economic reform in this State and in this country for a long time to come.

With regard to the implementation process and timing, either option will require significant reorganisation, and must be clearly planned and managed. What are we doing? In the time scale of this major reform we will barrel down to March, with Christmas intervening, when New South Wales will enter a competition market. Then from March to September - six months for one of the biggest industries in New South Wales - the Government will experiment with reform, and then the electricity industry will barrel into the national grid and the national competition market in September of next year, which is less than 12 months away. Most major computer systems take longer than 12 months to implement, let alone this major electricity reform. From the Opposition's perspective, I say good luck. I bet that there will be many big stumbles on the way. Management and employees will have to cope with many crises in this brave new world as the Government embarks on this major reform in a ridiculously short time frame.

What is the incentive for the reform? If the electricity industry is not reformed, the Government will not get its hands on the little bag of money that the Commonwealth is holding out for competition reform to help balance the budget. As I said earlier, it is inadequate. The States have been screwed by the Commonwealth in their reimbursement for this competition reform. The internal reorganisation recommended by the generation reform working group can be carried out without legislation. When an effective and efficient structure has been proved, suitable legislation will be appropriate. I predict that the Government will be back here within months introducing further legislative change in this area. It will not be legislative change that is necessary to take the next few steps; it will be necessary change to correct the Government's mistakes. There is no need to barrel along this path so quickly. It is more important to get it right.

The legislation is a shell. It does not show how the electricity corporations will be structured, governed or staffed, and it does not show what will happen to the functions of Pacific Power. Very importantly, it does not show what is happening to the staff affected. I come back to the attitude of this Government, compared to that of the previous Government, in relation to how staff are treated in the reform process. The legislation gives the Minister extraordinary powers to make regulations. He or she will be able to create or dissolve electricity corporations by regulation simply on a whim, as a result of advice from public servants, or as a result of another good idea. We all know the impact of creating or dissolving electricity corporations. Governments and public servants often use the creation or dissolution of corporations
Page 4217
to manipulate staff out or manipulate other staff in. Major reform has a huge impact on staff. I have grave concerns about such powers being vested willy-nilly in this type of overarching legislation. It will be interesting to see the regulations that are introduced in the near future.

What will happen to the staff of Pacific Power? There is no clear indication of what will happen; there is a great deal of doubt. Will members be treated any better than the former employees of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria or CEGB in the United Kingdom, where the staff were badly handled and badly treated? At present there is only a promise of no forced redundancies, no forced transfers and no loss of entitlements. Honourable members know that the Government is not good at keeping promises. One need only ask the timber workers, ask the people in western Sydney about the tollways, ask the people working in TAFE, ask the people in rural towns and ask the people in the health system. The building of hospitals has been delayed, in spite of promises. We know that the Government is not good at keeping promises. I can understand the concerns of employees. In fairness to them, promises are simply not enough.

We are entering into an area of competition with a major reform in a short period of time. Those who need to be protected in any structural change are the employees because, at the end of the day, they are the ones who suffer as a result of changes and reform. The Government has a responsibility to clearly articulate and put down in writing exactly what is going to happen to the staff of Pacific Power. The former Government made it a condition of the sale of the State Bank that staff entitlements would be protected after the changeover. All we have from the Government on this issue is scant promise. The question of superannuation also needs to be taken into account. Will the superannuation entitlements of employees be protected? When I was Minister for Health I refused to allow a restructure of the health system - at Port Macquarie, Hawkesbury or anywhere else - to proceed unless the current and accumulated entitlements of the staff were protected. That is the least that any employer should do, particularly a government employer. The question of superannuation needs to be cleared up before competition forces a squeeze and the employees are made to suffer. The Government should provide more information on this aspect.

Another area of concern in the breaking down of Pacific Power relates to this State's ability to compete on the international market. Electricity generation will move out of the one-product area and into energy generation; we will be talking about energy markets, not merely electricity markets. Major international corporations involved in the generation of electricity and energy are buying up energy manufacturers and distributors around the world. In Victoria, where the industry has been privatised, there is no shortage of overseas investors prepared to buy up the electricity industry. The Opposition is concerned that Australia, instead of becoming a potential major player in the international electricity generating market, will be owned by major overseas holdings. The Government has said that it will corporatise but not privatise Pacific Power. No-one believes that. The New South Wales Government is the last government in Australia that believes - although I am not sure that all members of the Government believe it - that Australia should stand on its dig and say that the electricity industry should not be privatised.

The step that the Government is taking towards corporatisation is a step that governments take in readiness for privatisation. The step that this Government has taken in regard to Pacific Power will prepare that entity for privatisation. It may take some time, but within the decade the new corporations that the Government has created will be sold off. The Government has inserted a clever clause in the bill that says it will not privatise because the shares cannot be flogged off. However, there is nothing in the legislation to prevent the Government from flogging off the assets. The Opposition believes that the corporatisation approach will lead to Pacific Power being prepared for privatisation.

When Pacific Power or the proposed new corporations are privatised, they will be bought up by major overseas corporations, just as the industry was in Victoria, and Australians will be minuscule shareholders. I predict that in the following 10 years there will be reaggregation, that the owners of Victorian, New South Wales and Queensland power stations will be reaggregating. Victoria has disaggregated into about six units, New South Wales into two and a bit, and Queensland is doing the same. In a few years owners will see this as inefficient because the drive for competition in industry these days is to power up, not to keep breaking down, and reaggregation will occur. Will the people of New South Wales or Australia own the power industry? Not on your life. It will be owned by the French, the Americans, the British and others.

Australia has the potential to be a major player in the international energy market. Australia is one of the most efficient producers of electricity and one of the most skilled, and leads the world in the development of environmental controls associated with the generation of electricity. That intellectual property, that technology and those management skills - in all of which Australia is a world leader - will be of great value to countries throughout Asia which are energy starved. As those major economies boom they will be looking to other countries to help them with the generation of power and electricity. What will New South Wales do? In the name of Hilmer it will disaggregate and flog off the power industry over the next 10 to 20 years. Honourable members can be sure that the overseas corporations will be in Asia selling our technology, our expertise and our management skills.

Page 4218

What will the great benefit be to the people of Australia? The Opposition believes that we are losing an opportunity. Why did the Government not consider selling the distribution networks to the people of Australia? Why did it not deliver the shareholding back to the owners, the people who paid for the industry? The Australian people have paid for the power stations, the wires and the networks; why should they not have shares in them? Why is the Government barrelling along this path? What will the benefit be to the people of New South Wales? There is no document or business plan study that states in clear terms what the benefits will be or that roughly quantifies the amounts that will flow from this corporatisation of the industry.

The Government asserts that the benefit of these measures will be cheaper electricity. There are two main reasons for falling electricity prices in future. One is improvement in technology and efficiency. In that respect, Pacific Power already is supplying some of the world's cheapest electricity, but another 20 per cent improvement in efficiency can be achieved through better management skills, improvements in technology and so on. That improvement in efficiency will be gained whether or not Pacific Power remains as a single entity. There is a question mark on whether further efficiency will be gained by breaking Pacific Power into a number of separate corporations, because there has not been a business study into that matter. The main area of price reduction will be capacity to sell surplus electricity generated.

During the next decade many power stations and coal mines will close and thousands of workers will leave those industries in Victoria and New South Wales, as electricity generation corporations compete to sell electricity at marginally more than cost. Those with surplus capacity will be selling electricity cheap, with the result that competition power generators in New South Wales and Victoria will go out of business. The one possible saving grace for this State lies with Queensland, which in the next few years will have an increased need for energy and power. Hopefully, the grids between Queensland and New South Wales will be connected, enabling the sale of New South Wales electricity to Queensland.

But those pinning their hopes on increased electricity sales to Queensland should not hold their breath. We know how Queenslanders will regard giving electricity industry jobs to southerners and putting themselves in the hands of southerners, in effect being dependent on people in the south providing electricity and other services! We know how enthusiastic Queenslanders will be about giving away jobs to the southern States when that State is battling to provide jobs for its own electricity generators and give them more security of tenure! At the end of the day the grids will connect and New South Wales electricity generators will be able to sell their surplus product to Queensland customers. But how certain can we be about our capacity to supply surplus energy in Australia? We know the world trend in that regard.

Bear in mind that Australian electricity production is based on coal-fired generation. The main competition to electricity energy in the future will come from natural gas. There are huge reserves of natural gas in Australia. The severe competition to electricity that will develop over the next decade and beyond will be the natural gas energy source. New South Wales does not have much by way of natural gas resources. The natural gas reserves are in Victoria, in the Gippsland basin, off Bass Strait; and in Western Australia, off the north-west shelf. Those are the major suppliers, with smaller reserves being in other parts of Australia. What does the New South Wales economy depend on? A great part of this State's economy depends on coal - coal that we want to use in New South Wales and high grade coal that we want to export. An important by-product of the electricity industry in New South Wales at the moment is electricity generation technology that we are able to sell to world markets that use our high quality coal.

That leads me to the Opposition's concern. By breaking up Pacific Power, what is the Government doing to ensure that the technology base that provides for efficient use of high grade coal for electricity generation, and enables this State to export its coal? What is the Government doing to ensure the ongoing research and development of technology that will enable us to retain our strong overseas coal markets? Hardly a word has been said in any reports that I have seen about how the Government will keep that technology industry going.

If we lose that research, development and expertise we will lose the marketing edge that we have in selling our coal overseas. If we lose that edge, there will be a huge impact on the New South Wales economy through more mine closures and more lost jobs. The Opposition wants to know what this Government, as it stumbles down the road to the brave new world of micro-economic reform under Hilmer, will do to protect those particular interests.

The other area of reform proposed by this legislation relates to power distribution. This Parliament has had a number of debates about the Government, following its usual non-consultative process, wiping out more than 20 distributors around New South Wales, amalgamating them into half a dozen distribution bodies; basically got access to their assets and cash reserves and palmed off to distributors a debt of $1.3 billion from its budget. The Government then imposed that debt on the country electricity distributors, when those people had, through their electricity rates, already paid for their own power lines and their own distribution networks.

This Government shifted $1.3 billion of Government debt from its own books and imposed that debt on the electricity distributors in the name of reform. As a consequence, the people of New
Page 4219
South Wales, particularly those in the country, will have to pay again for power distribution outlets that they have already paid for. That absolutely staggers me. What consideration was given to the New Zealand model? Why did not the Government give those country people the option of buying their own electricity distribution network or having an interest in them? Why not sell them shares in the network and let them get into the market? But, no, the Government hived off some of is own debt back onto those people. I find that type of approach absolutely amazing, especially when it extends to the dishonesty of the Treasurer saying, "We are reducing State debt." The Government is not reducing State debt; it merely removed it from one of its books into another of its books, and is making the consumers, the public, pay. Moody's will not be fooled by that sort of dipping; as far as it is concerned, it is still State debt. Electricity users in the country are disadvantaged already by that process.

In terms of competition in the electricity distribution marketplace, probably another 1,000 jobs in the country will go. The Government will say, "We are going to be more efficient in the maintenance of those lines." The Government should be honest with the community: it believes that the system of maintenance is a little too efficient and when there is a power blackout in a small country area it should not be fixed in the same day. More than 1,000 employees will be culled and there will be fewer maintenance depots around New South Wales. Of course, that is more efficient and will save money.

Mr Jeffery: It will not save the food in the deep freeze, though.

Mr PHILLIPS: Exactly. In the end the consumer will suffer. Power failures will be repaired the next day or half a day later. A storm around Miranda and Yowie Bay disrupted power in my area when a wonderful tree that I used to have in the front yard came down, taking out my power lines and next door's power lines. We were without power for three days. We take things for granted, but being without power in Sydney or in the bush is not good. The Opposition will closely monitor this aspect of concern. I have already touched on environmental controls. New South Wales is among the world's best in coal-fired power generation. The bills touch very lightly on environmental responsibilities - almost in motherhood and apple pie terms, nice words. This can be compared to the very definitive responsibilities in the bill which the coalition introduced to corporatise some of the activities of the Water Board. It was much more definitive than the furry approach to environmental concerns in this legislation.

The bills do not require the corporation to minimise environmental impact through minimising resource usage and the generation of waste. They do not require the corporation to develop pollution reduction targets within the first 12 months of its establishment. There should be reference to greenhouse emissions and a five- to 10-year time frame. The bills do not require the corporation to report annually on performance in meeting pollution reduction targets in accordance with agreed performance indicators. And the bills do not require the development and publication of annual environment plans which outline objectives for environmental improvements and actions to achieve these objectives. The coalition Government was much more professional than the Labor Government in protecting the interests of consumers and employees. This Government is slapdash. It comes up with great policy ideas but their implementation leaves a lot to be desired.

Under the previous legislation power was provided to railway networks at cost. With the introduction of corporatisation and competition State Rail and Rail Freight will remain dependent on a reliable and cheap source of power. I ask whether power will still be supplied at cost. In the short time the Opposition has had the bills I have not seen a reference in them to this. This matter needs to be clarified. If electricity will no longer be supplied at cost, is there a business management plan? Is there a study that sets out the likely impacts on electricity prices for rail, which will have certain flow-on effects to the cost of providing rail services - and therefore on fares?

The issues involved in the bills have been the subject of a number of debates in the Parliament and the community. The attitude of the Opposition to this overarching legislation is, basically, support for the concept of micro-economic reform and the Hilmer proposals - though the Hilmer report has been used and abused - but grave concern about what the Government is now doing after excellent policy development in the past. The proposal lacks detail, is unsupported by business studies, management plans and risk management and has a frightening time frame for change. Staff and consumers are being treated shabbily. The Government is asking the people of New South Wales to trust it but the Opposition will fulfil its responsibilities by watching how the reforms are implemented, especially in relation to employees, research and development, environmental controls, consumers and industry with the movement into competition with Victoria and other States. The Opposition does not oppose the legislation.

Mr WINDSOR (Tamworth) [9.48]: I am disappointed that so few members intend to speak on the three bills being debated, which represent a significant social structural change not only in this State but throughout Australia. Issues involved concern agreements reached at the Council of Australian Governments and other agreements reached within and without the State which have an effect on the people of New South Wales. In my view the bills are not about any real benefits that can be passed on to consumers of electricity or the people of New South Wales generally. The legislation in my view has been poorly veiled by the Treasurer in particular.

Page 4220

This bill is about money. Those who require proof of that need take account only of the number of people from Treasury who are present today to assist the Government in that area. The bill is about money in the short term and not about real benefits to the community over the long term. If that were so, I would be highly supportive of the bill. I should like now to elaborate my views about the money trail that is involved with this piece of legislation. If the Government were concerned about the cost of electricity to the community - particularly to the country community - why would it be involved in the theft of $137 million, which had been accumulated through the operations of county councils and should have been returned to the consumers of power? I would be the first to say that not all county councils were efficient, but those that were had accumulated significant funds, which have been confiscated by the Government.

I agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that over time some of those funds, not all, will be passed back to consumers in the form of lower charges. This will be considered one of the benefits of this legislation. I ask the Minister for Small Business and Regional Development, Minister for Ports, Assistant Minister for Energy, and Assistant Minister for State Development, why that $137 million was not passed back in the form of lower charges directly from the county councils to their consumer base? Why is $1.3 billion of debt to be transferred to the distributors of power? The only argument that can be put forward is that in some way that will force the operations of these corporations to be competitive in the marketplace. What is the role of government in the provision of essential services to the community?

There has been much talk about the impact and meaning of the Hilmer report. I have no illusions as to the meaning of the Hilmer report: it is the 1990s economic rationalism in another guise; it is the drive towards centralism, which I have real concerns about, particularly for my constituency; but it has real implications for the structure of the community. Hilmer talks about the most efficient way of delivering a particular service, in this case power, to the greater majority of the consumer base. This piece of legislation is being applied to the electricity industry. What would happen if it were applied to agriculture? At the moment, because of international aberrations, the farming community in Australia is not the least-cost provider of food to the Australian community.

Though we are the most efficient farm sector in the world, because of these aberrations - which are mainly market orientated, and some of which corrupt the purist economic process in the domestic market - if Hilmer's principle were applied to the provision of that basic necessity, food, it would be cheaper to purchase our food elsewhere. The implications for our society of this principle are potentially enormous. I am not suggesting that this Government would consider that step, but the warning signals are that the Hilmer dogma cannot be considered in isolation. Application of a purist economic theory, considered in the context of only one column, will always lead to a smaller and more efficient operation. If we start applying that dogma to all basic resources, one of which could be food, we will incur significant changes in relation to the structure of our society.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke about changes in the distribution network and how there had been forced or coerced amalgamations of county councils into six distribution groups. He spent some time noting that consumers of electricity in those areas in essence had paid for those facilities. I agree with his comments, but I remind him of legislation of the previous Parliament which corporatised the grain handling system and sold it back to the growers. The growers paid for those facilities twice and the legislation forced them to pay for those facilities again. Though it may be perceived to be a good political ploy on the day, this Government is not the only one guilty of making the people pay once more. Graincorp is a classic example of growers paying for the use of a system, and consumers of electricity distributed by county councils have also paid for the use of facilities. The government of the day seized the opportunity to use a procedure to get some quick money and has gone about getting access to it. This bill is about money and not about any benefit or concern for the cost of power to consumers.

I will now comment on the hypocrisy of the amalgamation of the electricity authorities. I believe in competition. I am told that Treasury; the Treasurer; the Minister for Small Business and Regional Development, Minister for Ports, Assistant Minister for Energy, and Assistant Minister for State Development; and all Government members also believe in competition. I was not opposed to the amalgamation of the county councils. However, I differed with the committee and the government of the day in that I believed that the communities involved in those amalgamations should have had their say about who they wished to be amalgamated with. If this Government believes in competition, why did it use the processes of the committee that travelled around the State and other processes to force the amalgamation of unlike communities? Arguments were put forward that some of the bodies earmarked for amalgamation were too small and may not have been able to exist in an economic sense in a free market.

If that is the case, over time those bodies would have gone broke. If the Government believes in competition, the one thing that should not be removed is the right to have a go and the right to go broke. A number of issues were put forward and the figures are still very rubbery and expose the deceit, particularly as to the customer base required to allow someone to be efficient and economic in the new world of competition. I should like to place on record that I was opposed to the forced amalgamation of some of those areas, particularly in the NorthPower area. The destruction by the Government of the natural affinity within those communities is to be deplored.

Page 4221

I note that clause 8 of the Energy Services Corporations Bill refers to the principal objectives of energy distributors, and there has been much talk about responsibility for regional development and decentralisation and the way that operates. I am particularly pleased the Minister for Small Business and Regional Development, Minister for Ports, Assistant Minister for Energy, and Assistant Minister for State Development is present, because there should be more action rather than the rhetoric and the usual comments on the introduction of a bill. The Government should examine the impact of this legislation on smaller communities. If one applies the principles of the Hilmer report and the centralised economic dogma, almost by definition this means that smaller communities that are more remote and therefore require more expensive services will suffer.

Government is about looking at the bigger picture, not looking at matters in isolation, and I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments in reply. How can the principles of the Hilmer report be applied to an essential resource such as power without having an impact on smaller regional communities? Communities should be centralist in nature and share the same sewage downpipe and the same power pole. That is an economic, rationalist, Hilmerist community. Environmental impacts, such as packing people into regional communities, with subsequent social and law and order consequences, do not gel. Government should be about larger issues than specific columns of economic activity. I am disappointed that this Labor Government is addressing this issue in economic and monetary terms to achieve a short-term gain. That is a forerunner to a major monetary windfall, when the whole system will be sold off in 1999.

Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [10.03]: At the outset I congratulate the shadow minister, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, on his substantial contribution to this debate. He covered all issues except the impact that this legislation will have on people. As a member of Parliament representing a country electorate I am concerned about its effect on two groups of people. The first group is the workers, and obviously it is the Liberal and National parties that are now looking after the workers in New South Wales. The second is the consumers in remote areas of rural New South Wales. I am concerned about workers' rights, and a clear statement should be made about workers' rights with regard, for example, to the sale of the State Bank. Workers in former county councils are experiencing considerable stress and trauma. I represent an area covered by what was formerly Oxley County Council, now NorthPower. I was in favour of voluntary amalgamation but I am not in favour of the forced amalgamation proposed by the Labor Government.

An excellent program was formerly in place without major consequences to consumers and workers in that area. All governments have a social responsibility. In my area the official unemployment rate is 16.8 per cent - virtually double the State average - but in real terms it is more than 33 per cent. That is because the Federal Labor Government fudges by putting unemployed into short-term training courses when, at the end of the day, there are no available jobs. The unemployment rate in my electorate is a disaster, and that is why I wish to speak on its effect on workers and their families. Many constituents have spoken to me, virtually in tears, because they do not know where they are heading.

The Minister should give a clear direction to workers in order to lay to rest any fears they may have. I have not gone to those areas and fearmongered or bagged the Government. However, I am asking the Government to inform workers of their rights. My other area of concern relates to consumers. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to remote areas, the backblocks, that could be two days without electricity. At present, as soon as a blackout occurs the electricity gang attends virtually straightaway to reconnect the power. However, if a strictly economic approach is taken, will those consumers have to wait two days, and will they be charged a minimum service charge of $200, maybe $300, because the crew has to travel many kilometres and it may take several hours to get there?

Increased costs will seriously affect consumers who are helping to decentralise this vast country. Again, farmers cannot wait two days for the power to be turned back on when milking cows, and they cannot return to the old days of milking by hand. The Minister would not even know how to milk by machine rather than by hand. I challenge the Minister to consult with people in remote areas in order to understand the impact on them if guarantees are not included in the legislation. The objectives of the legislation are adequate - as the shadow minister said, it is motherhood stuff - but the bill very fuzzy and non-specific. This lack of specifics worries me.

The legislation is based on monetary consideration, whereby $1.3 billion will be ripped off consumers. The infrastructure has already been paid for but will consumers have to pay yet again? This is double dipping at its worst, which, although it has only been in office for nine months, is becoming a trademark of the Labor Government. Unfortunately, the State is suffering seriously because of actions by the Government. Consumers, and workers in particular, feel powerless. They question where they can go and what they can do. I ask the Minister to allay those fears and give a clear statement about the rights of workers and consumers in remote areas so that down the track they will not be charged $200, $300 or even $500 for a service call. Even in the middle of the night or during storms, electricity crews now respond quickly.

I pay tribute to electricity crews because in the past they have been excellent workers. However, with these fears they naturally drop their bundle a
Page 4222
little and need to be reassured that any changes in the legislation will not place them on the unemployment scrap heap. This has occurred recently in other areas. I refer to the Wran era, when sandmining along the mid-north coast in my area was closed down. The Wran Government said not to worry because more jobs would be created in the tourism industry. But not one extra job was created in tourism and many hundreds of workers lost their jobs. That is why the unemployment rate in my area is 33 per cent.

Timber workers who lost their jobs did not receive any help, and I can give other examples of this Labor Government letting down the workers of this State. I place on record the concerns of the workers and consumers of New South Wales. I plead with this Government to give them a fair go. Many people in this State have been affected. Even teachers are talking to me now after what this Government has done to them. In the past most teachers were not friends of the coalition parties - they were usually branch presidents of the Australian Labor Party - but some are even joining the National Party. That is great. They will find out that the coalition parties look after the workers and consumers in this State. I would like the Minister in his reply to give a clear commitment to the workers of this State that there will be not only a statement of principles but also a statement of rights for people working in the energy industries of New South Wales. The Minister should give a clear commitment also to people living in remote areas that they will not be disadvantaged by this legislation.

Mr SMALL (Murray) [10.11]: The supply of electricity and energy is important to every area in New South Wales. I wish to comment on the matter raised by the honourable member for Oxley regarding isolated areas. Electricity is supplied to the Murray electorate by Murray River Electricity and Murrumbidgee County Council which, through efficient management, provide the cheapest electricity in New South Wales. The Treasurer and Minister for Energy said that there would be a 25 per cent or 30 per cent reduction in electricity costs. That will not happen in my area, but it might happen in others. I believe electricity costs in the southern part of New South Wales will rise. Eight county councils are to amalgamate to provide electricity in that vast area. Corowa, Deniliquin, Berrigan, Balranald and Wentworth are substantial areas with significant maintenance requirements.

The needs of people in those areas must be met. I would hate to see a reduction in the maintenance of electricity in those areas. Most county councils have accumulated resources to maintain facilities and provide necessary structures. I believe that Balranald, which comes within the Murray River Electricity and Murrumbidgee County Council area, has set aside about $20 million for the provision of services. The greatest proportion of that $20 million is needed to upgrade a substation at Balranald. What will happen now? Will consumers in that isolated area again have to pay necessary costs to provide facilities that are already on the drawing board? Southern Riverina County Council, which is based at Wagga Wagga, supplies domestic water to the eastern part of my electorate. County councils also supply domestic water to farmers and consumers in areas extending from Pleasant Hills, The Rock, Lockhart, Milbrulong and Rand. Will people in those areas come under a new board structure or will they be looked after by local government? What does the Minister have in mind?

I receive many letters from people concerning the wonderful services provided in those areas by county councils. But who will provide those services in the future? Will services be provided to those drought-affected areas as efficiently in the future as they are at present? The supply of domestic services in the southern Riverina area has been a godsend, particularly when we take into account the severe droughts that have occurred over the last few years. In the last five to 10 years farmhouses in the Lake Mungo area, the Willandra Lakes area and areas near the South Australian border were supplied with electricity at a cost of $53,000 per farm. An additional amount was charged if electricity was supplied to, say, shearing sheds. The former Government provided a $20,000 subsidy, which meant that farmers only had to pay $33,000 - a huge benefit to the people in those areas. Some areas still do not have an electricity supply. Further north, towards Broken Hill, the cost of supplying electricity is $70,000 or more, but people still receive a government subsidy.

I would like a reassurance from the Government that farmers in those areas will not have to pay the full cost of electricity connections. Most of those areas have only a single 240 volt electricity line; they do not have a three-phase supply. People in isolated areas are now enjoying services which those in urban areas take for granted. I hope that the Minister and the Government will not neglect the needs of people in this area. County councils in the Murray River area have set aside funds to upgrade substations, embark on new developments and provide new electricity lines. Oaklands, in my electorate, has a greenfield mine with about 10 per cent or 11 per cent of all New South Wales coal reserves. The coal is not of export quality but is good for generating electricity. John Hill, the Manager of CRA-Mitsubishi, investigated the potential of these coal resources over a period of 15 years. That greenfield mine would have been operating today if it were not for the fact that the Victorian Government promised that a Latrobe Valley station would supply Victoria's electricity needs.

John Hill said that electricity could be supplied cheaper in New South Wales - by some 30 per cent - than electricity being supplied to households in Victoria. We must never stop tapping our water resources for hydro-electricity. The Snowy Mountains Scheme is one of the wonders of the world. Approximately 17 per cent of our electricity
Page 4223
supply comes from that area, and it also supplies Victoria. That wonderful scheme also supplies water for irrigation and many country towns.

I am genuinely concerned about what will happen with pricing under the amalgamation. I would love to think that the Minister could tell me that there will not be high costs, but I believe there will have to be in southern New South Wales. What will happen to the service needs of people who live in isolated towns such as Balranald, Pooncarie, Hatfield, Maude and Oxley, right to the South Australian border? I would like to think that the Minister will not ignore the needs of those people - people who provide, even in times of hardship, the food for this nation. They are helped enormously by the energy resources we supply for them at the moment.

I refer to the Hilmer report. There is no question that we have to have competition, and the implementation of the Hilmer report will be beneficial in some areas, particularly with transport infrastructure. However, I have severe concerns about Hilmer's comments about water and energy. Whilst privatisation can be extremely efficient, the Government must be able to support and manage resources for people who live in isolated areas. There is a difference between the supply needs of a large population which has many end users to pay for the energy, and the supply needs of people who live in isolated areas - people who are equally as important as those who live in more populated areas. I am pleased to say a few words on behalf of the people in my area. Their eight county councils will come together and hopefully operate successfully, productively and efficiently. They will service the needs of the people as the Minister would wish. We want to ensure that the Government is doing the right thing.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [10.23]: I wish to register a couple of comments about this package of reform, which I am both for and against. I have serious reservations about the benefits of the Hilmer competition policy reform. I do not have a blind faith in its values, which I think will be demonstrated as the years go by. As a consequence of the electricity reforms there will be cheaper electricity, but if the generators all use coal there will be a greenhouse and global warming crisis, particularly if New South Wales links into the Victorian-produced power which comes from dirty brown coal, whose greenhouse emission effects are even more damaging.

The Electricity Supply Bill and its cognate bills are not bad; I acknowledge that they take us some useful steps forward. The Electricity Supply Bill removes Pacific Power's transmission access monopoly. It will allow access to transmission for new, renewable power sources. It will allow new energy retailers to supply energy services, including energy efficiency and renewables and demand management. The bill will establish the Sustainable Energy Fund, but there are weaknesses and flaws in the bill, particularly with respect to the treatment of greenhouse issues, energy efficiency and renewables. The bill has a weak provision which allows for the development of a demand management plan and requires annual reporting on how the demand management plan is being implemented, the emissions caused by the production of electricity supplied by the retailer, and the quantities of electricity purchased from different sources. That provision lacks credibility because it does not set any targets or benchmarks by which to judge the performance of retailers.

As has been mentioned by a number of members during the debate, a number of things are needed. Perhaps they will be the subject of amendments in the upper House. New South Wales must set targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Preferably, there should be a national target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent within the next 10 years based on the 1988 baseline. Retailers can adopt specific measures to help achieve their targets. These measures could be mandatory or optional, depending on how the regulation of the implementation of such targets is approached. They could include the grid connection of solar cells or other renewables for all new or renovated houses and commercial and service buildings, and fair buy-back rates for power. I am currently dealing with that issue in my electorate. We are examining the use of solar-powered hot water heaters in all development applications - these provisions will be even tougher than those in Leichhardt.

The measures could also include the broad use of solar hot water heaters; insulation and passive solar design of buildings; and high-efficiency equipment for homes, offices and factories, including lights, fridges and motors. There is then the question of proper and efficient demand management. There should also be measures to purchase electricity generated from renewable sources, installation of remote area power systems which are competitive with installing more wires, and cogeneration. The honourable member for Murray applauded the Snowy River scheme and pointed out the benefits of the generation of electricity from water. His comments highlight the fact that if we continue to rely on the generation of electricity from coal we will go down the track of environmental disaster. The honourable member is right in that there are alternative supplies of electricity.

Individual targets must be set for retailers. A number of processes would be adopted, including regulation by the Environment Protection Authority - the EPA - or the Department of Energy; negotiation between individual retailers and the EPA and the Department of Energy; or economic instruments, such as tradeable permits, under which emission quotas are set and retailers are allowed to either cut emissions or buy permits off others who cut emissions by more than is required. These are flexible and innovative ways by which retailers can meet these targets. All these processes must
Page 4224
accommodate new entrants, who can negotiate an agreement with the EPA. The processes should force all retailers to start factoring greenhouse gas emission reduction into normal business practice. In other words, a new culture should develop. This will reward retailers who meet their targets in innovative ways that lower their costs as well.

Regulation, negotiation and economic instruments are also included in the Waste Minimisation and Management Bill, which will be debated later today. That bill sets targets for waste reduction, just as we are setting targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas, which is another form of waste. That bill specifies broadly how waste minimisation will be achieved and allows for two processes - regulation and negotiation - to develop specific industry waste reduction plans. I see an interesting parallel, which I think has been alluded to by other members, about the waste produced in the so-called domestic and commercial waste stream and the waste produced from the production of electricity.

The Sustainable Energy Development Bill should specify the amount to be allocated to the fund in the same way as the environmental trust legislation does. In his second reading speech the Minister said, "The portfolio minister, or the minister responsible for environmental regulation, cannot be a shareholding minister." That provision is designed to separate policy and regulation from corporate governance and business operation, yet the bill only excludes the Minister responsible for the environment and fails to exclude the portfolio Minister. That anomaly should be rectified. In general terms I support the bill, with the qualifications I have outlined.

Mr SCULLY (Smithfield - Minister for Small Business and Regional Development, Minister for Ports, Assistant Minister for Energy, and Assistant Minister for State Development) [10.30], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Manly, the honourable member for Murray, the honourable member for Tamworth, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Oxley for their mostly substantive contributions to an important debate. I will deal with them in reverse order. The honourable member for Manly raised various concerns about increased greenhouse gasses as a result of falling prices, and the need to set targets and have greater control. Whilst the State Government has an important role to play in contributing to that process, it must act primarily within guidelines set by the national Government. It would be far too rigid to try to set greenhouse gas targets that the power industry would be required to meet.

However, it is important that all Australian industries make a contribution towards the process of attempting to reduce contributions to the greenhouse gas problems within the framework set by the national Government. The Government believes it has taken the right approach. New South Wales has demand management. The gas industry and the electricity industry are providing a mix of energy services so that industry can choose between gas and electricity. Increased co-generation will result in more and more power produced by other than coal-fired power stations. Methane electricity is available. Normal gas-fired boilers are being used. Turbines are being driven by gas pressure. These exciting developments are cropping up all over the place. Small co-generation plants, as well as other alternative energy sources, will ultimately have a significant impact on lowering the need for coal-fired power stations

The honourable member for Murray mentioned his concern about water, the provision of which will obviously continue. It may allay his fears to know that the Minister for Land and Water Conservation is currently undertaking a review as to how that resource should be properly managed. It will not be managed by an electricity distributor, but by an appropriate regional or local authority. I should deal with the particular issue raised by the honourable member for Tamworth about country communities. It seems that most honourable members opposite are of the view that the local community owns the electricity infrastructure and, therefore, any attempt to restructure it, to put debt in it, or to transfer assets within the industry around New South Wales, is somehow taking away or stealing something that the various communities consider to be theirs.

A simple analogy is that when one buys a product from a local store one does not own it. When the honourable member for Oxley and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition buy Christmas presents at David Jones for their families they would not think for one moment that they therefore owned a share in David Jones. Not for a moment could it be suggested that people in Sydney who buy gas from AGL because they are connected to its reticulation system own shares in AGL. It is a nonsense. People in New South Wales have been paying for a product that has been delivered to them, but ownership has always been vested in the people of New South Wales. Local county councils have administered local electricity distribution on behalf of State governments - on behalf of the people of New South Wales - for decades. The people of New South Wales own the industry, not particular individual communities. That nonsense has to be dispelled.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition legitimately raised the question of debt, as did the honourable member for Tamworth. These changes involve a capital restructure, and I think the figure of $1.3 billion is right. County councils that ran rural electricity authorities never paid a dividend. To have a competitive market one must ensure that a corporate structure has a debt to equity ratio that is consistent with its being in the private sector. That is the reason for the change. The electricity authorities will be paying dividends, and they will have a capital structure that is consistent with operating in a competitive market. I want to dispel any of that nonsense.

Page 4225

Mr Phillips: What are you going to do with Pacific Power?

Mr SCULLY: The honourable member raised a number of things, and I will work through them, given my time constraints. In relation to the Council of Australian Governments payment, the Federal trade practices power is now far more extensive than it was understood to be in the 1970s when the Trade Practices Act came into effect. Some constitutional experts believe that if the Trade Practices Act were now being dealt with for the first time there would probably be no problem in covering government trading enterprises owned by State governments. That is probably a strong argument. That means that the Federal Government may well have the power to regulate government trading enterprises in the various States, irrespective of what the States want to do.

If the New South Wales Government were to stick its head in the sand and do nothing, the strong possibility is that the Federal Government could restructure the State's electricity industries without any COAG payment. If we do nothing - we are already committed to a competitive market - the larger players in the industry could demand access and take over the process. It is not a question of whether to have a competitive market, but rather how to structure that competitive market. I am concerned that there is a view that somehow the Government has sold out. It had no choice: either the big players and the Federal Government took over the process, or the Government would try to create -

Mr Phillips: You blokes signed the deal.

Mr SCULLY: Members of the coalition Government signed the deal back in 1991; they started the process. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition seems to be of the view that somehow this legislation has been rushed, when it has been on the drawing board for nearly four years. In fact, the industry is champing at the bit to get into a competitive market. Far from the restructuring being rushed, it has been well planned and is a process that has been gone through for a sustained period of time. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also mentioned a comparison with the corporatisation of the Water Board. My view is that the Water Board corporatisation process was so different to the creation of a competitive electricity market that it is hardly worthy of comparison. There are so many differences that there is not much point in dwelling on it.

The suggestion was made that there have not been detailed reports or proper assessments. My office is full of reports, full of minutes of meetings, full of documents and full of assessments. I am astounded that the honourable member could suggest that this process has been anything other than rigorous. It has been detailed, it has been consultative and it has been well thought out by a vast number of people at a State and Federal level. I reject his suggestion. He also raised concerns about the State Rail Authority, which has to pay for power, just as anyone else does. The whole point of corporatisation is that an agency pays its way. There is no point in having cross-subsidies and corporatisation. If the State Rail Authority is performing, it is doing so because it pays its way.

Mr Phillips: So the State Rail Authority will have to pay a commercial rate, not the cost rate?

Mr SCULLY: It will pay the price it has to pay in a competitive electricity market. I turn to the question of staff. I am appalled at the suggestion that the Opposition is concerned about workers.

Mr Jeffery: We always have been. We are the true workers.

Mr SCULLY: Opposition members are profiteers. I am left speechless at the pretended concern of Opposition members. Should I have seen tears running down their cheeks at the thought of power workers possibly being disadvantaged? They would have been crocodile tears.

Mr Jeffery: Straight from the heart, mate.

Mr SCULLY: Tears well up in my eyes when I hear a National Party member talking about heartfelt concerns for the workers. I am sure that when I get to my room I will have a good cry at the passion for workers that I have witnessed from Opposition members. Opposition members are hypocrites. They have the gall to come to the Chamber and express concern about workers.

Mr Phillips: What are you doing for the workers? Forget the rhetoric. Answer my questions.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! If interjections cease, the Minister may be able to provide the information that is sought.

Mr SCULLY: I will tell Opposition members what they care about. They care about making a cheap point.

Mr Phillips: What are you doing?

Mr SCULLY: There will be no forced redundancies and no forced transfers. The unions are happy with what the Government has put to them. Workers will be much better off under this Government than they would ever have been under a coalition government.

Mr Jeffery: That's not true.

Mr SCULLY: The honourable member for Oxley should go and talk to some of the government cleaners. The way in which the previous Government got stuck into government cleaners was unbelievable.

Mr Phillips: So the answer is nothing - this is just rhetoric.

Mr SCULLY: There will be no forced redundancies. I cannot be more clear: there will be no forced redundancies and no forced transfers.
Page 4226
Workers in the power industry have received undertakings regarding no forced redundancies and no forced transfers.

Mr Phillips: This just shows that you don't understand the extent of the problem. It is more than that. What about superannuation?

Mr SCULLY: I do not need to cover this issue. Opposition members, with their industrial relations record, have a hide suggesting that they give a hoot about the workers. Preparation of software for the Victorian and New South Wales market is well under way. It will be ready for the establishment of the Victorian and New South Wales State markets by March next year. I am confident that there will be a smooth transition to the national market in September next year. As to privatisation, I am pleased that the Opposition has now placed on record that a coalition government, if elected in 1999, would privatise the New South Wales electricity industry. Hansard will show -

Mr Phillips: Yes, read Hansard. Read what I actually said.

Mr SCULLY: The natural flow-on from the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is recognition that he is completely in favour of privatising the electricity industry. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should not be a wimp - that is what he meant. The House heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that a coalition government, if elected, would privatise the electricity industry. That highlights the fact that Opposition members do not understand the issue. Opposition members say that they have read the material. The ownership is not important - it matters not whether the industry is privately or publicly owned. The House suffered through 10 minutes of nonsense about why the industry should be privatised - or why it will be privatised. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition gave no indication that he would not privatise the industry, so one can only assume from the record that a coalition government would flog off the New South Wales electricity industry.

As to the comments about selling off assets, if more than 10 per cent of the value of the assets of a State-owned corporation is to be sold that can only be done with the prior approval of the shareholding Ministers. I could not think of a more inefficient way to privatise a government body. If the Government were to start selling off corporations, that would not be the way to do so. If there is to be a sale, that will be done in a much more efficient way. I do not understand why the Opposition raised that matter. I also point out that Pacific Power not disaggregated would probably be a more attractive sale proposition than Pacific Power disaggregated. The point made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in that regard is nonsense. The problem with leaving Pacific Power as it is at present is that the organisation would dominate the market to the extent that it would find it attractive to be a price setter rather than a price taker. The risk is that the organisation would set a high price for a lower output, and the Government does not believe that the matter should be left to chance.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition talked about reasons for setting up a competitive market. I am pleased that he talked about surplus capacity. One of the most important aspects of setting up the competitive market is that there will be more sound investment decisions. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned interstate rivalry. I cannot believe that Queensland would want to invest in a new power station because of some southern suspicion. I am confident that Eastlink will proceed, notwithstanding concerns in south-east Queensland about Eastlink. Queenslanders will benefit from not having to build a new power station for an extended period of time - they will probably need to build a new power station a few years down the track, but if Eastlink is created and if competitive marketing gets up and running that will not be needed in the short to medium term.

New South Wales can use the excess capacity to supply Queensland, which means that the people of New South Wales and the people of Queensland benefit - a win-win situation for both States. Notwithstanding some post-Johburger mentality about the south, I am confident that we will be able to proceed to a competitive market that includes Queensland. The lowering of price is probably the most important outcome, and I am sure that a competitive market will create a lower price structure. Several comments were made about the environment. I have dealt with that subject in my reply to the issues raised by the honourable member for Manly. The honourable member for Oxley raised concerns about supply reliability. Retail licences will be issued, one of the conditions of which will be system reliability. The onus will be on licensees to maintain their systems to ensure reliability.

Mr Jeffery: What about a change in services?

Mr SCULLY: I do not think that the system will change, in that up to the meter it is the responsibility of the distributor to maintain the supply and beyond the meter to the house it is traditionally the responsibility of the householder.

Mr Jeffery: What about a faulty connection?

Mr SCULLY: It would depend upon the cause. If somewhere in the network from the meter back to the distributor there were a fault, it would be the responsibility of the distributor to fix that. But if the fault were post-meter, it would be the responsibility of the householder to fix that.

Mr Jeffery: What about if there were a lightning strike between the house and the road?

Mr SCULLY: That would depend on where it occurred. I am not here to deal with this matter at length and my explanation has dealt with the issue adequately. The Department of Energy will have a limited role in monitoring system
Page 4227
maintenance, but the main protection will come from retail licence conditions. I appreciate the contributions made in the debate by my colleagues opposite. I am sure that their concerns are not wholly founded and I am confident that the competitive electricity market will result in sound power station investment decisions and in the lowering of the cost of electricity. The legislation will have a dramatic effect on jobs. The honourable member for Tamworth talked about concerns in country New South Wales. The best thing the Government can do for the country New South Wales electricity industry is to lower the cost of electricity. It is my opinion that jobs will be created across regional New South Wales. Jobs will be created not only in country New South Wales but across this State's industry. That can be done by setting up a competitive electricity industry market.

Bills read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 5 December.

Ms FICARRA (Georges River) [10.50]: Waste disposal is one of the major environmental issues facing New South Wales and especially metropolitan Sydney. The majority of waste - approximately 97 per cent - is buried in landfill sites. The problem is that these landfills are set to be full by the end of the decade, and there is much community opposition to the siting of new landfills, or the enlargement of existing ones, in their areas. The previous coalition Government made a commitment with its "No Time to Waste" strategy to reduce the amount of waste being disposed of by 50 per cent by the year 2000. That strategy had three major goals: to avoid the production of waste, to reduce waste by reuse and recycling, and to dispose of remaining waste in an environmentally responsible way. Responsibility for waste management was to be transferred to local councils, which would group together into regional waste authorities and produce regional waste management plans for domestic, commercial and industrial solid waste generated in their regions.

The fundamental idea of the strategy was to return the control of waste management to local communities, within an Environment Protection Authority regulatory environment. Industry was required to develop industry waste reduction plans in consultation with the EPA, regulated by licences under the Waste Disposal Act. The plans emphasised the product design, production and packaging aspects, consumer education, methods for reducing, recycling and safely disposing of waste, agreed targets and time frames for reduction, and public monitoring and reporting. At the time the strategy attracted criticism by the Local Government Association aimed at the former Government for allegedly abdicating its responsibility for waste management to local government. But, remarkably, this criticism has ceased even though the current bill achieves the same purpose.

The current bill contains many similarities to the previous strategy with regard to the role of local government and the regionalisation of waste management. The bill aims to up the stakes to achieve an ambitious 60 per cent reduction in waste by the year 2000 - with an emphasis still on waste avoidance, reuse, recycling, reprocessing and disposal. The bill promotes the formation of waste management regions, industry waste reduction plans, and substantial penalties for offences against the bill. Waste per capita declined by 15 per cent from 1990 to 1993, but 1994 saw a rise in waste output. Building and demolition waste, along with increases in the commercial waste stream, were chiefly responsible for the increase. All sectors of our society, along with State and local government, share responsibility for better waste management for the sake of future generations.

Local council waste accounts for up to 50 per cent of waste in New South Wales, and of this amount green waste is 36 per cent and paper 31 per cent. The issue of green waste must be tackled and our paper collections expanded. Waste Service New South Wales has developed sophisticated technology for composting in preparation for the much needed push for comprehensive green waste collection by local government via the proposed regional boards. The bill provides for local council waste management functions to be taken over by waste management regions. It fundamentally reorganises the management of waste in New South Wales.

Part 2 of the bill, dealing with State waste planning and policy, establishes a State Waste Advisory Council of nine members representing local government, environmental groups, consumers, waste facility operators, industry and the Environment Protection Authority. Such a council will advise the Minister on waste reduction priorities, legislation and funding. I believe this form of comprehensive inclusive consultation will encourage ownership and a commitment to the resultant strategic outcomes. However, waste management bureaucracy and associated costs continue to escalate. We now have the EPA, Waste Services New South Wales, the State Waste Advisory Council, regional waste boards and individual councils all regulating waste in New South Wales.

Part 3 of the bill reorganises municipal waste management. Two or more local government areas may combine into a waste region with a waste board to coordinate the waste services in that region. This process will need the approval of the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Local Government. Concern has been expressed by many Sydney councils about the operation of four regional waste boards, with four lots of infrastructure and
Page 4228
four lots of administrative expenses. Many councils are already in the process of resource sharing and have a good working relationship with their neighbouring councils via the many regional organisations of councils - ROCs. These ROCs are able and willing to combine effort, expertise and resources to address their region's waste management challenge. However, the LGA and many Sydney councils are lobbying for a single regional waste board for the Sydney metropolitan area, similar to Sydney Water and Sydney Electricity, to reduce infrastructure costs to councils.

Waste reduction plans must be consistent with Government targets, and long-term programs are to be in place. Special dispensation from these regions is possible but only on meeting the strict performance requirements and annual reporting. Indeed, councils and regional boards themselves can be prosecuted for non-compliance with regional waste plans. Many councils are quite apprehensive over this heavy-handed draconian approach. As I am currently the President of the Australian Local Government Women's Association and a former councillor of Hurstville City Council for 15 years, I have consulted with many local government elected members and relevant council officers. Basically most support the intent of the bill. However, their chief concerns are the rapidity of its introduction and lack of consultation, and a scarcity of information on costs to member councils regarding administration and compliance with required reporting processes, that is, the costs of operation of the regional waste boards and contributions from member councils versus funding to be provided by the proposed Waste Management and Planning Fund at the discretion of the Minister for the Environment.

Local government is mindful of the State Government imposed restriction of rate pegging on council's revenue base and accordingly their concerns regarding costs are legitimate. A State-controlled waste fund of $35.8 million over three years for the many councils involved will not, I believe, cover the full costs for councils. I would respectfully request the Minister in her response to address this issue, as I have been unable to obtain this information from her office via a request made two weeks ago. Indeed, much consternation amongst local government councillors was expressed recently at the LGA annual conference in Wagga Wagga when news of the legislation began to be disseminated - the major concern was lack of detailed information. Most councillors would rely initially on detailed reports from senior officers after the proposals are closely examined and interaction between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Local Government occurs.

Following on that, the councillors would then discuss the legislation amongst themselves and with neighbouring councils and officers, perhaps with input from the LGA, before a position would be arrived at for a council or group of councils forming a region. During that process councils would obtain community feedback, and the period of consultation to arrive at a final position would be substantial and responsible. Unfortunately, with the hasty progress of the bill - I can understand the Minister's desire to get cracking with meeting the Government's rather ambitious target of a 60 per cent reduction - the process of consultation has been stifled, or at the very least has been totally inadequate.

The LGA has only just had the chance to write to each of its member councils to ascertain their views. Replies are only now coming in, with no clear indication of a majority viewpoint for local government. Hence member councils' concern with the legislation. Indeed, Waste Services New South Wales was hardly consulted at all on this legislation. Once again the EPA reigns supreme, dictating to all and sundry, including Waste Services. Waste Services of New South Wales has a great track record as a responsible and profitable government body, and it should have been consulted in the formation of this legislation. Expedient shortcuts are being taken in an environment in which wide-ranging consultation is always touted as best practice. Many in local government would have appreciated the Christmas-New Year recess to properly consider the full implication of the legislation.

It seems that the Minister will have total control for the ultimate selection of the general manager and up to eight other directors on each regional waste management board. I sincerely hope that the Minister will heed the nominations forwarded from constituent councils and will remain as apolitical as possible in order to achieve maximum cooperation from councils. I hope that female representatives will be present among those directors. This would be unlike recent changes to the Waste Services of New South Wales Board in which my position and that of Maria Roe were filled by two men appointed by the Minister for the Environment, resulting in an all male board. The regional waste management boards will be responsible for ensuring that constituent councils adopt efficient waste management practices and policies, setting waste charges and fees, entering into waste contracts and developing principles for waste generators. The bill provides:

A Waste Board may require contributions from constituent councils in its waste management region to finance the Waste Board's arrangements and initiatives.

The word "may" is stressed as an unknown cost to councils, and hence their anxiety at yet another State Government imposition of dumping a responsibility in their laps. Most councillors are as committed to reducing waste as any honourable member in this House; however, they complain that they are always left holding the half-empty bag. Ironically, considering the lack of consultation on the legislation, it provides for the waste boards to consult with business and other groups, to display a
Page 4229
draft plan for at least two months and to take submissions into consideration when preparing their regional waste plan. Penalties for non-compliance by councils are harsh.

Part 4 of the bill deals with industry waste reduction plans to be negotiated by the Environment Protection Authority with industry. The plans will correctly focus on resources consumed, waste produced during manufacture and waste at the time of disposal by consumers. Targets will be set, and in time we might find out these targets for the various industries nominated in the legislation. Financial contributions towards recycling will be sought; product design opportunities will be identified regarding reducing waste in production and packaging process; safe disposal processes will be established; consumers will be educated; time frames will be set for the waste minimisation targets; public monitoring and reporting programs will be introduced; and performance indicators will be applied by the EPA. This is rather comprehensive function, but I repeat that little or no consultation took place.

Industries, like councils, are apprehensive about the implementation of the bill. However, most industries are keen to do the right thing, if for no other reason than consumer acceptance of their product. Although the provision exists for industry waste reduction plans to be prepared by the EPA with or without industry negotiation, I hope that all efforts to arrive at a shared ownership and commitment are pursued, especially where performance bonds with no regulated limit are required to ensure compliance. Waste disposal offence penalties for illegal dumping have been substantially increased, and this provides a tiered approach to individuals in relation to corporations.

In conclusion, the coalition supports the legislation's intent to establish industrial waste reduction targets and plans, and in strengthening the role of the EPA as environmental regulator with waste management left to councils and their respective regions. However, concern at the lack of effective and comprehensive consultation with local government and industry is strongly expressed. I support the amendments foreshadowed by the honourable member for Pittwater. I note that the Government has proposed 40 amendments to the bill, and that indicates that the legislation was a little ill-conceived and hasty in its drafting. If more consultation had taken place with all interested parties, perhaps so many amendments would not have been necessary.

Mr SULLIVAN (Wollongong) [11.05]: The Waste Minimisation and Management Bill will be one of the most significant pieces of legislation to pass through this House this session. It addresses an almost overwhelming problem. As a society we are generating enormous quantities of waste, and we must solve this problem or we will be buried beneath that waste. The purpose of the bill is to set a 60 per cent target for waste level reduction by the year 2000 - a target set following a report of the Joint Select Committee on Waste Management, which originally recommended a 50 per cent reduction target. The bill aims to fundamentally reorganise waste management treatment in New South Wales. It will establish a waste management hierarchy and principles of waste avoidance, reuse, recycling, reprocessing and disposal in an environmentally safe manner. The 60 per cent reduction target is to apply to all sectors uniformly, be they domestic, commercial, industrial or the building industry. The bill will repeal most sections of the Waste Disposal Act, and strengthen the role of the Environment Protection Authority as an environmental regulator.

Clause 7, in part 2, refers to the establishment of the State Waste Advisory Council. The council will comprise nine members and provide advice to the Minister for the Environment on waste reduction priorities, legislative changes and waste reduction programs and funding. The bill will also establish waste management regions. Local government has some concern in this regard as it considers that it will lose control of a fundamental activity for which it has had responsibility for many years. I understand that local government is also concerned about the cost it may bear. The bill allows for council waste management functions to be taken over by the waste management regional boards. The Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Local Government must jointly recommend a declaration of a region, and a waste planning and management board must be constituted for each waste management region. Clause 11, in part 3, itemises the conditions to be met by a council in order not to be made part of a waste management region. This important clause reads:

11 Submission by councils not to be included in waste management region

(1) A council may make a submission to the Minister for the Environment that the council's local government area should not be included in a waste management region.

(2) In making such a submission, the council must provide the Minister with details about the following matters:

(a) the volume and types of waste in the council's local government area,

(b) the council's waste collection, handling and disposal arrangement,

(c) the council's waste reduction programs and the monitoring of waste reduction in its area,

(d) the council's waste reduction performance and targets.

Clause 11(3) outlines the role of the Ministers for the Environment and for Local Government in deciding whether to agree not to include the council in a waste management region. It is important to highlight that councils will have an option to present an alternative proposal to being incorporated in a waste management region, but in so doing, they must effectively address the issue of waste within the area. It is encouraging that councils are given
Page 4230
that option without skirting the waste issue. That clause should address the concerns of local councils in the Illawarra. Another important issue is industrial waste. The steel-making and coalmining industries on the south coast generate enormous quantities of waste. Each year the steelworks generate 1.8 million tonnes of slag. I am told that since the first blast furnace was commissioned in 1928, 36 million tonnes of slag have been generated at those works.

From coalmining we have the problem of disposal of coal washery refuse. The re-use of slag - for which there are many possibilities - will require proactive action by the Government, the waste management regions and boards, and also the State Waste Advisory Council in order to substitute slag for blue metal and for natural formed sand. In effect, the Government will have to curtail quarrying and sand mining and substitute for those products slag aggregate and slag sand. We cannot in any way soft pedal or skirt around the hard decision that will have to be made if we are to address effectively the issue of waste disposal. In terms of coal washery refuse, again there are large quantities of coal fines which could be used for other uses, primarily power generation. That matter will have to be addressed, and any decision in relation to the matter will be neither easy nor cheap. The Government will have to address the issue of alternative uses otherwise the Illawarra will be buried under refuse. I commend the Minister on this excellent legislation, which is long overdue. In hindsight the legislation will be seen to be a major move forward by society in the period of this Fifty-first Parliament.

Mr O'FARRELL (Northcott) [11.11]: This is extremely important legislation, as the honourable member for Wollongong said. However, I suspect that that is where our agreement on this issue ceases. The former coalition Government's strong record in this regard is well known. Of course, it was the Askin Liberal Government in 1971 which established the Metropolitan Waste Disposal Authority. The Greiner Government in 1989 established the Waste Management Authority and in 1992 established the Environment Protection Authority and the Waste Recycling and Processing Service. Along with other significant environmental records, such as the largest ever declaration of wilderness areas in this State, they add to the Liberal Party's record of achievement concerning the environment. Both parties take different approaches to this issue. Contained within this bill are the traditional coercive and imposed approaches that Labor prefers with regard to education and the environment. The Opposition prefers an approach that essentially revolves around cooperation and consultation; things that are missing from this bill.

In June 1994 the Fahey Government released its blueprint for reform entitled "No Time to Waste", which had local governments grouping together to form regional waste authorities to produce regional waste management plans. Those plans would have required industry to develop formal waste reduction plans by placing conditions in licences under the Waste Disposal Act. The difference, of course, is that industry was going to have to work to agreed targets for the reduction, re-use and recycling to specify the time frame for waste reduction and to set in place a public monitoring and reporting program. Those things would have been done through industry consultation. As the shadow minister said last night, the one thing that has been sadly lacking in the Government's approach to this important area is lack of industry consultation. There has been a degree of hairy-chestedness on the part of the Minister as she simply plucks from the air -

Mr Nagle: Hairy-chestedness?

Mr O'FARRELL: Yes, hairy-chestedness. It is an inappropriate term, I concede. However, she plucks from the air a 60 per cent target rate when she knows full well that the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council - ANZECC - standing committee has agreed to a 50 per cent rate and that other Ministers, including the Treasurer, are saying that we must go with the national picture. This Minister has decided, simply for the sake of being different and appearing to be strong on these issues, that we should go for a 60 per cent rate. The lack of consultation is distressing because of the onerous impositions it will place on industry. One estimate suggests that that cost will be of the order of $200 million per annum. It is disturbing also because of the lack of national approach that is being taken.

A few weeks ago a number of members of this House, under the auspices of the Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association - PACIA - visited a number of chemical and plastic facilities around Sydney. I note that not a single Australian Labor Party member attended on that occasion. One of the most interesting figures we were confronted with by the plastics industry - and I look forward to the Minister's response to this matter - was that 70 per cent of the plastics are manufactured for packaging of foodstuffs. Of course, Federal legislation does not allow the use of recycled plastics in food, or food processing, industries. That is one issue that the industry will have to come to grips with. It is an issue that the Government has not consulted the industry about, and an issue I remain concerned about. My major concern about the Minister's proposal is the role of local government and, I suppose, the public interest. I would appreciate it if the Minister in her response provided me with information on what protection there will be for local government from being hoodwinked by people who claim they can help councils meet the target of 60 per cent. I relate the experience of the Hornsby Shire Council. A dispute has been rolling on for almost a year in relation to the re-use of the Thornleigh brick pit. It has been suggested that that pit could be used for recycling green waste, a most significant problem.
Page 4231
Essentially the council, driven by the desire to do the right thing, engaged in some relatively strange practices.

Those practices commenced with a shire-wide review of waste needs which led to the appointment of specific consultants in relation to green waste. That related to the purchase of millions of dollars worth of equipment for a specific proposal, without tender, which related to the development of the site for a green waste bio-remediation facility on the basis that the process had been patented when in fact that was not the case. My concern is that we will see a proliferation of these fly-by-night schemes whereby councils, in their desire to do the right thing under the terms of this Act, will be preyed upon by anyone who comes along with a cut-waste-quick scheme which might enable them to seek an exemption on the ground they are meeting their own waste requirements. The issue of the former tip site in the Hornsby shire causes great distress to ratepayers and to a number of members of the new council. It is symptomatic of an approach that was started, without consultation with the community, and without industry consultation.

The last point I will touch on is the issue of the Minister's inappropriate hairy-chestedness in relation to the 60 per cent waste targets and substantiated claims by industry. I would welcome a commitment from the Minister that if the Government does not meet the target by the year 2000 she will resign. I expect her to be around in the year 2000, but not in government. I would be happy for her to resign from this place if the target is not met. This week I received a fairly lengthy tome entitled New South Wales State of the Environment 1995, which, like Paul Kelly's book, will make a useful doorstop in my office.

Ms Allan: Send it back. We can give it to someone else if you are not going to use it.

Mr O'FARRELL: I am about to use it.

Ms Allan: No, send it back. Why should the Government waste $65 on something that you propose to use as a doorstop? I will send it to a school in your electorate. I am sure a school would love to have it.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! I call the Minister for the Environment to order.

Mr O'FARRELL: I am interested in the passage on page 233 of that publication which refers to solid waste. It talks about the New South Wales Government being committed to reducing by 60 per cent the per capita amount of solid waste disposal. It goes on to state that the target is ambitious. Honourable members who have watched the television series Yes Minister will know that saying "ambitious" is a bit like saying "courageous". It is essentially bureaucratic-speak for something unattainable, something that is normally imposed upon bureaucrats by their political masters. I will watch with interest as we approach this date. The book refers also to ANZECC, the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, and the standing committee on environment protection having agreed to a 60 per cent target. In the great tradition of Sir Humphrey there is no reference in the section or in the document to the national standard, which the Minister has ignored.

Indeed, the report seems to give some comfort to industry which claims that the starting point of 1990 has no sufficient standard from which to measure where we are going to get the 60 per cent figure from. I do not intend to delay the House much longer but I look forward to the Minister for the Environment giving a commitment about the protection to local government ratepayers on these issues, and I welcome a commitment from her that she will resign from public life if New South Wales does not meet the 60 per cent target by the year 2000.

Mr WATKINS (Gladesville) [11.21]: I am happy to speak in support of the Waste Minimisation and Management Bill. This is one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation to come before this House in recent years. It is another plank in Labor's rebuilding of environmental protection in New South Wales, and the success of those steps is well recognised by the people of this State. It enabled me, in a recent electorate report, to state, "These important environmental reforms are a gift that will be enjoyed by all future generations in our beautiful State." These giant steps throw into relief the abject failure of the previous Government, which failed to recognise the urgency of environmental reform and failed to take effective steps in regard to environmental protection. In its shuttered world the former Government was willing to cave in to market forces and private industry supporters. The former Government watched for seven years as Sydney's garbage piled high, three million tonnes per year in precious landfills; three million tonnes lost to recycling and reuse; three million tonnes of evidence that we, as a community, had failed to recognise the urgent need to change our waste disposal habits. The previous Government's failure in this critical area amounted to environmental vandalism on a grand scale.

I need to look no further than the electorate of Gladesville to see evidence of those past failures. My electorate is bounded in the east and in the north by the beautiful Lane Cove River but the area is scarred by old and inappropriately placed landfill tips - usually adjacent to the river. They destroyed precious mangroves when they were developed in earlier, less aware times, and today they still spill toxic leachates into the river. A tributary of the Lane Cover River, Porters Creek, is one of the most polluted waterways in Sydney because of this problem. This legislation will prevent a repetition of such tragedies. Tighter controls over landfill sites whilst in use, and strict post-closure
Page 4232
requirements, will ensure that all landfill sites presently in use are properly managed into the future.

All licensees will have to submit closure plans that will deal with stabilising, monitoring and maintaining closed tips. If they do not come up to scratch, the Environment Protection Authority will specify a program of monitoring and rehabilitation. Another positive and satisfying outcome of this legislation is that it has finally put to rest plans for a garbage incinerator at North Ryde. This was a major issue in the election earlier this year, and so it should have been. With the active support of the State Government, Ryde council in the past 18 months developed plans for this incinerator on the Porters Creek site.

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

Mr WATKINS: Quite rightly Ryde council was planning what it could do with its garbage as landfill tips around Sydney neared closure. With other councils it explored garbage disposal alternatives and, unfortunately, came to the conclusion that incineration was a preferred option. It should never have been put in this position. The former State Government should have given very clear directions and encouragements away from the option of incineration. Instead, the former governments, under Mr Greiner and Mr Fahey, actively encouraged a privatised waste industry that had incineration as its preferred method of coping with the garbage stream. Another short-sighted, environmentally hazardous and irresponsible non-answer to the problem.

In the election the people of North Ryde, threatened with development of a major garbage incinerator for neighbouring councils, rejected the former Government's position and voted for a Labor alternative that quite clearly rejected incineration as an option. The election of the Carr Labor Government - and the eventual passage of this bill - has ended the threat of incineration in North Ryde and New South Wales, and ushers in effective and environmentally responsible waste management regimes. It is true that the waste industry is now internationalised and proponents of incineration will move offshore to other countries such as South Korea. The beast is not vanquished; it has just gone quiet for a while. This bill will be successful in ensuring that incineration need never return as an option in this State.

It will be effective in reducing the waste stream and introducing recycling and reuse, thereby removing any need or justification for incineration. This bill's value is its setting of serious targets, consulting local government, establishing boards, shifting responsibility back on to industry, instituting realistic fines and ensuring that control of the waste industry remains with the Government. These worthy aims will deliver to the people of New South Wales a waste management process that will have environmental protection at its heart.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [11.26]: I am perplexed as to why the Government wishes to push this bill through this House over the next few days. This is landmark legislation and, consistent with the charter of reform signed by both major parties, it should have been sent to a legislation committee for consideration. I do not understand the Government's haste. Clearly there is a crisis in respect of landfill, but the crisis has not arisen this week; there have been many submissions about the issue. The bill is tougher on local government than it is on industry, and clearly amendments are necessary to rectify that situation. For too long local government has carried the onus and the burden of having to deal with waste.

In addition, the bill is rife with discretion. The word "may" is mentioned frequently. The bill relies a great deal on the Environment Protection Authority and it does not reflect the level of urgency and the fact that waste levels are on the increase. With respect to the Minister, there are also breaches of a number of Labor's election promises that were contained in a document relating to Labor's waste minimisation and recycling strategies. The document states that the Environment Protection Authority will be directed, as a matter of urgency, to develop a statewide management plan. However, there is no provision in the bill for a statewide plan, merely targets and regional plans. The regional plans require a statewide plan for a whole-of-government approach to coordinate the work of the different regions.

The Australian Labor Party also promised that public ownership of waste management would be enshrined in law. The Australian Labor Party stated that it in government it would block privatisation of putrescible waste facilities. However, the bill provides backdoor opportunities for private ownership, if not control. Before the election Labor indicated that it did not believe that incineration was a viable solution to the waste crisis and said it would direct the EPA to prohibit the expansion of the incineration industry in New South Wales, but the Government has specifically rejected approaches to exclude licensing of incinerators. The bill is silent on that aspect.

The ALP also indicated in its election documents that it would introduce container deposit legislation "if industry fails to meet EPA specified waste reduction targets, within a three year period". The bill is at pains to avoid the use of terms such as CDL or refundable deposits. Labor promised "phasing out the dumping of yard waste in landfill". The bill contains no reference to disposal bans in relation to such waste. Labor also promised that "industry groups will be required to meet waste reduction targets". The bill is full of discretionary weasel words. The section on industry waste reduction plans is introduced with "may". Although the bill provides a tougher framework than currently exists, I do not believe it will achieve the laudable goals articulated.

Page 4233

I turn specifically to areas that need improvement. All good environmental legislation should have a clear objective of ecologically sustainable development. I understand that the Government intends to provide for that by amendment. There should be greater emphasis on the top of the waste minimisation hierarchy. In other words, avoidance and reuse should be emphasised; there should not be disproportionate concentration on recycling, reprocessing and disposal. The 1990 waste disposal rate needs to be clarified within about a month so that there is a clear starting point for the 60 per cent goal. Some of the definitions are inadequate. Putrescible waste is expressed in exclusive terms rather than inclusive terms. Such waste should include anything with a component subject to breakdown. An example is a disposable nappy, which is not "food or animal matter". This inadequate definition allows inclusive interpretation for non-putrescible waste. Major problems have arisen at a supposedly clean fill site in my electorate at Wakehurst Golf Club. Recent tests have shown a high likelihood that putrescible wastes dumped there are now contaminating the only fresh water swimming place in Sydney, Manly Dam.

The EPA needs to develop a statewide waste plan in accordance with the ALP policy I mentioned earlier. The plan should include - I seek the Minister's response to this - annual targets and milestones for each sector of the waste stream; nomination of industry priorities; and bans, restrictions and timetables on materials for disposal. Green waste and vegetation are obvious examples. After the year 2000 there should be two-yearly target setting with further improvements on any such plan. Advisory council members should be nominated by groups such as the Local Government Association, the Nature Conservation Council and the Waste Management Association of Australia rather than just appointed by the Minister. This should be provided for in the bill. Also, the State Waste Advisory Council should have a greater role in negotiation, approval and review of industry waste reduction plans. That will benefit industry as well as being in the interest of the environment and the public.

The bill provides for regional waste planning. Directors of regions should have the right to hire and fire the general manager but the bill leaves this critical decision to the Minister and has the general manager recommending directors to the Minister. I understand that the Government intends to amend the bill in this regard. In relation to regional planning I wonder how we will resolve the difficulties of the siting of putrescible landfills. A State environmental planning policy should provide for this. I am concerned that the longstanding dispute within communities between the regions and government has not been addressed and is likely to be perpetuated.

I turn to industry waste reduction targets. Who is industry? I am not clear about how the small manufacturing business in my electorate or a restaurant in Manly will be dealt with in terms of industry waste reduction plans. The plans are softer on industry than on the regions. Proposed section 31(2)(a) refers to compliance with national targets rather than State targets - an admission made worse by lack of a State plan. This contrasts with the requirement of regional waste plans on local government to meet the 60 per cent target. There is no commitment to full life cycle responsibility of products by industry. There is limited public involvement at the early stages with no public exhibition of draft IWRPs, which is a glaring omission. There is no commitment to save milk bottles. If such an amendment is not made in this House the upper House should introduce it. If the targets have not been met within three years, container deposit legislation should be introduced.

In relation to the licensing of waste facilities, amendments are necessary to ensure complete public ownership and control of putrescible waste facilities, to phase out disposal of untreated putrescible waste, and to honour the ALP's commitment to ban incineration of waste. Full environmental management plans at the development application stage should be required to ensure that source separation, recycling and differential pricing are provided at waste facilities. I am surprised there has not been more jumping up and down by the Local Government Association in relation to offences and penalties. Massive penalties are provided for regions that do not comply with their waste reduction plans, yet I see nothing in the bill which gives funding or power to local government effectively to implement the waste reduction plans - meeting the 60 per cent target. On the one hand the regions are subject to massive penalties but may not have the power to implement the plans. The Minister should address that conundrum.

The Government proposes to provide $35.8 million in the next three years, which is good, but it will be fairly thinly spread. I call for 100 per cent hypothecation of section 72 levies. The old section 29 provided that only 10 per cent should go to recycling. Funding went into the council recycling rebates to reward councils for recycling. Payment of 100 per cent is consistent with user-pays principles and in line with ALP policy on the Waste Planning and Management Fund. Finally, there are no third party rights. How did that happen? This is public interest legislation dealing with a major area of public policy and management. It is critically important in terms of meeting targets and so on that there is a public interest provision and standing is given to third party rights.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Nagle.


Debate resumed from 18 October.

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [11.40]: This is another instance of the Government introducing a bill with far-reaching consequences without proper consultation. That is sad. That was done in relation to State environmental planning policy 46, it was done in relation to water policy, and now it is
Page 4234
occurring with the introduction of this bill. Unlike the Government, the coalition has been talking to people who will be affected by this legislation. It has consulted with stakeholders, individual farmers and the New South Wales Farmers Association, both at head office and at the Western Division office. As I understand it, neither the Minister nor the Government has consulted them on this legislation. The coalition has received numerous written responses from stakeholders, and this has been helpful in enabling the Opposition to take a position on the bill that reflects, in a practical sense, how the public view this legislation.

The five objects of the bill are outlined in the explanatory note, so I do not intend to elaborate on those because they are there for everyone to read. While the Opposition supports some aspects of the bill, it has a number of difficulties with it. These difficulties relate essentially to the part forfeiture of leases and those provisions that seek to dramatically increase penalties by 10 times their current level. The Opposition supports the measures pertaining to situations where ministerial consent is required. It certainly supports the position that the Minister's consent will no longer be required for the granting of a mortgage, a sublease of less than three years duration, an agreement to agist stock or a grazing licence.

However, I notice there is a sting in the tail for a person who fails to notify the commissioner of the granting of a mortgage within 28 days, under penalty of $1,000. That seems unduly harsh in the circumstances. It might be more reasonable to have the period extended to three months rather than insisting that a person notify the commissioner within 28 days, given the legalities in the documentation. However, the Opposition will not move amendments in that regard, though more careful drafting may have avoided the problem. The Opposition supports the position that events requiring the Minister's consent will only be the transfer of leases, subleases for more than three years duration and foreclosures under a mortgage. The Opposition does not oppose the repeal of the section which requires the Western Lands Commissioner to be involved in dividing fences disputes. The time has well and truly come for fencing disputes in the Western Division to be dealt with in the same way as every other fencing dispute in New South Wales, namely, under the Dividing Fences Act. The Opposition supports also the provision that gives a lessee the chance to avoid forfeiture. Proposed new section 54 states:

(1) The Minister must not cause a lease to be forfeited unless the Minister has first served a notice in writing on the lessee warning that the Minister intends to cause the lease to be forfeited.

That is a fair and reasonable position to adopt. The issue of major concern is part forfeiture of a lease. This relates to perpetual leases in the Western Division, and lessees in the Western Division - rightly or wrongly - regard perpetual leases as being equivalent to freehold title. The capacity to have a lease or part of a lease forfeited is an important issue and could amount to the loss of a lessee's livelihood. At present the Minister can only make forfeit a whole lease, and for this reason forfeiture has rarely been exercised, except in cases of non-payment of rent to the Crown. In enabling a Minister to make forfeit part of a lease, there is a real possibility that this power could be exercised more often than has happened in the past, with disastrous consequences for leaseholders. The temptation will be greater for Ministers to resort to this option if it is available. At present the Minister must think long and hard before he or she makes forfeit a lease. Given the impact of such forfeiture on leaseholders, that is entirely appropriate. Indeed, the capacity for leaseholders to raise money from a bank or financial institution has been dependent not just on the viability of the proposal being put forward to the bank or financial institution but also on the recognition by those organisations of the history of security that is attached to Western Division perpetual leases as opposed to normal leases.

It could be argued, therefore, that if a leaseholder were to be more likely to suffer forfeiture of part of a lease, financial institutions would be reluctant to take the risk of lending the money sought by the lessee. The likelihood exists also of a leaseholding becoming unviable because of forfeiture of part of a lease. Many properties in the Western Division require a certain area in order to be economically viable, and the loss of part of the lease could jeopardise the viability of the whole operation. This view is shared by the New South Wales Farmers Association. Mr Peter Comensoli, the Chief Executive of the New South Wales Farmers Association, wrote to me on 20 November in the following terms:

The major concern for the Association is the proposal to allow the Minister to revoke part of a lease under section 55(3). In the past, the Minister has rarely used his forfeiture powers to remove landholders for breaches of the Act. We are concerned that, by allowing part of a lease to be forfeited, the Government may elect to use these powers more often as punishment for breaching lease conditions.

Forfeiture of part of a lease may also result in affected landholders becoming unviable. In turn this may cause over-stocking and land degradation, and possible further action by the Minister. In short, removing part of a lease would be unlikely to encourage corrective action by the landholder, but could actually encourage breaches of the Act, to the detriment of all parties.

Another concern with part forfeiture of leases is that I understand the Department of Land and Water Conservation is proposing to reduce the number of pastoralists in the Western Division by about 250 - from 1,350 to 1,100 leaseholders. If this is so, it would be easy for the Government to order forfeit of part of those leases ostensibly on the grounds of environmental imperative. This mechanism will effectively enable the Government to get rid of such land-holders without paying compensation because the farm would no longer be a viable enterprise. It is not idle speculation that the Government intends
Page 4235
to take 250 pastoralists from the Western Division. If that is the intention, as is indicated in the Jeff Angel report entitled "The Environment Portfolio - Four Year Plan - The Landscape and Program Proposals", at page 74, it must do so with full compensation, not by some sneaky backdoor method.

The legislation also provides for a tenfold increase in fines for unauthorised land clearing or cultivation. The Opposition believes a $100,000 fine is a very tough penalty; a lessee could have part of his lease forfeited and be fined a maximum of $100,000, in addition to having to pay court costs. That would put the lessee in particularly difficult circumstances. The Opposition believes those combined measures result in a case of overkill, verging on being draconian. Whilst no doubt the Government will argue that these penalties merely bring the Western Division into line with penalties under SEPP 46, the penalties need to be seen in the context of the additional penalty of part forfeiture of a lease as well. The Opposition also believes that SEPP 46 is a case of overkill and is committed to revoking that policy when it returns to government. It will then institute proper land clearing guidelines, using section 15 of the Soil Conservation Act to bring about proper management in that area.

The Opposition acknowledges that penalties must be of a sufficient size to be a disincentive to those undertaking unauthorised or illegal land clearing. The Opposition does not want a situation where farmers factor penalties into their costings to enable them to go ahead with illegal land clearing. There needs to be a substantial penalty, but $100,000 and the prospect of part forfeiture of a lease is overkill. The Opposition will move amendments in Committee to reduce the size of the penalty to something more reasonable. We will also move amendments to eliminate those provisions in the bill which entitle the Minister to forfeit part of the lease. The Opposition believes that the legislation will then be fairer for all concerned.

The Minister will still retain the ultimate right to make forfeit a lease, but only in exceptional circumstances. The removal of part forfeiture will eliminate the temptation of the Minister to use that power as a form of punishment for relatively minor offences, while still retaining a level of penalty which is sufficiently high to be a disincentive to do the wrong thing so far as illegal or unauthorised land clearing is concerned. The Opposition accepts that the penalty is probably too low at the present time, but it believes an increase from $10,000 to $50,000 is more appropriate. The misguided State environmental planning policy 46 contains penalties of $100,000, but that does not justify a similar penalty for the Western Division.

The Opposition contends that the imposition of large penalties is not necessarily the way to go with respect to land clearing. There needs to be a carrot as well as a stick. Unfortunately, the Government is preoccupied with the big stick, penalty approach. It should work cooperatively with the farming community, develop appropriate land clearing guidelines, provide on-the-ground advice and use the powers under section 15 of the Soil Conservation Act to prosecute those who breach the guidelines. South Australian legislation sets out a number of principles in relation to land clearing. I believe that those sorts of principles could be incorporated as guidelines for the farming community, in consultation with the Department of Land and Water Conservation.

Generally speaking, farmers want to do the right thing for their land and ensure its long-term sustainability - although there are a few cowboys out there. The Government could eradicate irresponsible land clearing through the Soil Conservation Act. I urge the Government to look at that option. The Government will no doubt argue that part forfeiture increases flexibility in relation to the measures available to the Minister. Surely it is better to lose part of a lease than the whole of the lease. To be fair, the Opposition has considered this position in some detail and has consulted widely in the party room and in the communities where people will be directly affected.

At the end of the day, after considerable debate, the Opposition believes that there will be a problem in the future if Ministers are allowed to order forfeiture of part of a lease, particularly when the increase in the size of the penalties for illegal or unauthorised land clearing is taken into account. On balance, the Opposition supports many measures contained in the bill. However, it has difficulty in relation to part forfeiture and the size of the penalties that apply. The Opposition has consulted on these issues. There is a strong view in the community which supports the position the Opposition is taking. During the Committee stage I shall move the amendments I have circulated.

Mr BECKROGE (Broken Hill) [11.55]: Few pieces of legislation that come before this House directly relate to the area I represent. The Western Lands Amendment Bill is of great importance to the people in my electorate, which takes in a large proportion of the Western Division. The honourable member for Murray has a small part of the Western Division in his electorate, as has the honourable member for Murrumbidgee. I support the bill. The people in the Western Division are hard working, contributing to the wealth of the nation while dealing with difficult conditions in the pastoral industry. For many generations they have provided livelihoods for themselves as well as contributing to the wealth of the land.

In 1981 I was a member of the Western Division inquiry chaired by Mrs Fisher. That inquiry looked at how the division could be best managed and monitored. The inquiry looked at how the division could be saved as a producing unit for many years to come for families and the nation. Today we would call it sustainable agriculture. A
Page 4236
beautiful feature of the Western Division is the resilience not only of the soil and vegetation but also of its people. I have been careful to ensure that it is not subject to too much restrictive legislation. I am pleased that this bill tends to the matter of short-term sublease arrangements, particularly in agistment. It is old-fashioned and outdated for a person to have ministerial consent for an agistment licence. Some areas have been able to provide agistment, but after this bill is passed ministerial consent will not be needed.

One criticism expressed throughout the Broken Hill electorate is the slackness of the bureaucracy. The amount of time taken to get the bureaucracy to agree in relation to even urban blocks in Broken Hill is incredible. Since the bureaucracy moved from Sydney to Dubbo it has not got over the shock. I wish the new Western Lands Commissioner, Geoff Wise, well. I hope he will tend to this problem. We will give him support. Dealing with the bureaucracy has been a grinding process. I do not know how much work I have done for solicitors over the years to assist them to get conveyancing done as quickly as possible. I hope this change with respect to ministerial consent for subleases and agistment licences will go a long way towards freeing up that bureaucracy.

I refer also to fencing. At the moment fencing disputes will be dealt with under the existing fencing legislation. The bill will repeal the boundary fence provisions in the Western Lands Act. People will have to rely on the general Act to resolve those issues. I do not see a great problem with that. That is part of the freeing up of the bureaucracy. I support that. The Opposition has criticised the $100,000 penalty. In this day and age, people can make a lot of money in an opportunistic way. If properties get rain at the right time, with the subsoils in lake beds, pastoralists can rake in more than $100,000 on a crop. Although $100,000 is a big increase from $10,000, it is still a realistic penalty and I do not foresee any ongoing complaint about that increase. If someone has done the wrong thing, he has done the wrong thing, and a $10,000 fine is peanuts by comparison with the amount of money he stands to make.

In my area there has been outrage about State environmental planning policy 46. Much of the concern is based on fear, which has been whipped up by my political opponents. I am pleased that the consultation period will be decreased from 18 months to nine months. The vegetation committee will ensure ongoing consultation but it is not necessary to provide for a period of 18 months. Much concern was expressed about the 18 months provision, but if the Government had decided that SEPP 46 would take effect from 1 January, for example, there would not have been enough bulldozers to do the job required. The Government had to provide for that period and then work back. The aim is to maintain sustainability in our agricultural lands, which is very important for our nation as well as our State. The Government is not about to chop off its nose to spite its face.

Much criticism has been directed at the Minister. As I have told people in my area, the Minister for Land and Water Conservation is carrying out government policy. I have refuted the outrageous personal attacks made on the Minister. Nobody should be personally vilified for carrying out government policy, and people should understand that a Minister of state has a job to do; and it is Labor Party policy to ensure sustainable agriculture. The Minister visited Ellerslie Station in my area, where the Robinsons showed us their biological control experiments on woody weed. The Robinsons were grateful that the Minister visited the station to see first-hand what they are doing. On more than one occasion during that visit people remarked that they appreciated meeting a Minister, but such visits do not make it to the airwaves and are not surrounded by great publicity.

To the Minister I say: I hope that you continue to consult and continue to understand that people do have a viewpoint. I know that the Minister realises that people need to put across their point of view. I have had no trouble in arranging for deputations to meet the Minister, and I thank him for that. It is important that we make sure that whatever results from the implementation of SEPP 46 will be sustainable. We need to ensure that people are able to maintain their livelihoods. The nation will benefit from our not continuing in the way we were going and thereby not doing irreparable damage to our land and our soils.

At the beginning of my contribution I talked about the resilience of the Western Division, which is by no means a monolithic structure; across the division there are different soil types, different vegetation types, different rainfalls and different regularity of rainfall. On a journey from the south to the north and then to the east of the division one encounters many different ecosystems. Any government has to have regard for those differences. While I am the member for Broken Hill, whatever government is in power, I will strive to make sure that there is understanding of the need to keep the western lands in production. I support the bill. I hope that the Parliament agrees to its general thrust and that it is passed by Christmas.

Mr SMALL (Murray) [12.05]: This bill, which provides for penalties and forfeiture of part land where damage has occurred, should not be before the House. Anyone who has not visited the western lands or lived and worked there perhaps would not understand that it is a very difficult area. The Western Division represents about 42 per cent of this State, and a little more than 50 per cent of my electorate is within the Western Division. As the honourable member for Broken Hill and the honourable member for Ballina have said, those living out there are big-hearted people. Their perspective is quite different from that of people on the freehold lands to the east. The controls and regulations already placed on land-holders in the Western Division are considerable.

Page 4237

It must be realised that the Western Division comprises very difficult country. In the vastness of that land there are huge numbers of kangaroos, wild goats, rabbits and vermin. There is also a great need for water. Many people do not realise that much of the wildlife in the area was not there before the land was farmed. The construction of dams for stock has meant increased water availability. The agricultural leases and carrying numbers on that land, which is mostly of sheep-carrying capacity, are subject to the control of the Western Lands Commissioner. Farming there is very much subject to the great numbers of vermin and the lack of water.

I pay credit to the land-holders of the Western Division for the way in which they have tried to develop drought protection programs. I think particularly of developments involving the Murrumbidgee and the Darling river systems, in the Murray electorate and beyond. Some farmers who do not have river frontage have been able to get a pumping licence at a site on the Murrumbidgee River. A flow of water is identified and generated through perhaps only 1½-inch or 2-inch polythene pipe up to 70 kilometres to service properties that do not have frontage to either the Darling River or the Murrumbidgee River. When one realises the amount of money that farmers have put into their land one recognises that they have made a tremendous effort.

This morning the House debated the Electricity Supply Bill. Most people in the Western Division have not had the opportunity to take an energy resource for granted in the way that we do. Electricity is now supplied to nearly all land-holdings within the Western Division, but that has come at a huge cost. On most occasions when a land-holder has sought and secured an electricity supply, even with a government subsidy, he has had to pay a minimum of about $1 per acre, which equates to $30,000 to $70,000. It should be remembered that a householder in town can have electricity connected for perhaps $300 or $700. Such a difference highlights the immense difficulties faced by those who live in the Western Division. Those people have been through many severe droughts, too. In the early 1990s alone they have already suffered two to three years of drought.

The quest to secure water in the Western Division is nothing like that in the eastern part of the State, where there are ground water tables at perhaps some 200 to 300 feet in depth. People at Balranald and north to Hatfield have drilled to depths of 1,300 feet in order to secure water to save their stock. However, the water quality is very poor in comparison with that in most other areas as they talk about 4,000 to 15,000 salt parts per million. But in order to save their stock, they have tapped that water. No other source is available. The immense distances do not allow them to cart water, as can be done in more closely settled areas. I feel very sorry for these people when regulations are brought down in a heavy-handed manner. Frankly, they would see the bill as an insult.

Over the last 10 to 15 years land-holders and land sharers have established their total catchment management, landcare and rivercare programs. Even the Willandra Lakes area has suffered enormously from the world heritage listing. Mungo National Park is a wonderful area provided by nature, and we can be very proud of the operators in these areas. In the 11-odd years I have been in Parliament I know of only one case of land abuse. This person did not believe that it was an abuse because the previous owner had a licence to clear land, but the court fined him $10,000. Under this bill, such penalty would increase to $100,000. I heard the honourable member for Broken Hill say that $100,000 would not be a large penalty if the abuse enabled the property owner to obtain a substantial return from a crop. Most people in the Western Division are not financially well off; most of them have fought drought and are struggling to make a living.

The situation is different in the eastern part of my electorate near Wagga Wagga and Albury, which has an annual 24-inch rainfall. This area has the capacity to run two or three sheep per acre. In the Western Division eight acres can be required to run one sheep, and down to the South Australian border the land capacity can be one sheep per 13 acres. The rainfall in the eastern part of the Western Division in my electorate is approximately 13 inches a year, and is down to nine inches on the South Australian border. Honourable members will understand that the stock carrying capacity of this land is much reduced and that is why large areas are needed for stock.

The drought resulted in many farmers reducing their flock to only 2,000 sheep after previously carrying between 4,000 and 7,000 sheep. Members can understand the struggle to survive and make a living on the land - it is not easy. The honourable member for Broken Hill mentioned Ellerslie, which he and the Minister visited. Palinyenah, the school at Ellerslie, is in a magnificent little area 30 kilometres north of Wentworth. The Ellerslie Landcare group has done the right thing in removing horticultural drainage to ensure that the drainage water does not enter the Darling River. They are pumping that water, placing it into a holding dam and utilising it on a nine-hole golf course, an oval and a beautification program with tree lots. The locals have received several awards for this magnificent job. Most of the farmers represent Landcare today. To introduce such legislation 20 years ago would have been applicable, but not today. It is an insult to people in the community. They want to care for their land as administrators and husbands and wives of the land.

Some areas within the mallee country to the south would not run any more than one or two sheep on 100 acres. The mallee scrub is very dense and its root structure does not allow much
Page 4238
vegetation to grow. If honourable members were to fly over the Western Division and the mallee areas of Victoria and South Australia, they would appreciate our good fortune in New South Wales. Such a flight would ensure appreciation of the encouragement given in the past for land clearance with large horse teams or bulldozers and rollers by which the mallee scrub was forced down. Most of the wind erosion occurs on the sandy mounds, and crop retention in those areas is very poor when compared with the lower lying land. In New South Wales the Western Lands Division, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Department of Lands and the Department of Agriculture have all worked together extremely well with the farmers to identify the clearing of the lower areas and leave trees on the high areas and on the boundary and internal fences, on which the vegetation runs for 200 or 300 metres. To fly over and see the work done to reduce erosion is magnificent.

Many farmers are using crop rotation and planting lucerne, which stabilises the soil and helps the carrying capacity of the land. The care of the land in the Western Division is remarkably good. No-one would deny that people have not done the right thing at times, but, by gosh, try to find them now! Recently, an announcement was made that about 150,000 hectares a year was being cleared in New South Wales. Show me that area! I regularly fly around New South Wales, and I cannot see the evidence of that clearing. It is history, because the figure relates to the 1970s, not today. People are working hard to manage their resource in order to make an income.

We are all very anxious about the environment, and that big issue is even bigger today. If we have a good economy, a good environment can be afforded. People think that the environment will look after itself, but it does not. Economics makes for a good environment. The land-holders try to manage their land the best that they can, given the drought, low commodity prices and other hardships. We want to help them, not hinder them. They provide wealth in exports for this State and Australia generally. I speak on behalf of the people I represent. The towns rely on these people, whom they service. We have two issues of great concern: first, the penalty increase by 1,000 per cent with an increase from $10,000 to $100,000, and, second, part forfeiture of land. The Act has always identified forfeiture of land, but this bill will identify it more clearly. It will identify forfeiture of that part of the land which has been abused. Consequently, if someone were fined $100,000 - which would send that person broke - the land which the court found to be abused would be taken. The bill is not fairminded or practical and, in view of the work people are doing in land husbandry today, it is wrong in principle. I cannot support the bill. The shadow minister, representing the Opposition, has spoken out. [Time expired.]

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [12.20], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Broken Hill, the honourable member for Ballina and the honourable member for Murray for their contributions to this debate. The honourable member for Ballina said that this is far-reaching legislation. The bill is designed to make management of the Western Division far more efficient and beneficial to land-holders there. Despite what the members of the Opposition have said, they really object to only two objectives of the bill. The Opposition recognises the benefits to the people of the Western Division provided by this bill. The two areas that the Opposition has concerns about are: the part forfeiture of a lease rather than the present arrangement of a total forfeiture, by a decision of the Minister, under certain circumstances; and, that the penalties proposed are too draconian at $100,000.

The Government has moved to address a major problem and has decided on $100,000 to ensure that there is a proper penalty and disincentive for people to break the law. It also lines up with the penalties under State environmental planning policy 46, which the Government introduced as an interim native vegetation measure while it undertakes comprehensive community discussion in order to determine what permanent arrangements for native vegetation will be put in place. The former Government introduced the Western Lands (Land Purchase) Amendment Bill in 1994, but that lapsed when Parliament was prorogued. The former Government proposed a penalty of $50,000 and that is what it is putting forward today. In keeping with its usual style, the Opposition has not changed its position or looked at anything in context; it has simply stayed with its old, tired out policy. The Opposition recognises that the existing penalty of $10,000 under the Western Lands Act is too low, that it is not a strong enough incentive to prevent people from inappropriately and illegally clearing land.

The Opposition recognises that but would like a different penalty from that proposed by the Government. However, the Government has a good rationale behind the maximum penalty of $100,000. When matters go before the court the magistrate will take into account the nature and extent of the breach in relation to illegal land clearing and will impose a commensurate penalty. The Opposition seems to believe, erroneously, that the $100,000 fine will be imposed in every case. Clearly that is a nonsense; it is a maximum. The part forfeiture of a lease will provide far more flexibility to the Government in dealing with any illegal land clearing in the Western Division. It has been pointed out that leaseholders have considerable land in the Western Division. That is necessary to run a viable operation, given the stocking rates there. However, those holdings are low compared with holdings in
Page 4239
coastal plain areas. Often it would be inappropriate for the entire holding to be forfeited in the event of a breach. Penalties or forfeiture of a lease will be commensurate with the breach.

Equally, if not more importantly, is the provision that, dependent on what has been undertaken in a particular case of land clearing or any other land degradation activity, it could be that the land is left severely degraded. It is in the public interest that the Government, through the Minister, resume part of the lease in order to ensure that the proper and appropriate management and rehabilitation of that degraded land is undertaken. That is another example of the flexibility provided by this bill. A range of sound reasons pertain as to why the Government has put forward these measures. The bill will provide the best possible management arrangements in the Western Division. In relation to forfeiture of a lease, the bill also provides for procedural fairness; in other words, avenues of appeal. The proposition that an irresponsible Minister will readily resume part of a lease is not sustainable. If a land-holder is dealt with unfairly in relation to a part forfeiture he will have the right of appeal under the provisions of the Act, as indeed he would have if there was a total forfeiture. The bill gives flexibility and provides for a better management regime in the Western Division. In my second reading speech I addressed the provisions of the bill that provide a much greater benefit and efficient operation to western land-holders. The Opposition clearly acknowledges that. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [12.29]: I move:

No. 1 Page 7, Schedule 1[12], line 30. Omit "1,000". Insert instead "500".

As I said earlier, the Opposition believes that a maximum fine of $100,000 is excessive in the circumstances, particularly in conjunction with the additional provision in this bill which provides for part forfeiture of a lease. The Minister said in reply to the second reading debate that these two things were not related. I tried to make the point in my remarks during the second reading debate that the fine and part forfeiture of the lease are related, that part forfeiture will be used to penalise people who engage in unauthorised -

Mr Yeadon: Not necessarily. It could be for rehabilitation.

Mr D. L. PAGE: The bill provides an option of part forfeiture. It is not just a question of a ten-fold increase in penalty, although that is clearly an important part of the Opposition's reasons for moving the amendment. As the honourable member for Murray remarked, people in the Western Division have been doing it very tough over the past four or five years. They have suffered the effects of drought and are not, in the main, high income earners. For this House to legislate for a penalty of $100,000 and, on top of that, for the part forfeiture of a lease, seems to me to be excessive. It appears that the Government will oppose my second amendment in relation to part forfeiture. That makes it all the more compelling for this Committee to reduce the fine from a maximum of $100,000 to $50,000. The current penalties are too low. They need to be high enough to provide a reasonable disincentive to people who do the wrong thing by clearing land illegally. I believe that $50,000 is a disincentive; $100,000 is excessive.

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [12.31]: The courts will decide the penalty to be imposed commensurate with the breach of the law, and the maximum penalty is $100,000. The honourable member accepts the proposition that the present penalties are too low. He tried to make the point that there is a connection between these penalties and forfeiture of a lease. Under the Act the Minister can order forfeiture of the entirety of the lease. If the part forfeiture provision were not included in the bill, a penalty of $100,000 could be imposed and the entire lease could be forfeited rather than part of it, which would be more draconian. The Government recognises that the overwhelming majority of people in the Western Division do not clear land illegally. Yes, they have been doing it tough but they will not suffer penalties under the provisions of the Act because they do not clear land illegally.

There are a small number of examples of persons who regard the imposition of a fine for breaking the law as merely another operating cost and make decisions to unlawfully clear and cultivate land on that basis. The existing maximum penalty of $10,000 does not represent a significant cost to a land-holder who stands to make a significant profit from the operation. In a recent Department of Land and Water Conservation prosecution for unauthorised clearing the lessee conceded that he knew that the law required him to obtain consent to clear the land in order to cultivate a crop but he was prepared to clear without consent and pay the fine imposed if that meant that he could get on with the job and make a return. That is exactly what he did. Commensurate penalties are needed; and the court can ensure that the penalties are commensurate with the breach. Part forfeiture allows the Minister greater flexibility. It may be that part forfeiture is not so much a penalty as a means by which the Minister can resume the land in the public interest to ensure its proper rehabilitation.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

Page 4240

The Committee divided.

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Doherty
Mr Beck Mr O'Farrell
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Causley Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Collins Mr Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Downy Mr Schultz
Mr Ellis Mrs Skinner
Mr Fahey Mr Slack-Smith
Ms Ficarra Mr Small
Mr Fraser Mr Smith
Mr Glachan Mr Tink
Mr Hartcher Mr Turner
Mr Hazzard Mr West
Mr Humpherson Mr Windsor
Dr Kernohan Mr Zammit
Mr Kinross
Mr Longley Tellers,
Ms Machin Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Ms Moore
Mr Clough Mr Moss
Mr Crittenden Mr Murray
Mr Debus Mr Nagle
Mr Face Mr Neilly
Mr Gaudry Ms Nori
Mr Gibson Mr E. T. Page
Mrs Grusovin Mr Price
Ms Hall Dr Refshauge
Mr Harrison Mr Rumble
Ms Harrison Mr Scully
Mr Hunter Mr Shedden
Mr Iemma Mr Stewart
Mr Knight Mr Sullivan
Mr Knowles Mr Watkins
Mr Langton Mr Whelan
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Yeadon
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride Tellers,
Dr Macdonald Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Mr Photios Mrs Beamer
Mr Souris Mr Carr

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [12.42], by leave: I move the following amendments in globo:

No. 2 Page 10, Schedule 1[16], lines 4-6. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 3 Page 10, Schedule 1[16], line 8. Omit "(or of part of a lease)".

No. 4 Page 10, Schedule 1[16], line 15. Omit "(or part of a lease)".

No. 5 Page 10, Schedule 1[16], line 26. Omit "(or part of a lease)".

No. 6 Page 10, Schedule 1[16], line 32. Omit "(or part of a lease)".

No. 7 Page 11, Schedule 1[16], line 1. Omit "(or part of a lease)".

No. 8 Page 11, Schedule 1[16], line 10. Omit "(or part of a lease)".

No. 9 Page 11, Schedule 1[16], line 17. Omit "(or part of a lease)".

No. 10 Page 11, Schedule 1[16], line 29. Omit "(or part of a lease)".

No. 11 Page 11, Schedule 1[16], line 32. Omit "(or part of a lease)".

No. 12 Page 11, Schedule 1[16], lines 33 and 34. Omit "(or part of a lease)".

No. 13 Page 13, Schedule 1[18], line 26. Omit "(or part of a lease)".

No. 14 Page 14, Schedule 1[18], line 3. Omit "(or part of a lease)".

As I indicated earlier, the Opposition believes that part forfeiture of leases should not be allowed in the Western Division for three reasons. First, the Minister will be able to abuse his position. At the moment a lease can be forfeited only in entirety. Part forfeiture, combined with increased penalties of up to $100,000 - from the current level of $10,000 - is overkill. Second, taking away part of a lease in the Western Division is likely to affect the viability of some farming operations. Indeed, it may also affect the capacity of land-holders to raise money to finance a farming operation. Finally, those who have been consulted on this matter - New South Wales Farmers and leaseholders in the Western Division - believe very strongly that part forfeiture is inappropriate and that the status quo should stand. Full forfeiture ought to be available to the Minister when irresponsible land clearing occurs, but the part forfeiture provision is likely to be abused and will create viability problems for farms in relation to finance and operating as an entity.

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [12.46]: The Government rejects the Opposition's amendments. In relation to the abuse of the part forfeiture provision, the Minister can abuse the present full forfeiture provision. Part forfeiture allows more flexibility, for the reasons I outlined earlier. The honourable member for Ballina keeps connecting this issue with fines and the overall penalty, but the court will take into account the level of a breach and will impose a commensurate fine. In relation to problems with viability or borrowing money, the overwhelming majority of Western Division land-holders do not illegally clear land and therefore have nothing to fear from these provisions.

Page 4241

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Doherty
Mr Beck Mr O'Farrell
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Causley Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Collins Mr Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Downy Mr Schultz
Mr Ellis Mrs Skinner
Mr Fahey Mr Slack-Smith
Ms Ficarra Mr Small
Mr Fraser Mr Smith
Mr Glachan Mr Tink
Mr Hartcher Mr Turner
Mr Hazzard Mr West
Mr Humpherson Mr Windsor
Dr Kernohan Mr Zammit
Mr Kinross
Mr Longley Tellers,
Ms Machin Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Ms Moore
Mr Clough Mr Moss
Mr Crittenden Mr Murray
Mr Debus Mr Nagle
Mr Face Mr Neilly
Mr Gaudry Ms Nori
Mr Gibson Mr E. T. Page
Mrs Grusovin Mr Price
Ms Hall Dr Refshauge
Mr Harrison Mr Rumble
Ms Harrison Mr Scully
Mr Hunter Mr Shedden
Mr Iemma Mr Stewart
Mr Knight Mr Sullivan
Mr Knowles Mr Tripodi
Mr Langton Mr Watkins
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Whelan
Mr Lynch Mr Yeadon
Mr McBride Tellers,
Dr Macdonald Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Mr Photios Mrs Beamer
Mr Souris Mr Carr

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.


Bill read a third time.


Debate resumed from 26 October.

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [12.53]: I do not lead for the Opposition on this important measure. The concept of alcohol-free zones was an initiative of the former Government that the residents of Cronulla have found useful. The Minister for Local Government comes from a seaside suburb and would be aware of the antisocial behaviour that unfortunately infests beach suburbs during the Christmas period. People often come to Bondi and Cronulla from outside the area and make a nuisance of themselves by engaging in binge drinking. Late at night a large number of non-residents congregate in the Cronulla mall. Problems occur in Flint Street also. The Cronulla Chamber of Commerce and local police made an enormous effort to ensure that alcohol-free zones were located in the most appropriate areas. It is the view of the Opposition that the proposed fine is not commensurate with the mischief caused.

Mr E. T. Page: What do you want - the death penalty?

Mr KERR: No-one is asking for the death penalty. Even under a Stalinist regime, that would be game.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Clough): Order! The honourable member for Cronulla will direct his remarks through the Chair and ignore interjections.

Mr KERR: As you would appreciate, Mr Acting-Speaker, I was severely provoked. However, in accordance with your directions I propose to conclude my contribution.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [12.56]: Legislation under the Local Government Act for alcohol-free zones was a successful initiative of the coalition Government in 1990. I am pleased that the Government continues to support it. The legislation arose from the lack of control that councils had over the consumption of alcohol in the streets over which they had jurisdiction. Bourke Council had attempted to apply the section of the Local Government Act that gave it care and control of streets, but the court held that the section did not extend to the control of social conduct such as the consumption of alcohol. Accordingly, the coalition Government, anxious to ensure that councils did
Page 4242
have control, where it was appropriate and was exercised with due warning to the public by the display of appropriate signs, introduced the Local Government Amendment (Alcohol-free Zones) Bill 1990. At that time the coalition Government undertook to monitor the legislation to ensure that it was implemented successfully, to review it after a period to assess any problems the community or local government might have experienced and, if necessary, to amend the legislation as appropriate. This bill follows the public submission process initiated by the former Government in 1994.

While I express pleasure that the Government is continuing coalition initiatives, I acknowledge the work done by former local government Ministers, the Hon. David Hay in 1990 and the Hon. Ted Pickering in 1994. The key amendments covered by the legislation relate, first, to permission for councils in addition to the public to initiate the process of creating an alcohol-free zone - at the present time this must be done by public request; second, to extend the maximum duration of alcohol-free zones from one year to three years, so that they do not have to be reviewed annually; third, to permit alcohol-free zones to be created for special events, such as New Year's Eve; fourth, to improve consultation with local police over proposed alcohol-free zones; and, fifth, to include public car parks within the scope of the Act.

It is clear from submissions that the community overwhelmingly supports the legislation. By and large it has worked well. Many, especially those in local government, would like the Act to go further, but the Opposition believes that its scope generally is satisfactory. The Opposition does not support an extension along the lines advocated by some local government bodies. However, the legislation does need some improvement. Legislation of the Carr Government often needs improvement, and this bill is no exception. The Opposition is of the view that the existing penalty of $20 is inadequate. In line with community income and the need to be seen to enforce the law realistically, the Opposition will move an amendment in Committee to increase that penalty to $200. The Opposition believes also that the existing law would be improved if the police had a wider power to control crowds in which individuals consume alcohol. These crowds are often large. Section 642 of the Act should be amended to give a police officer the option to give a warning.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Hartcher.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Clough) left the chair at 1.00 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]


Mr SPEAKER: It is with regret that I have to inform the House of the death of Robert Joseph Kelly, a former member of the Legislative Assembly, who represented the electorate of East Hills from 1956 to 1973. On behalf of the House, I have extended to Mrs Kelly and the family the deep sympathy of the Legislative Assembly in the loss sustained.

Members and officers of the House stood in their places.


Mr CARR: I announced to the House this morning that His Excellency the Governor commissioned the Hon. Faye Lo Po' as Minister for Fair Trading. Prior to this the Minister submitted her resignation as Minister for Consumer Affairs to His Excellency the Governor.


Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [2.18]: On 23 November the Minister for Police tabled an edited version of the Task Force Roderick report in this House. The report, compiled by Detective Inspector Kevin Roberts, contained details of alleged corruption within the New South Wales harness racing industry. On the same day I referred the report to the Harness Racing Authority - HRA - and my Department of Gaming and Racing to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. Although the report was completed in early 1995 and the outcome was announced in April, the report and its recommendations were not previously made available to the authority. The task force interviewed more than 150 people who have or had some involvement in the harness racing industry.

After an extensive investigation, the task force found no evidence of corruption in the administration of harness racing in New South Wales. The task force concluded that the allegations raised did not warrant further investigation. No arrests, charges or prosecutions were preferred or recommended by members of the task force. The authority has conducted an extensive review of the Roderick report and has provided me with a detailed response. The authority has agreed in principle with some of the findings and recommendations contained in the report. The authority has made additional recommendations to assist in preventing corruption within the industry and for the benefit of the industry. The authority has already introduced several measures aimed at preventing corrupt practices.

Initiatives introduced over the past 18 months to strengthen probity in and further develop the industry include: the implementation of an anticorruption fraud control plan; the development of a code of conduct for HRA board members to complement the existing code of conduct for HRA
Page 4243
staff and stewards; initiation of a comprehensive review of the rules of harness racing aimed at reducing and streamlining the present rules; and the establishment of a Harness Racing Industry Advisory Board in consultation with major industry groups. In addition, a steward has been allocated the special task of monitoring betting and drug-related activities. The drug testing and policing procedures introduced by the Harness Racing Authority are amongst the most advanced in the world. The authority is recognised as a leader in terms of drug reform among the three racing codes in New South Wales. Drug penalties in harness racing in New South Wales are among the most severe of any racing code in Australia and the rest of the world.

The problems confronting the harness racing industry will not be solved overnight. They can be solved, however, through extensive consultation and cooperation by all sections of the industry. I assure the House that the Government will not be railroaded into making hasty decisions which could prove detrimental to the future viability of the industry. The authority's report will assist in planning the future direction of the industry. The Government will ensure that the industry's viability is protected and enhanced. I look forward to working with the authority to achieve this goal. I table the HRA response to the Roderick report.


Mr Speaker tabled a copy of the Performance Audit Report of the Audit Office of New South Wales entitled "Performance Auditing in New South Wales: Implementation of Recommendations; and Improving Follow-Up Mechanisms" dated 6 December 1995.

Ordered to be printed.


Petition praying that any attempt to legalise euthanasia or assisted suicide be opposed and that the right to life be supported, received from Mr Rixon.

Petition praying that the special needs of the students, and the standard of education, at the Broderick Special School, Lakemba, be maintained, received from Mr Phillips.

Petitions praying that forests in the Murwillumbah Forest Management Area remain open to all forms of multiple use forest management, including the supply of timber resource, received from Mr Beck, Mr Causley, Mr D. L. Page and Mr Rixon.

Petition praying for the retention of the regional veterinary laboratories at Armidale and Wagga Wagga as a vital component of the New South Wales and Australian disease surveillance network, received from Mr Chappell.


General Business Order of the Day (for Bills) No. 2, standing in the name of the honourable member for Wollongong, called on and lapsed.

Mr SPEAKER: In accordance with Standing Order 141(5) I draw the attention of the House to unanswered question upon notice No. 469, standing in the name of the Minister for Education and Training.

Mr AQUILINA: That question has been answered.



Mr FACE: Yesterday the honourable member for Wagga Wagga asked me a question concerning a positive swab taken from the greyhound Fiji Phil at Moss Vale last October. I now have some further information which I provide to the House. I have been concerned that the Greyhound Racing Control Board has a policy of not informing the Police Service of positive swabs to prohibited drugs until after the results of the stewards inquiry.

Ms Machin: On a point of order: I do not believe it is in order for a Minister to provide a supplementary answer on two occasions to the same question. Yesterday he provided the House with a supplementary answer at the end of question time, and he now seeks to provide a further supplementary answer. I would have thought that he could have used another form of the House to provide the information.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is some substance to the point of order. However, Ministers provide members with all the information that becomes available to questions that are asked of them.

Mr FACE: I have told the board that I require it to re-examine its policy in the light of the policy adopted by the Australian Jockey Club and the Harness Racing Authority; namely, to inform
Page 4244
the Police Service as soon as a positive swab is detected. I do not want the House to think that the Greyhound Racing Control Board has been idle in the detection of drugs. In fact, the board has been very positive in its fight against those who seek to use drugs to either improve a greyhound's performance or to stop it from winning. In the five months up to 31 May this year - the period before the dismissal of the former control board and the appointment of the new board by me from 1 June - 698 swabs were taken, of which 2.44 per cent proved positive to performance-enhancing or retarding drugs, and 1.72 per cent proved positive to therapeutic drugs. That is a total of 29 positive swabs. In the five months to the end of November - the time under the new board - a total of 805 swabs were taken, an increase of 15 per cent, of which 2.24 per cent proved positive to performance enhancing or retarding drugs, and 1.6 per cent were positive to therapeutic drugs. That is a total of 31 positive swabs. Honourable members can see that although an increase in the number of swabs occurred, there has been a percentage decrease in both categories of positive swabs.

The Greyhound Racing Control Board is also taking action to inform all 10,000 participants in the sport of its policy on drug use. It will do this by sending a special notice to every person in the industry outlining the reasons for drug rules, the categories of prohibited drugs and how the drug rules will be enforced. This information has already been prepared in a special notice and will be sent to everyone in the industry within the next week. I have shown that the new control board is taking every possible action to rid the industry of people who would try to use drugs. The board has already had some positive results, and I expect that as swabbing procedures improve the results will be even greater.

Mr West: On a point of order: although I obviously allowed the Minister to provide the supplementary answer, Standing Order 140(5) indicates that supplementary answers shall be given at the conclusion of, not prior to, a question period. It reads:

Ministers seeking to provide additional information to questions already answered at the current or a previous sitting shall do so at the conclusion of the question period.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The point of order is upheld.



Mr COLLINS: Has the Premier read a newspaper report today headlined "Government has no regard for racing" which criticises him for allowing the industry to remain in turmoil? Does the Minister for Gaming and Racing have the Premier's complete confidence?

Mr CARR: No. Yes.

Mr NAGLE: What is the Government doing to stop criminals controlling Kings Cross strip clubs?

Mr CARR: As members would be aware, evidence given -

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Eastwood will remain silent.

Mr CARR: You have never stopped defending criminal elements in Kings Cross, have you? We note with interest the stand he has taken on these matters. Before we speak out against these elements, he speaks in their defence. As members would be aware -

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

Mr CARR: As members would be aware,evidence given to the police royal commission has revealed a deeply disturbing situation in Kings Cross, especially in relation to its infamous strip clubs. Witnesses have told the royal commission that certain business owners and managers of Kings Cross licensed premises pay protection money to police. This allows them to deal drugs, provide prostitutes and engage in other illegal activities with total impunity. The Government believes these business owners and managers are unfit to operate licensed premises. When the evidence first came to light the Government ordered a full review of clubs in the area. The review, carried out by a special task force, found that the liquor laws were adequate to control licensed premises operated by business people of good character and repute, but could not be used to effectively control the activities of criminal elements.

One of the fundamental principles behind the liquor laws in all jurisdictions of Australia is to ensure that only persons of the highest integrity are able to operate licensed premises. However, controls on the integrity of a management of licensed premises can easily be circumvented. A business owner with a criminal background can nominate a cleanskin as licensee in order to overcome the fit-and-proper test. Control of the licensed premises might effectively be in the hands of a manager or owner who has never passed - and perhaps never could pass - the test of fitness and propriety. If the Government is to tackle serious criminal elements involved in the liquor industry in Kings Cross, it is necessary that police and licensing inspectors be given stronger powers. The Government has decided to do this by a range of amendments to the Liquor Act.

The Government will act as follows: provide for the automatic cancellation of licences for certain prescribed breaches of the Liquor Act that occur within a 12-month period; prohibit for a period of
Page 4245
up to two years an application being made for a new licence for premises after a licence has been cancelled - this will prevent new applications being made by dummy licence holders acting on behalf of criminal elements; give the Director of Liquor and Gaming or the Commissioner of Police power to order the closure of premises for a period of up to 72 hours when there are reasonable grounds to believe that serious breaches of the Act would put the public interest at significant risk if the premises were to remain open; provide police and special licensing inspectors with the power to confiscate liquor every day if a club trades without a licence, effectively making it impossible for it to operate profitably; provide as a ground for objection to an application for a licence that the applicant is, was, or will be, a business associate of a person who is not fit or proper; and increase the maximum penalty for making -

Mr Kinross: How is the Orient Hotel?

Mr CARR: The effects of the deep sleep therapy have worn off; he has come to life. It happens once every five months that he struggles to life.

[Interruption]

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

Mr CARR: Waking up like that is enough to put him on the Joe Schipp ticket for the frontbench. The Government will increase the maximum penalty for making a false or misleading statement, under the Act, to $5,000 and/or 12 months imprisonment - the present penalty is $2,000; require Kings Cross licensed premises to have a court-approved manager who is responsible for the conduct of the premises in the absence of the licensee; provide that a licence is not to be granted unless a report from the Director of Liquor and Gaming has been received by the Licensing Court; and, finally, provide power to enter premises if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a breach of the Act is, or will be, committed and seize gaming equipment and records. These are very tough amendments but they are designed to protect the kids who are being exploited at Kings Cross at the present time. The Government said it would get tough, and it will. We will close down premises in which the law is broken.

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

Mr CARR: The previous Government defended these activities. It allowed this to go on.

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

Mr CARR: You whinge and whine -

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

Mr CARR: For seven years you presided over the growth of these abuses in Kings Cross. It took this Government -

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

Mr CARR: The Government is aware of the need to consult industry groups such as the Australian Hotels Association and the Registered Clubs Association, and the relevant unions. And we will. But the Government is determined to do everything possible to keep criminals out of licensed premises, especially those in Kings Cross. The bottom line is that this is about protecting young people from the sleazy exploitation that has been revealed to the royal commission. Once again, not waiting for the royal commission to complete its investigation, we continue to respond to its revelations. Normal law abiding -

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

Mr CARR: Put him out to graze. Normal law abiding -

Mr Cochran: On a point of order: Mr Speaker, I respect your directions -

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair is responsible for the orderly management of the House. I call the Minister for Local Government to order for the second time.

Mr Cochran: The provocative remarks of the Premier and the Minister for Local Government are precisely the cause of concern to this side of the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The member will resume his seat and I remind him he is on one call to order. He will refrain from interjecting.

Mr CARR: Normal law-abiding licensees have nothing to fear. But the drug dealers, those living off the earnings of prostitutes and those selling alcohol to minors are on notice: break the law and we will close you down.


Mr HARTCHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing. Did a senior member of your staff, using your name, contact the employer of a woman who had a letter published in a Sydney newspaper criticising your broken promise on the Cronulla sewage treatment plant? Did your staff member seek to have this woman sacked because she exercised her right of free speech?

Mr KNOWLES: No.

Page 4246

Ms MEAGHER: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Police. What action has the Government taken to counter the spread of 5T Asian crime gangs beyond Cabramatta?

Mr WHELAN: Honourable members will be aware that since taking office this Government has launched an all-out assault on drug crime in Cabramatta. In contrast to the record of the previous Government, this has led to record numbers of drug-related charges and arrests by police. The Government is determined to destroy Cabramatta's reputation as the heroin capital of Australia. After seven years of coalition neglect the Government has provided the police resources and initiatives necessary to stamp out this insidious drug trade. The honourable member will be delighted to hear that in seeking to regain control of the streets of Cabramatta the results of these initiatives, thus far, have been dramatic. Between January and December this year, special anti-drug police operations have resulted in almost 4,300 charges being laid against more than 2,000 people. A third of these charges are drug related and many involve the supply and possession of heroin. The police operations include the joint Federal-State task force Coltsfoot, set up to target the upper echelons of the heroin distribution network in Cabramatta; Operation Morrell, to target street level drug distribution - a natural complement to the focus of Coltsfoot; and task force Palm, to investigate the double murder of 5T gang members.

Police attached to Operation Coltsfoot have also been working closely with local police operations, attacking street level drug distribution and extortion by 5T Asian crime gang members. Excellent results on the streets have also been achieved through the introduction of twice-daily dog squad patrols of the Cabramatta central business district and regular mounted police patrols. As I have said previously in this House, the Government is aware that there is no quick fix to the long-term problems caused by the drug trade. It is common knowledge that, as a result of the crackdown in Cabramatta, criminal gangs may be testing their strength in new communities, particularly in Victoria. It is believed notorious gangs such as the 5T Asian crime gang could recently have shifted their operations interstate in order to avoid police detection in New South Wales.

As we are tackling the drug crisis in Cabramatta we are gaining a better understanding of how to effectively tackle the drug and gang problem that plagued western Sydney under the coalition. Recent reports from Melbourne indicate that Victorian police are recording increased heroin arrests and overdoses. Chief Superintendent Brian Ritchie of the Melbourne police was quoted as saying he believed the Cabramatta experience was being duplicated in Melbourne, with young dealers making sales at railway stations and shopping centres around Footscray. This trend is believed to be linked to an influx of gang members from Sydney who have begun selling large quantities of high-grade heroin in Melbourne's western suburbs.

While getting rid of drug traffickers is the Carr Government's aim, it cannot ignore its responsibilities to other Australians. That is why today I wish to announce two initiatives. The first is to reduce the plague of drugs and gangs across western Sydney. Secondly, an interstate working party with Victorian police will be established to fight the cross-border drug trade. Police are planning to run operations similar to Coltsfoot across greater western Sydney. I am advised that operations will be mounted in Liverpool, Fairfield, Parramatta and Campbelltown to counter expanding gang activity and to break up the networks of drug crime. Today I spoke to the Victorian Police Minister, Pat McNamara, and offered him this State's full cooperation in tackling the drug trade. The Victorian Minister and I agreed that New South Wales and Victorian police will swap intelligence, including specific information on known criminals and drug suppliers.

I would also like to put on the record my support for today's meeting of all Australian police service chiefs, who have gathered at the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence to work out ways to improve the flow of criminal intelligence between police services. I am advised that both services now have access to common software and database systems. This should ensure immediate and accurate information exchange between Victoria's Asian crime squad and the New South Wales Police Service. Under the arrangements, Victoria's Asian squad and New South Wales Oak investigative group, and the drug enforcement agency, will continue to swap investigators to coordinate cross-border inquiries. I have also asked the New South Wales Commissioner of Police to communicate directly with Victorian police so that all necessary help can be provided expeditiously as required. The Government will not rest on its laurels in its fight against the drug trade. Although it has achieved a great deal in a very short period, it is clear that there is a long way to go.


Mr DOWNY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Gaming and Racing. Did the Minister take a deliberate decision to jeopardise the Harness Racing Authority's inquiry into the Roderick report by providing it with the censored version only? Will the Minister explain how the Harness Racing Authority could have conducted a full examination of the findings of the Roderick report when it was not provided with a full, unedited version?

Mr FACE: The answer to the honourable member's first question is that I did not make the report available so I could not have censored it. Therefore, the answer is no.

Page 4247

Mr TURNER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Gaming and Racing. Why was the Chief Steward of the Harness Racing Authority, Mr Roger Nebauer, stood aside from the inquiry into race 4 at Harold Park on 14 November 1995 and replaced by the General Manager of the Harness Racing Authority?

Mr FACE: Last Tuesday I met with two former members of the Harness Racing Authority of New South Wales, Messrs J. Walsh and A. Gaskell, at their request. During the meeting Mr Walsh and Mr Gaskell made allegations concerning corrupt conduct by a senior official employed by the Harness Racing Authority and I informed them that, as the matter concerned alleged corruption by a public official, I was required by statute to bring the matter to the attention of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Both Messrs Walsh and Gaskell agreed that this was the appropriate course of action. I immediately sent a statement made by Mr Gaskell to the commission. In addition, the following day, accompanied by senior officers of my department, officials of the Harness Racing Authority and members of my personal staff, I attended a meeting with the commissioner and members of his staff. Any further action in this matter will be for the commissioner to determine following his initial examination of the allegations. It would be completely inappropriate for the Government to establish any other form of independent inquiry into these allegations.

Unlike the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow minister for gaming and racing, this Government has every confidence in the ICAC to handle allegations of this nature. In fact, the Opposition's continued calls for the opening of an independent inquiry to investigate allegations which fall within the jurisdiction of the commission could well be construed as a vote of no confidence in that body by the Opposition parties. Since it became aware of the serious allegations made against the chairman of stewards, Mr Roger Nebauer, the Harness Racing Authority considered it appropriate that Mr Nebauer stand aside from the present inquiry being conducted into the running of race 4 at Harold Park on 14 November.

The decision for Mr Nebauer to stand aside is in keeping with an offer he made some weeks ago when he offered publicly to stand aside from current investigations into the running of events at Harold Park. In addition, as the allegations have been referred to the ICAC for its consideration as to whether any further action is needed, the authority felt that it was in Mr Nebauer's interests and in the interests of the authority for him to concentrate on administrative duties pending a decision as to whether any further investigations are warranted. The allegations which have been made against Mr Nebauer are being examined by the proper authority, the Independent Commission Against Corruption. It would be inappropriate for the authority to take any disciplinary action against him or any other official merely on the basis of unproven allegations. Like the industry participants over whose actions he presides, Mr Nebauer is entitled to be considered innocent until proven otherwise.


Mr CRITTENDEN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs. What is being done to enhance the reading recovery program in Government schools?

Mr AQUILINA: The honourable member has asked a good question, unlike some of the tawdry questions from members of the Opposition. It may be recalled by honourable members - I am sure it will be recalled by members on this side of the House, but probably not by members of the Opposition - that during the election campaign I gave a commitment that a Carr Labor Government would introduce 400 new teaching positions scheme during its first term, to expand the reading recovery program.

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

[Interruption]

Mr AQUILINA: They will, because they will benefit from this.

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

Mr AQUILINA: The Government's aim was to ensure that every child in New South Wales has the opportunity to attain average literacy skills. Honourable members understand that it is a tall order for the Opposition, but the Government wants students in New South Wales schools to be literate. Some members of the Opposition missed out; that is unfortunate. So far as current students are concerned, the Government wants to ensure that they are all literate, and it proposes to honour its commitment to provide additional literacy teachers. Today I can proudly announce that from 1996, 189 targeted schools will be supported by the first 100 reading recovery positions - 100 out of the 400 promised. I repeat that this is the first stage in the provision of 400 extra reading recovery teachers for government schools across New South Wales. Before I hear bleatings from members of the Opposition about where the teachers are going -

Mr Hartcher: Where are they going?

Mr AQUILINA: Gosford will definitely get some. The schools are in districts ranging from Albury, Wagga Wagga, Queanbeyan and Batemans Bay in the south to Bathurst, Dubbo, Griffith,
Page 4248
Broken Hill and Deniliquin in the west, and to Tweed Heads, Moree, Armidale - even Clarence gets some - Lismore and Port Macquarie in the north. The Illawarra will benefit with literacy teachers in the Wollongong and Shellharbour districts. The Hunter will have literacy teachers in the Lake Macquarie, Newcastle and Maitland districts. The whole of the Sydney metropolitan area will benefit, with special concentration of literacy teachers in the Penrith, Campbelltown, Liverpool, Mount Druitt, Fairfield, Parramatta, Granville, Blacktown and St George districts. Honouring this commitment will bring enormous benefits to students experiencing difficulty in the early years of schooling. It will give them the extra teaching attention they need to keep pace with their peers.

Literacy is as important now as it always has been. As technology becomes more important in the workplace, functional literacy is becoming more crucial. If the literacy problems of our young people are not looked after in their early years they will be left to struggle with modern technology later in life. The Carr Labor Government will not leave those young people lagging behind. We shall do all we can to offer them a helping hand. Honouring this commitment is all about equity and placing resources in areas of greatest need. We as a Government and I as Minister are determined that young people, no matter where they are from, no matter what their background, will be given every opportunity to develop their literary skills through reading recovery.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Vaucluse will cease interrupting.

Mr AQUILINA: I might add that this was not the way of the former Government, which provided access to reading recovery to only 20 per cent of those who needed it. What a shameful record. Reading recovery, which has proven a success in other school systems across Australia and abroad, was at best a marginal option under the former Government. Schools were forced to short-change other programs in order to give year one students the basic opportunity to read.

Mr O'Doherty: Why did you pull the kindergarten teachers out of the system?

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

Mr AQUILINA: I had allocated a number of teachers for the Hornsby district; I will have to reassess that allocation! The program is designed for students experiencing difficulties in learning to read and write after one year at school. Reading recovery students will receive, in addition to classroom instruction, 30 minutes of individual teaching each day from a reading recovery teacher. The reading recovery program is also part of a range of services providing additional support for teachers. A reading recovery tutor training course will be available next year at the University of Western Sydney, Nepean, and will offer an accredited qualification in special education.

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

Mr AQUILINA: I appreciate that the honourable member for Monaro has some problems with literacy. We will provide a special teacher if need be.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Monaro is asking me to have him removed from the Chamber.

Mr AQUILINA: Reading recovery tutors provide professional development and support to reading recovery teachers in schools, as well as work with students with reading problems. A number of teachers will be awarded cadetships to enable them to undertake specialist early literacy training. I reiterate that there will be 100 reading recovery positions supporting 189 targeted schools in 1996. These are the first of 400 positions over the first term of this Government. This is the honouring of another commitment and it will be of enormous benefit to some of the most deserving students in our schools, namely, those experiencing difficulties in their early years of schooling.

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


Mr CAUSLEY: My question is directed to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Does he support the Federal Government's decision to protect 15 per cent of the forest area which existed in the year 1750, some 38 years before European settlement? How will the 15 per cent be calculated, and what effect will such a policy have on the native forest industry?

Mr YEADON: Honourable members will be aware that last Friday the Commonwealth Government made a major announcement on forest policy, including deferred forest areas - DFAs. The New South Wales Government was involved in the related discussions. The final DFA report as released by the Commonwealth has been prepared in consultation with New South Wales officials. Significant changes have been made to refine the draft DFA report. At this stage the Government is considering the Prime Minister's invitation for New South Wales to join the Commonwealth in entering into a deferred forest areas agreement. A decision will be made in the near future after the effects of the proposed DFAs are assessed. Public comment on the draft DFA report has been considered and a list of compartments to be made available for logging has been refined in light of the comments received. Some 275 compartments were removed from the list and 93 were added to.

The DFA report evaluates current levels of reservation of old growth, biodiversity and wilderness value and identifies additional forest areas that may be required for a comprehensive,
Page 4249
adequate and representative reserve system. In order to protect biodiversity values, 15 per cent of the pre-1750 distribution of identified land units - that is, forest types, environmental units or vegetation types - has been included in the deferred area wherever such units are available on public land. I emphasise that point. Two land units, spotted gum and grey box, do not meet the Commonwealth benchmark on public land and are available for harvesting because the withdrawal of those areas would lead to unacceptable impacts on the industry. I make that point for the honourable member for Clarence and all the other National Party members on the other side.

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

Mr Schultz: Come on, get on with it!

Mr YEADON: Calm down Alby. Take it steady. The Government is clearly taking a balanced approach in relation to forestry issues and is recognising socioeconomic factors when necessary. Opposition members just cannot accept that people are addressing this issue. Their constituents will see that this Government and the Federal Government are serious about dealing with this issue and they will be exposed for being the absolute hypocrites that they are. The forest types I have referred to are represented on other land tenures such as private property. Accordingly, conservation values are not being undermined.

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

Mr YEADON: The New South Wales Government is taking account of the issues and is addressing them. More than 93 per cent of unlogged and lightly selectively logged forest is protected under the proposed DFAs. More than 90 per cent of the old growth in the Eden management area has also been deferred or has been proposed for deferral. In addition, the harvesting protocol will provide for the protection of old-growth patches within regrowth compartments which are available for harvesting.

Ninety seven per cent - and I will repeat that for the slow members on the other side - 97 per cent of the wilderness is protected under the proposed deferred forest areas. The areas available for logging under the DFA report have been defined with the aim of meeting the Government's commitment to supply the current levels of quota quality hardwood sawlogs until July 1996. Economic and social impacts caused by the loss of sawlog volumes will be minimised in the short term as mills will continue to work at current capacity until July 1996. However, there will be impacts resulting from changes in log size, log quality and species mix, increased log haulage and contractor movements, as well as increased costs incurred in maintaining and establishing market contracts.

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

Mr YEADON: Previously announced government policy provides that quota sawlog allocations for 1996-97 will be reduced by 37 per cent in coastal regions and 40 per cent in the Eden management area. These reductions will have significant impacts as mills reduce throughput. I previously announced that $60 million of structural adjustment funding will be made available by the New South Wales Government to ameliorate the impact on affected workers and business.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Monaro to order for the fourth time. I ask the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove the honourable member for Monaro.

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

Mr YEADON: That is precisely the standard of contribution we have come to expect from honourable members opposite. If they cannot cop the answer, they should not ask the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind members that the honourable member for Monaro has been removed from the Chamber. For the remainder of question time all members are deemed to be on three calls to order.

Mr YEADON: In addition, the Commonwealth has indicated that it will assist by providing matching funding. New South Wales now has $120 million to contribute towards structural adjustment in the timber industry in this State, an outstanding achievement by any benchmark. Honourable members opposite are laughing to disguise their hurt. They should remember that they are on three calls to order. The DFA report provides for a revision of these areas available for logging following completion of the interim assessment process currently being undertaken by the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council and expected to be completed before the middle of 1996.

Mr Longley: On a point of order: Mr Speaker, I would ask you to bring the Minister back to the question, that is, whether the Government supports the 15 per cent level. Whilst the Minister has spoken about many other things, he has not actually answered the question.

Mr YEADON: On the point of order: I indicate to the honourable member that he should pay attention. I addressed pre-1750 requirements and this Government utilised that in assessing the DFA, so the question has already been answered.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The point of order is not upheld.

Mr YEADON: In relation to the Federal Government decision to reduce woodchip quotas for 1996, the New South Wales Government was not consulted and was not privy to that decision until
Page 4250
just prior to the announcement. The New South Wales Government is currently assessing the consequences and the impact of that decision. When that information is available the Government will then enter into further ongoing discussions with the Federal Government regarding that issue directly and, of course, the proposed reserved forest area agreement.


Mr CAUSLEY: I ask a supplementary question. In view of the answer given by the Minister and the critical nature of the area as at 1750, will the Minister tell the House how it will be calculated and what effect it will have on jobs in Grafton?

Mr YEADON: I addressed the issue of pre-1750 and detailed the types that were being assessed.


Mr BECKROGE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. In view of the recent rains across New South Wales, will the Minister advise the House of the state of water storages?

Mr YEADON: I have travelled extensively with the honourable member in his electorate looking at the many issues that honourable members opposite neglected when they were in government. Last year, and even up to last month, the situation in our State's dams appeared desperate.

[Interruption]

Honourable members opposite should pay attention because some of this might interest them. Dam levels were dwindling and water in the north was in critically short supply. Today I can report improvements in rural dam levels in New South Wales and, in particular, a recent rainfall boost to dams in the parched north-west. The drought has not lifted in the north but town water supplies are now more secure and spirits are higher. The Government is delighted with that situation. Thunderstorms last night have ensured that the situation will keep improving as run-off flows into the dams. The risk of blue-green algae in one of the world's greatest river systems, the Darling River system, has greatly diminished due to recent rainfalls. Rain has fallen over a wide area of New South Wales during the past fortnight or so. Prior to last weekend falls ranged from 29 millimetres at Grenfell on the south-west slopes to 234 millimetres at Moree.

On the weekend there were scattered showers and rain on the parched north-west slopes and northern rivers region with Tamworth, one of the driest regional centres, receiving 17 millimetres. I am sure the honourable member for Tamworth is pleased with that. Last night strong electrical storms brought another 13 millimetres to Tamworth and a high of 27 millimetres was recorded at nearby Split Rock Dam. As a result, flows into streams have increased significantly and dam levels have risen. The areas where most rain fell were the dry north-west slopes and the Northern Tablelands where dam levels have increased by between 2.4 per cent and 8.7 per cent in the last few weeks. Unfortunately, the Namoi and Macquarie systems have had only minimal rainfall. Elsewhere in the State the picture has been steadily improving all year and there have been major boosts to dam levels. Storages in the south, which were between 57 per cent and 75 per cent full last year, are now 80 per cent to 100 per cent full. In fact, there is so much water that two dams in the region, the Blowering Dam and the Burrinjuck Dam, are spilling. In the Lachlan Valley, Wyangala Dam has increased its capacity from 57 per cent this time last year to 88 per cent this year.

[Interruption]

No, I am not claiming credit; I am simply informing the House of the situation. Given that this is a major issue in the honourable member's electorate, I should have thought that he would be interested in my answer. Overall, the volume in the State's water storages has increased by 11 per cent since last year and our dams are holding about 66 per cent of the total State storage capacity. Copeton Dam on the Gwydir has been the major beneficiary of the recent rains and has experienced an 8.7 per cent increase in volume. It has increased from holding 2 per cent of capacity in December 1994 to 15 per cent this year, and this has allowed for an allocation of 10 per cent to irrigators on the Gwydir - their first allocation in three years. I have no doubt that those irrigators are delighted to be getting a crop in the ground.

Enough water has now passed to the Gwydir wetlands for fifty-fifty sharing of water to occur in allocations over and above licensed entitlements to irrigators in this area. This policy aims to achieve healthier wetlands as well as a successful crop in the area. The recent good rainfall has eased the water supply situation to most country towns. The stream flows indicate that most of the rivers and creeks will have good flows for the next few weeks. Town supplies which are less secure will be monitored to ensure that action can be taken to avoid water shortages if necessary. Water supplies for Brewarrina, Bourke and Wilcannia - which are traditionally precarious - are now secure for the summer. However, the situation will remain tight for irrigators across the north-west of New South Wales where, despite the improvements, dam levels are still low.

Another legacy of this recent rainfall is the effect on the Darling River. Each summer we fear a repeat of the disaster of 1991 when a 1,000 kilometre algal bloom poisoned the river and killed stock. Three months ago the Barwon-Darling ceased to flow for virtually its entire length from Mungindi to Wilcannia. Just last week the river
Page 4251
was put on high algal alert again. Brackish water and the hot summer months ahead were expected to provide perfect conditions for damaging algal blooms. However, we are now expecting good flows to Queensland through the Barwon-Darling system with inflows expected to reach Wilcannia within the next week. This fresh water will suppress algal growth and diminish the risk of a repeat of the 1991 disaster this summer. These rains have eased the State's water shortage and lifted the spirits of country people. However, 45 per cent of the State remains in the grip of drought. We can only hope that rain continues to fall in our driest areas and that our dams continue to fill. It is important to remember that 45 per cent of the State remains affected by the drought.


Mr CLOUGH: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. What effect have recent widespread rains had on the farming community of New South Wales? What percentage of this State is still drought declared? What effect will this have on the economy?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind all members that they are on three calls to order.

Mr West: On a point of order: Mr Speaker, you have consistently ruled that questions in this House during question time should not consist of more than two parts. The question asked by the honourable member for Bathurst contained three parts.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! As this is the last question to be asked in question time I will allow the honourable member for Bathurst to rephrase his question.

Mr CLOUGH: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. Will the Minister explain to the House the effect of the recent widespread rains on the economy and the farming community?

Mr AMERY: I thank the honourable member for Orange for his point of order - I did not have an answer to the first question! I thank the honourable member for Bathurst for his question and offer him my condolences, and those of other honourable members, on the passing of his father late last week. It is good to see the honourable member in the House. The honourable member for Bathurst made some reference to the widespread rains. I shall complement what the Minister for Land and Water Conservation said. He made some reference to the impact on the water storages.

[Interruption]

The Minister for Gaming and Racing can stop looking for those positive swabs - I think I have found them on the other side of the House! Last week I announced that 45 per cent of the State is affected by the drought, which is a significant drop from the 58 per cent from the month before. In December 1994, 94 per cent of the State was affected by the drought. By January this year the figure was 98 per cent. At that time the outlook for farmers was grim. It is pleasing to announce to the House that things are looking better. Widespread and continuing rain over most of the State over the past two months has resulted in a turnaround in the fortunes of rural New South Wales.

The rain has, however, caused some damage to wheat and barley crops, but not as much as first thought. In fact, with record grain prices farmers stand to receive their best income for many years. Earlier forecasts for an above average yield of 6.2 million tonnes of winter grains from 3.4 million hectares still holds good for New South Wales. Over half of the 4.1 million tonnes of wheat is currently in store and in good condition. It is possible that one million tonnes of wheat will be downgraded because of the rain damage. The price for undamaged wheat is currently $240 per tonne and feed wheat is currently $200 per tonne. The barley crop is expected to yield nearly one million tonnes, of which two-thirds is now in store.

Mr Armstrong: That is not right.

Mr AMERY: Yes, it is right. Barley is expected to fetch $180 per tonne. The winter cereal crop is expected to be valued at $1 billion. The record prices being paid are a result of a worldwide shortage of grains. World stocks of grain are the lowest for 20 years. Demand worldwide is expected to grow due to reduced harvests in the United States of America and Russia. The boost to the New South Wales economy as a result of the winter crop will be significant. The $1 billion crop, when the multiplier effect is taken into account, will result in a $4 billion to $5 billion boost to the State's economy. Rural communities in New South Wales will benefit the most, with incomes expected to dramatically increase as the first wheat cheques are received before Christmas. Prospects for the 350,000 hectares of summer crops - such as sorghum, sunflowers, cotton and soya beans - are currently very good as sowings progress under excellent conditions. This promises a further boost to rural communities as these crops mature in the middle of 1996. Whilst the rural outlook promises economic benefits, there are also other benefits in store for New South Wales. That is a saving to the taxpayer in drought-relief payments, which would be welcomed not only by the farming community but by all residents of the State. No farmer wants to be reliant on drought relief, and many farmers will be pleased to have an income for the first time in many years in some parts of the State.

Over the past year the percentage of the State that is drought declared fell from 98 per cent to 45 per cent, as I have just said. Drought-relief transport subsidy payments fell accordingly. In
Page 4252
December 1994 drought-relief transport subsidy payments amounted to more than $3 million per month; last month the figure dropped to $1.3 million. One thousand fewer farmers required that form of relief, which represents a substantial saving to the taxpayer. A sum of $13 million of my department's budget is directed towards drought relief and assistance. While it is too early to say precisely how much my department will save on drought relief and direct to other services, the amount will be significant. That is not to say, however, that the Government will in any way be withdrawing vital drought relief for farmers.

I recently wrote to my Federal colleague Senator Bob Collins asking him to extend exceptional circumstances drought relief for New South Wales. While many farmers will have an income for the first time in a long time, it will take many years for them to recover fully from the effects of this devastating drought. It appears that the Leader of the Opposition has some interest in rural matters. Perhaps he might ask a question on some of those matters - he might even get some of his National Party colleagues alongside him to show some interest in rural matters. It has been left to Labor Party backbench members to ask questions about rural issues. I reiterate that the Government still has an open cheque book for our farmers in need, and that policy will continue.

While the outlook for many farmers is rosy, for others it is not. Higher than normal feed grain prices will mean higher costs of production for our intensive livestock industries such as feedlots, piggeries and poultry producers. Prices for these commodities are at low levels due to increased competition from our international competitors. Continued depressed wool prices override any improvement in seasonal conditions and, unfortunately, industry forecasts suggest that there is little chance of any change until well into 1996. It would be pleasing if before Christmas we could declare that the drought is over. Whilst the southern oscillation index continues to be positive, increasing the likelihood of above average rainfall, it is fair to say that 45 per cent of the State is still drought declared. We can only hope that by this time next month we will be able to announce an end to the drought. Unfortunately, the drought is hanging on much longer than we had expected.

Questions without notice concluded.


Mr Speaker tabled the first report of the Parliament of New South Wales Joint Services for the year ended 30 June 1995.

Ordered to be printed.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [3.34]: I move:

That standing orders be suspended to allow passage through all stages at this sitting of the following bills: Education Reform Amendment (School Discipline) Bill, State Revenue Legislation Further Amendment Bill, WorkCover Legislation Amendment Bill and Roads Amendment (Street Vending) Bill.

Mr WEST (Orange) [3.34]: The Opposition opposes this motion. It is an abuse of procedure to have legislation as important as this rushed through the House. Although this legislation may have been discussed in the news media for some time, in most cases the detail has only just been made available to Opposition members. The WorkCover Legislation Amendment Bill is yet to be debated. The second reading has not yet been moved, yet it is to be subjected to a closure motion tonight. This practice is not parliamentary democracy. It does not give honourable members the chance to scrutinise legislation. Standing orders provide for five sitting days between the second reading and further debate on a bill. The Opposition will therefore oppose this motion.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [3.35], in reply: In accordance with the usual cooperation I have accorded the Opposition, the House should know that the shadow minister responsible has a copy of the second reading speech.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the honourable member for Eastwood that he will leave the Chamber if he continues to interject.

Mr WHELAN: A copy was provided before question time, which lasted for at least three quarters of an hour, so the shadow minister would have had the second reading speech for at least an hour. I made a mistake: I assumed that Opposition members read the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph Mirror to get their information. In relation to the State Revenue Legislation Further Amendment Bill, it is my understanding that the shadow minister responsible has been consulted by departmental officers.

Mr Phillips: Have you seen the circulated piece of paper? There are 51 amendments.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr WHELAN: This is the same cooperative spirit that was always accorded the previous Labor Opposition when the coalition Government was in office. I referred back to the Hansard records -

[Interruption]

Page 4253

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order and the Leader of the House will direct his response through the Chair.

Mr WHELAN: I was drawing on the precedents set by the former Government. There is ample precedent to rely on.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member for Eastwood continues to behave in such a manner, I will have him removed.

Mr WHELAN: In view of the protest lodged by Opposition members, the bills will have their second reading and, at a later stage today -

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will remain silent.

Mr WHELAN: The practice is not in accordance with standing orders, and for that reason I have moved this motion. The bills will have their second reading now, the debate will be adjourned, and at some stage later in the day - after Opposition members have been fully briefed -

[Interruption]

Did any present Minister who was a shadow minister in the previous Labor Opposition ever receive briefings from the former Government?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the House will direct his remarks through the Chair.

Mr WHELAN: That is what will happen today. If the Opposition needs an hour or more tonight, I shall be happy to provide that time.

Question - That standing orders be suspended - put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr McBride
Mr Amery Mr McManus
Mr Anderson Mr Markham
Ms Andrews Mr Martin
Mr Aquilina Ms Meagher
Mrs Beamer Mr Mills
Mr Carr Mr Nagle
Mr Clough Mr Neilly
Mr Crittenden Ms Nori
Mr Debus Mr E. T. Page
Mr Face Mr Price
Mr Gaudry Dr Refshauge
Mr Gibson Mr Rogan
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rumble
Ms Hall Mr Scully
Mr Harrison Mr Shedden
Ms Harrison Mr Stewart
Mr Hunter Mr Sullivan
Mr Iemma Mr Watkins
Mr Knight Mr Whelan
Mr Knowles Mr Yeadon
Mr Langton Tellers,
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Beckroge
Mr Lynch Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Ms Moore
Mr Beck Mr O'Doherty
Mr Blackmore Mr O'Farrell
Mr Causley Mr D. L. Page
Mr Chappell Mr Peacocke
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Phillips
Mr Collins Mr Richardson
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rixon
Mr Debnam Mr Rozzoli
Mr Downy Mr Schipp
Mr Ellis Mr Schultz
Mr Fahey Mrs Skinner
Ms Ficarra Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Small
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Tink
Mr Hazzard Mr Turner
Mr Humpherson Mr West
Dr Kernohan Mr Windsor
Mr Kinross Mr Zammit
Mr Longley
Dr Macdonald Tellers,
Ms Machin Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

Mr Moss Mr Photios
Mr Tripodi Mr Souris

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.


Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the introduction of the bills forthwith.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr KNIGHT (Campbelltown - Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads) [3.45]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The bill deals with a number of amendments to stamp duties, debits tax, land tax, payroll tax, business franchise licences and recovery of imposts legislation. Many of these amendments will validate variations to statute already approved by the former Treasurer or the current Treasurer. I now turn to
Page 4254
the major amendments to the various taxes. The more substantive matters include provisions affecting government trading and business enterprises, regional headquarters and the Sydney 2000 Olympics.

The bill enables a stamp duty and land tax liability to be imposed on certain government trading enterprises and government businesses. The bill also ensures that bank accounts of government trading enterprises and government businesses are not excluded from the payment of financial institutions duties and debits tax. These provisions will replace the current practice of government trading enterprises and government businesses paying duties and taxes at the Treasurer's direction.

In respect of regional headquarters, the bill removes the stamp duty exemption from loan security duty, financial institutions duty and debits tax, as companies now wishing to set up regional headquarters in New South Wales will be directly funded by the Department of State Development when it is deemed appropriate. In relation to the Sydney 2000 Games, the bill provides an exemption from FID and debits tax to the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games and the Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee. The bill also exempts the Australian Olympic Committee Incorporated and the New South Wales Olympic Council from FID in respect of accounts used solely for the purpose of receipts in connection with the year 2000 games.

The bill strengthens the current stamp duty anti-minimisation provisions in relation to contract splitting to overcome recent creative conveyance practices which are severely eroding the stamp duty conveyance base. The bill also provides an exemption for share ratios, extends the period by which certain persons may refinance their home loan without payment of stamp duty, extends the exemption for intergenerational rural property transfers to include assets ancillary to the land, provides an exemption for costs agreements of solicitors and barristers following the introduction of the Legal Profession Act and provides an exemption from the duty payable upon the incorporation of solicitors' practices.

The bill strengthens anti-avoidance provisions in the financial institutions duty provisions in relation to transfers of funds out of New South Wales. This amendment is required due to the identification by the Office of State Revenue of a financial institutions duty avoidance practice concerning such transfers. The avoidance scheme involves an abuse of the concession provided for short-term money market dealings, whereby funds are deposited directly with a short-term dealer prior to transfer out of New South Wales.

The Office of State Revenue has obtained ample evidence of this practice being utilised solely for the purpose of minimising financial institutions duty - FID - but only minimal evidence that the practice serves any legitimate business purpose. The FID anti-avoidance provisions will therefore be strengthened by requiring the full rate of duty to be paid on receipts which are deposited directly with a short-term dealer. The provision only applies to receipts in excess of $100,000 in a month and the legislation already contains a provision to exclude those circumstances in which the transaction is not solely or substantially for the purpose of reducing or avoiding duty. A complementary amendment to the definition of short-term dealing will restrict the ability of financial institutions to tailor retail customer accounts in order to obtain the benefit of the short-term money market concession. This will ensure that only genuine money market dealings obtain the benefit of the concession.

The bill amends the disclosure of information provisions in the Business Franchise Licences (Tobacco) Act to allow the New South Wales Department of Health access to data which will assist in enforcing the bans on tobacco advertising and detecting the selling of tobacco to under-age persons. The bill allows access by the WorkCover Authority to Office of State Revenue records which will assist the authority in its administration of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The bill also includes other matters of minor machinery nature. These include statute law amendments to the Recovery of Imposts Act 1963 which will overcome problems arising from the 1994 High Court decision in Royal Insurance relating to mistaken payments resulting from a misreading of a statute. I table detailed explanations of the bill for the assistance of honourable members. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Phillips.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr KNIGHT (Campbelltown - Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads) [3.52]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The legislation will implement the recommendations of the report of the intergovernmental working party on charging for street-vending structures on public roads. The purpose of the legislation is to enable payment in the nature of rent to be charged for structures on public roads used for street vending and to regulate when these payments may be charged. The capacity for councils to charge will only apply to permanent or semi-permanent, built vending structures, in built-up areas. The structures which the legislation will regulate include kiosks, fruit barrows, stalls and similar structures.

The Roads Act already authorises roads authorities for public roads to consent to the erection of structures on those roads. As members would be aware, councils, in the main, are the roads authorities for public roads in their areas except for freeways and Crown roads. The impetus for the formation of the working party arose out of
Page 4255
approaches from the Sydney City Council. The working party was requested to address concerns in respect of possible safety and traffic-efficiency impacts due to commercial pressures that could lead to a proliferation of street-vending structures. The working party comprised representatives from the Roads and Traffic Authority, Department of Local Government and Co-operatives, Sydney City Council, Department of Planning and Local Government and Shires Associations.

The working party recognised that street vending has been a longstanding and acceptable practice. It also recognised that it has been the practice of councils to charge in relation to street-vending facilities. The working party recommended that the appropriate council or other roads authority be specifically permitted to charge for the use of approved structures. The bill provides a framework within which councils can determine such things as the charging regime, the quantum of charges and the destination of funds as part of each specific commercial arrangement. While the ability to charge rent for vending structures would not, of itself, impact on road safety, there is a need for appropriate controls to ensure commercial incentives do not lead to an inappropriate proliferation of structures in public roads. Of course, this would be to the detriment of road safety and public convenience.

The legislation recognises the Government's concern by including controls to ensure that the rights of the public to use public roads, as well as traffic and road safety, are not compromised by a proliferation of street-vending activities. These controls include the requirement for a council to comply with guidelines for street vending issued jointly by the Roads and Traffic Authority and the Department of Local Government; any approval for the erection of a structure to be used for street vending to be for a specific period of up to seven years; a council being able to terminate approval in a change of traffic or other road safety circumstances; confining street-vending structures to built-up areas; and a council having to seek the concurrence of the Roads and Traffic Authority for any street-vending structure on a classified road. The measures proposed should contribute to the quality and vitality of city street life by providing a framework for the proper control of street-vending structures which balances commercial realities. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Beck.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [3.58]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The current WorkCover scheme cost problem, which was inherited by the present Government, must be addressed to ensure the financial viability of the scheme to meet claims of injured workers, as well as to avoid adverse effects on employment and the economy of this State. The package of measures contained in this bill, which takes into account submissions from many parties, is reasonable and balanced in terms of its effect on workers, employers, insurers, the legal and medical professions and others. The proposed changes involve the least possible negative effect on worker benefits, while providing appropriate new benefits such as those for work-related HIV-AIDS. The proposals concentrate on controlling costs through efficient delivery of benefits and, as far as possible, non-litigious methods of dispute resolution.

Turning to the details of the bill, reasonable restrictions will be applied to workers compensation claims for stress and similar conditions, which are defined by the amendments as "psychological injury". Compensation will not be payable unless the worker's employment was a substantial cause of the psychological injury and, secondly, the injury was not wholly or mainly caused by reasonable action by the employer relating to specified staffing matters. Such matters include promotion, performance appraisal, transfer, discipline and dismissal. These restrictions will not apply to physical symptoms or effects of psychological injury - for example, some cases of heart attacks - if they satisfy the normal criteria for compensable physical "injuries" under the Act.

At the procedural level, medical certificates provided in support of psychological injury claims will be required to comment on the possible link with the worker's employment. They must also describe the worker's condition using accepted medical terminology. Loose descriptions such as "stress" or "stress condition" would not meet that requirement. A number of changes contained in the bill relate to lump sum claims for permanent disability, covered by section 66 of the Act, and for related pain and suffering, section 67. As a cost control measure, further indexation increases in the maximum lump sums under those provisions - currently $160,950 for disability and $66,200 for pain and suffering - will be suspended. Maximum entitlements will thus be frozen at those levels, pending reactivation of indexation at some future date.

A positive measure included in the bill is the introduction of substantial lump sum entitlements for workers who contract employment-related HIV-AIDS or who suffer severe bowel injuries. At present, workers who become infected with HIV-AIDS in the course of their employment are entitled to weekly compensation and coverage of medical and hospital expenses. The amendments will supplement these payments by introducing specific items in the statutory table of disabilities for HIV infection and AIDS. As a result, lump sum benefits at the maximum disability and pain and suffering levels will be payable in those cases. This improvement will be particularly relevant to health workers, police and corrective services officers.
Page 4256
Lump sum entitlements are also provided for the first time for workers suffering severe bowel injuries - with the maximum being payable for injuries resulting in a permanent colostomy or ileostomy.

The existing lump sum provisions for permanent impairment of the back, neck or pelvis are amended by the bill to clarify the original legislative intention from 1987. That intention was that any pre-existing impairment should be deducted from a worker's claim, so that the employer would be liable only for impairment actually due to the work injury concerned. In the absence of such deductions, potential employers are reluctant to hire workers with prior back conditions because of concern about their exposure to additional compensation costs. Unfortunately, however, the Court of Appeal in decisions such as T.A.F.E. v Pitt, November 1992, has interpreted the provisions contrary to their original purpose.

Another item in the bill which is in the nature of clarification concerns assessment of the lump sum pain and suffering entitlement under section 67 of the Act. The proposed amendment reinforces that that entitlement is confined to the "permanent loss" resulting from a worker's injury, rather than encompassing other effects of the injury. In the area of lump sum claims for industrial deafness, the bill will impose an eligibility threshold, whereby compensation is payable only if the worker's hearing loss reaches 6 per cent. This addresses the problem of disproportionate administrative and other costs associated with claims for small amounts of hearing loss. The new provisions will, however, still allow workers in noisy jobs to claim the cost of periodic hearing tests to check whether they have reached the 6 per cent level.

Also in relation to hearing loss claims, the bill deals with what one judge of the Compensation Court recently described as "a racket of monumental proportions". That was a reference to the activities of certain firms of agents or consultants specialising in hearing loss claims, and of some solicitors who cooperate with them in exploiting the system. Serious concern has also been expressed by unions, individual workers and the Law Society. Unscrupulous practices adopted by such persons, in dealing with workers, include touting of a harassing nature, making misleading statements to encourage claims and use of personal information contrary to principles of privacy. For example, those agents obtain the names of potential new clients by falsely telling current clients that they must give names of co-workers as "witnesses".

Many workers have been left hundreds of dollars out-of-pocket as a result of fees improperly charged by these firms. In response, the bill designates claims for industrial deafness as "protected claims". Offences are created for agents who engage in prohibited conduct in relation to those claims. In addition, when claims result from such conduct, the agent is deprived of entitlement to payment from either the worker or the employer for services rendered. Persistent offenders are to be subject to banning or other restrictions by the WorkCover Authority, with appeals available to the Compensation Court. Solicitors who knowingly act for claimants referred to them following prohibited conduct by agents may also forfeit their entitlement to fees.

Another proposal in the bill that relates to lump sums is the partial abolition of entitlements to interest on those claims. The wide discretion that the Compensation Court currently has to order the payment of interest, back to the date of injury, is not found in other workers compensation schemes in Australia. Orders for the payment of interest have become a standard feature of awards of the court, to the point at which the total annual payout has grown out of proportion. Under the bill, interest on lump sums will be removed, except interest for late payment of compensation ordered by the court or under an agreed settlement. On the other hand, the discretion to order interest on weekly compensation will remain, but only from the date of claim, at the earliest. Time limits for the making of claims are also tightened in this legislation.

The Workers Compensation Act presently contains a nominal six-month time limit for lodging claims, which is honoured more in the breach than in the observance. Instead, the bill before the House provides that the normal time for lodgment of workers compensation claims is within three years after the worker's injury. But extensions will be allowed in exceptional circumstances. Sensibly, the amendments state that, if the date when a worker first becomes aware - for example, through diagnosis of a gradual disease - that he or she has received an injury is later than the injury date for legal purposes, the three years will run from that later date. Various other changes are made in the area of claim procedures to facilitate the fast and efficient determination of claims, with minimum litigation.

A study carried out by the Civil Justice Research Centre has found that, in many cases, workers' solicitors are in effect using the filing of proceedings in the Compensation Court as the first step in making a claim. That is not appropriate. Accordingly, the amendments will require workers to properly lodge their claim in the first instance on the employer or insurer, before dispute resolution avenues can be pursued. Existing provisions enacted earlier this year provide a three-month non-litigation period after lodgment on the employer of an industrial deafness claim. That is designed to allow a reasonable opportunity for the employer's insurer to assess the claim and, if applicable, to refer a dispute on the matter to a medical panel.

The current bill will extend that arrangement to all lump sum disability claims under section 66 of the Act. If the insurer processes the claim promptly and, within the initial three months, refers a resulting medical dispute to a medical panel, the
Page 4257
non-litigation period is extended until 14 days after the panel issues its certificate. That 14-day period is provided as a cooling-off period for further negotiations to settle the matter using the panel's certificate.

Another improvement in claim-related procedures is a new requirement for insurers always to give written notice to the worker when denying liability for a claim. That notice will be required to contain reasons for the denial, information about conciliation and a statement that the worker may consult his or her union or a lawyer. A copy of that notice will also form part of the information which insurers are required - following existing arrangements - to refer to the WorkCover Conciliation Service. Those automatic conciliation referrals by insurers are presently limited to cases in which initial liability to start weekly compensation payments is disputed.

The amendments will extend this arrangement to weekly compensation disputes involving termination or reduction of payments. This will operate as a useful mechanism to screen out non-genuine denials of liability. However, these provisions will not prevent the commencement of proceedings in the Compensation Court and will not impose conciliation as a pre-condition to those proceedings. Additional procedural changes will increase the effectiveness of conciliation. For example, conciliation officers will be authorised to require the production of documents and, in some cases, attendance at a conciliation conference. Workers, however, would not be required to produce documents or attend such conferences unless they have the benefit of legal representation. In relation to legal representation at conciliation conferences, the status quo will remain. That is, there will be no entitlement to that representation unless the conciliation officer and the parties agree.

A new provision will enable regulations to be made under which the senior conciliation officer may refer medical aspects of section 66 lump sum disputes for binding assessment by a medical panel. Medical panels will be made fairer by new requirements that on each panel there will have to be one medical practitioner nominated by employee organisations and one nominated by employer organisations. Those practitioners will also have to be appropriately qualified or experienced specialists. Medical panels - even those that give binding determinations - will be able to subsequently correct any miscalculations and similar errors. As an alternative to reference of matters to official medical panels, workers and employers will be free to agree to refer to an independent medical arbitrator of their choice medical questions relating to a claim, whether or not the parties have reached the point of dispute.

The parties may specifically agree that the independent medical practitioner's decision on some or all of the questions so referred will be treated as binding. The amendments state that - as an incentive for the worker's agreement to participate, and in recognition of legal and other expenses thus saved by the insurer - the insurer may agree to pay a participating worker an amount over and above his or her compensation entitlement. With regard to the operations of the Compensation Court, various provisions in the bill should allow the court to increase its efficiency and devote more of its time to the actual hearing of cases requiring determination in such a forum. Unfortunately, a kind of culture of pre-planned settlement on the day of hearing has developed, as referred to in the report by the Civil Justice Research Centre.

Under the bill, provisions will be introduced for cost penalties for unreasonable refusal by either party of a settlement offer or for prolonging litigation through failure to provide particulars which might have allowed such an offer. These provisions will ensure that legal representatives for both parties must seriously address the possibility of early settlement. These cost penalties are not directed at workers themselves and are not intended to result in unfair pressure on workers to accept inappropriate settlements.

If insurers are responsible for unreasonably incurring litigation costs or delays in handling claims, consequences can include adjustment of their conditions of licence and reductions in their management fees. The status of commissioners of the Compensation Court is enhanced by the amendments. The current provision preventing allocation to commissioners of pain and suffering claims is removed. The bill also allows flexibility for allocation arrangements between judges and commissioners to be updated or varied by future regulations. Appeals from decisions of judges of the Compensation Court to the Court of Appeal are to be limited to questions of law and the admission or rejection of evidence. Appeals from decisions of commissioners to judges will be on a generally similar basis.

Further prescriptive powers will allow greater control of maximum legal fees payable to representatives of both workers and employers or insurers. It is the Government's intention to reduce those fees by some 10 per cent in judge matters and further in commissioner matters. Medico-legal fees will also be subject to appropriate controls. In regard to fees for medical and hospital treatment of injured workers, the Act already provides regulatory powers to set maximum claimable amounts. The bill will specify that, to the extent that current or future regulations set such maximums, the worker will not be liable for any gap in fees that may emerge.

On the subject of workers compensation insurance, the bill includes several measures to deter breach by employers of their obligations in that regard. This includes the introduction of imprisonment for up to six months as an additional penalty option in appropriate cases. Avoidance of insurance obligations by a minority of employers is
Page 4258
grossly unfair to the majority who properly insure, since the latter are effectively subsidising the former. Regarding rehabilitation obligations of employers, the effectiveness of current provisions for workplace rehabilitation programs will be increased by new requirements for the preparation of return-to-work plans to assist re-employment of individual injured workers.

I turn now to the provisions of the bill relating to occupational health and safety. Maximum fines for workplace safety offences by employers will be increased by these amendments from $250,000 to $500,000 in the case of corporations. Corresponding increases are made in the penalties applicable to individual offenders. These changes are in line with recommendations in the Federal Industry Commission's recent report, "An Inquiry into Occupational Health and Safety", and will bring occupational health and safety penalty levels in this State into line with the highest in Australia. In the case of second or further offences, the amendments will provide that the maximum penalty increases by half as much again - bringing the possible maximum fine for a corporation in serious cases to $750,000. This does not mean that courts should simply increase the amount of the employer's previous fine by half. Rather, the court should - whether dealing with a first or repeat offence - give due regard to the maximum penalty. Possible imprisonment is also provided for second or further occupational health and safety offences.

The bill contains a range of other important improvements in regard to occupational health and safety enforcement and related arrangements. Current provisions making directors of a corporation which has been convicted of an offence against the Occupational Health and Safety Act personally liable to prosecution will be amended to remove ignorance as a specific defence. The availability of the defence of ignorance in these circumstances is inconsistent with the duty of care required of employers as regards the maintenance of safe working systems under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Instead, the main defence available to directors will be the more appropriate one of establishing due diligence in relation to the corporation's safety responsibilities. The defence of proving that he or she was not in a position to influence the corporation's conduct will also still be available.

In line with the arrangement applicable elsewhere in Australia and in most comparable overseas jurisdictions, the amendments will make clear that WorkCover safety inspectors can enter workplaces without giving prior notice. New provisions will allow authorised union officers also to enter workplaces to check in relation to safety breaches. Provisions on improvement and prohibition notices, which WorkCover inspectors can issue in the interests of safety, are transferred by this bill from the regulations to the Act itself. As a result, penalties for failure to comply with those notices are increased to more realistic levels. In addition, appropriate review and appeal avenues are made available to employers affected.

Another new provision will allow the Minister administering the Occupational Health and Safety Act to direct the WorkCover Authority to prepare special reports on workplace accidents or dangerous occurrences. Those reports will be able to be publicised, including by tabling in Parliament. The bill also contains numerous other miscellaneous refinements and clarifications to workers compensation legislation and occupational health and safety legislation. These are intended to save costs, remove anomalies, avoid litigation and increase administrative efficiency. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate on adjourned on motion by Mr Tink.


Mr LANGTON (Kogarah - Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism) [4.14]: The issue I raise today is of the utmost urgency: the need for work to commence immediately on the Wombarra drainage tunnel project in the electorate of Bulli. No honourable member in this House who recalls the events of April 1988 can deny the present need for action in this area, nor the reason why this motion must be given precedence. In the fierce storms of that month a young mother, Jenny Hagan, and her infant son, James, died in a mudslide at Coledale - a mudslide caused by the collapse of an embankment along the Illawarra rail line in a heavy rain storm. The Coledale-Wombarra area has high rainfall, steep slopes and unstable ground, and experiences severe drainage problems during intense storms. In a bid to prevent a repetition of the Coledale tragedy, State Rail developed a proposal to build a drainage tunnel and to divert stormwater from above the railway.

However, this Government, on coming to office, discovered that the Wombarra project had been hopelessly stalled. The situation had reached an impasse, work bans had been placed on construction work by the South Coast Labour Council, and an urgent issue of safety remained unresolved. Once again, I stress the urgency of this motion. The safety of people in the Illawarra and of train travellers in that region is paramount, and the Government is doing everything possible to protect these people. On 9 August I ordered an independent review of the problems at Wombarra and sought advice from water and environmental engineer, Ken Macoun, on whether the concerns of the local community had been fully addressed. In brief, Mr Macoun - a highly respected expert with 30 years' experience - found an urgent need to embark on the project. In fact, his report stated:

A dangerous situation currently exists at Wombarra in regard to probable failure of the railway embankment in severe storms.

Mr Macoun went on to say that in his view there had been "undue delay" in solving the drainage problem. He also warned that if damage to property or loss of life resulted in action on the
Page 4259
Wombarra drainage project a case could be made against the State Rail Authority and against those responsible for impeding it. Despite the findings of Mr Macoun's independent review, the Wombarra drainage project remains stalled. The South Coast Labour Council bans on the work remain in place despite numerous efforts by the Government to negotiate an acceptable solution without compromising public safety. The secretary of the South Coast Labour Council, Mr Paul Matters, has been contacted regularly - almost on a daily basis.

The opposition to this crucial project has not come from the unions alone. The authority has been forced to battle a small group of opponents to the project who want the area returned to its natural state. No-one in this Chamber could question the Government's commitment to the environment. I stress that the project is not detrimental to the Illawarra environment. It has been examined, and re-examined, by experts in the field. The relevant lobby group calls on the Government to await the outcome of Wollongong City Council's flood management strategy, which is currently being formulated. This strategy is indeed being prepared by Wollongong City Council, but I am informed that its completion is at least two years away. If honourable members need an example of the potential for disaster over the next two years they need only look at the downpours, freak storms and flash floods experienced by Sydney since 1993. I stress the urgent nature of the motion and the need for work to commence immediately on the Wombarra drainage project. Again I quote from Mr Macoun's report:

As a matter of corporate responsibility and public policy, such a situation - once it becomes known - cannot be allowed to continue without some appropriate action being taken.

Honourable members owe it to the family and friends of Jenny and James Hagan to debate the motion, which must take precedence. It is not a matter for politics; it is a matter of human safety. I urge the House to bring the matter on and to assist the Government to prevent the tragedy of Coledale from occurring again.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [4.19]: My motion is urgent because of the Government's imminent finalisation of a deal over the Sydney showground with Rupert Murdoch's Fox studios, the appalling betrayal by the Government of the community by gazetting State environmental planning policy 47 three weeks ago, and the non-consultative nature of the SEPP. A report to be considered by South Sydney City Council tonight will announce a developers' Christmas special, with no public scrutiny or consultation of a major development application for the showground, and proposing that the Australian Labor Party mayor have delegated authority to unilaterally make submissions. It is urgent that the House be reminded that the Premier, who is known in my electorate, sadly, as the Premier for urban blight, has an appalling record on inner city planning and development. The last assaults on the Moore Park area occurred during the time he was Minister for Planning and Environment, that is, from 1984 to 1988.

During that time the Labor Government sold part of Moore Park known as the Brambles site, 3.6 leased hectares of the Macquarie bequest, which was planned to be returned to the park but which is now the Supacenta. Without an environmental impact statement it sited the Sydney Football Stadium in Moore Park adjacent to a residential area with no adequate public transport. Under section 101 it approved the Paddington markets without consultation with residents and without an environmental impact statement, creating a traffic and parking nightmare every weekend for Paddington residents. Despite election promises the Government recently announced a toll on the Eastern Distributor. It has refused to implement a mass transit public transport system for the inner east, and has abandoned a regional environmental plan for the showground-Moore Park area.

It is urgent, therefore, that this House condemns the consequences of this political planning, and that it debates the planning issues raised by the Government's plans for the showground. The Government is now proceeding with a 50-year lease of 24 hectares of valuable public land to a private overseas company for a peppercorn rent. The land will be used in a way that will severely impact on the surrounding densely populated residential area and could destroy Sydney's most significant parkland complex. The Government is unilaterally implementing planning provisions on the site and bypassing established processes in the face of strong community opposition.

It is urgent that this House be made aware of the processes that have been overturned in the showground deal. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act requires a rezoning process before consideration of any development application. Such a process would have been initiated by South Sydney City Council and involved public participation and consideration of alternative uses. As a check on this process, there is a right of appeal to the Land and Environment Court and the Supreme Court. Bearing in mind the Government's undertakings over the last six months, to consult the State environmental planning policy is outrageous. The SEPP provides that notification of residents and South Sydney City Council about development applications is at the whim of the Minister. Submissions are not invited. The Minister is not required to have any regard to anything that might be said in representations on development applications.

Important matters such as noise traffic and impact on adjoining areas need only be considered by the Minister; they are not a basis for refusal. It is important that the House examines the specifics
Page 4260
of State environmental planning policy as a matter of urgency. The definition of amusement and recreational facilities in the SEPP includes amusement rides and electronically simulated experiences. Is that not another way of describing a theme park? Why are the shops permitted under the SEPP limited to film-related retail outlets? That part of the SEPP obviously clears the way for a major shopping centre, especially having regard to the permission given to the Minister in clause 16 to approve a total floor space of 144,000 square metres. This is more floor space than the floor area of Bondi Junction Plaza and Eastgardens combined.

The Government's intentions in specifying this amount of floor space should be made clear. Why is subdivision permitted? Why are public events permissible on the part of the land not covered by the lease to Fox? What is the Government planning? It is urgent that this House is informed why the Government and Fox studios are rushing through the major concept development application as a Christmas special to South Sydney City Council. The report the council will be examining tonight refers to the limited time frame that the council has to prepare a submission, so local residents will not be consulted. Council is deciding tonight whether to authorise the Australian Labor Party mayor to make submissions under delegated authority.

It is outrageous that the public has been disenfranchised and that the SEPP does not oblige the Minister for Planning and Urban Affairs to call for or accept submissions from the public about such factors as noise, traffic and crowds. It is outrageous that the first development application goes to council as a Christmas holiday special. It is important that the House examines the probity issue. Why is the Government giving Murdoch as much land as he wants for as long as he likes for whatever reason he chooses? It is urgent that this House questions the probity of the Government doing this deal with Murdoch while it also is the consent authority for developments on the showground under the SEPP. [Time expired.]

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [4.24]: I ask the House to give precedence to my motion for urgent consideration. The New South Wales Government has failed to indemnify charities that are currently at risk of being sued by criminals who work for those charities pursuant to community service orders. The community service order scheme allows people who would otherwise go to gaol to be given a second chance. Those people work for various community groups and charities such as the St Vincent de Paul Society, the Salvation Army, the Anglican Home Missions, the Sydney City Mission, and the Wesley Central Mission. In the past week or so the Association of Major Charitable Organisations has told the Government that that group of charities has major concerns about the fact that they are being sued by people who work for them.

Because of the Government's failure to act, the St Vincent de Paul Society has now been served with two claims involving a total of $500,000. The Salvation Army has been served with a claim for $250,000. It is clear that the House should give urgency to this matter because various charitable organisations are being left to carry the burden of actions by offenders they have tried to help by allowing them to fulfil community service orders under their auspices. Many other charitable organisations, including 200 agricultural shows around the State, have been directed by the umbrella organisation not to take community service order recipients. Hundreds of small community service organisations are also in the same position. Some of the smaller community service organisations are in greater danger because they may not have the same insurance as the larger organisations. They may be exposing themselves to the risk of being bankrupted if they are sued by offenders subject to community service orders.

The problem is that charities are in desperate need of additional assistance because of the Christmas period. However, they cannot take on people who have been granted community service orders because the Government will make no attempt to resolve the problem. A number of community, Anglican and Catholic organisations are missing out on that labour as they approach the Christmas period. Many in the community are in need of help from these charitable organisations, but those organisations now have to tell those people that they do not have sufficient resources because the Government will not resolve the problem relating to the recipients of community service orders who normally work for them.

This matter is urgent because thousands of people serving community service orders are now being told that charities are unable to accept them because by doing so they are putting themselves at risk. Charities, the needy in the community and those serving community service orders all deserve to have the problem resolved. The Government should indemnify charities that are otherwise doing the right thing by the community so that charities are not at risk of being sued for millions of dollars. It is apparent that Labor is going soft on criminals but is getting tougher on charities. What a great way for a government to go! It is getting tougher on charities and letting the criminals off the hook.

Apparently the charities to which I have referred have not donated to the Labor Party Christmas fund. Scrooge McCarr does not care about charities. The Government only cares about going soft on crime. It is urgent that the problem be sorted out so that those serving community service orders have somewhere to go. If they do not, the prison population could double in the next 12 months. I call on the Government and Scrooge McCarr to resolve the problem, and I ask the House to give precedence to my motion for urgent consideration. [Time expired.]

Page 4261

Question - That the notice for urgent consideration of Mr Langton be proceeded with - put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Clough Mr Neilly
Mr Crittenden Ms Nori
Mr Debus Mr E. T. Page
Mr Face Mr Price
Mr Gaudry Dr Refshauge
Mr Gibson Mr Rogan
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rumble
Ms Hall Mr Scully
Mr Harrison Mr Shedden
Ms Harrison Mr Stewart
Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan
Mr Knight Mr Tripodi
Mr Knowles Mr Watkins
Mr Langton Mr Whelan
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Yeadon
Mr Lynch Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Ms Moore
Mr Beck Mr O'Doherty
Mr Blackmore Mr O'Farrell
Mr Causley Mr D. L. Page
Mr Chappell Mr Peacocke
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Phillips
Mr Collins Mr Richardson
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rixon
Mr Debnam Mr Rozzoli
Mr Downy Mr Schipp
Mr Ellis Mr Schultz
Mr Fahey Mrs Skinner
Ms Ficarra Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Small
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Tink
Mr Hazzard Mr Turner
Mr Humpherson Mr West
Dr Kernohan Mr Windsor
Mr Kinross Mr Zammit
Mr Longley
Dr Macdonald Tellers,
Ms Machin Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Photios
Mr Hunter Mr Souris

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr LANGTON (Kogarah - Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism) [4.36]: I move:

That this House supports the Government in its decision to seek the immediate lifting of work bans, in place since November 1994, on the construction of the Wombarra drainage tunnel.

I thank the House for agreeing to debate what is clearly a matter of the utmost urgency. Wombarra, a small community about 17 kilometres north of the centre of Wollongong, is situated on land that rises fairly steeply from the coast to the Illawarra escarpment. Geographically, the escarpment means that creeks draining the area are steep and exhibit flash flooding characteristics. The Illawarra railway line was constructed through this area over 100 years ago. The line was officially opened in 1888. During construction a number of drainage culverts were built where the line crossed creeks, forming a kind of unofficial flood mitigation scheme.

Unfortunately, the flood mitigation scheme was, in the words of Ken Macoun, a two-edged sword. While it reduced the impact of the more common floods, it posed serious danger in times of those rarer, more severe floods that are large enough to wash over the embankment and cause mud slides. The day-to-day benefits lulled many in Wombarra into a false sense of security. Houses were built downstream of the railway. Others were built close to, or even over, creek beds. A tragic reckoning for this complacency came in the early hours of 30 April 1988, and the Hagan family paid the ultimate price. I do not intend to revisit what is a truly horrific memory.

State Rail subsequently carried out numerous investigations and larger drainage culverts were installed at 25 locations in the Illawarra area. Some of those culverts were blocked off following complaints from residents who feared they would lose the benefits of the old, unofficial flood mitigation effect. In June 1991 a storm and heavy rain again created high-risk conditions. Thankfully, no lives were lost but the storm caused damage to the railway embankment and private property in the Wombarra area. Investigations were renewed, a technical working party was set up and an environmental impact statement was released for comment in 1993. This environmental impact statement nominated as the preferred option the Wombarra drainage project, which the Government is now seeking to implement without further delay.

The project is not without its detractors. A group of residents opposed to the project, the Wombarra Preservation Group, has presented an alternative proposal known as option Q. That proposal was later updated to become option Q95. In summary, option Q95 involved the return of creeks to their original courses, the construction of
Page 4262
retention dams in the area and a full catchment management study. A technical working party formed to examine the original option Q said that the authors had little, if any, understanding of the basic scientific and engineering principles involved. The party claimed that they had no grasp of the scale of the potential flooding problem. Mr Macoun's report found that that position had hardly changed at all, despite the updating to option Q95. In fact, he said that the construction of detention basins could actually create further dangers to the surrounding area.

Returning the creeks to their natural state appears to be a suitable option from a strictly natural environmental point of view. But, as Mr Macoun points out, the natural state of these creeks is not stable. This option would also require the removal and relocation of many of the homes in the area. The catchment management study requested by the Wombarra preservation group is uncontested. Wollongong City Council has already embarked on such a study and is currently preparing a flood management strategy for the area. I am advised, however, that this strategy will take a minimum of two years to complete - and that is two years we cannot afford to risk. Opposition to the Wombarra drainage project spread from the lobby group to the South Coast Labour Council, which imposed work bans on the basis that the project did not go far enough. The Labour Council claimed that the tunnel, an integral part of the project, ran directly under the Scarborough fire station and could jeopardise the safety of volunteer firefighters, who were its union members. That fear has been rejected by Mr Macoun, who in his report said:

If that is indeed the ground for the objection, I can see no rational technical basis for it.

Opposition on the grounds that the tunnel would allow water to become polluted has been dismissed by Mr Macoun as irrelevant. The pollution of the water would need to be remedied at the source, irrespective of any improvement to the drainage system. Mr Macoun's report tells us:

A dangerous situation exists at Wombarra in connection with the probable failure of the railway embankment in severe storms.

The 1991 storm that I mentioned earlier, which caused damage to property only, has been rated as the kind of storm we can expect once every 10 years. It had a water flow of about one cubic metre per second. In the kind of storm we could expect once every hundred years, we could expect flooding to increase from one cubic metre per second to between 10 and 15 cubic metres of water per second. And for the massive storm that comes along once every thousand years, the estimated flow goes from about one cubic metre per second to between 10 and 15 cubic metres per second, to between 28 and 82 cubic metres per second. In the 10-year storm we could expect damage to homes, roads, electricity supplies and phone lines. Above that intensity there is the potential for loss of life - the death of local residents, road users, and crews and passengers on trains. To quote Mr Macoun, these risks "are not insignificant".

We need only consider the Dapto storm of February 1984, when the rainfall came close to what is known as probably maximum precipitation, to remember just what risk we are taking by failing to act on the Wombarra drainage project. I, like I am sure every member of this House, am not prepared to play Russian roulette with the lives of Wombarra residents. We have a moral obligation to take action to safeguard those people. It was for this reason that last week I directed the State Rail Authority to take all necessary steps to proceed with the construction of the Wombarra drainage tunnel. I am not prepared to have public safety compromised by continual delays and inaction.

I repeat: the Macoun report found that a dangerous situation existed at Wombarra in regard to the probable failure of the railway embankment in severe storms. It found that there had been undue delay in dealing with the problem. The report recommended that the State Rail Authority review catchment boundaries, develop a strategy to deal with flood flows that may as yet result from the Kembla Coal and Coke dam being abandoned, proceed with investigations and development of a plan for dealing with extreme flood, and proceed with the construction of the Wombarra drainage tunnel within one month. The State Rail Authority has complied with the recommendations of the review, and Mr Macoun has confirmed the compliance with his report. The safety of the Wombarra community and rail passengers has always been this Government's first priority. I have been patient for long enough. I have heard enough of Wombarra children who are still too afraid to go to sleep when it is raining. I ask that all members of the House support the motion. I call on each and every member to provide full backing for action that will safeguard the residents of Wombarra.

Mr MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [4.44]: The Opposition believes that this motion is worth while, and will support it. History, however, particularly since March this year, tells a very different story. I am surprised that the Minister for Transport would want the House to know the details of what has happened since March. I am not sure that all Government members support the Minister and this motion. The Illawarra Mercury of 5 May ran an article under the headline "Wombarra protesters digging in", which stated:

After almost six weeks of cold, sleepless nights and the tedium of manning a 24-hour picket line, a determined group of northern suburbs residents is planning to dig in for the winter months.

On March 31, they manned the barricades to stop contractors moving in to begin work on the controversial $7 million Wombarra drainage tunnel, claiming the project could put their homes and lives at risk.

The Minister for Transport responded to some of those observations. The article further stated:

Page 4263

Yesterday, on the eve of talks in Sydney with Transport Minister Brian Langton over the SRA project's future, residents' spokesman Jolyon Sykes declared: "Our resolve to stop this project has never been stronger and we are all here for as long as it takes.

"We now have 66 local residents who are being rostered on the picket line day and night."

The article states that Wollongong City Council was also criticised for approving the project "in the face of unacceptable risks". I do not know the Minister's response to the article. The Illawarra Mercury of 12 May 1995 stated:

NSW Transport Minister Brian Langton will meet next week with residents opposed to the construction of a $7 million drainage tunnel at Wombarra.

Work on the tunnel has been held up since the South Coast Labor Council unions placed bans on it earlier this year.

Yesterday, newly elected Greens MLC Ian Cohen joined the residents' campaign for an "environmentally friendly" solution to the drainage problem.

Mr Cohen . . . accused Premier Bob Carr of betraying his promise to safeguard the coastline.

Again the Minister is silent. I wonder what his response was. Simply, the Minister was not prepared to meet the people on this issue. The Illawarra Mercury of 2 June stated:

The South Coast Labor Council has reaffirmed work bans imposed on construction of the controversial Wombarra drainage tunnel.

The decision follows last week's announcement by State Transport Minister Brian Langton that he had approved construction of the tunnel, part of City Rail's drainage remedial work.

Residents were not altogether pleased with the Minister and decided to try their luck elsewhere. The article continued:

Members of the Wombarra preservation group met Environment Minister Pam Allan in Sydney yesterday to express their concerns.

Opposition members do not know what response the preservation group received from the Minister for the Environment. They were looking for a sympathetic ear. The article continued:

Mr Sykes [the residents' spokesman] said the council would seek a meeting with Mines Minister Bob Martin urging him to use his discretionary powers to force mine owners . . .

I have more yet. I have an interesting article concerning the honourable member for Bulli. He is a friend of mine, and quite a decent man. I was shocked to read an article in the Illawarra Mercury of 17 June 1995 that stated:

"Mr McManus has refused to see us, time and time again, even though we represent the majority of his electorate," organiser Ian Miles said.

"Once again he is not here so we will have to mail him a copy of our report. He should be representing us in Parliament."

It is obvious that the honourable member for Bulli did not impress those people, who are looking for a solution to the problem. I do not believe that the Minister has attempted to resolve the issue and I do not believe that he has taken adequate steps to overcome what is obviously a problem. This is a serious matter. I agree with everything that the Minister has said about property and lives being at risk and about the danger that could be caused if the problems are not resolved. Finally, the long awaited report - it was due for release on 24 August but was not released until 8 September - recommended that the Wombarra drainage project should continue. Mr Macoun recommended that the State Rail Authority review the catchment boundaries and develop a strategy to deal with flood flows. He also said:

. . . in my view there has been undue delay in solving the drainage problems - if damage to property or loss of life results then a case could be made against the SRA and against those responsible for impeding the SRA.

He said also that the people opposed to the project did so on philosophical grounds: they considered that the project was environmentally unsustainable and that a preferable solution was based on restoration as far as practicable of the natural environment. Those matters have been dealt with. Importantly, the report also stated:

Construction of the tunnel project should be delayed no more than one month so that any modifications arising from the first two actions can be efficiently taken into account.

It is three months since the report was released, yet nothing has happened. The Opposition supports the motion, but it is critical of the Minister for not resolving the problems of the residents. No doubt some sincere residents believe that they have a bona fide case, but the Minister has been unable to wrestle with the situation or face its realities. What is the Minister doing to overcome a problem which could endanger lives and property? He has been the responsible Minister since March, and a report was commissioned and released on 8 September -

Mr Langton: I commissioned it!

Mr MERTON: Indeed, but what does the Minister intend to do now it is released? The Labor Party's problem was highlighted by the CRA contracts dispute at Weipa: Labor members have a fundamental conflict of interest when dealing with the union movement and traditional supporters who have funded the party for many years - their hands are tied behind their back. The Labor Party is not prepared to bite the bullet and take decisive action.

In the second last week of the sitting, the Minister says, "Please, Parliament, can you do something to help me?" The Government was elected by 48.5 per cent of the people of New South Wales to do something about their problems. It is about time the Minister took the appropriate steps. The Opposition does not want the Minister to resign, because many people want the tunnel built. The honourable member for Bulli has sincerely spoken about this tunnel for a long time, and he is 100 per cent correct, but the Minister is letting the team down; he has people prepared to back him,
Page 4264
and it is time for him to bite the bullet. The Opposition calls on the Minister to take decisive action to protect the people of Bulli and the Wombarra area.

Mr McMANUS (Bulli) [4.54]: In my time as the member for Bulli and, before that, as the member for Burragorang, two dates will never be erased from my mind: 30 April 1988 and 15 June 1991. In 1988 the Hagans were killed in that unfortunate accident, and at 2 a.m. on 15 June 1991 I was disturbed from my home by an upset resident from Monash Street to be told about major flooding in the region. To my horror, I could not investigate the complaints from either the Helensburgh or the Thirroul sector because the roadway had been cut. The torrential rain placed many residents and their homes in jeopardy. The township was cut off from the rest of the northern suburbs, and since that incident residents in the vicinity of the waterways live in fear of heavy rainfall. They are concerned that their problems are falling on deaf ears because a small number of residents are opposed to the construction of the tunnel, which is designed to accommodate flood waters in the event of flash flooding. It will direct such water away from the homes which now stand in the path of the flood water.

Unfortunately, the South Coast Labour Council has joined the opposition to this tunnel even though all the expertise on this issue indicates that the tunnel should proceed. In the absence of an adequate alternative, the Government accepted the recommendations of numerous government departments. At the request of those opposing the tunnel, Mr Macoun's report referred to all the previous reports, and he recommended that the tunnel development proceed. Opponents of the tunnel continually moved the goalposts every time the matter almost reached finality. In the early part of the argument, we heard that their concerns were on environmental grounds; now that we have almost reached the finality of the assessment process - when all the relevant experts say that the tunnel should go ahead - the opponents are concerned not so much with the environment but with some flood study conducted by Wollongong City Council. As late as today I spoke to the lord mayor of that council. I was given assurances that even though approval has been given for the study to take place, it is not to replace the tunnel suggested by Mr Macoun. In fact, the proposed facility is to complement the tunnel and give the people of the Wombarra region some peace of mind.

The residents of this area should not be continually afraid that their homes will be washed into the sea. We have had rain over the last couple of days. The Minister for Transport has met with Mr Thomas of Monash Street, along with other groups. Mr Thomas' daughter, Cherie Joy Thomas, aged 11 years, is unable to sleep and cries half the night when a storm is possible. She is in fear for herself, her family and her home. Her brother Blake, aged eight years, is in the same position. That is an example of one of many families in the Wombarra region who are living in torment every time there is the possibility of torrential rain in the township of Wombarra.

In June 1991 when the storms washed away many of the roads in the region, Michelle McGuire of Monash Street walked into water one foot deep flowing through her front yard and lost her footing. If her father, Don Potter, who lives next-door, had not helped her she would have been washed out to sea and another death would have occurred. These matters are not taken into account by the opponents of this project. The time has come for proper discussions with the Minister. As the local member of Parliament, I am sick to death of people saying that the Government has not communicated on this issue. For eight years, since Mrs Hagan and her son were killed, I have taken determined action on this matter. However, at the death knock of the assessment stage of the proposal, people are coming out of the woodwork who are not prepared to let sanity prevail to ensure that the people of the Wombarra region are safe.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [4.58]: How ironical that the Minister for Transport has spoken on the motion and the honourable member for Bulli uses the opportunity to attack his own constituents - the people who sent him here to represent them. The honourable member for Bulli has refused to meet these people. They visited his office and he was not there.

Mr McManus: I have seen them four times in four years.

Mr HARTCHER: An average of once a year - is that it? What a cynical and arrogant attitude for a member of Parliament who is supposed to represent people who are concerned for their lives and property. The member uses this motion to criticise those people. How many members of Parliament have moved motions attacking their own constituents? When a delegation representing 80 per cent of affected residents went to see the honourable member for Bulli, he was not there - he was at Engadine.

Mr McManus: I was doing interviews, you clown.

Mr HARTCHER: You asked the question, you answer it. The honourable member for Bulli and the Minister for Transport have alienated not only the people in the electorate of Bulli but the South Coast Labour Council, that well-known pro-Liberal organisation that the Opposition is the mouthpiece for. He is not attacking the Liberal Party, not attacking big business and not attacking all the other sacred cows he always enjoys attacking. The residents of his electorate and the South Coast Labour Council are rightly upset about a number of issues.

Mr McManus: I will send them to see you.

Page 4265

Mr HARTCHER: Yes, I would be glad if you send them to me because the Opposition is concerned about the welfare of people. The members of the Opposition will happily see those people. But it gets worse! These people have been worrying about this issue for years. The Minister's proposal, backed clearly by the honourable member for Bulli, is to ride roughshod over them with total indifference to their views, with total indifference to the environment, with total indifference to the Nature Conservation Council - which has also expressed concern - and with total indifference to the South Coast Labour Council. The honourable member for Wollongong, who has not participated in this debate, is well-known to be close to the South Coast Labour Council, and he shares the same left-wing views, unlike the honourable member for Kiama, who holds, shall we say, more right-wing views. I move:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after "House" with a view to inserting instead "condemns the Minister for Transport and the member for Bulli for their lack of proper consultation and their indifference to the environment and the views of local residents relating to the Wombarra drainage tunnel.

The Minister for Transport and the honourable member for Bulli, in the true fashion of Labor governments, are determined to ride roughshod over the Opposition. They do not want to consult, they have made their decision and they want the South Coast Labour Council to buckle. The South Coast Labour Council has made it clear that it intends to maintain the bans for as long as it takes. The honourable member for Bulli will not consult and will not show an attitude of concern for the environment. All the member is worried about is ensuring that the Minister for Transport is off the hook. The issue is not the construction of the tunnel. The issue is the member's representation of his electorate and the indifference of the Minister for Transport to the environment and the views of the residents. The Opposition is concerned that the people of this area are properly protected and yet the Government's study conducted by Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation showed that the tunnel is potentially subject to slip.

Mr McManus: Rubbish.

Mr HARTCHER: It is there in Questions and Answers. The tunnel is susceptible to slip. It is a question of how real the risk is and that is something which few experts can determine.

Mr McManus: The area is honeycombed by coal mines.

Mr HARTCHER: Of course the area is honeycombed by coalmines. So why put another major tunnel there when Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation said it is a potential danger.

Mr SULLIVAN (Wollongong) [5.03]: I join in this debate because of the need to arrive at a solution to the continuing problems experienced in the north Illawarra area. Many people are at risk, including local residents and people who travel by the rail system and, to a lesser extent, along the coast road. An impasse has developed in finding a solution to this problem, and those people are caught up in that. Honourable members are well aware of the past record of problems that afflicted this area. The Hagan family is the most glaring case when, in 1988, it lost two of its members and its home was totally demolished. There have been well-documented cases of damage to other dwellings because of drainage problems in the area. All of this is compounded firstly by the major alterations to the natural drainage system and to the landform as a result of the construction of the railway and, secondly, by mining activity in north Illawarra.

One of the fortunate things that has occurred in the Illawarra during the past year is that we have been going through a period of unusually dry weather; but this is the exception rather than the rule. In early 1970 there was a period of 14 weeks when the school where I was teaching had to cancel every sport day for 14 weeks. The same happened with weekend sport activities. That is a long time to have continual heavy rainfall. I am well aware of occasions when rainfall of more than 10 inches has been recorded at many points along the escarpment. We are all familiar with flooding that can occur rapidly at places around Lake Illawarra, Dapto, Windang, Albion Park Rail and Oak Flats. I am familiar with those occurrences because that is near where I live, but I am also aware that exactly the same problems occurred when 10 inches of rainfall were recorded within 24 hours at Mount Keira. Following that, major problems were experienced at Coledale and Wombarra.

It is essential that some remedial action commence. Given the explanation by the Minister and the local member that detailed studies have been carried out, the Macoun recommendation remains the only feasible option that those with expertise in this field have come up with. It is time to put the recommendation into action and provide a solution to the problem so that more lives are not lost. We should put behind us this risk not only to local residents but also to commuters on both road and rail who travel over this area daily.

Mr LANGTON (Kogarah - Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism) [5.08], in reply: I have been in this Parliament for more than 12 years and this is the first time I have heard a response to a speech which quite clearly was made without any relevance to the motion, or apparently that speaker having listened to it. The response consisted entirely of poorly connected readings of press clippings. It was a disgrace. This problem has been there for a long time, as the honourable member for Bulli said. As a result of investigation of all sorts of problems, and the environmental impact statement, the tunnel contract was awarded to Transfield on 31 October 1994. The honourable member for Gosford was a member of this House then. This Government came to office on 4 April
Page 4266
this year and I found that the previous Government had done absolutely nothing for six months. This Government had to take some action. I went to the site three times and looked at the problem, at the invitation of the honourable member for Bulli. I invited the local residents to meet me in my office in Parliament House, and following that meeting I realised that there was a problem which would be very difficult to resolve.

I called in an independent consultant, Ken Macoun, who, as I mentioned earlier, is a man of extremely high repute. He is an expert and a highly respected water and environmental engineer with 30 years experience. That gentleman went there and looked at all the issues, reviewed all the documentation and the environmental impact statements and reported to me. He said, inter alia, that total community acceptance of an overall solution was unlikely because of the polarisation of community attitudes. He also said that his recommendation to me that we go ahead with the construction of the tunnel was unlikely to be accepted by proponents of the alternative proposal, because of their philosophical stance and because of their lack of understanding of the technical issues.

Regardless of that, I asked Mr Macoun to communicate with the State Rail Authority to ensure that it would be implementing the recommendations of the report. Secondly, I asked him to go to Wombarra and meet with both the pro-tunnel and the anti-tunnel groups. In the company of the honourable member for Bulli, Mr Macoun met with both groups. He said, "We need to talk it through a bit more." I gave him more time to talk it through with both groups in Wombarra to make sure that everyone was given every possible chance to contribute. The Government could not have been more fair than that. This Government has achieved a great deal more in the short time it has been in office - we have been in office only since 4 April - than the previous Government achieved in seven years. The previous Government sat on that recommendation and the contract that was signed from 31 October 1994.

The problem at Wombarra will be very difficult to resolve. The honourable member for Baulkham Hills - that fool from Baulkham Hills - suggested that the Government should have done something ages ago; another honourable member opposite suggested that we should not do anything! Honourable members who sit opposite are fools, and for that reason they will grow old sitting on the Opposition benches. No government issue has involved more community consultation than this issue. The work done by my colleague the honourable member for Bulli to try to get the opposing groups together has been outstanding. The honourable member for Baulkham Hills also mentioned the fact that last week I directed the State Rail Authority to immediately get on with the work in the interests of public safety. That work will progress regardless of the ignorance and stupidity of honourable members opposite.

Question - That the words stand - resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.


Mr TINK (Eastwood) [5.15]: The crisis in juvenile justice in New South Wales deepens. This afternoon during question time the Minister responsible for juvenile justice, the Hon. Ron Dyer, launched an attack in another place on the former children's magistrate, the very well-respected Mr Rod Blackmore. Mr Dyer accused Mr Blackmore of being out of touch and misinformed, and accused him of never having had responsibility for running a government department. It is understandable that the Minister responsible for juvenile justice is a little bit touchy about Mr Blackmore's comments reported today in the Daily Telegraph Mirror, because the fact of the matter is that they are the truth; the fact is that juvenile justice is going backwards in this State.

The points made by Mr Blackmore this morning were, briefly, that there have been a number of inquiries into juvenile justice and those with an interest in juvenile justice know where juvenile justice should be going in this State, particularly in the context of a white paper, which has been accepted by all parties in the Parliament. That white paper was the work of the former Government. Not to be outdone, the new Government has proposed two further reviews, one to be conducted by the Government, another by the Ombudsman. As Mr Blackmore pointed out, the Government review is going to be conducted in secret. Mr Blackmore also made some comments about the track record of Mr Buttrum, the new permanent head of the Department of Juvenile Justice, and the shortcomings of Mr Buttrum when he was last involved in matters related to juvenile justice in the early 1980s.

Mr Blackmore also made the very important point that the result of closing down the Minda detention centre and concentrating on country centres will be gaols for Aboriginal juveniles in those centres. The very important point is to ensure that there is an evening-out of the numbers and types of juveniles in detention centres so that that does not occur. I believe it is important to detail Mr Blackmore's background. He was commissioned as a stipendiary magistrate in 1970; became a coroner in Parramatta in 1971; was a magistrate in Maitland from 1972 to 1977; and from 1978 until recent times was a senior special magistrate and a senior magistrate in the Children's Court. For the Minister in the other place to say that with his experience Mr Blackmore is not able to make comments on juvenile justice, particularly in the departmental context, is to miss the point.

Page 4267

Day after day, troubled juveniles appeared before Mr Blackmore with their problems. He was in the unique position of being able to determine just what the issues of juvenile justice are, unfettered and unblinkered by a departmental line. I am afraid it is that departmental line that the current Minister is getting. It is interesting to note that while the Department of School Education has abolished the roles of cluster directors, according to a press release issued by Mr Buttrum the juvenile justice department is to establish cluster directors. It appears as though the Department of School Education is heading in one direction and the Department of Juvenile Justice is heading in another.

Reference should be made to two separate occasions on which the Minister in the other place has praised Mr Blackmore in the past. I refer honourable members to page 197 of Hansard of 25 May for the Legislative Council, and to an article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 21 September 1993. When it has suited him to do so in the past, Minister Dyer has had no compunction praising Mr Blackmore for his background and his experience in Children's Court matters. Now that he is Minister and Mr Blackmore is starting to recount a few uncomfortable home truths, and has the temerity to do it in an article in the Daily Telegraph Mirror, the Minister feels he needs to launch out in the way he did in question time in the upper House this afternoon, in effect questioning Mr Blackmore's competence.

The issues Mr Blackmore raised can be tracked through the ministerial statement Mr Dyer made in the upper House the other day. The criticisms the former Minister for Justice, John Hannaford, made about Mr Buttrum, which were so severely criticised by Mr Dyer, have been corroborated by Mr Blackmore. Mr Dyer referred to the dramatic increase in the number of children being placed in detention centres and said that the Government was concerned about it and that the previous Government had done nothing. The previous Government introduced the Children (Parental Responsibility) Act. Its provisions are being trialled currently in Orange and Gosford and they are working very well - so much so that the local communities want to maintain the initiatives. The Aboriginal community in Orange has written to this effect.

I was recently in Lismore, where the mayor and local member are keen to trial the program - similarly in Taree. I believe there is a great deal of interest in the initiatives at Bourke. The object is to divert juveniles from detention centres in the first place by adopting the commonsense approach of taking them home to their parents or, if that is not successful or possible, a place of refuge for 24 hours. It is plain that the juvenile justice agenda originates from the Premier's Department. The Minister responsible for juvenile justice admits as much at page 5 of his ministerial statement. He also indicates that the key issue driving the Premier's Department is reduction in costs. He referred to receiving Premier's Department advice. Back on 19 September 1995 an article in the Sydney Morning Herald indicated that the Premier was corrected by the Minister on juvenile punishment laws. It seems that the Minister is happy to take advice from the Premier's Department on juvenile justice issues, notwithstanding that he has to correct the Premier on fundamental issues relating to the law. Budgetary issues and nothing more undergird the ministerial statement.

There is a fundamental difference of direction within the Government on juvenile justice. Just this afternoon the Minister for Police referred in the Chamber to drug problems in Cabramatta. He has called for tougher, not more lenient, punishments for some types of juvenile crime. He believes there is a case for upgrading Minda and keeping it open because of the large number of juveniles committing serious crimes in the Sydney metropolitan area. Building centres within country areas will not properly cater for the situation. That is not to say that there should not be centres in the country, but they should not be established at the expense of city centres.

Back in August the Judicial Commission of New South Wales revealed that less than 8 per cent of juvenile offenders who appear before the Children's Court are sent to detention centres. This gives the lie to the level of incarceration being talked about by the Minister. It is regrettable that any juvenile has to be detained but the sad fact of the matter is that some juveniles have to be incarcerated. Mr Blackmore is right: whether we like it or not there is a hard core of juveniles, and custodial penalties should apply for serious crimes. I am also concerned, as Mr Blackmore is, that the appointment of Mr Buttrum heralds the remerging of juvenile justice with community services. The Minister strongly denied such a remerging in a Department of Juvenile Justice Bulletin back in May, but I believe there is definitely an agenda to achieve that outcome.

I hope the Government gets on with implementing the white paper proposals. I believe, as Mr Blackmore does, that the goals are clear and we do not need further costly inquiries - particularly as the Minister is concerned about expense - to tell us the direction in which we all basically know we should be headed. I accept some of the concerns expressed by the Auditor-General and the frustrations of the former Minister that the Auditor-General did not reveal the problems in his audit of the annual report of the department last May. All Ministers and honourable members rely on his scrutiny. I have referred that serious matter, appropriately, to the Public Accounts Committee. The Auditor-General must lift his game in the reporting of these matters to Parliament. I accept that there are some problems relating to control measures. It is of great concern to me that they were not picked up by the Auditor-General. In
Page 4268
short, I support the senior children's magistrate and I do not think it does any credit to the Minister, who I believe has a genuine interest in juvenile justice matters, to attack a former senior magistrate in the way he did. [Time expired.]

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [5.25]: This is an outrage. The honourable member for Eastwood has a hide to criticise juvenile justice. It was under the coalition Government that there was the outrage in juvenile justice. The coalition Government did nothing about juvenile justice while there was a 20 per cent increase in the number of juveniles in custody in the last 12 months of its term. The Government is starting to sort out the crisis that developed under the coalition. Not only was there an increase in the number of juveniles in custody; 80 per cent of the accommodation juveniles were sent to was not up to international human rights standards. Yet the honourable member has a go at us. After seven years of disasters under the coalition he should hang his head in shame. He should actually apologise to the children and youth of New South Wales, their parents and this House for wasting time and crying crocodile tears. The coalition did nothing to ensure that children in its care were looked after with decency.

At least the Labor Government is prepared to change the system. Honourable members will recall that the Auditor-General undertook an investigation into the financial management of the Department of Juvenile Justice and reported serious findings - mismanagement of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. The honourable member for Eastwood tries to pretend that the mismanagement did not happen. It happened under the coalition Government and he did nothing about it. The matters were referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption for consideration of further action. The Auditor-General's findings reflected very poorly on the management of the department under the Liberal Government. The report detailed a litany of problems involving financial management practices, the use of corporate credit cards, the purchase of computing services, the use of consultants and contractors, workers compensation claims management, payroll processing and property transactions.

Despite the abysmal state of the administration inherited from the previous Government, this Government has acted quickly to accurately assess the extent of the problems and introduce measures to rectify the situation. First, I am pleased to report that a new director-general has been appointed - Mr Ken Buttrum. The former Government was prepared to employ him but now in opposition it criticises him. What hypocrisy! Mr Buttrum has previously held senior positions in the Department of Community Services, including director of strategic planning and support, and assistant general manager of the department's southern division. I believe that he is well placed to address the complex problems facing the department and to implement the program of reform which is now necessary.

Mr Hannaford and the honourable member for Eastwood do not appear to be very well informed about much of what went on in the now Department of Juvenile Justice while Mr Hannaford was the responsible Minister. Perhaps if he had paid more attention then, the department would not be in the mess that it is in today. It may be confidently concluded that he took so little interest in staffing matters or even management and administration generally that senior staff in the department were able to do just about anything they pleased. In addition to the serious problems outlined by the Auditor-General in relation to the department's inadequate financial management practices, further problems have become apparent in relation to the department's distribution of resources and operational priorities. When my colleague Ron Dyer became Minister he was alarmed at the dramatic increase in the number of children being placed in detention centres in the last 12 months of the Liberal Government's term - a 20 per cent increase.

Despite a relatively stable crime rate the number of young people in detention in this State from 1994 to March 1995 have increased from 400 to over 500, with young Aboriginal people disproportionately represented in this increase. The Opposition makes no mention of that because it does not care. The increase is placing considerable pressure on detention centres, and there is a clear need for a strategic response by the department to address this issue at a systematic level. While well-resourced and credible community-based services for juvenile offenders are obviously essential in presenting a viable alternative to detention, thereby ensuring that detention remains a sentencing option of last resort, this area seems to have been neglected by the former Government. Instead, it appears that the department's resources have been inappropriately concentrated in a bureaucratic head office structure, which has grown considerably in recent years, apparently at the expense of essential operational services.

My colleague the Minister for Community Services, the Hon. R. D. Dyer, announced last week that the proposal requires a reduction of head office staff from 99 to 62, with a redistribution of resources to regional operational services - out of head office and back at the coalface. Direct services to clients will benefit from both increased resources and a better integration of services. A regional management structure will allow decisions to be made at the local level and improve casework coordination and continuity of service delivery. Regional managers will be responsible for both detention centres and community-based services, which will promote greater cohesion between the two operational areas.

Until now the two areas have had their own separate management hierarchy, with many practical operational decisions made by senior managers in head office. This approach has resulted in an overly bureaucratic and cumbersome management
Page 4269
structure. The Government has a strong commitment to the work and integrity of Rod Blackmore, the former Senior Children's Court Magistrate. That does not mean that everything he says is necessarily right, but certainly his interest in this area is welcomed and will aid the Government. However, his ideas may not necessarily be correct. Interestingly, the present Senior Children's Court Magistrate, Stephen Scarlett, is supportive not only of Mr Buttrum but also the direction of the Government. Where is the quote from the present Senior Children's Court Magistrate? All of a sudden he does not matter anymore because he does not fit the Opposition's tacky political ambitions. The Opposition is now having a go at someone else to try to cover up the disaster it left Government.

Obviously significant work must be undertaken to improve the operations of the department. The Minister has moved quickly and responsibly to accurately assess the extent of the problems so that they can be effectively rectified. The damning investigation by the Auditor-General into the department's financial affairs discovered rorts and mismanagement involving millions of dollars. That matter has been referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. It is patently incorrect to suggest that instead of implementing previous reports, the Minister has commenced two further reviews. In fact, the Minister has already acted on many of the significant recommendations that were ignored by the former coalition Government. The coalition should not come in bleating about mismanagement; it should be praising the Government for getting on with the job and fixing up the mess.

The Government will continue to implement significant recommendations while any other reviews are in progress. Mr Blackmore has apparently attacked the appointment of the new Director-General of the Department of Juvenile Justice, Mr Ken Buttrum. I believe his criticisms are ill founded and misinformed. Mr Buttrum has an excellent track record and an outstanding reputation. He is a person of great compassion and integrity. He has extensive experience in the delivery of child welfare and juvenile justice services. He is well placed to rectify many of the serious problems currently facing the department. Whilst he has more recently held senior positions in the Department of Community Services, this should not be interpreted as any type of plot to combine the two departments. On many occasions the Minister has publicly stated that there is no agenda for amalgamating the two departments, and the Minister stands by his assurances.

It does, however, appear to be prudent to appoint someone from an external agency to head the Department of Juvenile Justice at the present time, especially in view of the Auditor-General's findings that the matter should be reported to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The Minister rejects the suggestion that recent changes to the department are motivated solely to achieve financial savings. The department is clearly bureaucratically top heavy, with a cumbersome and stifling management structure and an unjustifiable concentration of resources in head office. The Government is acting now to ensure that those resources are directed right to the coalface, to where the kids need it - not to some bureaucracy or to rip-off taxpayers - in recognition of the fact that many kids were missing out, being ignored and neglected by the former Government. The fact that 80 per cent of the Opposition's own juvenile detention centres would not stand up to international human rights standards is an indictment of the former Government. The honourable member for Eastwood has a hide to move such a motion.

Mr RIXON (Lismore) [5.35]: I was disappointed that the Deputy Premier, for whom I normally have a good deal of respect, referred to only one narrow aspect of this motion. He explained that he would make punishment of juveniles more efficient and effective. I suggest he look for positive, achievable results, because in my view one should first examine why children go wrong. Given half a chance kids basically grow up to be decent human beings. Given today's society, the environment and the communities in which many kids are growing up, it is understandable that many problems exist. Families today experience stress from unemployment, among a variety of reasons, and this often results in dysfunctional families. Kids are escaping from the home environment. They then vent their frustration, about what life has dealt them, on the streets, where they exhibit anti-social and irresponsible behaviour. These kids will go wrong.

Perhaps we should go back to the beginning; perhaps politicians should do something about the communities in which these kids are growing up and be more supportive of families and their relationships. Governments should assist juveniles and encourage them to be more positive. Maybe then we will not hear of examples such as the one that was reported to me today of two kids who have just turned 15 who are about to have their third child. What hope do they and their children have of achieving their full potential?

Governments should also examine the education system, because increasingly kids are escaping from home and bringing to their schools all their frustrations and anti-social behaviour. More support should be provided to school staff to help them help these children. We need also to provide greater sporting facilities so that in the daylight saving months of the year when there are more hours of daylight kids with nothing to do can direct their energies into something useful. Support must also be given by the community and the police, and the initiatives outlined in the Children (Parental Responsibility) Act must be implemented. In towns where the principles of the Act are being applied, children are not being driven into areas where personal violence, drug abuse, petty theft, and the like are commonplace. Instead, they are
Page 4270
taken either to their homes or to another safe place. If such principles fail, governments must step back and take a good look at the justice system.

Too often young children are being dealt with in one of two extreme ways. First, they may be told, "You are under 10; there is nothing we can do. Off you go". That is giving the wrong message. The other extreme is to lock them up. A balance must be struck. If a child is taken into custody, suitable custodial care must be provided. Too often that is not happening; children are not receiving the education and training that will stand them in good stead later in their lives. Juvenile justice is failing because society is failing. We need to look at the whole range of events happening in our society. We can then begin to understand a little better why juvenile justice is failing and what we need to do to make a beneficial difference in the lives of these children. They are the citizens of tomorrow. If we do not provide an appropriate environment for them today, we will have failed them. We need to examine why these children have gone wrong. [Time expired.]

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [5.40], in reply: The previous Government released a white paper which set out policies in relation to juvenile justice to try to ensure that as many people as possible were not incarcerated as juveniles. Not one person in this Parliament would like to think the operative policy was otherwise. Proposals were designed to ensure that as many people as possible stay out of institutions and get pretrial, presentence and preincarceration diversion programs to help them become constructive members of the community. However, the white paper also understood and made clear that there is, regrettably, a class of juveniles who are always in serious trouble and for whom nothing short of incarceration will be effective. The white paper made clear that detention was an appropriate penalty for such people.

The white paper outlined the principles underlying the keeping of juveniles in detention. Of course, the important, fundamental and underlying principles included separating juveniles from adults in detention and ensuring that they had maximum possibilities in that environment for their rehabilitation. The white paper was supported by the Hon. Ron Dyer when he was in opposition. He is on record as supporting that position in the upper House. Therefore, I believe that there are not many issues to be debated about the future direction and policy of juvenile justice. I share the concern of the former senior magistrate; he was a senior magistrate for 10 or 15 years and was on the bench for 22 years. It is not unreasonable to quote him and rely on him at some length as he corroborates opinion on the matter.

I refer to capital facilities. The previous Government had a program to upgrade the Minda Youth Centre, to upgrade the Cobham Youth Centre, to do some work at Mount Penang Juvenile Justice Centre and to create new centres on the north coast and at Dubbo. If the coalition had been returned to office it would have followed through with that program. What concerns me - and I think it also concerns the Minister for Police - is that juvenile facilities under the Labor Government do not include Minda. The coalition had a program to upgrade Minda. Some facility has to remain in that area. I am concerned about the current program. Mr Blackmore put his finger on it when he looked at the ministerial statement and said that this is the agenda of the central agency of the Premier's Department, not the agenda of the Department of Juvenile Justice. This agenda is about saving money through the sale of Minda, and thereby financing these centres at Dubbo and on the north coast.

The coalition had plans to establish centres in Dubbo and on the north coast. It also had plans to upgrade Minda. It is not surprising that the Minister for Police - and, I suspect, the Premier when he is in his law and order mode - would be concerned about the run-down in accommodation for juveniles who commit serious crimes in the Sydney metropolitan area. Every third ministerial statement made in this Chamber refers to law and order and makes passing reference to juveniles and, more often than not, refers to the Cabramatta area. Whether we like it or not, serious crimes are being committed by a number of hard-core juvenile offenders and the alternative programs will not work. That is why we need Minda.

The Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, in another place, has referred to court diversion. I cannot for the life of me see why we cannot continue with the parental responsibility legislation. It is clear that the Government will not continue with the legislation. It is horses for courses - it is not for every community. Some communities have participated in the trial and they believe it works, and many others - including some Aboriginal communities - would like to trial it. I cannot for the life of me see why, if that program has at its heart a diversion of people away from detention, it looks like it is heading for the garbage bin under this Government.

Discussion concluded.



Mr ELLIS (South Coast) [5.46]: I shall read onto the record a letter I have received from a constituent. It is a coincidence that the letter relates to the debate which has just taken place. The letter reads:

Since becoming the parent of a teenage child and the carer of other teenage children I have been forced to recognise the extent of cultural and discrimination problems in our Shoalhaven area, and the totally ineffective and really quite pathetic way in which the people in authority are supposedly dealing with it.

Page 4271

As a land owner and concerned citizen of this area and also a resident for 45 years I have an urgent need to express my fears in regards to the increase in crime and violence seemingly going on almost unheeded and certainly with no restraint in our community.

From information I am given a large percentage of these activities are carried out by our youth population.

Public buildings being trashed and burnt

Garbage bins continually burn in public streets

Sporting facilities and equipment destroyed

Public/private parks and gardens damaged

Household pets and other animals poisoned and slaughtered

Shoppers being harassed for money in shopping centres

Alcoholic beverages still being consumed blatantly in alcohol free zones

People being assaulted and robbed in public streets

Residents unable to feel safe in their own homes

Continual theft of cars, bikes, etc. from yards, homes and shopping areas

Groceries and purses being stolen in large shopping areas

Police and citizens verbally abused and belittled

Increase in violence related to substance abuse

Deaths connected to drug related crimes

A majority of these crimes seem to be committed by juveniles.

The law protects these perpetrators.

The crimes committed are not juvenile crimes.

What is our next generation going to be like with no boundaries and discipline instilled by our community?

I have observed the attitude of these perpetrators as "even if we get caught nothing will happen".

It is true!

How can I as a parent continue to reinforce a certain set of values into my teenager when he continually sees others seemingly having an easier time at our expense and the law can't touch them.

I have also made the observation that the officers employed in the Police Service are seen as a joke amongst a lot of the younger population in this area.

I feel the Police Service is powerless to perform in any effective way to reduce the level of crime and violence in our community, this then leaves it wide open for vigilante groups to form.

People are starting to look at taking the law into their own hands.

I feel we have reached a crisis point.

Why must we wait for loss of life before admitting that we do indeed have a crisis.

I urge you to look at what is happening in your area.

You only have to talk to the general public to realise the extent of unrest in this area.

Stop the cover ups.

I see environmental issues as being a top priority.

I also see loss of life as being the number one priority.

This in an environmental issue.

One of the basic needs of a human being regardless of colour or culture is a safe environment.

We of the Shoalhaven are not getting one of our basic needs met.

The Shoalhaven is no longer a safe environment!

What is going to happen when the majority, not the minority start to scream discrimination?

Isn't it time to allow the Police Service to reclaim some credibility within the community under close supervision and direction from their supervisors or do we just leave it to the general public to form their own laws and enforcements?

I believe that many people in many areas of the State feel the same way. We are reaching a crisis point. I speak on behalf of my electorate, the South Coast electorate. The Labor Party made law and order an election issue and we were told that there would be extra police in the south coast area. It is not only police that will fix the problem in the south coast and other areas, but the provision of extra police will go part of the way. The police stations in the area are undermanned. The Minister for Police recently visited Bomaderry in the seat of Kiama, gave extra duties to police in the Nowra patrol - in my electorate - and stated that there would be extra police forthcoming to help with duties. As of today there have been no extra police, and I should like the Minister to address the situation. I will then make a report to the constituent who wrote this letter. [Time expired.]


Mr CLOUGH (Bathurst) [5.51]: Some weeks ago I raised in the House the question of the great differences between railway trade unionists in my area and rail administration, particularly that of CityRail and Freight Rail. A meeting I convened in Bathurst last week went a long way towards solving some of the problems associated with not only railway services in my electorate but also the issues of staff morale and the maintenance of jobs in the district. Tonight I pay tribute to the Minister for Transport for the way that he has gradually but firmly directed the State Rail Authority to take note of what trade unions are saying about the operation of railways in the central west of this State.

As a result of the Minister's direct intervention and the way he went about that, Mr Frank Morrison of Freight Rail last week brought a team of his subordinates to Bathurst to discuss many railway service issues that affect local people. The most important issue on which compromise was eventually reached was the decision of the State Rail Authority to re-signal the railway line between Tarana and Wallerawang. The proposal was to convert that sector of line to single-line working, which has been vigorously opposed by the unions and by many people in the Bathurst district. Those opposing the proposal were taking into account the fact that it is hoped that work will shortly be commenced to re-establish the railway line between Tarana and Oberon. After considerable discussion it was agreed that the unions would accept single-line working between those two centres on the basis that the remaining track was to remain in place and
Page 4272
that if experience showed that single-line tracking was not working according to plan the second line would be put back into operation as quickly as possible.

In addition, Mr Morrison accepted onto his working committee a representative of the enginemen's union and another representative of the staff located in Bathurst. To me, after years of trying to negotiate with State Rail Authority officers, it was a pleasure to conduct such a meeting and reach that end result. Under the former Government there was a history of confrontation rather than consultation. Arbitrary decisions were made that affected the whole of the railway system in the central west. As I indicated, the meeting went a long way towards allaying the fears of railway unionists in my area, but there is still a lot to be done. I was extremely interested this morning to talk to my colleague the honourable member for Broken Hill about a passenger service between Sydney and Broken Hill, to commence next March. This service, operating from Sydney through Bathurst to Broken Hill and return, will have a great effect on railway services to Bathurst.

CityRail is just as hard to deal with as ever. It is my understanding that CityRail intends, as from next year, not to fill any vacancies that occur amongst Lithgow enginemen. It also intends to reduce by two the number of rosters available to Lithgow enginemen. A deputation of Lithgow enginemen will tomorrow meet the Minister to discuss CityRail's intention. I believe, and I have always believed, that the break-up of the State Rail Authority into three sectors was a mistake and was a move by the previous Government with a view to privatisation of rail services. I urge the Minister for Roads, who has a sister portfolio to that of the Minister for Transport, to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister for Transport. Without a viable rail system in the central west of New South Wales there will be problems.

Mr KNIGHT (Campbelltown - Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads) [5.56]: I shall certainly take to my colleague the Minister for Transport the concerns raised by the honourable member for Bathurst, and ensure that the Minister gives those concerns consideration as soon as possible.


Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie) [5.57]: The issue I wish to raise tonight concerns a health service that has been desired in my electorate for some time. A considerable amount of work has been done within the community to try to obtain better services for lymphoedema sufferers. Lymphoedema occurs generally when there is a failure of the lymphatic system. This may occur for a number of reasons, but in oncology lymphoedema usually results post-surgery and/or radiotherapy in mastectomy and vulvectomy patients. Patients often experience swelling after the treatment, and the swelling may occur at varying degrees. The swelling can cause great pain. It decreases mobility, causes embarrassment, can lead to depression and results in a general decrease in a patient's quality of life.

Lymphoedema is not something that can be completely cured but the condition can be improved with the provision of good therapy, known as complex physical therapy or CPT. The program is initially an intensive program, and the quality of life of sufferers can be improved significantly. For the best part of last year discussions about improved services have been held, generally led by Mrs Van Every of the New South Wales Cancer Council. Mrs Van Every is a volunteer in the breast cancer support service. The issue has been in the public arena for some time. I would have to admit to a degree of confusion in my mind about what has happened, particularly with a recent funding announcement. The community effort has been ongoing for some time and a number of meetings have been held between the district health service; the base hospital; Mrs Van Every, representing many of the sufferers; and Ms Meg McIntyre, a local physiotherapist.

Late last year, after making inquiries of the hospital, I received a letter that pointed out that there could be a more significant demand for this service than was initially thought and that Ms McIntyre, the physiotherapist involved, could expect at least 15 patients at any one time. The view of the health experts was that at least one full-time equivalent physiotherapist would be needed to establish a reasonable service. It is clear that the number of sufferers would justify the service. On a broader issue, one of the matters that we need to address constantly in a growth area such as that of the mid-north coast is that of keeping our local services up to pace with population growth. There has always been demand for dollars from government - State, Federal and local - to expand services as the population grows.

Discussions have been taking place for some time in an endeavour to improve services and provide the lymphoedema service. A couple of weeks ago the Minister for Health advised that the current budget contained funding for this service. I was happy to hear that. I extended my congratulations to the people who had worked hard for the establishment of that service, and to the Government to give credit where it is due. However, some confusion arose. It appeared that the provision of money was not as obvious as it seemed. In a recent letter to the editor in the Port News Mrs Van Every stated:

The fact of the matter is that the funds being utilised had been allocated for a staff position in the oncology unit that will not be filled until 1997.

Therefore, the patients were still to wait for that service. I was concerned that the issue was going in circles after it appeared that progress had been made in the community as a result of discussions
Page 4273
between the local health service, the hospital and community representatives. The Minister's initial announcement in this regard was welcome as it appeared to address the problem. As I anticipate that demand in this area will grow, I was disappointed to discover that the position would not be filled until a year or so down the track.

However, I end on a high note. On making further inquiries at the department this afternoon I found that another meeting was held yesterday and that agreement was reached between the local health service and the base hospital. I pass a bouquet to the much-criticised Port Macquarie Base Hospital, which will fund the service from within its budget. It will not be an additional drain on public funds. I hope that this resolves the matter, and I will certainly check to ensure that it does. We must have a service in place as the community has had considerable interest in this matter for some time. We have seen a fair amount of to-ing and fro-ing on this issue. [Time expired.]


Mr WATKINS (Gladesville) [6.02]: I draw attention to public transport services in my electorate of Gladesville, and the steps being taken to improve those services for local residents. In particular I note the positive increase in use of State Transit buses. I am told by State Transit officers that increases in patronage of over 10 per cent a month are being experienced in many areas of Sydney, including routes running through the Gladesville electorate. Such an increase in public transport usage is a wonderful change in transport habits. If State Transit can capture those commuters permanently, it will be evidence of a long overdue move away from private motor car use.

It is obvious that recent increases in patronage could not have happened without competent drivers, comfortable buses, relevant routes and creative management. I commend the work of all State Transit employees in this success. These achievements are particularly evident in recent changes to the 506 bus service from East Ryde to the city. That route has been growing in popularity for some years, and it is pleasing to see the support given to it by State Transit. That continuing support is evidenced by imminent changes to the 506 route with increasing services in the evening and on weekends. Efficient services at that time are essential to draw people back to public transport. The community welcomes those developments.

Another pleasing development for local residents is the improvement to the 500 and 501 services from Ryde to the city via Victoria Road which have resulted from the opening of the Glebe Island Bridge. This facility will reduce travelling time and improve the route structure at the city end. These changes should cement in place increased patronage on these routes. However, of major concern in my electorate are the too many areas poorly served by buses. Parts of Boronia Park, especially Meyers Avenue, Buffalo Road and Quarry Road areas in Ryde, and the whole area south of Victoria Road down to the Parramatta River are poorly served by bus services. The chief cause of these problems remains the limitations resulting from the contractual conditions enforced under the Passenger Transport Act.

After lengthy negotiations, the present round of contracts were signed in December last year. The contracts involved the State Transit Authority, the Department of Transport and the private operator North and Western. The contracts effectively lock into place for several years the present inadequate routes, most of which reflect past conditions, particularly the fact that trams previously terminated at top Ryde. Recent developments, such as the rapid growth of the Macquarie Park retailing and commercial areas, and the growing need for cross-regional links between Ryde and Chatswood and Ryde and Strathfield-Burwood, have effectively been ignored. For example, we even have ridiculous situations in which residents of Higginbotham Road, Gladesville, must catch a bus to Drummoyne and another bus back to top Ryde to do their weekly shopping even though they live only two kilometres from the top Ryde shopping centre.

Until these routes are unlocked and new sensible routes are developed, needy residents will continue to be disadvantaged. Growing frustration is evident in the local community at these limitations; however, I am heartened by the concern of the Minister for Transport about these shortcomings and his willingness to look at the delivery of services under these contracts. The contract system under the Passenger Transport Act brought improvements in bus services. The requirement to upgrade minimum service levels has brought benefits, but the locking up of routes entrenched disadvantages. Certain parts of Sydney need a completely new look at bus routes - my electorate of Gladesville is one such area.

Mr KNIGHT (Campbelltown - Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads) [6.06]: I have listened with interest to the contribution by the honourable member for Gladesville who, as all members know, is vigorous in presenting his concerns for his constituents. He has raised this matter already with the Minister for Transport, who is unable to be in the House. I will take this matter up with the Minister as a result of this statement.


Dr KERNOHAN (Camden) [6.07]: I speak on behalf of my constituent William James Pinkerton of 7 Waterhouse Place, Camden. Honourable members might think that name rings a bell.

Page 4274

Mr Harrison: Is that Pinkerton of the police agency?

Dr KERNOHAN: He was a policeman, but not in the agency. Bill Pinkerton is a former sergeant who was accused of a crime he did not commit. I do not intend to go through the detail of the case because it is well recorded in an upper House debate on 18 October this year when it was raised by the Hon. J. F. Ryan as a matter of urgent public importance. In essence, on 19 December 1991 Bill Pinkerton went to the Downing Centre Local Court where he was charged with six counts of bribery. At that time he was the first policeman to be looked at by the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The court was packed with reporters and the matter was in all the newspapers. The case was stood over until 29, 30 and then 31 July 1992. In the interim Bill Pinkerton came to me. I have known him for more than 20 years, and I have always known him to be an honest man, a good Christian and a good man in the community. I wrote to the then Minister for Police on 21 February 1992 as follows:

I would request that a very senior person in the Department of Public Prosecutions review this case before it goes to Court in July 1992.

The case had anomalies left, right and centre; honourable members can read about these in Hansard in the debate to which I have referred. It so happened that one of the criminals came clean and told a policeman that he had told lies. The bribery story was concocted so that he and the other criminal accusing Bill Pinkerton of bribery could receive reduced sentences and perhaps some money. On 9 December 1992, the Department of Public Prosecutions said that no further proceedings would occur, and on 18 December the magistrate formally dismissed the charges and Bill was reinstated to the police force. Nevertheless, during this period a strong, good man was reduced to a shambling, trembling wreck through being unjustly accused.

He received no support from the police system and none from the political system. Unfortunately, he was discharged medically unfit - and I can understand why - on 30 July 1993. Ironically, he received the police medal for 25 years good and valorous service, but not one penny of compensation for the trauma he had undergone. In Hansard on 18 October 1995 the Hon. John Ryan stated that in an interview on radio station 2UE between Alan Jones and the Premier, the Premier said words to the effect, "This is outrageous. It should not happen. This man should get an apology." Bill Pinkerton has received nothing. I understand that the Attorney General is reviewing the case. Bill Pinkerton is a victim; no less a victim than somebody who is bashed. Criminals who are bashed in gaol are awarded victims compensation. Bill Pinkerton is a victim and deserves some form of compensation for his trauma.

Mr SULLIVAN (Wollongong) [6.11]: I wish to inform the House of a product called oriented structural board - referred to as OSB - that could have a very good future in this State. Sometimes referred to as oriented strand board, it is bonded panelling made from timber which currently either is left unused or is chipped and exported. The product provides an excellent opportunity for a new industry to be established in this State, which would add significant value to a raw material that is currently exported. The production of this oriented structural board could provide opportunities for decentralisation. The product is made by processing small diameter, fast-growing trees into strands or wafers which are bonded together under heat and pressure with a waterproof and boilproof resin. It is oriented in cross-directional layers for additional strength. For 30 years the product has been widely recognised in the United States of America and Canada as wafer board and utilised in residential construction. It was developed in the early 1990s as an improvement to wafer board.

Within the United States of America there are 34 mills, and in Canada there are 15 mills producing the product, and additional mills are planned. The combined productive capacity is 10 billion square feet per annum. OSB is suitable for a wide range of structural, industrial and decorative applications. OSB and wafer board are produced by Structural Board Association members to meet both USA and Canadian standards. It is easy to saw, drill, nail, plane, file and sand. It contains wood, waterproof and boilproof resin, and a small amount of wax. The many interleaved layers create panels with good nail-holding properties. The panels may be glued with any adhesive that is recommended for wood. Oriented structural board was brought to my attention by the state secretary of the forestry division of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union in Tasmania, where there is a proposal to introduce a pilot plant. The aim of that pilot plant is to give value-adding capacity to the timber industry in Tasmania. Certainly Tasmania leads New South Wales in its development of eucalypt plantations in the north-east and north-west of the State.

The union is playing a proactive role in trying to develop industries which will lead to woodchips not being exported from that State but being used in further processing to develop much greater value products which can be exported. That will create more wealth and more employment within Tasmania. It seems a pity that Tasmania is moving in that direction, yet I have heard no proposals of a similar nature in New South Wales. This State has one of the major timber industries in Australia. We should be looking to imitate what has happened in Tasmania and hopefully surpass it by encouraging industries and firms to move into this area. In the south-east and north-east of the State a great deal of woodchip is exported. The general information I have is that up to 90 per cent of the logs that are
Page 4275
brought in are used, rather than a significant number of logs being pulped for export. This is an important potential growth area for the State and one which could provide answers to areas experiencing conflict because of the claims and counterclaims about the preservation of the environment and the need to maintain employment activities for local residents.


Mr TURNER (Myall Lakes) [6.16]: I raise a matter concerning the undermanning of the Taree police station. Taree is a significant provincial city in my electorate, having 37,000 people. The Taree police district encompasses many areas stretching from the north to the edges of the Great Lakes Shire Council area in the south. The Police Association believes Taree needs an increase in its police strength by at least three sergeants and eight constables without having to utilise police from other units such as beat and sector police. A few months ago Taree received some beat police, and that was greatly appreciated. Unfortunately, their duties are often subsumed by having to attend and undertake other activities because of the undermanning of that station.

That is not a criticism, but it is the reality. Taree is a growth area, particularly in the surrounding holiday and retirement areas. Perhaps it is time we moved on, understood that, and increased the manning of the police in Taree by at least three sergeants and eight constables. The application for more police is supported by the establishment control branch of the police department and also supported by a recent relieving patrol commander. A number of reports have been submitted through the system which have highlighted the insufficient staffing levels at Taree for general duty officers and criminal investigators. At Taree there is an authorised strength of 47, but because of holidays, sick days, prisoner transfers and all the other incidental and administrative matters, about 24 operational police are available to work a 24-hour roster. Unfortunately, on occasions three uniform officers work on a shift and the supervisor also acts either as a station officer or as an observer in the car crew. Under those circumstances there is little chance of the supervisor performing that role. There are presently four shift sergeants on the roster and six officers, but no beat supervisors.

I understand that recently an audit was carried out at the police station which, regrettably, revealed many inefficiencies in the operation of the station. The officers believe that the deficiencies probably result from the incredibly heavy workload placed on them because of understaffing at Taree police station. The officers say that the deficiencies are regretted. They do not want to be inefficient; they are proud of what they do in Taree, but they find that because of the workload morale goes down and the police are seen to be not fulfilling their role. Taree has a high proportion of problems associated with juvenile law and order and, shortly before private member's statements commenced, the House debated juvenile crime. The former Government had envisaged applying the proposed parental responsibility legislation in Taree.

Of course, extra police would be needed to enforce that Act. The Taree area has a problem with juvenile lawlessness at the present time but the police are tackling that problem with great enthusiasm, and are making headway and reducing the incidence of crime in the area. The officers are to be congratulated, particularly as they are doing so under such difficult circumstances and with limited personnel. I am advised, and I know from personal experience, that at Christmas time the population expands significantly in that beautiful Manning-Great Lakes region that I have the privilege of representing in this House. Unfortunately, some problems are imported into the towns and villages in the electorate and it is necessary that adequate police numbers are available to address the problem. I know it is a seasonal problem but it is peculiar to the Taree area - [Time expired.]


Mr HARRISON (Kiama) [6.21]: I draw the attention of the House to concerns I have about a potential flooding problem that exists in the electorate of Kiama, and to some extent in the electorates of Wollongong and Illawarra. Lake Illawarra is constrained at its entrance not only by an opening that continues to block up because of shoaling and the littoral drift of sand from south to north. It is also constrained by the Windang Bridge and the narrow opening underneath that bridge. I am concerned that attempts will be made in the near future to have more land rezoned at west Dapto and south Albion Park. At times of prolonged heavy rain there is a distinct flooding problem when the lake fills up and overtops. A substantial amount of development has taken place in the Albion Park area in the past few years and that has led to the creation of impervious areas and water run-off increasing dramatically from road surfaces and roofs. Only a couple of months ago one rainstorm led to the lake being completely filled. If more rain had fallen at that time I am sure that flooding would have occurred creating problems for residents in Albion Park, Albion Park Rail, Lake Illawarra and possibly the Windang area. For many years discussions have been taking place about the creation of a permanent entrance to Lake Illawarra. That would certainly go a long way towards alleviating the problem that arises in times of prolonged heavy rain.

As I said, the lake is not able to flush satisfactorily because of action taken by the Department of Main Roads in bygone years to close down the old back channel, and because the opening shoals up and there is only a very narrow opening under Windang Bridge. No more land should be
Page 4276
rezoned for residential development until the Government and the local council are able to come up with the necessary money to proceed with work on a permanent opening. The position is that, despite many years of talking about a permanent opening, no firm decision has been taken at this time. I understand that a development application has been lodged with the Lake Illawarra Authority for consideration but, even if it is approved, there is no budgetary allocation to make a start on the work. I do not want my statement tonight to be construed as opposition to any further development in the area. I am as aware as anyone in the Illawarra region of the urban capability study carried out by the Department of Housing and Landcom in conjunction with the local councils. It identified that they will be the only areas of potential residential expansion within the Illawarra sub-plane until well into the year 2000.

Wollongong city area is just about built out and the last remaining alternative is west Dapto. There is still considerable land earmarked for future rezoning in the Albion Park area. I am not opposed to that and I do not get the impression that the local citizens are opposed to it, but there is certainly concern that if it is done before a permanent entrance to the lake is created the present flooding problem will be exacerbated, and that should be resisted. My message to the Minister for Planning and Housing and the Minister for Land and Water Conservation is that I want to see some allocation of funding in the next budget, which will be brought down in May of next year, to commence the construction of a permanent entrance to the lake.


Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [6.26]: Tonight I wish to raise a very grave matter concerning one of my constituents whom I shall not name, for reasons which will become obvious. Instead, I will call him Mr Smith. In 1990 Mr Smith was charged with having had sexual intercourse in 1987 with his eight-year-old daughter. At the time he was divorced from his wife but had visiting rights with his daughter. There was an ongoing dispute over maintenance payments, which Mr Smith believes may have been the motive for his wife initiating the action against him. The first that Mr Smith heard of the allegations against him was on 26 July 1989. He was living in Labrador, Queensland, where he was visited by two Queensland and two Coffs Harbour detectives, who attempted to extradite him to New South Wales. Although the extradition proceedings failed, the police told Mr Smith's employers of the alleged offence and he was summarily dismissed.

Unable to find work in south-east Queensland, Mr Smith moved to Darwin, where he obtained employment as the art director of a publishing company. Four months later he set up his own business, in partnership with some other creative people. In August 1990 he visited Adelaide to liaise with a firm of printers. He was arrested in the National Australia Bank in the city, spreadeagled, searched and taken to Adelaide central watch-house. The next day he was confronted by the two police officers from Coffs Harbour who had previously tried to arrest him on the Gold Coast, Detective Kerrianne Stuckings and Detective Sergeant Trevor Beaumont. Mr Smith was extradited to Sydney and thence to Kempsey, where he was locked in the cells at Kempsey police station. On 3 September 1990 he was arraigned before magistrate Pepper without having had the benefit of a shower or change of clothes in seven days.

Bail was refused because of the alleged strong prosecution case and a breach of extradition procedures. Yet there had been no breach of extradition procedures and the case against Mr Smith ultimately proved to be totally groundless. Mr Smith was taken to Coffs Harbour and thence to Grafton gaol. There he was bashed and attempts were made on his life. He spent his entire two weeks there shoeless because the authorities had no shoes in his size. On 24 September 1990 Mr Smith was again brought before magistrate Pepper for a committal hearing. The duty solicitor declined to appear for him, on the grounds that he was too inexperienced, so Mr Smith had to conduct his own case whilst handcuffed. Two women from the Department of Community Services answered the questions he put to his daughter. He was committed for trial and bail was refused on the basis that the trial would be held within three weeks. In fact, Mr Smith was held in further custody in toto for another six months, during which time he was again bashed and threatened with death.

Finally, in March 1991 he was provided with a legal aid solicitor and was granted bail. Mr Smith appeared in Newcastle Supreme Court in July 1991. There it was proved that the principal and only witness against him, the alleged victim, had indeed been interfered with, not by her father but by the son of some family friends. Not surprisingly, Justice Abadee directed the jury to bring in a verdict of not guilty. The House might be excused for thinking Mr Smith's agony ended there, but it did not. He moved to Cairns, where Federal police arrested him for non-payment of child support while he was in gaol. He was released, but shortly afterwards he was arrested again, this time for non-payment of severance pay to three employees while he was in gaol. Penniless, he elected to serve 46 days in gaol to pay off the debt.

Records in Kempsey courthouse show that the application for child support had been served on Mr Smith on 6 July 1989 at unit 23, 67 Broadbeach Boulevard, Broadbeach. However, Mr Smith has never lived at that address. The allegation is that the leaseholder was in fact Trevor Lyle Beaumont, the detective sergeant who had pursued the case against my constituent. Mr Smith has lost everything: his business, his dignity, his reputation, his health and his life's savings. He has recently remarried but is still being pursued for child support
Page 4277
totalling almost $30,000 dating from his time in gaol. He has sought ex gratia compensation from the Attorney General, but this has been refused on the grounds that "although the evidence provided by the complainant was discredited at the trial, the Solicitor General is satisfied there was sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution and it was open to the jury to convict him on the evidence of the complainant".

This is inherently contradictory. The complainant was an eight-year-old girl whose testimony was proved to be false. On this evidence Mr Smith was deprived of his liberty for eight months, bashed, bankrupted and humiliated. Is this the sort of justice our system in New South Wales dispenses? Or have we indeed become a banana republic? Many questions remain unanswered. Why was Mr Smith refused bail, based on the uncorroborated evidence of an eight-year-old girl? Why was he denied legal representation at his committal hearing? Why was he imprisoned for five months before he was permitted access to legal aid? Why was an application for child support allegedly served at a flat rented not by Mr Smith but by Detective Sergeant Beaumont? Was there impropriety involved in the relationship between Mr Smith's ex-wife's husband, who instructed Kempsey police in martial arts, and the investigating officers? I request the Attorney General to provide answers to these questions and to reconsider his decision not to provide ex gratia compensation for Mr Smith. Our justice system is built on the presumption of innocence. Mr Smith appears to have endured extreme punishment for a crime he did not commit.


Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [6.31]: Tonight I wish to raise a matter of grave concern to one of my constituents and to constituents of my colleagues the honourable member for Port Stephens and the honourable member for Charlestown. These constituents are all members of the same family. They have spent 1995 in a state of confusion and fear following a vicious attack on two members of the family - the vicious battering of the father and the rape and abduction of one of the daughters. The family members approached each of their members of Parliament because of their great fears for their personal safety and their frustration with our legal, judicial and policing systems, which they feel have failed them as victims of violent crime.

For obvious reasons I will not identify the family, as doing so could bring more hurt and unwarranted recriminations against them. Suffice to say that in their discussions with me and my colleagues the honourable member for Charlestown and the honourable member for Port Stephens, they have conveyed their strong concerns about the handling of their case by the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the inadequacy of the apprehended violence orders they took out to protect themselves from continued harassment by the alleged perpetrator of the violence against them. This harassment continues despite the fact that the alleged assailant is in gaol awaiting trial. The family believes that the harassment is being carried out both to persecute them and to assist their alleged assailant in defending the charges against him. I cannot overemphasise the fear and confusion facing this family.

The family members have detailed to me and my colleagues the range of issues they are concerned about: that the police did not properly investigate serious assault against a family member; that appropriate charges were not laid against the alleged offender; that police had links with the alleged offender; and that, despite the apprehended violence orders that precluded direct or third-party contact with the victims, harassment was taking place on an ongoing basis. The family believes that the alleged offender has been the architect of this ongoing campaign of harassment. My colleagues and I have all taken action on behalf of our constituents. In my case I conveyed their concerns to the Ombudsman for attention. I have recently received a report from the Ombudsman covering the concerns and stating that one of the matters was still being investigated.

One reason for the fear the family has is the ongoing harassment. They are continuing to receive harassment from third parties in the form of letters, though the apprehended violence orders state that the alleged assailant should not contact them directly or through third parties. This is a very serious matter: the father was battered almost to death and the daughter was raped and abducted. One can imagine the impact on the family. The local police, the chamber magistrate and the Director of Public Prosecutions have been approached concerning the conditions of the apprehended violence order, but the family believes that its concerns have not adequately been taken into account. Although the alleged offender is in gaol, they believe more should be done to prevent the ongoing harassment.

Another aspect of the harassment is that the father, the man who was severely battered, was the subject of complaints to the Department of Community Services for allegedly sexually abusing the child of his daughter. He believes that this is part of the ongoing harassment by the alleged assailant in order to discredit him as a witness and to assist in the alleged assailant's defence in the courts. I am pleased that the Minister for Police is in the Chamber. I ask that he investigate these matters.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [6.36]: This is a truly tragic case. The family concerned has clearly been through severe trauma over the last 12 months. I express my sympathy to the family for what they have been through and what they are continuing to endure. I will ask the Commissioner of Police to ensure that the local patrol commander is aware of the situation so local police can respond appropriately to any calls for
Page 4278
assistance. I will also request the commissioner to ensure that the family is kept apprised of further developments. The honourable member for Newcastle is aware that a number of allegations have already been referred to the Ombudsman for investigation. After conducting preliminary inquiries, the Ombudsman determined that further action was not required and no culpability was found on the part of any police officer. The Ombudsman reviewed that decision after further information was forwarded on behalf of the family by the honourable member for Newcastle. The Ombudsman again advised that the police involved in the investigation of the offences acted in an appropriate manner.

One matter has been referred by the Ombudsman and it continues to be the subject of an internal investigation by the Police Service. Any further information the honourable member can provide will of course be passed on to the appropriate body for investigation, as will his remarks in the Chamber tonight. I note that the family has concerns regarding the charges laid against the offender. As the honourable member would be aware, the ultimate decision to exact charges does not rest with the police but rather with the Director of Public Prosecutions. I understand that the honourable member will also be raising aspects of this matter with the Attorney General. As I have said, I will raise the matter with the commissioner. I thank the honourable member for bringing my attention to the matter.

Private members' statements noted.


Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the sitting be extended beyond 7.00 p.m. for the consideration of Government Business.

The following bill was returned from the Legislative Council without amendment:

Consumer Credit Administration Bill.

Bill received and read a first time.

[Mr Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 6.40 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [7.30]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Government is pleased to introduce this bill, which seeks to implement further changes to the criminal law. The bill follows the Criminal Legislation Amendment Act 1995, which was introduced and passed during the last parliamentary session. The bill is aimed at further rectifying and improving upon matters relating to criminal procedure, and also creates certain new offences. I will refer to these proposals shortly. The most important proposal in the bill is set out at item [10] of schedule 1.2. The proposal concerns the law of intoxication and criminal liability. A new part 11A will be inserted into the Crimes Act 1900, the effect of which will be to remove self-induced intoxication as a basis for escaping liability in relation to certain offences.

The present law in New South Wales is that a person charged with a criminal offence, including murder, might be acquitted altogether if there is evidence that the accused was so intoxicated at the time of committing the act that there was a reasonable doubt whether the accused had acted intentionally or voluntarily. This reflects the common law as stated by the High Court in The Queen v O'Connor 1981 146 CLR 64. It reflects the principle that a person should not be held criminally responsible for an act in the absence of proof that the accused acted voluntarily and with the required mental element for an offence. This is also the law in the other common law jurisdictions of Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory.

By contrast, in the case of Regina v Majewski 1977 AC 443, the House of Lords in England held that evidence of self-induced intoxication may be considered in relation to offences of specific intent only, and cannot be considered in relation to offences of basic intent. The Majewski approach reflects generally the position in the code jurisdictions, as well as Canada and the United States of America. An offence of basic intent is an offence which simply requires an intention to perform some act - such as striking a person - rather than one requiring an intention to bring about some consequences, such as striking a person with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. An offence of specific intent is thus one involving an additional purposive element, that is, a specific purpose or an intention to achieve a particular result. Murder is such an offence. It requires proof that the accused acted with an intention to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm. By contrast, an offence of basic intent requires proof only that the accused intended to commit the act proscribed. Manslaughter is such an offence. It requires proof only that the accused committed an unlawful or dangerous act.

The effect of Majewski is that a person who kills another while in a state of gross intoxication may be found not guilty of murder but might still be guilty of manslaughter. For the purpose of determining guilt on a manslaughter charge, the accused's intoxication would not be able to be taken into account. The effect of O'Connor, on the other
Page 4279
hand, is that intoxication may be considered in relation to both offences such that a person might be acquitted outright. In 1994 the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General endorsed the Majewski approach in preference to the O'Connor approach for incorporation in the model criminal code. Majewski has consequently been adopted by the Commonwealth in the Criminal Code Act 1995, which codifies chapter 2 of the model criminal code on the general principles of criminal responsibility.

The preference for the Majewski approach is based on important public policy considerations. The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, in particular, took the view that to excuse otherwise criminal conduct in relation to simple offences of basic intent - such as assault - because the accused is intoxicated to such an extent, is totally unacceptable at a time when alcohol and drug abuse are such significant social problems. The standing committee considered that if a person voluntarily takes the risk of getting intoxicated then he or she should be responsible for his or her actions. This Government agrees with and strongly supports this approach. The proposed amendments therefore essentially reflect the approach taken in Majewski, as well as that taken by the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995, which enacts the principles of the model criminal code.

Under the proposal, intoxication will mean intoxication whether by means of alcohol or drugs. The intoxication must be self-induced. Clearly it would be unfair for intoxication to be disregarded where a person becomes intoxicated due to fraud, reasonable mistake, duress or force. For example, it would be unfair not to allow evidence of intoxication to be considered where a person may unknowingly have had his or her drinks spiked.

The proposed section 428B lists examples of offences in the Crimes Act which are offences of specific intent for which evidence of intoxication may be taken into account. Murder is listed as an offence of specific intent. In conformity with Majewski, intoxication will not be able to be taken into account on a charge of manslaughter. Some of the specific intent offences are very serious offences, for example, assault with intent to have sexual intercourse. It should be noted, of course, that although evidence of intoxication can be taken into account on such an offence, such evidence will not be able to be considered in relation to a basic offence of assault.

Schedule 1.1 amends sections 10 and 11 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 to apply to an application for bail. Section 10 provides for the exclusion of the public from a court hearing criminal proceedings to which a child is a party. Section 11 prevents the publication of the name or of anything else which is likely to lead to the identification of a child to whom criminal proceedings relate. The protection afforded by these provisions does not presently apply to bail applications. For example, while the Supreme Court does have the power to exclude the public from bail applications which might prevent the media from publishing what is said during the proceedings, there is nothing to prevent the media from publishing the result, such as that bail has been granted, and nor is there any restriction upon identification. The proposed amendment will ensure that the protection offered to children by the legislation applies in bail applications. For the purpose of deterrence, it is also proposed to increase the penalty for a breach of section 11 from a fine of $1,000 to $5,000 or, in the case of a corporation, to $50,000.

Schedule 1.2 makes various amendments to the Crimes Act 1900. Sections 178BA and 178BB of the Crimes Act are to be amended so as to enable the prosecution in New South Wales of certain fraud offences committed outside the State, where the offences involve misuse of public money or public property by public officials. Sections 178BA and 178BB provide offences where a person dishonestly gains for himself or any other person any money, valuable thing or financial advantage by deception or by making or publishing a false or misleading statement.

This proposal stems from a 1993 report of the Auditor-General into the London office of the Agent-General which revealed a need to amend the Crimes Act to permit the prosecution of persons who misuse public funds whilst in public office overseas. The definition of public official is consistent with that found in section 3 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 and is considered sufficiently wide to cover the range of officials who may be in a position to misuse public funds outside New South Wales. The proposed maximum penalty for the offence is five years imprisonment, consistent with the present penalties under sections 178BA and 178BB of the Act.

Item [6] of schedule 1.2 amends the offence of culpable navigation contained in section 52B of the Crimes Act to make it consistent with the offence of dangerous driving contained in section 52A. In November 1994, section 52A - formerly known as culpable driving - was amended following recommendations made by the Staysafe committee. The offence was renamed, the maximum penalties applicable were increased, circumstances of aggravation were introduced and the scope of the section was widened. This proposed amendment will render section 52B consistent with section 52A as amended. Historically, both sections contained the same maximum penalties and varied only as was necessary to reflect differences between driving on roads and navigating on waterways.

Schedule 1.2 also repeals sections 60 and 573 of the Crimes Act. Section 60 provides that where a husband has been convicted of assault upon his wife, the judge may make a declaration that she shall no longer be bound to cohabit with her husband. Such a declaration shall have the effect of
Page 4280
a decree of judicial separation on the ground of cruelty. Section 573 provides that where a declaration is made under section 60 the judge may also make orders as to the custody and maintenance of children. These sections were originally a criminal law remedy for cases of domestic assault. They are of little current relevance now that decrees of judicial separation are no longer available in Australia due to the Family Law Act 1975. Moreover, the powers of the courts to make orders in domestic violence matters can now be found in part 15A of the Crimes Act.

Item [8] of schedule 1.2 amends the Crimes Act to provide for a new offence of possession of implements for making false instruments. The Crimes Act does not presently make it an offence for a person to make or be in possession of a device for the purpose of making a false document. The lack of such an offence in the Crimes Act can be particularly problematic in relation to the possession of such devices for the purposes of credit card fraud.

A case recently came before the courts in which the defendant was arrested at Sydney airport in possession of a machine designed to encode cardholder details in the magnetic strip of credit cards and a number of blank white plastic cards each bearing a magnetic strip, one of which had been encoded with a genuine MasterCard credit card account number. The defendant could only be charged with common law conspiracy and was acquitted of this charge. In Victoria, by contrast, there are various offences to deal with this activity. The model criminal code has also adopted a similar provision. Clearly credit card fraud is a serious criminal activity from which citizens in this State ought to be protected. The proposed penalty will be a maximum term of 10 years imprisonment consistent with other provisions in the Crimes Act relating to false instruments.

Item [9] of schedule 1.2 inserts a new offence of harbouring an escapee from another State or Territory. Section 36 of the Prisons Act 1952 presently provides for an offence of harbouring an escaped prisoner. However, the application of this section is restricted to escapes which occur within the jurisdictional boundaries of New South Wales. Some time ago, following an incident involving the leasing of premises in this State to two escapees from Victoria, the police raised concern that there is no provision to deal with harbouring a prisoner who had escaped in another State or Territory. This proposal seeks to cover this type of case. Item [11] of schedule 1.2 also repeals the offence of "watches or besets" in subsection 545B(1)(iv) of the Crimes Act. Section 545B was introduced in 1929 and followed similar legislation in the United Kingdom which was designed to regulate picketing in the course of labour disputes.

"Watches or besets" is defined to include attending at or near any place in such numbers or in such manner as is calculated to intimidate any person, or obstruct entry or exit, or to lead to a breach of the peace. It targets behaviour which is typically associated with peaceful industrial disputes and is therefore at odds with current industrial relations practice. The provision has rarely been used. It is important to note that behaviour which is intimidating or violent will still be prohibited. Thus the remainder of section 545B is to remain intact such that a person will still be liable to prosecution where that person uses violence or intimidation, follows a person from place to place, hides a person's tools or hinders the person in the use of the tools.

Schedule 1.3 amends section 14A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 to clarify when the court may sentence a respondent to a Crown appeal in his or her absence. Section 14A presently enables a respondent to a Crown appeal to be sentenced in his or her absence as long as the court is satisfied that the respondent has been given notice of the appeal and that it would not be unjust to deal with the appeal in the absence of the respondent. The proposal addresses an ambiguity in section 14A where it refers to the respondent having been given notice of the appeal, in that it could refer to notice of the fact that an appeal has been filed or to notice of the date upon which the appeal is to be heard. The amendment will clarify that sentencing may take place if the court is satisfied that the respondent has been given notice of the date on which the appeal is to be heard; or, although the notice of appeal has been served on the respondent, the respondent has not been given notice of the date on which the appeal is to be heard because the respondent's whereabouts are unknown.

Schedule 1.4 makes procedural amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. Table 1 of the Act contains specified indictable offences to be dealt with summarily unless the prosecution or the defendant elects to have the offence dealt with on indictment. These are generally the more serious offences. Table 2 contains indictable offences to be dealt with summarily unless the prosecution elects to have the matter dealt with on indictment. It is considered that the offence of "Possess any implement of housebreaking or any implement capable of being used to enter or drive a conveyance" in section 114(1)(b) of the Crimes Act is more suitable for placement in table 2. The offence carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. However, the sentence invariably received for this offence is within local court jurisdiction - that is, less than two years imprisonment.

Section 33L will be amended to extend jurisdiction to clerks of the court or justices of the peace employed in the local courts administration of the Attorney General's Department. This amendment will enable certain procedural matters to be attended to by these personnel, rather than wasting valuable court time. Schedule 1.5 amends the Justices Act 1902 to provide that an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against a
Page 4281
sentence in the local court may be lodged later than the required time where the sentence was reduced because the person undertook to assist law enforcement authorities and the person failed wholly or partly to fulfil the undertaking. Where a person has received a reduced sentence in the District Court or Supreme Court, but later fails to fulfil his or her undertaking, the Director of Public Prosecutions may lodge an appeal against that sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeal under section 5DA of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912. There is no limitation on the time in which such an appeal must be lodged. There is presently no express corresponding provision for a reduced sentence given in the local court. It is proposed to allow such an appeal to be lodged later than the 28-day period which presently applies to Crown appeals against sentence in the District Court. This is because it is typically some time after a person has been granted a reduced sentence that it comes to light that an undertaking has not been fulfilled.

Schedule 1.6 makes various amendments to the Listening Devices Act 1984. These proposals arise from a meeting of agencies involved in the administration of the Listening Devices Act, convened by the Solicitor-General, which confirmed the need for these amendments. Section 15 of the Act will be amended so as to enable warrants to authorise the use of listening devices for the investigation of offences under the laws of the Commonwealth and other States and Territories. Often there are matters which involve both New South Wales and Federal police officers in the investigation of Commonwealth and State offences. It is considered prudent to amend the definition so as to expressly state that it includes the law of the Commonwealth or another State or Territory. This would facilitate cooperation between New South Wales and other police forces. It removes an artificial barrier to such cooperation, which is regrettably necessary to meet the growing sophistication of criminal activity.

The other major amendment is the insertion of a new section 20A, which will allow for the use of assumed names or code names in warrants if it is to protect the safety of the persons concerned. The amendment aims to ensure adequate protection may be given to law enforcement officials under the Act. From time to time, notice is served on the Attorney General in advance of the application for a warrant to give a code name in relation to one of the persons whose private conversation it is intended to record or listen to. Usually this occurs when an undercover police agent is proposing to have a conversation with a suspect. Concern for the safety of the agent has led to a reluctance to state the person's true name in any of the relevant documentation, as the production of the documents in legal proceedings may become necessary. The use of code names will be subject to strict guidelines as well as formal review in 12 months to ensure the use of code names is not abused.

Schedule 1.7 makes two changes to the Summary Offences Act 1988. First, it inserts a new offence of unauthorised entry into a boat, car or caravan. This proposal stems from a concern raised by police that complaints are often received from boat owners concerning intruders on their boats. In responding to such a complaint, police are embarrassed to admit that they have no power to require such intruders to leave, since a person can occupy a boat without committing an offence. It is not a trespass since the boat is not an enclosed land. Only if a person attempts to remove the boat, or causes damage to it, can any action be taken. The proposed maximum penalty for the offence is $400. The second change will be to increase the penalty for the offence of having an offensive implement in a public place from $1,000 or six months imprisonment to $2,000 or 12 months imprisonment. This offence covers the possession of objects such as knives. The amendment reflects the growing seriousness with which this type of offence is viewed.

Schedule 1.8 amends the Supreme Court Act 1970 to enable the Court of Appeal to recommence an original sentence from a fresh date and to provide that any period which a person has spent on bail whilst awaiting determination of an application before the Court of Appeal be reflected in the sentence to be served. This proposal addresses a number of comments made by the courts as to the present lack of such a power. Schedule 1.8 also amends the Supreme Court Act to enable the Court of Appeal to treat differentially the various decisions of the District Court when determining an application for judicial review. The amendment seeks to overcome procedural difficulties encountered by the Court of Appeal in granting relief when reviewing orders of the District Court in appeals from convictions and sentences determined by magistrates. At present, the court must either uphold or quash both the conviction and sentence ordered by the District Court in order to grant relief in respect of an erroneous decision of the District Court concerning sentence alone. The amendment will enable the court to quash the sentence without affecting the conviction in such cases. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Jeffery.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [7.49]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the Public Health Amendment Bill is to amend the Public Health Act to establish an effective statutory scheme for the notification of positive and negative cervical cytology and histology
Page 4282
test results. The New South Wales pap test register, to be established under this scheme, marks the creation of a major tool in the fight against cervical cancer. Every year in New South Wales approximately 350 women are newly diagnosed with cervical cancer. Each year 100 women die from this disease. All currently and previously sexually active women are at risk. By earlier intervention, through widespread screening, the incidence and mortality amongst these women can be reduced.

Pap tests are the central screening tool for cervical cancer. A clear association therefore exists between the introduction of pap testing on a wider basis in the community, allowing early clinical intervention and a reduction in deaths from cervical cancer. Pap tests are currently the only cost-effective, widespread method available for making an early detection of cervical cancer. A pap test can identify whether a woman has cervical cancer or any of its precursors. Currently it is estimated that only about 46 per cent of cervical cancers are being prevented. According to the New South Wales Cancer Council, however, international evidence suggests that up to 90 per cent of some cancers of the cervix are preventable. The use of pap tests has had the greatest impact on cervical cancer rates where organised screening programs, high participation rates and high-quality smear taking and cytology services exist. The establishment of an effective registry will contribute to these three areas. It is also fundamental to the successful implementation of an organised screening program, providing a seamless system for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer.

Establishment of the register is a key component of the national cervical screening program. This is a Commonwealth-State cost-shared initiative, designed to reduce the incidence of, and mortality attributable to, cervical cancer. In keeping with the objectives of the national program, the functions of the register will be to manage the provision of reminder notices and the follow-up of abnormal and technically unsatisfactory results, for women who elect to remain on the register; to provide a linked record of the results of pap tests and related biopsies for women, their health practitioner and their laboratory - this will assist in the more accurate interpretation of tests performed; to provide statistical feedback on tests to laboratories and health practitioners to assist them with their quality assurance activities; to increase public awareness of the benefits of the register through the publication of statistical profiles; to monitor participation rates and patterns to assist in the planning and evaluation of current and future cervical screening programs; to provide information to the Commonwealth as required under the national cervical screening program; and to provide a database containing only non-identifying information for use in research.

The register will provide a safety net by putting in place a system for reminding healthy women who are overdue for their two-yearly pap test. This is particularly important for older women and those living in rural areas who may not attend general practitioners regularly. The register will also provide an additional mechanism for following up women with abnormal results, who at the moment rely solely upon their individual health practitioner for such follow-up. This will mean that women in New South Wales who choose not to opt off the register can have increased assurance that they will be notified of any abnormal result, so that appropriate action can be taken. For those women who do not opt off, the register will provide a history of pap test results to their health practitioner and pathologist. Access to this history will assist health practitioners to interpret subsequent test results and provide more reliable recommendations for further action.

The term "cervical cancer test" has been broadly defined in the bill, to ensure it covers cervical cytology and histology tests. In any legislative proposal in this area, however, it must be recognised that medical technology is changing at an increasing rate. While the pap test is currently the major screening tool in relation to cervical cytology, this may not always be the case. Proposed section 42E of the bill therefore allows for regulations to be made to incorporate such future developments within the ambit of the legislation. To maximise public health benefits, it is proposed that the register operate on an opt-off rather than an opt-on system. This means that the register will be provided with both identifying data and test results of a woman unless that woman indicates she wishes to remain anonymous.

This register will therefore differ from current, uncommenced legislation. This legislation, which also amended the Public Health Act, was passed in May 1994 by the former Government. It established an opt-on register which recorded only the identifying details of women who clearly and positively consented to their inclusion. The problem with this system was that many women who were willing to join the register would be denied the opportunity to participate simply because their election forms were unclear or they had not made an election. The introduction of an opt-on system in New South Wales was also out of step with practice in Western Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria and South Australia, where opt-off registers have been established. The provisions establishing the opt-on register were never commenced. Shortly after passage of the legislation, concerns were expressed by a range of groups representing health practitioners involved in the treatment of cervical cancer that the opt-on register was not viable and would not achieve its intended objectives.

As a result of these concerns, a review of the legislation was undertaken. This review concluded that an opt-off register would be significantly more effective, both as a safety net for women and a clinical tool for health practitioners. At the same time, privacy concerns, which were the main reason
Page 4283
for pursuing an opt-on model, would be addressed by incorporating strong legislative and administrative safeguards into the new proposals. It is proposed to address privacy issues in a number of ways. First, women having pap tests taken will be provided with ample opportunity to exercise their right to privacy by opting off the register. Specific provisions of the Act will allow women to opt off by informing their health practitioner of their views at the time the test is taken. The provisions will also allow a woman to opt off at a later date, by simply notifying the register that they no longer wish to be included. Each time a woman subsequently attends her practitioner for the purpose of having a pap test she will be reminded of her right to have her identifying details removed from the register.

Second, the Cancer Council will conduct a comprehensive information campaign about the role and functions of the pap test register to coincide with the commencement of this legislation. Third, under the provisions included in the bill, a woman attending her health practitioner for a pap test will be provided with detailed information about her rights to opt off, ensuring she is able to make an informed decision about whether she wishes her identifying data to be included in the register or not. Information to be provided by health practitioners will also include details about the purpose and functions of the register, a description of the data to be recorded on the register, how it will be used, who may access it, and how the confidentiality of that information will be protected.

Finally, in order to conclusively ensure women who remain on the register have made an informed decision, a new and additional measure is proposed. Each woman enrolled on the register will be sent a "welcome letter". The letter will convey the same information about the register provided by health practitioners at the time the pap test was taken and provide a further opportunity for the woman to decline to participate. Given the privacy concerns, I also stress to the House that although all cytology and histology test results will be included on the register, identifying details will be sent to the register only where a woman has not opted off the register. Recording all test results will permit accurate profiles of screening rates in the entire New South Wales population to be reported. This is an essential tool in enabling the health system to properly plan and resource future programs in this area. This approach is consistent with practice in South Australia and Western Australia. The system has been designed to ensure that it simply will not be possible to use the register to link any woman who has chosen to opt off.

Access to data, both identifying and non-identifying, will only be permitted for defined purposes in order to ensure that the confidentiality of register data is maintained. Proposed section 42J provides that a woman's identifying details and her test results may only be disclosed to the woman to whom they relate; in accordance with the written consent of the woman; to the woman's health practitioner; to the person in charge of the laboratory engaged on the woman's behalf; for the purposes of notifying a woman of her test results and providing a linked record to interpret test results; where allowed under a court order or statute; and as prescribed by regulation. Access to a woman's name and test result for the purpose of research will not be permitted without the consent of the woman concerned. Furthermore, access to the non-identifying test results of those women who have opted off the register will be permitted only to facilitate the work of the register in achieving its functions.

Enforcement of privacy provisions will be ensured, in part, by the creation of offence provisions imposing penalties to ensure that the instructions of women who opt off the register are respected; the anonymity of women who opt off the register is maintained; the register does not disclose identifying details except where permitted in accordance with the narrow range of circumstances listed in proposed section 42J of the bill; the register receives test results at appropriate intervals to permit the register to effectively discharge its statutory obligations, including the provision of a reminder service to women participating in the register who are overdue for a pap test. I am aware that concerns have been raised by the section of general practice of the Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners about the penalty provision for disclosing identifying information to the register contrary to a woman's expressed wishes.

It should be noted that the penalty of 10 units is a maximum penalty. Furthermore, any decision to conduct prosecutions for breaches of this legislation would be consistent with current prosecution guidelines issued by the Department of Health. The primary consideration when determining whether to launch a prosecution would be whether it would further the objects of the legislation. Under the department's guidelines a warning notice is generally issued at first instance, which gives the party concerned adequate opportunity to adjust his or her conduct. A prosecution is viewed as an option of last, rather than first, resort.

Guidelines for the operation of the register which have been developed are in conformity with the code of practice of the New South Wales Department of Health on privacy and confidentiality of data collections, and the privacy principles established in the Commonwealth Privacy Act. Adherence to the privacy principles is one of the special conditions required by the Commonwealth in funding the New South Wales program for the prevention of cancer of the cervix. The fact that this proposal could impact on individual privacy is recognised, and has been taken into account in the drafting of these proposals. It is for this reason that extensive safeguards have been developed to protect the privacy of women who participate in the
Page 4284
register. This potential impact must be balanced against the overwhelming public health benefit of the register to the women of New South Wales. It will reduce the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer. Put most simply, the bill will save lives. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Jeffery.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank - Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing) [8.04]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The bill proposes an amendment to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act which is designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning system when dealing with the planning and management of contaminated land, and land which may be contaminated. The amendments will clarify the legal position for planning authorities, particularly councils, when undertaking their responsibilities under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The need for the amendment was recognised in the deliberation of the post-remediation working party convened by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning and was foreshadowed in a report "Management of Remediated Sites", produced in May 1995.

The amendment will provide the degree of certainty and confidence needed in dealing with contaminated land issues and will create an incentive for councils to follow the planning practices as outlined in the planning guidelines for contaminated land, jointly developed by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning and the Environment Protection Authority. The planning guidelines provide for the first time an integrated approach to identification, strategic planning and development control in relation to land contamination issues. I will briefly outline the amendment and demonstrate its positive effects on the planning system. The amendment in schedule 1 will provide a legislative mechanism for the purposes of securing statutory protection to consent authorities, particularly councils, when undertaking their responsibilities under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in relation to contaminated land, and where the planning guidelines for contaminated land have been followed in good faith.

It is proposed that the statutory protection be effective from the date of notification in the Government Gazette. Proposed new section 145B of the amendment defines the specific planning function under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to which the statutory protection will extend. It includes functions such as the preparation for making of an environmental planning instrument, the preparation or making of a development control plan, the processing and determination of a development application and the furnishing of advice under section 149 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Subsection (3) requires a measure of good faith by councils with regard to the listed planning function which will be subject to evidence that the consent authority has acted substantially in accordance with the guidelines in force at the time.

The amendment also extends the need to follow the planning guideline to the interim period between the publication of the guideline and the commencement of schedule 1. This will allow the statutory protection to operate while maintaining certainty for consent authorities in the planning and development control processes. Without the statutory protection, compliance with the planning guidelines will help councils demonstrate that they have acted with reasonable standard of care, but there is a concern that councils and other consent authorities will not be fully protected even where they have followed the guideline in good faith.

This has already led to an inhibiting effect on the current development of land in New South Wales. In an effort to minimise the exposure of councils to liability, councils have displayed a highly conservative approach in their dealing with development applications and rezoning of land, the outcome of which may lead to a greater number of appeals reaching the courts on the ground of "deemed refusal". At the same time it is recognised that the proposed statutory protection will not provide, nor is it intended to provide, absolute protection. Consent authorities with a duty of care will remain subject to any action in negligence. The question of whether a consent authority has been negligent in performing its statutory planning function in relation to contaminated land will be a question for the court to decide. However, the statutory protection will structure the risks and benefits for councils and add a level of certainty to the planning process with diluting the requirements for a responsible and professional approach.

If councils follow the guidelines and adopt best practices, a statutory protection will provide greater security and certainty. This will result in a higher and more consistent standard of performance by councils in undertaking their statutory planning functions, and provide them with a firm support in processing applications in relation to contaminated or possibly contaminated land leading to greater efficiencies. Honourable members should be aware that the amendment is described in detail in the explanatory notes relating to the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Jeffery.

Page 4285

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [8.07]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Stock Chemical Residues Act 1975 is an Act which is aimed at preventing the slaughter for human consumption of stock which contains concentrations of residues of chemicals, and to prevent stock from becoming affected by those residues. This Act has gained increasing significance in the current international export climate. This bill extends the existing legislative mechanism in the Stock Chemical Residues Act for regulation of stock to comply with the requirements of our international trading partners, consumers and the environment. Honourable members may be aware that a number of crises have been created in recent years through the export requirements of our trading partners.

A crisis was caused by the requirements imposed by the European Community on Australian beef and offal exports with regard to hormonal growth promotants - HGPs. In mid-1993 this House passed an emergency ad hoc regulatory scheme which saved our beef export access to the European Community market. Honourable members will remember the crisis which occurred last year over chlorflurazuron - CFZ - levels in our beef exports to the United States. This was an unpredictable crisis which was created by the recent drought. Drought affected stock were fed cotton trash which had been sprayed with an insecticide containing CFZ. This resulted in levels of CFZ being found in beef which were in some cases above levels permitted by Australian health standards and well above levels set by the United States and our other trading partners.

As a result there are still over 100 herds of cattle in detention in New South Wales because their bodies contain excess levels of CFZ. There are many other herds which have been exposed to CFZ which are subject to expensive testing at slaughter and these farmers are suffering loss of market access. This year another problem has arisen in relation to a tick treatment registered in Queensland called Acatak, which contains CFZ, another substance which creates long term residues. This treatment is not registered for use in New South Wales. Farmers in New South Wales have already been severely affected by CFZ residues, and to knowingly allow a further group of animals to cause further disruption to the meat export trade will be unacceptable.

This is why it has become important for the Minister of Agriculture to have the power to impose conditions on entry of stock into New South Wales on suspicion of being residue affected. This power currently exists for stock affected by declared diseases but stock affected by chemical residues must now be seen as having similar significance to the export trade in New South Wales as diseased animals.

More generally, we all know of the increasing awareness by the community of chemical residues and other products which do not leave chemical residues, such as hormone growth promotants. This is why the bill provides increased flexibility in defining chemically affected stock as stock which may not have residues in them but which have been declared by the Minister as a category to which the Act applies. There are increasing demands by local government councils, our trading partners, consumers, and other interest groups for identification of stock and land having been treated with products such as pesticides, drugs and other chemicals, whether a detectable residue remains or not.

Compounding these problems are problems in relation to disclosure by the department of information relating to residue levels in stock and on land. There are increasing demands on the department to provide information on residue levels to different affected and interest groups. The bill provides protection to the department for disclosure of information relating to residues in stock and on land where that information is disclosed in good faith, a protection already available to local government in similar circumstances. This is in accordance with the Government's commitment to community right-to-know legislation. The bill also incorporates the Australian food standards code as published by the National Food Authority as the New South Wales standard for acceptable residue levels. This will ensure that New South Wales consumers are kept up to date at the level of protection determined at a national level by the National Food Authority. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Jeffery.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services) [8.11]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

A significant purpose of this bill is to assist in the fulfilment of a recommendation of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. The royal commission considered that it was of vital importance that Aboriginal inmates should be permitted to attend funerals of family members. The bill which I now bring before the House will include New South Wales in a proposed Australiawide scheme to assist inmates, who have serious and legitimate reasons for doing so, to travel interstate under escort, if appropriate. The bill also makes a number of other amendments of varying significance to the Prisons Act.

Page 4286

In summary, the bill concerns the following matters: facilitation of interstate leave of absence for inmates in defined circumstances; penalties for drug trafficking in correctional centres, and for conveying contraband into correctional centres; increasing the amount of compensation which may be imposed by a visiting justice upon an inmate who damages property as a result of committing a prison offence; making clear the distinction between inmates under protection and those under segregation; and replacing outdated terminology in the Prisons Act.

The most significant amendment in the bill makes clear provision for inmates to be granted leave of absence to travel interstate. Circumstances arise from time to time where inmates have legitimate reasons to seek leave of absence from a correctional centre to so travel. Family bereavements, medical or other serious welfare emergencies, are the most obvious catalysts for such requests. The issue of interstate leave of absence was an agenda item at the 1994 and 1995 corrective services Ministers' conferences. At those conferences, all jurisdictions agreed that a national approach should be adopted in establishing an interstate leave of absence scheme. Victoria has already enacted such legislation; the Australian Capital Territory has advised that it will await our legislation before introducing its own; and Queensland has reported that it has legislation in preparation.

The Commissioner for Corrective Services has the power - under section 29 of the Prisons Act - to grant an inmate leave of absence within New South Wales for the sorts of purposes referred to earlier. The commissioner may also grant leave of absence within New South Wales for a minimum security inmate to undertake employment, under the work release scheme. The conditions which apply to the granting of such leave vary according to individual circumstances. Thus, a maximum security inmate who wished to attend his mother's funeral would be escorted at all times by correctional officers. Conversely, a minimum security inmate undertaking employment or participating in an educational program would be unescorted.

Some difficulties have been experienced where the nearest educational facilities and employment opportunities to a correctional centre are located outside New South Wales. In the case of Berrima Correctional Centre, for example, the nearest educational facilities and employment opportunities may be in the Australian Capital Territory. As a result, the inmate's rehabilitation can be seriously affected. Inmates may wish to attend the funeral of a close relative outside New South Wales. They may require urgent medical attention which is only available interstate. They may be undertaking an educational course through an interstate educational body, and have to attend a designated centre located interstate in order to sit for an examination. The bill amends section 29 of the Prisons Act to give the Commissioner for Corrective Services clear power to grant leave of absence to a minimum security inmate to travel to another State or Territory on grounds the commissioner considers appropriate and, in the case of maximum and medium security inmates, to grant leave of absence to travel to another State or Territory, but only if the leave is for medical treatment or on compassionate grounds.

Aboriginal inmates at Broken Hill Correctional Centre, for example, will be able to apply for permission to attend the funerals of close relatives in South Australia. An inmate who is granted interstate leave of absence will, if his or her classification requires it, be escorted interstate by one or more correctional officers, who will be authorised to perform their duties in the other State or Territory as if he or she were in their jurisdiction of origin. An important aspect of the proposed legislation is the question of legal liability for injury or damage involving an inmate or an officer which could arise as a result of an inmate being interstate on leave of absence. The bill amends section 29 of the Prisons Act to provide that such liability will be accepted by the State or Territory of origin of the inmate.

The second amendment contained within this bill concerns penalties for drug trafficking and conveying contraband into a correctional centre. At present, the Prisons Act provides a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment or 10 penalty units or both for persons trafficking drugs into a correctional centre. In contrast, the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act and the Poisons Act provide maximum penalties of up to two years imprisonment for analogous offences in the community. The offence of supplying drugs to a person in lawful custody in the context of the correctional environment involves at least the same level of criminality as the offence of drug trafficking in the wider community. The department has a duty of care for the inmates in its charge and this duty of care cannot be discharged when inmates are taking illegally obtained drugs in combination with whatever prescription medication is being provided to them by the Corrections Health Service.

The present bill will amend section 37 of the Prisons Act and link the offence of bringing or attempting to bring a drug into a correctional centre with the appropriate penalties in the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act and the Poisons Act. The current penalty for conveying contraband into a correctional centre is six months imprisonment or 10 penalty units, or both. As contraband can include items such as lethal weapons, it is appropriate that the current maximum penalty for this offence also be increased. Accordingly, the bill amends paragraphs (c), (d) and (f) of section 38(1) of the Prisons Act to increase the maximum penalty for bringing contraband into a correctional centre to two years imprisonment or 20 penalty units, or both.

The third amendment contained in the bill concerns the level of compensation payable by inmates for the damage of property. At present, when an inmate damages property as a result of that inmate committing a prison offence, the inmate is liable to pay up to $50 compensation under an order
Page 4287
by a governor of a correctional centre, or up to $300 under an order by a visiting justice. Legislation in some other States has for some time provided for an unlimited level of compensation which could be paid by an inmate in these circumstances. The New South Wales Department of Corrective Services has experienced several recent incidents where the value of property damaged by inmates has greatly exceeded the present $300 limit. One such incident involved extensive damage to the seat of a large escort bus. It is not proposed to alter the current $50 compensation limit which a governor can order after determining charges internally. However, when charges have been determined after a hearing by a visiting justice, with the existing checks and balances set out in the legislation, it is appropriate that the discretion of the visiting justice as to appropriate compensation should not be fettered.

The fourth amendment involves a change to the structure of section 22 of the Prisons Act which will distinguish more clearly between inmates who are on protection and inmates in segregation. This is an important distinction which has some impact on the treatment of these inmates within the correctional system. Protection of an inmate occurs either at the request of the inmate or at the direction of the commissioner in order for that inmate to be separated from other inmates for that inmate's personal safety. Honourable members will be aware, for example, that the inmate population holds particular sorts of crimes in such abhorrence that those who committed them must be protected from mainstream inmates for their entire sentence.

Segregation of an inmate, on the other hand, occurs at the direction of the commissioner to preserve the good order and discipline of a correctional centre. The law rightly imposes restrictions upon the use of segregation and the length of time for which it may be imposed, granting inmates a right of quasi judicial review lest segregation be abused. At present, section 22 does not clearly distinguish inmate protection and inmate segregation and this is undesirable given that the purpose of the two forms of custody is very different. The bill amends section 22 to make that distinction clear.

I now turn to the final amendment contained within the bill: the replacement of out-dated terminology in the Prisons Act. The bill provides that all references to "prisons" in the Prisons Act be replaced with references to "correctional centres", all references to "prisoners" be replaced with references to "inmates", and all references to "prison officers" be replaced with references to "correctional officers". It is many years since the former New South Wales Department of Prisons was renamed the Department of Corrective Services and the changes in terminology which I have foreshadowed are in line with terminology which is now commonly accepted. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Hazzard.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [8.23]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to establish a new regulatory scheme for pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers. The scheme involves streamlined licensing of pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers who deal in "high risk of theft" goods. It also requires licensees to observe certain minimum standards of conduct, including record keeping. The proposal is to repeal the Pawnbrokers Act 1902, the Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act 1906 and the Hawkers Act 1974, and replace them with a single statute targeted to prevent and remedy problems in the current marketplace. The main purpose of this legislation is to restrict the trade in stolen goods. There is no intention to restrict fair competition.

A secondary purpose is regulation of pawnbrokers in the consumer interest. This is seen as necessary in order to protect the interest of borrowers who pawn goods. With respect to the disclosure of the cost of borrowing, the bill provides comparable protection to that afforded to other classes of borrowers whose transactions are regulated by consumer credit legislation. An applicant for a licence must be adult, not be an undischarged bankrupt and have no convictions for dishonesty offences within the previous ten years. Similar provisions apply to applicants who are corporations and their directors.

Licences will be issued by the Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading, with appeals going to the Commercial Tribunal. Licensees will be required to display licence details at business locations. Provision is made for issue of a single licence to be renewed annually in order to maintain the currency of information concerning licensee business and storage premises. This is necessary for effective enforcement and provision of information on the public register to members of the public. Licences will only be required by those second-hand dealers who deal in goods which are at high risk of theft: portable goods of high value such as jewellery, electronic goods, power tools, and so on.

The new legislation is designed to reduce unnecessary paperwork for police and licensees. Record keeping will be targeted at pawn transactions and dealing in second-hand goods of types which are seen to be at high risk of theft. Licensees will be required to keep records for inspection by police or other authorised officers. The trader will have to require and record proof of identity from those who are pawning or selling second-hand goods. The regulation will specify the necessary details and requirements as to proof of
Page 4288
ownership of the goods. The trader must not accept any goods offered for sale or pawn if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the goods concerned are not the property of the person by whom they are offered. Such grounds would include frequent offering of high value goods by the same person or a person offering goods such as computers about which they appear to have little knowledge.

The regulations will allow records to be kept in computerised form. Regulations will allow for the phasing in of on-line computer records for the use of the licensing bodies subject to a cost-benefit analysis. Computer crossmatching of vendors, traded goods and stolen goods is seen as an important future tool in the battle to restrict the stolen goods trade. This is in line with moves in other States to create what could become a national data base of stolen goods. I have received a volume of complaints about the potential for stolen goods to be sold at markets and garage sales. It is not reasonable to impose restrictions on those who trade in second-hand goods for a livelihood and leave the backyard trade exempt.

It is proposed to allow people to trade 12 times a year without a licence. The mechanism used in the bill is a presumption regarding the carrying on of business. This will give the police guidance in dealing with the dishonest unlicensed dealers who trade sporadically on the fringes of the market through so-called garage sales and the like. The sanction for unlicensed dealing can be severe including fines and forfeiture of proceeds. Enforcement agencies will be able to use information from newspaper advertisements, market records and on-site visits to establish a pattern of dealing and thus prosecute the unlicensed.

The 12 occasions of trading provision should not restrict the legitimate market in second-hand goods nor catch those who trade in bric-a-brac at local markets. By and large their stock in trade does not consist of high risk of theft goods. To deter the sale of stolen goods at fairs and markets, promoters of regular events of this type will be required to keep records of those selling goods in the nominated categories. This should not involve promoters of these events in much more recording than they would do now to run an event efficiently. It will give police a further source of information on potential illegal traders.

Another major grievance about which I have received many complaints is the restoration of stolen goods to rightful owners who have located them in the shop of a second-hand dealer or pawnbroker. The possibility of having police involved in an on-the-spot restoration of such property was explored, but there were many practical and legal barriers to this, such as the difficulty of proving genuine ownership of goods. The bill proposes instead to `freeze' disputed property in the possession of the trader until the matter is resolved. If people see goods they suspect to be their property in the possession of a trader, they will be able to approach that person and lay claim to the goods. At this point the trader must supply them with a document setting out the procedure to be followed in claiming their property and also supply a copy to the police. The trader may not change or dispose of the property until the matter has been resolved, with the Local Court being the final arbiter. To guard against vexatious or erroneous claims the claimant is required to supply information to the dealer and to act within a certain time frame.

The requirement that second-hand dealers must retain goods for 14 days before disposing of them will be continued. It was argued by sections of the industry that this imposes considerable holding costs on dealers. However, now that it is proposed that low risk of theft items such as furniture not be caught by the legislation, which is to apply to portable high value goods, the cost should be much reduced. Submissions from police and dealers indicated that rightful owners of goods had a better chance of finding them if dealers were obliged to keep goods on hand for a period. This was important where the "stolen" goods fell into the "domestic theft" category - that is, they had been sold to dealers by family members where there was a drug addict in the family or where there had been a relationship breakdown and one partner had sold off the jointly owned property. It is proposed to exempt by regulation goods purchased by a dealer at auction from the 14-day holding period.

Police who suspect, on reasonable grounds, that a licensee has possession of stolen goods can direct them to be held for 21 days, which period can be renewed once. This provision is considered important for criminal law investigations. To enhance the capacity of the police to act in respect of licensees who do not adhere to the conduct requirements, a system of penalty notices and demerit points is proposed. These sanctions complement fines which may be imposed as a result of court action. The effect will be that licensees who continue to infringe trading requirements will suffer the cumulative impact of breaches, including the possible loss of licence. Many of the sections of the legislation applying to pawnbrokers have been retained. In practical terms the legitimate pawnbroking marketplace has been conducted in an orderly fashion for many years.

The auction system for disposal of unredeemed pawns will be continued for goods on which a prescribed amount - proposed to be $50 - has been loaned. Borrowers may apply for the surplus where goods have sold for more than the loan plus interest and charges. There was consideration given to removing the auction requirement on the grounds that refunds are rarely claimed. However, as the present system seems to be well accepted by both pawnbrokers and clients as promoting a fair marketplace, it seems preferable to retain it. It should be noted that pawn transactions are subject to the reopening provisions of the Credit Act where the pawn, at the time it was entered into, was
Page 4289
unjust. This is an important consumer protection provision and will be continued under the new Consumer Credit Code when it commences.

I have mentioned that the Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading is the licensing authority, carrying the responsibility to take disciplinary action against licensees who, in a variety of ways, fail to observe honest and fair trading standards. The bill sets out a disciplinary system which is meant to be effective in the public interest whilst providing essential protections to the licensee, including appeal rights, whose livelihood may be at risk. I have not taken up the time of the House in outlining all the provisions of the bill. This is adequately done in the explanatory note which accompanies the bill.

I do want to emphasise in conclusion that the bill seeks in an informed way to target current market problems and address them in a way to produce a net community benefit. Particular attention has been paid to the respective roles that the Police Service and my department should play under the regulatory scheme. Police are to be freed up to concentrate on activities that deter theft and the receiving of stolen goods, which create many community disadvantages. Most second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers are legitimate traders intent on providing their customers with a service. This bill will not inhibit good business practice. The Government is intent on enhancing the capacity of the Police Service to target thieves and those who trade with them and the Department of Fair Trading to remove dishonest traders from the marketplace. I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Jeffery.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [8.34]: Before the debate was adjourned I was making the point on behalf of the Opposition that although the coalition generally supports the legislation as introduced, it will move two amendments in Committee. The Opposition does not accept the present wording of section 642 as being adequate to ensure that police have the requisite powers to control crowds and individuals drinking in crowds in alcohol-free zones. We propose that police officers be given discretion to warn; they should not have to confiscate alcohol without warning.

The second amendment also relates to section 642. We propose to provide that the penalty be two penalty points rather than 0.2 penalty points. This would make the penalty $200 rather than $20, as a penalty point at present is $100. We believe a penalty of $20 is simply inadequate and makes the law hardly worth enforcing as it does not have the necessary deterrent value. In South Australia the penalty for the equivalent offence is $150. As I said earlier, the legislation was the initiative of the coalition, which was in government from 1988 to 1995 - and was reviewed in 1994. The amendments in the bill largely stem from that review, and we are happy to support them.

The bill has particular application to certain areas of New South Wales at certain times. One of the amendments allows alcohol-free zones to be imposed for certain occasions. This has relevance to my electorate of Gosford. On New Year's Eve at Terrigal large crowds assemble on the beach and on the esplanade. The crowds can be potentially disorderly, especially when alcohol is involved. The legislation will enable greater control of the consumption of alcohol in the prescribed zones.

In recent years Byron Bay has had a similar problem to Terrigal. Bondi Beach is the third major area in New South Wales where the legislation will have application. I commend the police at Terrigal for the way in which they have handled the crowds in recent years and the management of the Crown Plaza Hotel and the Terrigal Hotel for exercising discretion. By and large crowds on the central coast have comprised good-natured and warm people. People on the central coast have a reputation of being good-natured and warm, as is reflected in their choice in the member for Gosford. The Opposition supports the bill and will not vote against its second reading but will move the foreshadowed amendments in Committee.

Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [8.39]: I support the amendments foreshadowed by the honourable member for Gosford. Whilst I support the Local Government Amendment (Alcohol-free Zones) Bill, I believe that it should go further than it does. There was no mention in the second reading speech of increased penalties. In response to my interjections the Minister for Local Government stated that he proposes to leave the level of penalties unchanged.

Alcohol-free zones were introduced in 1991 in response to community concerns that some roads or public places could not be used in safety and without interference from street drinkers. The penalty at the time was $20, which I am sure all honourable members and even the Minister would agree is very low. The zones have been very effective in allowing local communities to respond to a particular situation. This is important, and police are able to confiscate alcohol from those who drink in an alcohol-free zone after being given a warning to stop. This has been effective in part in preventing a possible outbreak of violence or vandalism.

The community overwhelmingly supports the concept. The Minister referred to the benefits of the bill and of consultation. It is noted that the Government has taken care not to disturb the essential nature of the alcohol-free zones in proposing amendments. The honourable member for Gosford said there is a need to increase the
Page 4290
penalty from $20 to $200. In South Australia the penalty is $150 - and I understand it is to increase - so New South Wales should keep up with the times and impose an appropriate penalty. The Minister stated that the fine of $20 reflects the low level nature of the offence and the Government does not intend to alter the penalty. However, it has also been stated that much higher penalties should be imposed, especially where vandalism or assaults occur. The Minister said that he did not support this view, and I cannot understand that.

If the Government is strong on law and order and wants vandalism and potential violence nipped in the bud, it must support the amendments foreshadowed by the shadow minister. The Police Service will police the regulations and will require appropriate penalties to back it up. The bill is aimed at improving the effectiveness of alcohol-free zones in controlling street drinking, and this will only happen if the penalties are increased. Alcohol-free zones continue to have an increasing role in local communities, particularly in the electorate of Oxley and other north coast areas. Unfortunately, in order to get tough on anti-social behaviour and drunkenness in the community, greater penalties must be imposed. In some areas it is out of control.

Kempsey Shire Council supports my view, as do many other communities across New South Wales. They are increasingly concerned about problems of law and order arising from the consumption of alcohol on public roads and places where an alcohol-free zone is in place. In response to an application by the Kempsey and District Chamber of Commerce, and after completing the exhaustive determination process, the council established an alcohol-free zone that covers the majority of the Kempsey central business district. However, the effectiveness of such a zone is seriously restricted by the current legislation, which states that police must first warn any person who commits a breach before issuing a penalty notice for a subsequent breach that same day.

It is fair to give a warning to a tourist or someone unaware of the alcohol-free zone who may be having a beer on the side of a river bank. However, those who continually breach the rules by drinking alcohol day after day make it difficult to police alcohol-free zones. This is particularly so at an event such as a New Year's Eve party, where hundreds of people are present. It is hard to identify, and then re-identify later, a particular person as having committed an offence. How can an identification be made in a large crowd of hundreds or thousands of people? The maximum penalty is a paltry $20. The legislation provides that "no person is liable to any further proceedings for the alleged offence"; that is, payment of the penalty is unenforceable. Therefore this legislation has no teeth -

Mr E. T. Page: It is like being bitten by a gummy shark.

Mr JEFFERY: Minister, if you are strong on law and order and believe that people have a right not to be assaulted and not to have to put up with drunkenness on the street - with traffic trying to get through - you should support these commonsense amendments. New South Wales legislation must be brought into line with that in other States and the bill must be amended to allow for an enforceable fine of up to $200. The police must be given that power, only to be exercised where a riot or assault could take place. The effectiveness of an alcohol-free zone is seriously restricted by the current legislation. It is timely that this bill has been introduced. The Opposition asks only for a fine of $200 for serious breaches of the Act and for police to be given a discretionary power in certain circumstances. I support the foreshadowed amendments. If the Government does not support the amendments, the New South Wales community will want to know why.

Mr E. T. Page: I will tell them.

Mr JEFFERY: They would not understand you for a start. If the Government seeks to be firm on law and order, this is an opportunity to do so by supporting the amendments foreshadowed by the Opposition.

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [8.46]: I support the Government's great initiatives in the Local Government Amendment (Alcohol-free Zones) Bill. The general thrust of the bill is set out in the overview as follows:

The object of this Bill is to amend the Local Government Act 1993:

(a) to enable a council to prepare a proposal for the establishment of an alcohol-free zone on its own motion, and

(b) to enable alcohol-free zones to be established for public places that are car parks, and

(c) to enable alcohol-free zones to be established in relation to special events, and

(d) to enable alcohol-free zones to operate for a period of up to 3 years, and

(e) to make changes to the public notice procedures relating to the establishment of alcohol-free zones, and

(f) to provide that the enforcement of the alcohol-free zone provisions is to be carried out by police officers, except in circumstances where the Commissioner of Police has authorised particular council employees as enforcement officers for special events, and

(g) to prevent a council from prohibiting the drinking of alcohol in a particular place by the erection of notices if the place could be the subject of a proposal to establish an alcohol-free zone.

I speak on this legislation because on certain days the Children's Court at Lidcombe has up to 80 or 90 young people consuming alcohol no further than 100 metres from a Catholic primary school and no more than 500 metres from a public school. This legislation will go a long way towards giving council officers, including police officers, the power to stop this type of behaviour, which is of great
Page 4291
concern to people in the Lidcombe area. The parents and friends of St Joachim's School and Lidcombe Public School will appreciate this legislation. The Minister for Local Government has introduced it to give councils stronger powers in dealing with this problem in my electorate and other electorates. I support the bill.

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [8.48]: I speak briefly on this bill and support the amendments proposed by the Opposition. I wish to talk about the bill in the context of the operation of an alcohol-free zone in my electorate; in fact, there is one right outside my office, in Castle Hill Park. Juveniles, many of them drinking, were congregating in the park at night and this created a problem. The council fortunately provided lighting for the park and this has assisted to some extent. Two years ago the park was declared an alcohol-free zone and the community was of the view that the problem would then be solved because police could confiscate alcohol, and warn and fine people consuming alcohol.

If anything, the problem worsened precisely because police cannot simply fine those who are offending or confiscate their alcohol. Action cannot be taken until a person has been first warned and is subsequently found to be re-offending. I spoke about this at considerable length with a number of police officers. They all said that they needed the power to fine people or to confiscate alcohol on the spot. They said that they wanted it to be a discretionary power; they emphasised that they would not use it in all circumstances. That is precisely why we have proposed that it should be only a discretionary power for the police, not an absolute power to go in and say, "Bang, we will take your alcohol. Whack, here is a $200 fine."

I note that the Minister has talked about the requirement for councils to consult local police patrol commanders about the number and location of alcohol-free zones and their signposting. I am delighted to say that there is a very good working relationship between Baulkham Hills Council and the Castle Hill police patrol. I hope such relationships exist in other local government areas. It is unnecessary to introduce specific measures to ensure that that consultation takes place. The Act as it currently stands - it was introduced by the coalition and was always intended to be reviewed after three or four years - is not adequate and needs strengthening. The coalition supports the measures which the Minister is introducing. His amendments are worthwhile, but the additional amendments need earnest consideration by all members of this House. I commend them to the Minister.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [8.52]: In the last 15 months an alcohol-free zone has been introduced in my electorate. A number of things should be said about alcohol-free zones because they are not necessarily the be-all and end-all that some members may think they are. Alcohol-free zones should be dealt with in a reasonably intellectual way and with some care. There is some concern about the impact of alcohol-free zones, particularly in terms of so-called displacement. We are concerned about whether displacement is occurring and whether we are just shifting the problem from one area to another. We have to evaluate that. The concept of alcohol-free zones does not necessarily address the issue of harm reduction. I know that the Minister for Police is not necessarily indicating that that is what he is trying to do, but we have to be conscious that alcohol-free zones are servicing the problem rather than preventing it. Alcohol-free zones do not address the abuse of alcohol. We should not forget to look at front-end measures to try to reduce the consumption of alcohol.

Manly Council introduced alcohol-free zones in an area which is probably one of the most visited in Australia. Manly currently welcomes approximately six million visitors a year - and that number is expected to double with the Olympics in the year 2000. People come to Manly to enjoy the recreational facilities and to consume food and alcohol. There have been problems in the past, and we are dealing with them through a wholistic safety approach. For that reason, I inform the House that there is to be an evaluation of the first 12 months of the alcohol-free zone in Manly to see whether it has worked. I put on record my appreciation, as a local member, of the drug and alcohol directorate of the Department of Health for its decision to provide funds for a research officer to look at the impact of alcohol-free zones.

Whilst I recognise that alcohol-free zones are a useful tool, it must also be recognised that they are only part of a broad approach to alcohol abuse. They need to be evaluated in each area, particularly when they are in place permanently - as is the case in Manly. This bill provides for event-type alcohol-free zones; it also provides for who can apply for an alcohol-free zone. Anecdotally, it appears that the in my community has been effective. It is our responsibility, as those who support alcohol-free zones, to consider whether there are any downsides and to do so in an objective way to evaluate how effectively the zones are working.

At the same time as Manly has introduced an alcohol-free zone, there has been a voluntary restriction on licensing hours for pubs so that they do not serve alcohol after 3 a.m. - they used to have 24-hour licences. The honourable member for Wakehurst will no doubt speak in this debate, as he is confronted with the prospect of 24-hour licensing in his area. There are problems with that. We need to separate the impact of both those measures: reducing licensing hours, and alcohol-free zones. That is why we are undertaking a research project. I welcome this bill.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [8.56]: As the honourable member for Manly said, there are some common problems on the peninsula with alcohol-free zones. For that reason, it is appropriate that both the honourable member for Manly and I, who
Page 4292
have adjoining electorates, make some brief comment on this bill. I share the concerns which the honourable member for Manly has expressed about simply shifting the problem from one area to another. It is a bit like the chicken and the egg - where does one start?

Mr E. T. Page: The question is which came first.

Mr HAZZARD: Certainly not the Minister - never.

Mr E. T. Page: Get your analogies right.

Mr HAZZARD: Well, there is an egg and an egghead. The issue of moving the problem from one area to another is real. In some instances, we have to act quickly. There was a major problem in Manly. To the credit of the honourable member for Manly and other members of the local community they worked hard on it. In Wakehurst we have a major problem in the Dee Why business area. A number of difficulties have given rise to a lot of the local residents wanting to have an alcohol-free zone and wanting to adopt other measures, such as video cameras and so on - which are currently being looked at in Manly. The difficulty is that it is possibly going to push the problem somewhere else. Unfortunately this area primarily comprises home units. That is a planning problem from many years ago, and it should have been sorted out then.

We should not have had these sorts of areas so close to residential districts. The concept of buffer zones in Australia, in any way, shape or form, has not received a great deal of emphasis. These zones overlap each other and that is a major problem in Dee Why. I am pleased that this legislation has been introduced. Clearly, I would not seek to oppose it as it offers some hope for Warringah Council to initiate its own action - as will be the case with other councils. That is a sensible change. The provision relating to temporary alcohol-free zones is also sensible. Dee Why has wonderful festivals on the beach, and various areas could be for temporary zoning. I am not sure why the Government has gone light on penalties. I support the proposal of the honourable member for Gosford in relation to increasing the penalty to $200. The provision giving the police a clear power to warn is welcomed. The police will be legally entitled to speak to young people and older people, warn them about potential problems and then impose a fine of up to $200 if there is a problem. That is an entirely sensible amendment.

Ms FICARRA (Georges River) [9.00]: The coalition supports this amendment to the principal Act, and has a few amendments of its own. The purpose of the bill is to facilitate the improved operation of the Act that controls the consumption of alcohol on public roads and footpaths. In 1990 the Local Government Act was amended to enable local councils to zone certain public areas where the consumption of alcohol is prohibited and to provide for police enforcement by the confiscation of alcohol, with or without a monetary penalty not exceeding $20. The coalition believes that a penalty of $20 is a pittance and does not work as a deterrent. Thus, coalition members propose an amendment to increase the penalty to $200, in line with the penalties imposed in many other States which are a genuine deterrent to regular and vexatious offenders.

The promotion of law and order within the State is a bipartisan issue. Police have been successfully dealing with instances of unruly behaviour, of people drinking in public thoroughfares, through the implementation of alcohol-free zones under the Act. The Act contains appropriate checks and balances against maladministration and has operated well. However, an amendment will be sought to give police more discretion and flexibility in dealing with offenders who have learnt to manipulate the Act by merely moving on to drink in another public area. Police are continually frustrated by that minority of the public. The coalition will therefore move an amendment that, "A person who drinks alcohol in a place that the person knows, or ought reasonably to be aware, is an alcohol-free zone is guilty of an offence." It was reported stated in the Sydney Morning Herald of 21 November by Councillor Paul Pearce, Deputy Mayor of Waverley Council, that the Christmas party at Bondi Beach attracts up to 30,000 revellers. The article stated:

The law says you have to give people a warning before ordering them from the area, so how are you going to find someone a second time in such a huge crowd with half a dozen council staff and police?

Obviously, an amendment to the Act is necessary. The amendments being sought are the result of feedback by a large number of metropolitan and country New South Wales councils, as well as special interest groups and concerned citizens, to the Department of Local Government regarding the operation of alcohol-free zones. Finetuning on some aspects of the Act is needed for its continued successful implementation and desired social outcomes. As a result, zones will now be in place for three years instead of 12 months, avoiding waste of time and effort by councils and communities. Up until now councils had to chase up the original applicants of alcohol-free zones to resubmit their application. Local organisations are always supportive, however delays are often experienced in getting renewals in on time. Subsequently, zones are often unenforceable between the time of their expiry and ultimate renewal.

Hence, extending the zoning period to three years will streamline operations for councils, communities, central district businesses and the police. More than 100 zones are currently operating throughout New South Wales. The amendments proposed will now include public car parks under the alcohol prohibitive zonings. At present only public roads may be included in a zone. As honourable members would be aware, public car parks are often popular early morning
Page 4293
hang-outs for unruly and intoxicated members of the public. Community festivals are often held on public car park land; thus, it is reasonable and indeed prudent to include these areas in the legislation.

Another worthwhile amendment is that permitting councils themselves to initiate action to renew an alcohol-free zone. Given that councils are generally representative of their local communities, I believe that this change would avoid the delays mentioned previously between expiry of current zonings and written renewals being lodged with councils. There would be no need to rely on an application by other persons. Moreover, councils can apply to declare an area as an alcohol-free zone for a short time period, for example, a one-day special use of a roadway or public thoroughfare or a week-long festival within a town centre. The Commissioner of Police will have the power to appoint council employees as enforcement officers for the purposes of special event zonings. Again, this is a practical and commendable initiative to achieve effective enforcement of the Act.

In actual fact the implementation of alcohol-free zonings has been quite successful as a preventative measure against alcohol-induced unruly public behaviour. Much more community educative resources need to be directed towards increasing the public's awareness of such zonings and enlisting the support and cooperation of the public as the eyes and ears of our police force. Certainly the coalition is delighted to support this amending bill, as the original Act was coalition Government legislation. The bill is the result of practical feedback provided by local councils, the police and bodies such as the Anti-Discrimination Board on the operations to date of the alcohol-free zone legislation. The Local Government and Shires Association and the Australian Local Government Women's Association, representing the majority of councils in New South Wales, support this amendment bill. Such regular feedback and suggestions for improving the legislation are encouraging to all honourable members committed to promoting law and order within the State. On behalf of my constituents, and as President of the Australian Local Government Women's Association, I welcome the bill.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [9.06], in reply: I thank Opposition members for their positive comments. It is obvious, however, that they have not grasped the significance of the amendments or the basic philosophy behind the legislation.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [9.07], by leave: I move the following amendments in globo:

No. 1 Page 3, Schedule 1[2], lines 11-13. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

[2] Section 642 Drinking of alcohol in alcohol-free zone

Omit "It is the duty of a police officer who finds a person drinking or about to drink, or who has recently been drinking, alcohol in an alcohol-free zone to warn" from section 642(1).

Insert instead "On finding a person drinking or about to drink, or who has recently been drinking, alcohol in an alcohol-free zone, a police officer or an enforcement officer may warn".

[3] Section 642(2)

Omit the subsection (except for the penalty at the end of the subsection).

Insert instead:

(2) A person who drinks alcohol in a place that the person knows, or ought reasonably to be aware, is an alcohol-free zone is guilty of an offence.

No. 2 Page 3, Schedule 1. After line 13, insert:

[3] Section 642(2)

Omit "0.2" from the penalty at the end of the subsection. Insert instead "2".

Mr E. T. Page: On a point of order: section 642 of the Act is being considered. My amendment seeks to include the term "or an enforcement officer", to cover the use of council by-law officers to assist police officers. I have raised no other matter in regard to that section. I have raised nothing about the warning system, the offence, or the quantum of the offence. I submit that the amendments are out of order and outside the context of the bill.

Mr HARTCHER: On the point of order: the leave of the bill is clear. It relates to the amendments moved by the Minister. Those amendments include amendments to section 642. The Opposition amendments also relate to section 642. The Minister has introduced legislation to amend the principal Act. One cannot amend the principal Act by amending the amending bill unless one is amending the relevant section of the Act. That is what the Opposition proposes to do. The amendments relate to the sections of the Act that the Minister has brought to the Committee, and they include section 642. If the Minister were not seeking to amend section 642, he would have a point, but the Minister has chosen to amend section 642, and that therefore brings section 642 to this forum. The Opposition does not seek to amend the principal Act; the Opposition seeks to amend the amending bill. The Minister's bill seeks to amend section 642 of the principal Act. I submit, Mr Temporary Chairman, that the Opposition amendments to section 642 are within the leave of the bill.

Mr E. T. Page: Further to the point of order: the member's logic is outrageous. The honourable member for Gosford is saying that the Government
Page 4294
wishes to amend section 642 of the principal Act and, therefore, he can move any amendment he likes to section 642. Because we are seeking to amend the Act, does he suggest that he can move any amendment to any section? I propose a very restrictive set of amendments to section 642. All I am doing is seeking to include the words "enforcement officers" in the section. The amendment makes no mention of warnings or the penalty system. I am not amending section 658 of the principal Act. I am amending a specific section of the Local Government Act. The amendment proposed by the Opposition makes no mention of enforcement officers, which is the subject of my amendment to the section. By all precedents and all constitutional logic, the Opposition amendments are outside the ambit of the clause. Therefore, the amendments are unconstitutional and out of order.

Mr Jeffery: Further to the point of order: obviously, the amendment moved by the shadow minister is in order. As the Minister indicated, he is seeking to amend section 642(2) of the Act. The honourable member for Gosford's amendment seeks to amend that section as well. It must be in order or the Minister's clause is out of order.

Mr E. T. Page: Do you want to amend the whole Act?

Mr Jeffery: No. As the Minister is doing, we propose to amend this part of the principal Act. It follows that this is a simple alteration to increase the penalty from $20 to $200 and the penalty points from 0.2 to -

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Gaudry): Order! The member is discussing an amendment not before the Chair. I uphold the Minister's point of order. The available leave is narrow, relating to section 642 of the principal Act. It would be more appropriate if the honourable member for Gosford were to introduce his amendments in a fresh amending bill.

Mr HARTCHER: I accept your ruling, Mr Temporary Chairman. Accordingly, I shall move the amendments circulated in my name which you have not ruled out of order, and not the amendment you have ruled out of order relating to the increase in penalty points from 0.2 to 2.

Mr E. T. Page: My point of order related to all the amendments of the honourable member. I mentioned warnings and penalties in my comments. The honourable member should listen. Read Hansard tomorrow - it will be right.

Mr HARTCHER: In that case, the Opposition does not accept your ruling, Mr Temporary Chairman. I move:

That you do now leave the Chair to report the objection.

The amendments have been moved and are within the leave of the bill before the Chamber. The amendment relates to section 642 of the principal Act. I restate the proposition I put to you earlier, Mr Temporary Chairman, that the Government has introduced legislation to amend section 642. Specifically, in relation to Opposition amendment No. 1, the Minister seeks to amend the duties and powers of a police officer, and we seek to amend those duties and powers.

Mr E. T. Page: There is no mention of change of powers of police officers.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member for Gosford has the call.

Mr HARTCHER: The Opposition amendment is clear. I have indicated that I do not insist on the amendment to increase from 0.2 to 2 penalty points. I accept that ruling, but that is the only part of your ruling I accept. I do not accept your ruling regarding my first two amendments. The first amendment is clearly an amendment to the amending bill introduced by the Minister. It relates to the powers of the police. The Minister has moved that certain powers are to be given to the police, and we have moved for certain other powers to be given to the police. That is clearly an amendment to the Minister's bill.

The second amendment relates directly to the bill because it seeks to delete a clause. Accordingly, that is an acceptable amendment. What else can we do in Committee if we cannot accept or reject provisions? We suggest that the clause be rejected and a further clause be inserted. I move that the objection be reported to the Speaker. I accept that your ruling is valid in respect of the penalty clause, which is not sought to be amended by the Minister's bill. However, the other two amendments deal with matters which the Minister's bill seeks to amend. With regret, I move this motion to report your decision to the House.

Question - That the Temporary Chairman report the objection - put.

The Committee divided.

[In Division]

Mr Phillips: On a point of order: as the Government Whip will confirm, members have arrived late for the division because of a problem with the lifts.

Mr Beckroge: By agreement, I ask you to call off the division and restate the question.

Leave granted.

Division called off.

Question - That the Temporary Chairman report the objection - put.

The Committee divided.

Page 4295

Mr Armstrong Mr Merton
Mr Beck Mr O'Doherty
Mr Blackmore Mr O'Farrell
Mr Causley Mr D. L. Page
Mr Chappell Mr Peacocke
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Phillips
Mr Cochran Mr Richardson
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rixon
Mr Debnam Mr Rozzoli
Mr Downy Mr Schipp
Mr Ellis Mr Schultz
Mr Fahey Mrs Skinner
Ms Ficarra Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Small
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Tink
Mr Hazzard Mr Turner
Mr Humpherson Mr West
Dr Kernohan Mr Zammit
Mr Kinross
Mr Longley Tellers,
Dr Macdonald Mr Jeffery
Ms Machin Mr Kerr

Ms Allan Ms Meagher
Mr Amery Mr Mills
Mr Anderson Ms Moore
Ms Andrews Mr Moss
Mr Aquilina Mr Murray
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Debus Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gibson Mr Price
Mrs Grusovin Dr Refshauge
Ms Hall Mr Rogan
Mr Harrison Mr Rumble
Ms Harrison Mr Scully
Mr Hunter Mr Shedden
Mr Iemma Mr Stewart
Mr Knight Mr Sullivan
Mr Knowles Mr Tripodi
Mr Langton Mr Watkins
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Whelan
Mr Lynch Mr Yeadon
Mr McBride
Mr McManus Tellers,
Mr Markham Mr Beckroge
Mr Martin Mr Thompson

Mr Photios Mr Carr
Mr Souris Mr Clough

Question so resolved in the negative.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 22 November.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [9.34]: I indicate at the outset that the coalition will not oppose this legislation. The Opposition understands the purposes of the legislation and I have had discussions with the Minister about some issues which were unclear. Periodic detention raises difficult problems. In his second reading speech the Minister indicated that there has always been and will always be a proportion of periodic detainees who do not report for periodic detention. That is a truism; it will always be impossible to get full attendance. The difficulty lies in what should be done about the incidence of failure to report. That dilemma faces this Labor Government, as it faced the Opposition in past days. To the extent that the Government is purporting to beef-up the penalty for periodic detainees who do not report for detention, that is a positive step.

I note that currently if the periodic detainee fails to show up on a particular weekend the usual arrangement is that he or she serves that weekend at some other time and automatically incurs another week's detention. Under the proposals before the House, that added penalty will increase to six weeks in addition to the week in respect of which the detainee failed to report for detention. That is obviously a good move. I remain concerned that those who fail to attend for periodic detention may not be greatly worried about whether or not they will be required to serve an extra one week or an extra six weeks. Nevertheless, it is a move in the right direction.

The Minister also spoke about delays in having matters brought before the court where the detainee fails to attend on three occasions. If a periodic detainee fails to attend on one occasion, he is given another week's detention at a later stage, plus a week's penalty; if he fails to attend on a second occasion, the same penalty is imposed; if he fails to attend on a third occasion, obviously something else should happen. The current legislation would ensure that a person who failed to attend on three occasions would come before the court.

My experience in that regard is that the delay could be as long as three or four months, presuming effective service of the documents on the detainee. During that period the detainee does not report for detention. I am concerned that such a person could, in effect, be at large for three or four months before the court considers the issue. To that extent, while I do not propose to move an amendment, the coalition is of the view that in respect of those who fail to report on three occasions there should perhaps be a reversal of onus and an automatic referral to a correction centre. We should not wimp out and treat those people, who have already been given a very fair go by the judiciary, the right to muck us around for another three months.

Page 4296

If the Minister's amendments do not work, at a future time I would propose the introduction of a complete reversal of onus, such that there is a presumption that the periodic detainee should be incarcerated full time; and, if he does not like that arrangement, he should make an application to the registrar or to the court. It might be more sensible to make the application before the registrar, who would have more time available than sitting judges or magistrates. That is something for down the track. I flagged that the coalition does not think that the bill goes far enough: the coalition would be much tougher on periodic detainees who fail to show up. The warning should go out to periodic detainees that if they are concerned to ensure that the periodic detention system operates as it is at present they should cooperate with the Minister's requirements under this legislation; otherwise they will face far tougher legislation when the coalition is returned to government in 1999, if not earlier.

There are 31 amendments proposed by the bill. Because there have been extensive discussions between the Minister's office and my office, and in view of the other proceedings occurring around the House tonight, I shall speak for no more than a few minutes. The Opposition agrees with the majority of the amendments. The amendment to section 25 refers to service of various documents. In the course of reviewing the legislation the coalition sought advice from a number of different groups. Frank Mulheron from Justice Action was kind enough to respond to my inquiries. He has concerns about the method of service of certificates which confirm that the prisoner is in fact a periodic detainee for the purpose of follow-up enforcement in the court. When a person is brought before the court the Department of Corrective Services has to present a certificate to the court to show that the person is a detainee under the legislation and that he has breached his periodic detention order.

The legislation provides that a simple letter may be posted to the address of the detainee for this purpose. Justice Action would prefer that the correspondence be by way of certified or registered mail - to make sure that the letter gets to the periodic detainee, whose partial liberty is at risk - such that he may become a full-time inmate. I raised that issue with the Minister and have had discussions with his officers. The Minister is concerned that prisoners could refuse service and hence escape the provisions completely if the letter had to be served by certified or registered letter. The certificate must be served on the detainee before the court can take further action. If a detainee has been in default, to avoid service he may refuse to accept the documents. The current procedure with certified or registered mail is that a card is left stating an item is to be collected at the post office. The detainee, applying the skill and intellect that so many of our detainees have, may not attend the post office for collection of the letter.

The issue has been raised and it has been given a fair hearing by the Minister and his staff. Therefore I shall not move an amendment I otherwise would have moved in that regard. The bill also provides for such a certificate to be sent by facsimile transmission to the number that the periodic detainee has provided to the Commissioner for Corrective Services. Whilst many inmates are very intelligent, their lifestyles are such that they got themselves into difficulties in the first place. Having spoken to many inmates, I am not convinced that they would necessarily fully understand the import of providing the commissioner with a facsimile number. A perhaps more important issue is that I am not convinced that technology has reached the point at which we can be sure that a certificate sent by facsimile would necessarily be obtained by the periodic detainee.

As I stated to the Minister's staff today, I have not received a number of faxes sent to my office that I know should have come through. They became jammed up in the fax machine and were totally indecipherable. This may not matter so much with members' correspondence, but I would be put out if I were incarcerated on the basis of failing to act after allegedly receiving such a certificate. This issue was raised by Justice Action. I believe the Government has agreed to amend the bill so that service by facsimile will be deleted. A large number of issues are involved in the amendments. The Government is going some way towards ensuring that periodic detainees attend for their periodic detention. To that extent the bill is worthwhile. Perhaps the coalition would have been a little tougher on periodic detainees but in the broader context the Opposition does not oppose the legislation and considers the bulk of it is worthwhile.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services) [9.48], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Wakehurst for his contribution and for his essential support of the legislation. The bill results from the work of Mr Steve D'Silva, the director of periodic detention centre administration. He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the workings of the system and therefore of the necessary reforms to strengthen administration of periodic detention and to maintain its credibility as an exceedingly important method of corrections within the overall New South Wales system.

I will refer briefly to several of the matters raised by the honourable member for Wakehurst. He seemed to foreshadow the possibility, when the Opposition is next in government in about 2050, of the introduction of the sort of three-strikes-and-you-are-out provision for those who do not turn up for sessions of periodic detention. The Government would not support such a provision. Automatic imposition of a gaol sentence makes presumptions that would deny ordinary principles of civil liberty. Someone who has not turned up for three sessions of periodic detention may have any number of valid reasons for not having done so.

Page 4297

For that reason we believe that the present provision and its reform are appropriate. The honourable member also mentioned the fact that it can sometimes take a number of months to have a periodic detention order cancelled. One can only observe that officers of the department are entirely in the hands of the court and that from time to time it is difficult to serve a notice upon a detainee who has gone absent without leave.

That brings me to the question of the use of registered or certified mail. I point out that very often it is not easy for people to get to a local post office during business hours and it can therefore take some time for an item to be collected. A periodic detainee who is expecting delivery of a notice may have some interest in not being around to pick it up. Items can certainly be held at the post office for up to three weeks before being returned to the sender, in this case the Department of Corrective Services. In consequence, far from proving receipt of a cancellation notice, certified mail may well prove the non-receipt of a cancellation notice.

It is important to point out that inclusion of advice by post in the Act is consistent with regulation 46(2), which provides that the notice is to be treated as having been given to the person by post if it is posted or sent by the State Mail Service, addressed to the person's last address known to the clerk of the court. Clause 9(2) of the regulation requires a periodic detainee to notify the governor of the relevant prison in writing of any change to the detainee's residential address as soon as practicable after it occurs. In those circumstances it seems reasonable to legislate the provisions proposed in this bill and, as the honourable member for Wakehurst has indicated, not to change the provisions as he had at first been inclined to do. However, the Government will not oppose the foreshadowed amendment of the honourable member for Wakehurst with respect to service by fax. His arguments in that case have persuaded me entirely, and the Government will not oppose that amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [9.53]: I move:

Page 8, schedule 1[17], lines 4-8. Omit all words on those lines.

I indicated during my contribution to the second reading debate the bases for this amendment. I thank the Minister for his consideration of the issue in a most reasonable and courteous way. I said sufficient during that debate and therefore merely ask that the Committee support this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with an amendment, and report adopted.


Debate resumed from 5 December.

Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [9.56]: I lead for the Opposition on this bill, which the Opposition will not be supporting. I want to make it perfectly clear that the New South Wales coalition stands for the following principle when it comes to the question of corporal punishment in schools. This principle was adopted by the shadow cabinet and the joint party room as recently as a couple of months ago. While in general the use of the cane is not favoured by the coalition, school communities should retain the right to make an informed choice about the nature of their discipline policy. We would hope that schools continue to exercise the choice to use discipline methods other than the cane.

Two very important principles are embodied in the Opposition's position on this matter. Perhaps the most important is the principle of choice. The Opposition strongly believes - and this view is supported by the majority of people in school communities in New South Wales - that schools ought to have the right to choose. In fact, the very process of making that choice about a school discipline policy is a positive process for school communities. Hundreds of school communities have benefited from this principle since it was reintroduced by the former Government. It has led, in most cases, to the cane not being used in schools in New South Wales. Therefore, the former coalition Government took a strong position. The strength of the principle is shown in the fact that, through choice, freedom has been exercised in schools and they have used their freedom not to use the cane - the best of both worlds.

The Opposition will be opposing the bill because it is contrary to the principle of parent and teacher choice, a position supported by the majority of people in the community and through consultation conducted by the Opposition. The bill is opposed because it is illogical and inconsistent. For example, it does not take away the right of parents to use corporal punishment on their own children, but removes their right to choose to delegate that to a school. That is illogical and inconsistent. The Opposition will oppose this bill also because it relies on a wrong mechanism to achieve its aim, namely, threatening the registration of non-government schools. If that is what the Minister sought to achieve, perhaps, as was suggested today, section 6 of the Education Reform Act may have provided another mechanism. Threatening the registration of schools strikes at the very heart of independent schools, the non-government sector, and potentially opens a Pandora's box for a whole range of other
Page 4298
things; any government of the day or any administration, supported or encouraged by any Independent in the Parliament - and therefore any minority opinion - could use registration to impose something on non-government schools, contrary to broad community issues and contrary to educational benefit.

We need to ask why this bill and why now. In the Minister's second reading speech yesterday he did not adequately explain why the Government has introduced this bill, nor why it has been introduced now. Why has this bill been introduced with great haste? Moves to ban corporal punishment have been around for many years. In this the Fifty-first Parliament the move began with an Independent member in the other place, the Hon. A. G. Corbett. Neither Mr Corbett nor the Government has adequately spelt out what it is - apart from broad philosophical concerns - that has led them to use the Parliament to enact a rule which is irrelevant because most schools do not use the cane. At the same time, it represents a fundamental attack on the independence of non-government schools. It also represents the intrusion of big-brother-style government into the ethos of the non-government school sector. In some cases it is argued that the viability of schools and the existence of schools in the non-government sector are threatened.

The Government has not adequately explained why it has introduced a bill that attacks the notion of parent and teacher choice in making school-based decisions. It has not explained adequately why the bill has been introduced now or the rationale for disempowering school communities, therefore, rendering the whole process of establishing a school discipline policy less effective. The second bill which Mr Corbett proposed to introduce in another place would have amended the Crimes Act. That was considered unacceptable by everybody, including the Government, so the Government has introduced this bill. However, as I understand it, it was senior legal advisers within the Department of School Education who recommended to Mr Corbett that he introduce his measures via the Crimes Act.

It has not been explained to me - perhaps the Minister will do so in his reply - why it was that the legal branch of the department was made available to an Independent member of another place, why that branch suggested the Crimes Act, whether that was the department's preferred option or the Government's preferred option and why the Government has now changed its mind. At the very last minute, without any warning and with virtually no consultation, the Government has introduced a bill which achieves similar aims by amending the Education Reform Act. That does not make any sense whatsoever. It makes me think that perhaps the Government has used Mr Corbett as a Trojan horse to blaze the trail on this issue, and that it realised he had no support for using the Crimes Act and has now left him stranded.

There was no consultation on this bill. The whole process is a farce. The Minister for Education and Training was well aware - because he had been told by numerous interest groups, particularly those in private schools - that the Hon. A. G. Corbett's bill was unacceptable. What was most unacceptable was the proposal to take away choice from the non-government school sector. Over the last couple of months people have said that they did not like the Government or the Parliament being able to take away the choice that school communities could exercise. The Minister was well aware of that and he changed his approach to the bill. He decided not to use the Crimes Act but to use the bill before the House. He told people one day beforehand and then brought the legislation into the Parliament with no notice, and we are now debating the bill 24 hours later.

This afternoon the group most affected by this bill - the Christian community schools - told me over the telephone, "We feel we have been ambushed." And so they have. They have every right to feel ambushed by the Minister. Why did the bill have to be introduced with such indecent haste? The New South Wales Parents Council told me today that the timing is totally inappropriate. Again, why did the Minister have to do it so suddenly? We were told about the bill one day and it was introduced the next - despite the Minister knowing that there were serious objections to his approach of removing choice. In fact, I feel that with proper consultation the Minister would have achieved his aims in any case, without getting these people off side. I wonder why this Minister consistently refuses to adequately consult the education community.

The Parents Council is quite right: it is the end of the school year; there is no time to think this through; there is no chance to talk to parents about the bill and to formulate an adequate response on behalf of the people represented by groups such as the council, the Independent Schools Association, et cetera. Perhaps that is what the Government wants; perhaps it does not want any real response; perhaps it wants to ambush people. That is the only conclusion one can come to. The Minister has not consulted broadly. He has simply told people what he is going to do one day, and he has done it the next. That is not consultation. Consultation involves a two-way process. The Minister is not listening. He has not allowed time for proper public debate on this important issue. This debate would have yielded some interesting results had the Minister given it time.

Perhaps the Minister did not want to know. I shall tell the Minister about the Opposition's consultation with schools. When Opposition members investigate the question of why this bill has been introduced now, they are left with a tantalising conclusion: that the Government has rushed the bill in this week to win favour with Mr Corbett. There can be no other conclusion. It makes one wonder what other deals have been done. The Opposition will very closely watch what
Page 4299
happens in the upper House. What is happening in schools? As the Minister rightly pointed out yesterday, the vast majority of schools are choosing not to use the cane. Surely that is a victory for the policy of the previous Government. It certainly underscores the importance of the approach of the coalition - we would prefer schools to choose not to use the cane.

Most of the schools in the government sector do not use the cane. A few have still retained it but do not use it. As the Minister said yesterday, there have been two occasions in the past couple of years when it has been used in government schools. Most Catholic schools do not use the cane but some retain it as an option. In the independent sector, some schools use the cane. The Christian community schools have retained corporal punishment. When this matter was first raised by Mr Corbett the coalition began a consultation process amongst schools - something the Minister should have done but did not. The coalition wrote to schools across New South Wales and asked them specific questions. It outlined the background to the bill and the proposal being put by Mr Corbett.

The coalition explained its policy, which I have enunciated in this speech. The coalition stated that, in general, corporal punishment is not favoured, and it would prefer if individual schools continued to exercise the view that it not be used. However, notwithstanding the position of coalition members on corporal punishment generally, we are carefully considering that aspect of the bill which removes the right of individual schools to make an informed choice about discipline methods. We went on to say that we were consulting widely and we sought the views of school communities on two questions. We said that we would particularly appreciate hearing their comments on the use of the cane as part of the school discipline code. We asked whether it was a part of their school's code and, if so, was it effective. We referred to the right of individual schools to decide discipline codes. Should schools retain the right to make their own decisions in relation to corporal punishment following proper consultation with parent bodies?

Those are simple and straightforward questions - questions that simply cannot be misunderstood. I was intrigued by the Minister's reference in his second reading speech to some unnamed person in the electorate of Ermington who spoke to a member of his staff and said that his or her school thought the coalition was indicating that corporal punishment was to be made compulsory. I do not know what happened at that school, but when the letter was read out at that school's parents and citizens council whoever spoke to the Minister's office was asleep. There is no way that what I have just read can be misconstrued in the way the Minister suggests. The questions were quite simple: do they use the cane? Do they support choice? The answer was an overwhelming level of support for the position taken by the New South Wales Opposition.

I emphasise that the Minister criticised the number of schools which responded to the coalition's consultation. The Opposition wrote to many schools and has compiled the results from 67 schools. Other results are still being received. I point out that that represents responses from 67 more schools than the Minister approached. The Minister did not ask for a response from a single school. He certainly called in the heads of various bodies and said, "This is what I am going to do, whether you like it or not", but he did not write to schools. The Minister has a hide criticising the Opposition for doing the job that he should have been doing. The following are the results from the Opposition's consultation with government and non-government schools. Schools were first asked, "Does your school use the cane?" In reply, 10 per cent of schools said yes and 89.5 per cent said no. As I said earlier, the fact that most schools do not include use of the cane as part of their discipline policy demonstrates the strength of the policy to allow choice.

The second question schools were asked was, "Should schools be able to choose?" Yes was the response from 82 per cent of the schools - a ringing endorsement of the policy for choice. Fewer than 12 per cent of the schools said no, and about 7 per cent did not reply to the question. That also demonstrates the strength of the Opposition's policy. Those schools that have chosen not to use the cane support the right of other schools to retain its use. In many cases schools said that the requirement on them as a school community to choose was a positive exercise. When the parent body sat down with teachers, and in some cases with students, to discuss whether the cane should remain the ultimate punishment or sanction, it was found that the process of working through the issue and deciding that it should not remain a punishment was a positive exercise in developing the discipline and welfare codes of schools. It is that process that the Minister will interfere with and take away from schools. I should like to share typical comments made about the questions asked in the Opposition's survey. The principal from a non-government school said:

I would be very loath to support Mr Corbett's Bill, in that it takes away the right of choice. I am concerned, as you obviously are, at over legislating for our society. I fully agree that the right of individual schools to decide local discipline issues is appropriate, and that right should not be taken from them.

A government school forwarded the following response:

We feel emphatically that we should retain the right to decide our own discipline codes. One code for all schools does not allow for differences inherent in different school communities.

The response to the Opposition's consultation from another school stated:

The executive staff however feel that all school communities should have the right to determine their own discipline codes. Legislation to remove this right will set

Page 4300
precedents for the future which could allow small vocal minorities to exert undue influence on schools. This influence would often not take into account the local situation.

The principal of another government school stated:

Dictatorship, by a centralised body, on what a school community decides to do is unacceptable.

I choose not to administer the cane, but I do not infringe or force my opinion on other schools or teachers. What works for one, does not necessarily work for another.

Those responses offer a ringing endorsement for the approach taken by the Opposition from those who matter - the parents and teachers of students in New South Wales schools. The Government should have been involved in that kind of consultation process. The Opposition was happy to sponsor that consultation as part of its approach to formulate sensible education policy. Part of the bill concerns classifying some of the discipline practices in schools and is designed to make schools think through an approach towards a discipline code. Of course, schools have already been doing that. The previous Government not only invited and encouraged that process but made schools go through it, a process that has been important in the development of schools.

This bill is a revamp of a policy of the coalition Government. It does not matter how many times the Minister tries to pretend that it is something new; it simply is not. I support the inclusion of restitution in schools' discipline codes - that is not a problem. One could say that kids have been picking up papers in the playground for time immemorial - certainly since I was at school and, I am sure, since the Minister was at school. The idea of implementing restitution in school communities is already being enacted in schools throughout the State. The Opposition supports that policy. It is nothing new, and for the Minister to pretend otherwise is incorrect and inappropriate.

The Opposition supports the concept of schools having individual discipline codes. That was the approach of the coalition when it was in government. The Minister is being contradictory in his approach. He says that schools will choose their discipline codes, but he goes on to say that he will tell them what to choose, and he cuts out one of the options. We do not have the Minister's proposed code, but it is tantalising to think that next year schools will go through the whole process of working out what their discipline code will be, and then so-called "Mr Consultation" himself will tell them exactly what they have to do - he will take away the empowerment of school communities to make choices, and therefore take away the educative experience for the whole school community of working through a code.

Opposition members believe that some of, but not only, the following should be part of school discipline codes: each school should have a sure and certain code of discipline; each school should set clear guidelines for appropriate behaviour and stage-by-stage consequential punishment for infringements; the code should be established by broad consultation within the whole school community; the discipline policy should be part of a welfare policy. The Minister has not mentioned a welfare policy as being an adjunct to the discipline policy, but that is certainly the approach taken by the Opposition. The welfare policy should include the following goals and others: the maintenance of a learning environment which is safe and fair for all; the maintenance of good order in the school; fostering self-discipline in students; fostering an understanding of an obligation to and care for others; dealing sensitively with the underlying causes of discipline problems in students, having a regard for the wellbeing of the child. Nothing in the Minister's second reading speech came close to the idea of having regard for the wellbeing of the child.

The Opposition believes that a goal of the welfare policy of the discipline code should be to encourage good behaviour by reward, as well as discouraging bad behaviour through punishment. Within that context, punishment should be appropriate to the offence and should be contained within a clearly understood framework. It must be consistently applied and it must be meant as a deterrent as well as for correction, although I think the deterrent factor is more important. Punishment should provide the opportunity for correction and restitution. As part of such code some communities may choose to retain the use of the cane as the last resort. Personally, I am not favourably disposed to use of the cane - as I said earlier - but I support the right of a school, within the kind of discipline framework I have just outlined, to retain it, but only as a last resort and only in very controlled conditions.

That is the important difference between the Opposition's approach and that of the Government. Opposition members support schools' right to make a choice within the framework; the Government will simply take the choice away. This measure is part of a pattern of interference by government, particularly in education, although it is also occurring in other sectors. The Government is adopting a big-brother approach, with the Government wielding a big stick and taking away the rights of parents in an important aspect of the discipline of their children and the kind of ethos they want at schools. As the Government opens up the question of the registration of non-government schools, as it does in this bill, it takes a retrograde step in education policy. Tonight for the first time the House is being asked to consider - beyond simple questions about the provision of appropriate courses and appropriate facilities - the ethos and the values of non-government schools to the political process.

In the past that has been a non-political process. Provided the Board of Studies is satisfied that for educational reasons a school should be registered, it can be registered. Tonight for the
Page 4301
first time there is sign of a political process determining that some aspects of a school's philosophy, some aspects of its ethos and therefore its very foundation in the non-government sector, should be a condition of registration. The Opposition is concerned about what might come next, once the ethos of individual private schools is open to threat. The non-government sector is extremely concerned, not so much about corporal punishment but about the approach being taken by the Minister to threaten registration of non-government schools.

In his second reading speech the Minister simply stated that non-government schools that used the cane "put their registration in jeopardy". He has not explained adequately to the House or the non-government schools sector what he meant by that statement. Will a school be deregistered if the cane is part of its disciplinary code? If parents send children to a deregistered school, will the Government prosecute them for not sending their children to a registered school? They are two very important questions. They are vital implications of this bill that the Government seeks to pass through the House tonight. The Minister has not adequately addressed these matters, yet we are asked to make a decision on this matter this evening. I turn briefly to some other of the Minister's comments in his second reading speech. He said:

The time has come to send a clear signal that our community finds the physical infliction of pain on students an unacceptable form of punishment . . .

That signal has been sent, and the message has been received. As a result of the policies of the previous Government, most schools have chosen not to use the cane. The Minister is supporting the policy of the previous Government. The Minister also claimed that by the previous Government re-introducing the notion and availability of corporal punishment, if the school community wished it to be used, its use was based upon "the suburb in which the student lived". What is the Minister trying to say by that? Was he trying to make some artificial class distinction around this question? The comment does not stand up to scrutiny. It is a ludicrous suggestion, given that some of the most advantaged and disadvantaged schools retain the use of the cane. Some of the wealthiest private schools and the poorest, parent-controlled Christian schools retain the cane; that is, schools from both ends of the wealth spectrum. The Minister's argument is a nonsense.

This is part of the ridiculous argument he keeps raising about the negative approach of the previous Government to education generally. The previous Government opened up the opportunity for school communities to have a say and a choice in providing excellence and equity across the board. For the Minister to try in retrospect to impose some sort of class distinction over the tremendous education reforms of the previous Government simply does not stick. His attempts must be stopped right now. The Minister also mentioned the discussion paper "Challenges and Opportunities" from the committee I chaired into gender equity. The Minister referred to the self-titled "O'Doherty Report", but I did not give it that title - journalists and people working in the field did. The Minister has had the report, which he has never admitted to reading, in his bottom drawer, yet he managed to quote a large slab of it in his second reading speech. I was touched that he took the trouble to do so. I thank him. He quoted me accurately as saying:

. . . that many boys consider that physical confrontation is an acceptable way to resolve conflict and that boys have fewer alternative dispute resolution skills than have girls.

I condemn that situation. We must work, as schools are doing, with boys to ensure that they do not regard their role as exercising physical punishment or bullying to assert dominance over other boys or girls. That is a far broader and important social question than that of some schools retaining the use of the cane. I do not resile from any comment the Minister quoted, as it is consistent with the approach I have always taken. As the shadow minister, my view is that use of the cane is not favoured. I hope that schools choose not to use the cane, although I support their right to make that choice.

In conclusion, a number of other members of the New South Wales coalition wish to address this very important question, as it has taken a great deal of time to consult with the community and the coalition's approach is broadly acceptable to the people of New South Wales today. I do not suggest that things may not change in 10 or 20 years time, because these matters are not cast in stone forever. The attitude of the community changes in time. The Opposition's approach is accepted and correct. We certainly oppose the bill.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party [10.25]: I support the shadow minister for education's representation of the Opposition's view on this legislation. I draw attention to the Minister's second reading speech, in which he said:

We have a situation where corporal punishment, according to the information held with the Department of School Education, has only been used once in the last two years. The time has come after 50 years of hesitation to be decisive about this issue. It is my intention to be so.

If the cane has been used only once in the past two years in New South Wales, it has been seen as a deterrent rather than a physical force to control children. It is ridiculous to suggest that children are regularly caned as a means of controlling them, because, as the Minister said, the cane has been used once in the entire education system in this State during the past two years. The previous coalition Government reinstated the cane as an ultimate sanction for the minority of people - the one person in two years - who are totally unresponsive to other forms of control and sanction.

This bill will take away from teachers, parents, citizens councils and the administration of schools the dignity of managing their own affairs. Most importantly, it shows that this Government and
Page 4302
Minister simply do not trust the people. It is a absolute contradiction in terms because although the Government and the Minister would have us believe that they trust the teaching profession to administer education, they do not trust it to administer reasonable control of children. Either the profession and the management councils of education in New South Wales are trusted to perform their entire job, or they are trusted to do nothing. It cannot be both ways. This is not a complex question at all.

The Government is effectively seeking to take over control of non-government schools by what on the surface appears to be a minor bill within the broader spectrum of government in New South Wales. However, it is eroding the rights of private schools in New South Wales. The Labor Party has always been enormously jealous of private schools, be they church schools or those located in wealthy geographic areas. As a result of its beliefs, the Labor Party has always resented the fact that people want to send their children to schools of their own religious faith, in certain geographic locations, or with certain curriculum appeals. The majority of parents make a conscious decision about the quality of the education provided to their children. Children are sent to school in the expectation that, first, they will receive the best education possible in their parents' financial and physical circumstances and, second, that they will receive proper discipline as part of their ongoing education.

The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai, in consultation with the broader public and education authorities in recent days, found that there is an expectation that schools will have the rights and capacity for proper discipline and respect. Everybody needs an ultimate sanction. Why does a person driving down a road at the speed limit not go a little faster when the road is good and the vision is fine? Because they know there is an ultimate sanction. They know if they go a little faster they risk a fine; and if they go even faster they risk losing their licence. There is an ultimate sanction. But the great majority of motorists never incur those penalties. Similarly, the great majority of children throughout the history of education in New South Wales have never incurred the ultimate penalty. Some should have, and some have actually become members of this place. If they had received more discipline, they might have had a little more understanding.

Mr Whelan: Wind it up.

Mr ARMSTRONG: The members on the Government benches are impatient at this time of night. The Government introduced legislation and wants to ram it through. Government members know only too well that they are walking on eggshells because they do not have public support, as evidenced on the public talkback shows in the last few weeks. The bill is the product of an ambitious Minister in a desperate government that is pandering to a minority of people. The Hon. A. G. Corbett of A Better Future for our Children party, in another place, makes his point with sincerity. The bottom line is that unless there is an ultimate sanction teachers in the school system will have considerable difficulty in controlling children in certain circumstances. I have considerable sympathy for many teachers in our schools; they do an outstanding job in putting up with what can only be described as absolute garbage. Some of the abuse and demeaning actions by children against teachers is a disgrace.

I am sure that honourable members are ashamed of the incidents that occur. We must have respect for teachers and for management and we must give them the proper tools - and not only psychologically. We must give them an ultimate sanction if we are to ask them to educate children and force them to take all children who present themselves at schools. Education is compulsory in this State and teachers must accept those children. I appeal to the members of this House to think about this rationally. Historically, the cane has been used sparingly and only in emergency circumstances. If this bill is defeated and the status quo remains, that will continue to be the practice into the future. We cannot take away the tools of discipline and respect in our school system and expect teachers to deliver quality education. We simply cannot have it both ways, that is a contradiction in terms.

Mr GLACHAN (Albury) [10.33]: I hope that the cane will not be used in the majority of our schools. I certainly do not favour the use of the cane but I do favour the opportunity for individual schools and their communities to make a decision about whether they want to use the cane. The Minister said that the cane has been used only once in two years in the New South Wales education system. If this matter had been left alone, if the Minister had not introduced this bill, in time the use of the cane would have faded out and as time went on we would have heard no more about it. This bill is totally unnecessary. Many years ago the cane was used in schools in a brutal way. Many students were completely brutalised and almost destroyed by the use of the cane.

In his second reading speech the Minister said that during the war years the use of the cane was banned. I was at primary school during the war years and two teachers at my school used the cane mercilessly. Many students, and I was one, hated going to school because we lived in fear of being caned without good reason. It was not the fact of being caned that upset us, but the injustice of it. We believed we were being caned without good reason. That hurt us deeply and I am sure it affected our schooling, as we did not want to be there. In the playground we hid from the teachers. We kept out of their way because we felt that if their eye fell upon us we would be caned for some reason or other, because they liked using the cane. It was a dreadful experience.

Page 4303

Fortunately that does not happen in our schools today; schools are happy places. When I visit the schools in my electorate I see the children running up to the teachers, running up to the principals, little children taking their hands and speaking to them in a happy and relaxed way. The children want to be in the company of their teachers, even when not in the classroom. It certainly was not that way when I was at school. Things have changed. I believe that the use of the cane in the schools that have chosen to retain its use should be as a last resort. The principals involved are careful about how they use the cane, as demonstrated by the number of times it has been used over the past two years. We should be able to trust the principals of schools to exercise that right in a responsible way. I do not believe that we need to ban the cane totally, as the Minister is attempting to do.

Non-government schools should have the right to make their own decisions about the use of the cane. Many parents choose to pay to send their children to non-government schools for disciplinary reasons. Some parents believe that their children need that extra discipline which is provided in non-government schools. If non-government schools choose to have the opportunity to use the cane, it should be their choice. I agree with the shadow minister that school communities should have the opportunity to discuss the issue and come to their own decision. When given that opportunity most schools chose not to use the cane. That was their free choice and I applaud that choice. The best way to come to a decision of this kind is to give the schools the opportunity to decide for themselves. The coalition's policy is a correct one. The Minister's aim could have been achieved without introducing this bill. Time would have taken care of it and people would still have had the right to make their own choice. If a division is called, I will be voting against this bill.

Mr RIXON (Lismore) [10.38]: If we are to have a society that encourages each person to develop his or her full potential and make a valuable contribution to the community, there are certain responsibilities and self-disciplines we must each learn and respect. We must teach our children the self-disciplines and responsibilities. Every society has developed a variety of ways of teaching or passing on to young people those ideas and that training. The more complex the society, the greater the varieties of imparting the knowledge and self-discipline needed by an individual to enjoy life to the fullest possible extent and to make the greatest contribution to society. To achieve this, training methods can be classified into two broad groups: the carrot and the stick. The term "the carrot" is meant to cover all of those positive ways of training; the enjoyable, fun ways of encouraging someone towards positive deeds. The term "the stick" is meant to cover all of those punitive ways that encourage the student not to carry out various negative deeds.

Two examples for the younger child could be the kiss and cuddle on one hand or the smack on the other hand, administered by caring and loving parents. However, other examples of punishment used in schools include verbal correction, ridicule, sarcasm, loud verbal abuse, the writing of lines, detention, cleaning tasks, gardening tasks, exclusion from class, exclusion from school activities, physical exercise and use of the cane. Most schools have developed discipline codes which, depending on the seriousness of the breach of desired behaviour, go through a series of graduated punishments.

One common code sets down clearly a series of about 10 steps which graduate from merely asking a student not to do something and explaining what should be done, moving through various tasks to be completed by the student, to exclusion from class and, at the very severe end, expulsion from the school after discussion with parents and other actions have failed to modify the anti-social behaviour of the child. Schools may or may not include corporal punishment at some stage in the steps of the discipline code. This is where the dilemma arises. I was a teacher for 28 years before entering the New South Wales Parliament. I have six children of my own, aged from five years to 18 years.

During my teaching experience I saw students with possible lasting ill-effects who had been severely maltreated by teachers who used ridicule and sarcasm and repeated unfair and overly onerous punishments. I am not talking about corporal punishment. I have also known parents to drive their children to despair not by using physical punishment, but by using what amounted to mental torture - ridicule, sarcasm and verbal abuse. The really important thing to note is that punishment administered by a nasty, untrained, uncaring adult in an inappropriate manner can cause mental scars for children for life. Punishment administered by a caring, well-trained and experienced person can be helpful to the child, and strengthen the child in all of the important ways.

We should not allow adults to administer any form of punishment if they are unable to do so in a very careful and caring way. We should ensure that adults are given all possible training in their profession, the profession of educating children, so that the discipline and the punishment they administer are fair and just. By refusing schools the right to include corporal punishment in their discipline code, the Minister is saying that they are staffed by uncaring, untrained, unprofessional teachers. To be consistent, such teachers should also be banned from using other punishments which, in their hands, could be mental torture, which is far more destructive of students and can cause damage and scars that students carry for the rest of their lives.

Of course, our teachers are caring and well-trained people. The principals, staff and parents in schools have developed very appropriate discipline codes. I regret that I have to suggest that the
Page 4304
expertise of those teachers, those principals and those parents; their professionalism - their experience and their ability to gauge the needs of their students - is far greater than that of the Minister for Education and Training, who was once a teacher but who has not been a teacher in a school for some years. Let us consider what those parents, those teachers and those principals have said about corporal punishment. I am disappointed that the Minister has not consulted with those people and sought their opinions. Had he done so, he would have been told that they want the freedom to be able to use corporal punishment if the need should arise in their schools, even though that need could be expected to arise only rarely. I ask the Minister to heed the advice of the experienced educationalists and parents in the education system of New South Wales.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [10.44], in reply: I listened with a great deal of interest to the comments from members of the Opposition in relation to this bill, looking for some item of wisdom, some insight, some compelling reason why we should continue to maintain a right to belt kids in schools. But none of them came up with any valid arguments. In fact, I found the arguments presented more than a little confusing because, almost to a person, they were very up front in asserting that, whilst they sanctioned the right of schools to be able to use corporal punishment, they of course did not condone corporal punishment.

Honourable members opposite do not condone corporal punishment but want to preserve the right for schoolteachers to belt students. In other words, they are saying, "We are responsible people. We of course do not belt kids but we reserve the right for others, who may be less responsible than we are, to belt kids with sticks." That is the crux of the Opposition's argument. Quite frankly I find it more than a little hypocritical that a person who is the shadow minister for education should come into this Chamber and place such comment on the record. That argument is a fraud, just as the whole basis of the Opposition's argument is a fraud. The shadow minister for education spoke about the wellbeing of the child. He said that the government should have included a welfare policy in the legislation to deal with the wellbeing of the child.

I find it somewhat ironic that we should be talking about the wellbeing of the child while arguing - as the honourable member did - that we should maintain a legal right to hit children in schools with sticks or straps or paddles. This morning on the radio the honourable member made a bit of a joke about the fact that children were being hit with a paddle. He was speaking in a jocular fashion with a reporter in a radio interview. The issue of the paddle was treated, might I say, more than lightheartedly.

Mr O'Doherty: On a point of order: that is an absolute lie. It is incorrect.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr AQUILINA: I find it somewhat ironic that the honourable member should make the metaphorical inference on this occasion that the Government is wielding a big stick in respect of government schools and non-government schools. I suggest the only ones wielding the big stick are those who are irresponsible in the way in which they advocate the discipline system for schools. Reference has been made to the fact that I was a teacher. I was a very proud teacher for 10 years. I taught at some very tough schools and I taught some very tough children. I am pleased to note that there are teachers on the Opposition side. I respect the honourable member for Lismore for the fact that he also was a teacher for 28 years, albeit in schools very different from those in which I taught.

Anyone who has been a teacher knows that the teachers that most resorted to the cane were invariably the worst teachers in the school system. They used the cane not as a means of disciplining the children but as their last resort because, in many cases, they were incompetent and incapable of maintaining discipline in their own classes. Let us not get carried away with this nonsensical, fraudulent argument. The only matter that warrants any degree of comment is that of choice. I concede that the issue of choice is a very difficult issue to address but I suggest to members of the Opposition that there are some issues in respect of which guidance is required and on which the concept of choice hinges. In society we regard it as sacrosanct to be able to exercise a choice on a wide range of matters.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! As the honourable member for Northcott did not choose to contribute to the debate I suggest he not attempt to do so now from the back bench. He will listen in silence or leave the Chamber.

Mr AQUILINA: Had the honourable member for Northcott been in a classroom he presumably would have been a prime candidate for the use of corporal punishment, but government members would have jumped to his defence even in that regard. The issue of choice exists not only in schools; it exists everywhere throughout the community. In a democracy choice is held sacrosanct. But in every instance choice is guided by laws of the land, convention and what is deemed to be the appropriate manner for it to be exercised. The Government is saying clearly and succinctly in this instance that corporal punishment is not a choice available in New South Wales schools, be they government or non-government schools. I cannot make that any plainer. It is something to which I am committed and something to which the Government is committed and will remain committed.

The introduction of discipline codes and what the former Government did in offering schools choice were mentioned. I ask the shadow minister to go back to his history books. As usual, he has not done his homework properly, as with the bodgie survey he conducted. The issue of choice was
Page 4305
introduced not by the coalition Government but by the Minister for Education in the Unsworth Government, Rodney Cavalier. It gave parents the choice of various options for school discipline when the use of the cane was abolished. Terry Metherell is often given several accolades he does not deserve. On this occasion he does not deserve the accolade of being the Minister who introduced choice within schools; it was introduced by a Labor Minister long before Terry Metherell was Minister. Terry Metherell reintroduced use of the cane in schools. We are now correcting that action.

The Government is committed on this matter. It is united on the issue of taking away the right to use corporal punishment in schools. The hitting of children within the public context of our society is not a valid option. It is not a valid option for adults to be belting children in schools when such a form of punishment was taken out of our gaols in 1905. A Liberal Government took away the right to punish crime by use of corporal punishment in 1975. That was an enlightened Liberal Government, unlike the present coalition. A number of other matters were raised in relation to how the legislation will operate. I shall not delay the House tonight by referring to them; the Government will answer all those matters in detail in the debate in the other place. I am proud and privileged to be education Minister at a time when such an important piece of legislation is introduced. I fully support its provisions. I thank my Labor colleagues and the Government for their support for this matter. I am convinced that this bill will go down as one of the great education reforms in New South Wales.

Question - That this bill be now read a second time - put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Debus Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Ms Hall Mr Rumble
Mr Harrison Mr Scully
Ms Harrison Mr Shedden
Mr Hunter Mr Stewart
Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan
Mr Knight Mr Tripodi
Mr Knowles Mr Watkins
Mr Langton Mr Whelan
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Yeadon
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride Tellers,
Dr Macdonald Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Doherty
Mr Beck Mr O'Farrell
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Causley Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Downy Mr Schultz
Mr Ellis Mrs Skinner
Mr Fahey Mr Slack-Smith
Ms Ficarra Mr Small
Mr Fraser Mr Smith
Mr Glachan Mr Tink
Mr Hartcher Mr Turner
Mr Hazzard Mr West
Mr Humpherson Mr Windsor
Dr Kernohan Mr Zammit
Mr Kinross
Mr Longley Tellers,
Ms Machin Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Photios
Mr Clough Mr Souris

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr BECK (Murwillumbah) [11.02]: I lead for the Opposition in this debate. The purpose of the legislation is to amend the Roads Act to enable a council or other road authority specifically to charge for the issuing of permits for the erection and use of structures on public roads for the purpose of street vending. The bill will apply only to permanent or semipermanent vending structures in built-up areas. Up until now councils have had the ability to approve of such structures, but they have not been able to charge rent for those structures. The Opposition understands that this legislation will apply to structures such as kiosks, fruit barrows, stalls and similar structures located at the side of public roads. The legislation will also enable councils to set conditions for the granting of such approvals.

Apparently this legislation is the result of an intergovernmental working party comprising representatives of the Roads and Traffic Authority, the Department of Local Government, the Department of Planning, the Local Government and
Page 4306
Shires Association and Sydney City Council. The Minister and his advisers have said that this working party was the initiative of the former Government. A lot of measures being implemented by this Government are initiatives of the former Government. The Opposition recognises that street vending is a longstanding commercial practice that has widespread public acceptance. It also recognises that councils have apparently been charging for granting approvals. I imagine that Sydney City Council in particular would obtain a lot of revenue from various fruit barrows around the central business district. The question of the legality of this practice would therefore be of genuine concern to that council.

The coalition supports the legislation but with the following reservations. Why was there undue haste in introducing this legislation? Apparently, Cabinet approved this legislation in August - over 2½ months ago. The Opposition has only just seen the legislation and therefore has not had an opportunity to consult with various affected parties, which is its normal practice. What will be the effect on street vendors who either pay no rent or cannot afford to pay council? How will they be placed? Will they be required to pay any fees? I can recall newspapers reports a couple of years ago that told of how one council - I believe it was South Sydney City Council - was vastly overcharging restaurateurs who had tables on footpaths. It was generally acknowledged that those charges, which were too high, were having the perverse effect of reducing the amount of street dining and generally making the streetscape a less attractive and vital place in which to be.

I acknowledge that this legislation does not seek to regulate street eating, but the parallels are still there. Will the Local Government and Shires Associations produce a schedule of recommended charges for these structures? The Opposition notes that certain controls will come into effect in regard to safety issues. Nevertheless, Opposition members would be interested in seeing a copy of the guidelines that have been issued by the Roads and Traffic Authority and the Department of Local Government. The Minister might care to indicate why the period for approval is seven years when the period for approval of most commercial and retail leases is a maximum of five years. The Minister said in his second reading speech that the legislation is restricted to built-up areas. The Opposition would view with some concern any attempt to regulate vendors in rural areas who presently sell fruit, vegetables and other goods from semipermanent roadside structures. I seek an assurance from the Minister that it will not allow this to happen.

I will refer to a number of examples in rural areas. People in the Tweed Valley grow a lot of produce. One can buy strawberries at Redland Bay in Queensland and bananas, avocados and tomatoes in the Tweed Valley area. People should not be prevented from selling produce at roadside stalls on their own rural properties. People such as Tony Guinea from Uki and the Youngblutts family have been selling produce on the roadside for many years. Attempts are being made to prevent them from selling that produce. I sincerely hope that this legislation will not affect people in rural areas. I support this legislation.

Mr KNIGHT (Campbelltown - Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads) [11.09], in reply: I am pleased that the Opposition is supporting the Roads Amendment (Street Vending) Bill - legislation which should have been introduced by the previous Government. The former Government set up the working party and this legislation has been introduced as the result of the recommendations of that working party. I am pleased that the Opposition has not changed its policies since the election; it is adhering to its former position. It is odd that the honourable member for Murwillumbah asserted that this legislation was introduced with undue haste because, as I said, it should have been introduced by the former Government in its last term in office.

I was intrigued by the street eating and street eateries tour he took us on, but the only relevance street eating has to the fruit barrows is if one eats a banana in the street on the way home. It is a totally separate issue to street eating from restaurant tables placed on footpaths. As to roadside stalls in rural areas, this legislation relates only to built-up areas. It deals only with permanent or semipermanent structures, and rural producers will not be affected. There is absolutely no intention to use this legislation to infringe upon the practices of farmers obtaining extra revenue from the sale of their produce.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.11]: It is interesting that the first the Opposition found out about this bill was through a significant report in the Australian Financial Review in the past few days about financial institutions duty and debit tax. Some errors appeared in that report; those errors clearly indicate the problem with the way in which amendments to State revenue legislation have impacted on the people of New South Wales. Yesterday the Government moved the gag on this bill. It used Standing Order 100 even before the bill was read a second time and before people had access to the parliamentary print of the legislation. Is there the normal five days delay, not only for the
Page 4307
Opposition but for members of the community to understand properly what is contained in the bill? No.

This bill contains 51 amendments affecting a range of Acts. The object of the bill is to make miscellaneous amendments to certain State revenue Acts and other legislation, in particular the Business Franchise Licences (Petroleum Products) Act, the Business Franchise Licences (Tobacco) Act, the Debits Tax Act, the Land Tax Management Act, the Pay-roll Tax Act, the Recovery of Imposts Act and the Stamp Duties Act. The Opposition is supposed to accept in good faith comments from Treasury and the Government that these are only superficial amendments to clean up issues, that the Opposition should just trust the Government and that things will be okay with the legislation.

Is it any wonder that the report in the Australian Financial Review misunderstood parts of the bill? Is it any wonder that the phones have rung hot from the banks, financial institutions and a range of other people concerned about certain impacts of this legislation? Is it any wonder that people, in trying to interpret changes to the Acts, got it wrong on a number of counts until the legislation was clarified for them? I shall give a prime example. Grave concerns were felt about bank tax. People from several quarters, having read the draft amendments, thought that the Government was suggesting that, when a cheque was deposited in an account for distribution of a payroll to a whole range of people, a multitude of individual processes would be charged instead of a charge being made for one process.

Mr Knight: Who said that?

Mr PHILLIPS: At least three organisations said that. I could name a range of organisations that have expressed concern. Treasury officials know who those organisations are, even if the Minister does not know. Treasury officials, however, said no, that it was a misunderstanding and that all this was merely a rewrite of the section to resolve a legal difficulty with the interpretation of the current section. It suggested that the section was being rewritten to clarify the measure, to make it more accurate and more easily understood, so that nothing specific is changing. It is unfair to the community and businesses that this legislation, containing 51 amendments affecting many pieces of legislation, is being rushed through the Parliament. The legislation is causing unnecessary concern and work for many people. The Government and Treasury, if they had got their acts together, could have released the legislation a few weeks ago, or even a few days ago, then let it sit for five days - as it is supposed to do - and then next week, when the Parliament will be sitting, process the legislation in the normal manner. Then there would not be any angst - except in relation to one particular area.

Surprise, surprise, there is an agenda involved in rushing through these 51 changes. Tucked away in the middle of the bill is a provision relating to financial institutions duty. When the bill was distributed and the second reading speech was presented in the Chamber today the explanatory notes contained nothing about that provision. When the bill was distributed amongst a small number of the community - three or four - there was nothing said about this; there were no explanatory notes with the bill. When I first explored whether the change was being properly interpreted I was told that the provision was designed to close a loophole for those nasty big businesses that avoid tax, avoid financial institutions duty, shift money into other States and misuse the legislation. When that provision was examined we found out - we were not told at first, but this was confirmed today - that it hits the mums and dads and it hits the workers.

One of the major financial institutions in this State suggested the example of Mrs Jones, and this example has been confirmed by other financial institutions, banks and a non-bank institution. The example reads as follows. Mrs Jones receives a cheque for $150,000 from the sale of her home in Sydney. She places it in a term deposit with her credit union for a 60-day term and intends to use the maturing funds to settle the purchase of a new home. The proposed amendment will require Mrs Jones to lodge a return of the receipt with the New South Wales Office of State Revenue and pay primary rate financial institutions duty as well as concessional rate financial institutions duty on the term deposit with the credit union.

I do not know whether the three major banking institutions, which have large legal departments and which are interpreting the change, are right or wrong or whether the Treasury officials are right or wrong. It is hard to tell because the legislation is being driven through this House and nobody has had time to sort it out. What does this mean in dollar terms? I am advised that the legislation might contain some slight errors, but even on Treasury's interpretation, if the money is deposited now the financial institutions duty will amount to $12.75. Under this legislation the financial institutions duty will amount to $100. I am talking about people who are selling their homes and putting money on short-term deposit. They have been able to do that since 1982.

The legislation will be driven through Parliament with little publicity, unless the Opposition gets its way. I am not talking only about the sale of a home. The legislation could be extended to a member of Parliament or any worker who retires and takes his or her superannuation cheque, puts it into a short-term account, and then wants to transfer the funds somewhere else. They will be hit as well. What about people who take voluntary redundancy and receive a significant payout? They will be hit as well. What about probate? That will be hit as well. The legislation encompasses all of those circumstances, which, to Treasury and the Treasurer, are nasty loopholes. They regard it as tax avoidance and the Government intends to close the loophole. The legislation is not only designed to catch big business.

Page 4308

In 1982 Neville Wran and Ken Booth introduced a bill containing a range of provisions. I remember it well. It was the early days of my political career. When the coalition was in government we followed those provisions through. For the last decade we have been endeavouring to advance Sydney and New South Wales as the financial capital of South-east Asia. But I am now receiving signals querying whether there is a change of mood about whether New South Wales should be a financial capital. Business disincentives are building up, and the financial institutions duty is one of them. All honourable members know that the financial institutions duty is a major issue in Australia. It is ironic that on Friday, 8 December, a meeting will be held in Australia of the heads of Treasury. I am sure those attending the meeting will be impressed with the sorts of changes that are occurring. The working party has been meeting for some time in an effort to reform State taxes on a national basis. This unilateral decision was obviously forced upon New South Wales Treasury in an attempt to close a loophole, but I still cannot find the millions of dollars it is supposed to bring in. The banks tell me that the bill will have a significant impact, and Treasury tends to indicate that it will have a minor impact. I believe that banks and other institutions know how many transactions fall within the provisions of the bill.

A major concern in big business is that of revenue from a transaction being deposited into a short-term account and then shifted to Queensland, for example, which has different rates of financial institutions duty to those in New South Wales. A number of businesses have indicated to me that that creates another disincentive to doing business in New South Wales. They ask why they should not shift their financial headquarters to Queensland. The Government will tell us that the legislation provides that if the transaction is done in New South Wales the tax should be paid in New South Wales. That will create an enforcement problem. How will it be possible to keep track of a business with its financial headquarters in Queensland that sends out its bills from Queensland and deposits its revenue into a Queensland bank account? How is that type of tax avoidance stopped?

Treasury officials may believe they have closed a number of those doors, but honourable members know that businesses will find other ways to avoid payment, such as moving offices or constantly changing methods of conducting transactions. Those who will not find ways around the legislation are the mums and the dads and the workers. They are the people who will be caught by this tax charge. The Constitution states that trade across borders cannot be constrained. If one deals in goods, one is not caught by this type of amendment. Money can be shifted all over the place, and it does not matter because the Constitution says that cannot be stopped.

Businesses in the biggest growth industries in this country - the service industry, telecommunications, airlines, the hospitality industry, or financial institutions - will be caught. This tax will be discriminatory to business because another opportunity will be taken away from business to legally minimise tax. As I have indicated, the real problem with the legislation is the lack of consultation about it with the community and the way it has been processed through this House. Between now and the time the legislation goes to the upper House the Opposition will look at other sections of the bill to try to clarify some of the contradictions contained in it. I should like to quote from a letter of 4 December from the State Chamber of Commerce:

This is the third piece of Government legislation in the past few months that has been introduced without the opportunity for adequate consultation with the business community.

I have another letter from the State Chamber of Commerce dated 6 December which stated:

The Chamber has already raised the issue of lack of consultation, however, the legislation is still to be introduced into Parliament today yet the Explanatory Memorandum is still not available for the business community to comment on.

I now quote from a press release dated 4 December from Australian Business Limited, which was formerly the Australian Business Chamber:

We firmly believe that legislative action should not proceed until business and employment cost impacts have been considered.

The Australian Society of Corporate Treasurers Limited expressed concerns about the bill in a fax dated 6 December. It stated:

Comments on Lack of Due Process.

These amendments were made public on Thursday 30th November, with implementation expected around the 5th December, and submissions required by Sunday 3rd December.

Business should not be conducted in that manner. It is unprofessional. It is unfair to the business community and to the community generally. Honourable members should be able to understand why people become suspicious that there is a hidden agenda. The Minister for Public Works and Services and the Treasurer have a responsibility to the community - not to Treasury officials - to ensure that consultation takes place properly and that legislation is right. Surprise, surprise, public servants are not always right! Even public servants will admit that. The Government has to give them an opportunity, through consultation with the business community, to get it right. That will save the Government a great deal of heartache, trouble and nasty letters from business organisations.

I give notice to the Minister that the coalition will move an amendment during the Committee stage to delete the change in schedule 7 relating to the financial institutions duty. We are doing that for one reason and for one reason only. We have had a quick discussion in relation to the other 50 or so amendments and they appear to be amendments designed to tidy up, clarify and tighten up the bill.
Page 4309
More consultation with the business community is needed to clarify the problems and to make sure that what is happening is not broader than the Minister and the Treasurer believe.

The coalition is asking the Government to delete that provision, to consult and to return with an appropriate amendment. Is there an urgent need for this change? The provisions have been in the Act since 1982. Are Treasury officials concerned about whether the provisions have been used for avoidance? I do not believe that in the time that will elapse between now and the next session of Parliament it will make that much difference. The coalition will divide the Committee on the amendment because it seems that the bill will have a broader effect than the Treasury officials believe. The bill may also have an effect on the community, and the Government is not being honest about that. The coalition will oppose that one provision of the bill. With that exception, the Opposition supports the bill.

Mr DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [11.33]: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has outlined a number of concerns the coalition has about the State Revenue Legislation Further Amendment Bill. The outstanding concern is the manner in which this bill has been rushed into the public arena and through this House. We have read about concerns in newspapers and in letters we have received that this legislation has not had the time to be properly considered. It has been misunderstood in various forums. The people who have taken the time to look through it in detail have come up with a considerable list of concerns. I refer to a letter from the Australian Society of Corporate Treasurers Limited dated 3 December which is addressed to the Office of State Revenue and signed by the executive director. The letter addressed several aspects of the legislation. It stated:

Proposed amendment: Schedule 7, Amendment of Stamp Duties Act 1920 No. 47, points 20-29.

Change in definitions Section 98.

This whole section needs to be urgently reconsidered.

Motion by Mr Beckroge agreed to:

That the question be now put (S.O. 100.)

Mr SPEAKER: The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Mr D. L. Page: On a point of order: Mr Speaker, the honourable member for Broken Hill moved that the member be not further heard. You have not put that question.

Mr Knight: On the point of order: no, he did not. The motion of the honourable member for Broken Hill was that the question be now put. That question was carried on the voices and no division was called.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! As the Minister correctly stated, the question was carried. The question - That the question be now put under Standing Order 100 - having been agreed to, and it being after the time prescribed for the completion of the second reading and all remaining stages, the question now is that this bill be now read a second time.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr McManus
Mr Amery Mr Markham
Mr Anderson Mr Martin
Ms Andrews Ms Meagher
Mr Aquilina Mr Mills
Mrs Beamer Mr Moss
Mr Crittenden Mr Nagle
Mr Debus Mr Neilly
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Ms Hall Mr Rumble
Mr Harrison Mr Scully
Ms Harrison Mr Shedden
Mr Hunter Mr Stewart
Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan
Mr Knight Mr Tripodi
Mr Knowles Mr Watkins
Mr Langton Mr Whelan
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Yeadon
Mr Lynch Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Dr Macdonald Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Doherty
Mr Beck Mr O'Farrell
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Causley Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Downy Mr Schultz
Mr Ellis Mrs Skinner
Mr Fahey Mr Slack-Smith
Ms Ficarra Mr Small
Mr Fraser Mr Smith
Mr Glachan Mr Tink
Mr Hartcher Mr Turner
Mr Hazzard Mr West
Mr Humpherson Mr Windsor
Dr Kernohan Mr Zammit
Mr Kinross
Mr Longley Tellers,
Ms Machin Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Photios
Mr Clough Mr Souris

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Page 4310

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that clauses 1 to 10 and schedules 1 to 8 stand part of the bill.

Question put.

The Committee divided.

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Murray
Mr Crittenden Mr Nagle
Mr Debus Mr Neilly
Mr Face Ms Nori
Mr Gaudry Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Ms Hall Mr Rumble
Mr Harrison Mr Scully
Ms Harrison Mr Shedden
Mr Hunter Mr Stewart
Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan
Mr Knight Mr Tripodi
Mr Knowles Mr Watkins
Mr Langton Mr Whelan
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Yeadon
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride Tellers,
Dr Macdonald Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Doherty
Mr Beck Mr O'Farrell
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Causley Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Downy Mr Schultz
Mr Ellis Mrs Skinner
Mr Fahey Mr Slack-Smith
Ms Ficarra Mr Small
Mr Fraser Mr Smith
Mr Glachan Mr Tink
Mr Hartcher Mr Turner
Mr Hazzard Mr West
Mr Humpherson Mr Windsor
Dr Kernohan Mr Zammit
Mr Kinross
Mr Longley Tellers,
Ms Machin Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Photios
Mr Clough Mr Souris

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses and schedules agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question - That the question be now put under Standing Order 100 - having been agreed to, the question now is that the report be adopted.

Question put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Debus Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Ms Hall Mr Rumble
Mr Harrison Mr Scully
Ms Harrison Mr Shedden
Mr Hunter Mr Stewart
Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan
Mr Knight Mr Tripodi
Mr Knowles Mr Watkins
Mr Langton Mr Whelan
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Yeadon
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride Tellers,
Dr Macdonald Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Doherty
Mr Beck Mr O'Farrell
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Causley Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Downy Mr Schultz
Mr Ellis Mrs Skinner
Mr Fahey Mr Slack-Smith
Ms Ficarra Mr Small
Mr Fraser Mr Smith
Mr Glachan Mr Tink
Mr Hartcher Mr Turner
Mr Hazzard Mr West
Mr Humpherson Mr Windsor
Dr Kernohan Mr Zammit
Mr Kinross
Mr Longley Tellers,
Ms Machin Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Photios
Mr Clough Mr Souris

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Page 4311

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question - That the question be now put under Standing Order 100 - having been agreed to, the question now is that this bill be now read a third time.

Question put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Debus Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Ms Hall Mr Rumble
Mr Harrison Mr Scully
Ms Harrison Mr Shedden
Mr Hunter Mr Stewart
Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan
Mr Knight Mr Tripodi
Mr Knowles Mr Watkins
Mr Langton Mr Whelan
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Yeadon
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride Tellers,
Dr Macdonald Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Doherty
Mr Beck Mr O'Farrell
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Causley Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Downy Mr Schultz
Mr Ellis Mrs Skinner
Mr Fahey Mr Slack-Smith
Ms Ficarra Mr Small
Mr Fraser Mr Smith
Mr Glachan Mr Tink
Mr Hartcher Mr Turner
Mr Hazzard Mr West
Mr Humpherson Mr Windsor
Dr Kernohan Mr Zammit
Mr Kinross
Mr Longley Tellers,
Ms Machin Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Photios
Mr Clough Mr Souris

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.


Bill read a third time.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr SMALL (Murray) [12.04 a.m.]: I wish to speak on this bill -

Motion by Mr Nagle agreed to:

That the question be now put (S.O.100).

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question - That the question be now put under Standing Order 100 - having been agreed to, and it being after the time specified in the notice of allocation of time for discussion for the completion of the second reading and all remaining stages, the question now is that this bill be now read a second time.

Question put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Debus Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Mr Rogan
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rumble
Ms Hall Mr Scully
Mr Harrison Mr Shedden
Ms Harrison Mr Stewart
Mr Hunter Mr Sullivan
Mr Iemma Mr Tripodi
Mr Knight Mr Watkins
Mr Knowles Mr Whelan
Mr Langton Mr Yeadon
Mrs Lo Po'
Mr Lynch Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Page 4312

Mr Armstrong Mr Merton
Mr Beck Mr O'Doherty
Mr Blackmore Mr O'Farrell
Mr Causley Mr D. L. Page
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Downy Mr Schultz
Mr Ellis Mrs Skinner
Mr Fahey Mr Slack-Smith
Ms Ficarra Mr Small
Mr Fraser Mr Smith
Mr Glachan Mr Tink
Mr Hartcher Mr Turner
Mr Hazzard Mr West
Dr Kernohan Mr Windsor
Mr Kinross Mr Zammit
Mr Longley Tellers,
Dr Macdonald Mr Jeffery
Ms Machin Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Peacocke
Mr Clough Mr Photios
Dr Refshauge Mr Souris

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The question - That the question be now put under Standing Order 100 - having previously been agreed to, the question now is that the circulated amendments proposed by the Minister be agreed to.

Circulated amendments:

No. 1 Page 2, clause 3(2)(b), line 24. Omit "reduction", insert instead "avoidance".

No. 2 Page 3, clause 3(2), line 8. Omit "disposal.", insert instead:

disposal,

in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development contained in section 6(2) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991.

No. 3 Page 8, clause 8(1)(h), line 5. Omit "and scope", insert instead ", scope, negotiation, approval and review."

No. 4 Page 8, clause 8. After line 7, insert:

(3) SWAC may advise the Minister on the appropriate sanctions to be imposed on industry members and Waste Boards for failing to achieve waste reduction and other targets required under this Act.

No. 5 Page 10, clause 10(3)(c). At the end of line 7, insert:

, and

(d) to take into account any relevant advice by SWAC.

No. 6 Page 10, clause 11(2), line 21. After "matters", insert "and make available for public inspection a waste minimisation and management plan".

No. 7 Page 11, clause 11(3)(b), line 1. Omit "government funding", insert instead "money allocated out of the Fund for regional initiatives".

No. 8 Page 12, clause 13(3), line 5. Omit "appointed", insert instead "in office".

No. 9 Page 12, clause 14(2)(a), lines 9 and 10. Omit "(appointed by the Minister under section 16)", insert instead "employed under section 24".

No. 10 Page 12, clause 14(2)(b), line 11. Omit "8", insert instead "12".

No. 11 Page 12, clause 14(4), lines 14 to 19. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 12 Page 12, clause 14(6), lines 26 to 28. Omit "general manager, the general manager may recommend to the Minister such persons for appointment as the general manager", insert instead "Minister, the Minister may appoint such persons as the Minister".

No. 13 Page 13, clause 16, lines 15 to 25. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

Subject to section 28, the general manager of a Waste Board:

(a) has the function of exercising the day-to-day management of the Waste Board, and

(b) is subject to the control and direction of the directors, and

(c) has such other functions as may be conferred or imposed by or under this or any other Act.

No. 14 Page 15, clause 19(2). After line 10, insert:

(g) matters concerning waste education and initiatives for separating waste at its source,

No. 15 Page 15, clause 19(4), lines 19 to 20. Omit "such business, industry and community groups as it considers appropriate", insert instead "relevant business, industry and community groups".

No. 16 Page 16, clause 22. After line 30, insert:

(4) It is a defence to a prosecution arising under this section if the council can prove:

(a) that the commission of the offence was due to causes over which the council had no control, and

(b) that the council took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.

No. 17 Page 17, clause 23. After line 9, insert:

(2) It is a defence to a prosecution arising under this section if the Waste Board can prove:

(a) that the commission of the offence was due to causes over which the Waste Board had no control, and

(b) that the Waste Board took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.

No. 18 Page 17, clause 24(1), line 12. Omit "may employ such", insert instead "is to employ a person as general manager of the Waste Board, and it may employ such other".

Page 4313

No. 19 Page 18, clause 28(3), lines 33 to 35. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 20 Page 20, clause 30(a), line 6. After "implementation", insert ", monitoring".

No. 21 Page 20, clause 30(a). After line 13, insert:

(iv) to encourage an efficient and cost effective approach to industry waste reduction, and

No. 22 Page 21, clause 21(2)(e), line 17. After "products", insert "and packaging".

No. 23 Page 23, clause 35(2), line 12. After "EPA", insert "(including that received by way of public submissions)".

No. 24 Page 23, clause 35(3), line 17. After "EPA", insert "or SWAC".

No. 25 Page 23, clause 36(1)(a), line 23. Omit "(if any)".

No. 26 Page 25, clause 38(3)(a), line 25. After "member", insert "or other person".

No. 27 Page 38, clause 60(3)(f), line 9. Omit "and specifies in the licence condition".

No. 28 Page 47, clause 72(1), line 4. Omit "and", insert instead ", recycling or".

No. 29 Page 48, clause 73(2). At the end of line 16, insert:

, and

(d) be carried forward in the Fund if it is not spent during the year in which it was paid into the Fund.

No. 30 Page 48, clause 73. After line 18, insert:

(4) SWAC is to devise a formula for the apportioning of money allocated from the Fund for the purposes of waste related initiatives at State and regional. Such a formula is to specify the minimum proportion that is to be allocated for funding associated with regional waste initiatives.

No. 31 Page 50. After line 33, insert:

79 Disputes concerning IWRPs and regional waste plans

If a dispute arises in connection with the approval by the Minister of an industry waste reduction plan or a regional waste plan, the Minister may appoint an independent facilitator who is to consult with such persons as the facilitator considers appropriate in order to settle the dispute. The independent facilitator is to report to the Minister on the matter that is the subject of the dispute within 21 days from the date of the facilitator's appointment.

No. 32 Page 55, clause 86. After line 27, insert:

(3) The regulations may require information relating to the operation of waste facilities (whether or not required to be licensed under this Act) to be provided in such manner and in such circumstances as may be prescribed.

No. 33 Page 56, clause 90. After line 15, insert:

(2) In particular, the Minister is to have regard to the establishing of new waste reduction targets after 2000.

No. 34 Page 59, Schedule 1. After line 3, insert:

8 Disclosure of pecuniary interests

(1) A member who has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest:

(a) in a matter that is being considered, or is about to be considered, at a meeting of SWAC, or

(b) in a thing being done or about to be done by SWAC, must, as soon as possible after the relevant facts have come to the member's knowledge, disclose the nature of the interest at a meeting of SWAC.

(2) A disclosure by a member at a meeting of SWAC that the member:

(a) is a member, or is in the employment, of a specified company or other body, or

(b) is a partner, or is in the employment, of a specified person, or

(c) has some other specified interest relating to a specified company or other body or a specified person,

is taken to be a sufficient disclosure of the nature of the interest in any matter or thing relating to that company or other body or to that person which may arise after the date of the disclosure.

(3) Particulars of any disclosure made under this clause are to be recorded by the members in a book kept for the purpose and that book is to be open at all reasonable hours to inspection by any person.

(4) After a member has, or is taken to have, disclosed the nature of an interest in any matter or thing pursuant to subclause (1) or (2), the member must not, unless the Minister otherwise determines:

(a) be present during any deliberation of the members, or take part in any decision of SWAC, with respect to that matter, or

(b) exercise any functions under this Act with respect to that thing.

(5) A contravention of this clause does not invalidate any decision of SWAC.

No. 35 Page 63, Schedule 4, clause 3(1), lines 20 to 22. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 36 Page 66, Schedule 4, clause 9(1), line 8. Omit "member", insert instead "director".

No. 37 Page 67, Schedule 4, clause 15, lines 14 and 15. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

The Minister is to call the first meeting of the directors of a Waste Board in such manner as the Minister thinks fit.

No. 38 Page 73, Schedule 6.2[8], line 6. Omit "39", insert instead "34".

No. 39 Page 75, Schedule 6.3[1], line 5. Omit "76", insert instead "75".

No. 40 Page 77, Schedule 6.6[4], line 11. Omit "Minister for Local Government", insert instead "Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales".

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

Page 4314

The Committee divided.

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Murray
Mr Crittenden Mr Nagle
Mr Debus Mr Neilly
Mr Face Ms Nori
Mr Gaudry Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Ms Hall Mr Rumble
Mr Harrison Mr Scully
Ms Harrison Mr Shedden
Mr Hunter Mr Stewart
Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan
Mr Knight Mr Tripodi
Mr Knowles Mr Watkins
Mr Langton Mr Yeadon
Mrs Lo Po'
Mr Lynch Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Ms Machin
Mr Beck Mr Merton
Mr Blackmore Mr O'Doherty
Mr Causley Mr O'Farrell
Mr Chappell Mr D. L. Page
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Phillips
Mr Cochran Mr Richardson
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rixon
Mr Debnam Mr Rozzoli
Mr Downy Mr Schipp
Mr Ellis Mr Schultz
Mr Fahey Mrs Skinner
Ms Ficarra Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Small
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Tink
Mr Hazzard Mr Turner
Mr Humpherson Mr West
Dr Kernohan Mr Zammit
Mr Kinross Tellers,
Mr Longley Mr Jeffery
Dr Macdonald Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Peacocke
Mr Clough Mr Photios
Mr Whelan Mr Souris

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments agreed to.

Question - That the clauses and schedules as amended be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Ms Allan Mr Martin
Mr Amery Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Debus Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Ms Hall Mr Rumble
Mr Harrison Mr Scully
Ms Harrison Mr Shedden
Mr Hunter Mr Stewart
Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan
Mr Knight Mr Tripodi
Mr Knowles Mr Watkins
Mr Langton Mr Whelan
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Yeadon
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride Tellers,
Mr McManus Mr Beckroge
Mr Markham Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Ms Machin
Mr Beck Mr Merton
Mr Blackmore Mr O'Doherty
Mr Causley Mr O'Farrell
Mr Chappell Mr D. L. Page
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Phillips
Mr Cochran Mr Richardson
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rixon
Mr Debnam Mr Rozzoli
Mr Downy Mr Schipp
Mr Ellis Mr Schultz
Mr Fahey Mrs Skinner
Ms Ficarra Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Small
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Tink
Mr Hazzard Mr Turner
Mr Humpherson Mr West
Dr Kernohan Mr Zammit
Mr Kinross Tellers,
Mr Longley Mr Jeffery
Dr Macdonald Mr Kerr

Mr Anderson Mr Peacocke
Mr Carr Mr Photios
Mr Clough Mr Souris

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Clauses and schedules as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments.

Page 4315

Question - That the report be now adopted (S.O.100) - put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Martin
Mr Amery Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Debus Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Ms Hall Mr Rumble
Mr Harrison Mr Scully
Ms Harrison Mr Shedden
Mr Hunter Mr Stewart
Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan
Mr Knight Mr Tripodi
Mr Knowles Mr Watkins
Mr Langton Mr Whelan
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Yeadon
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride Tellers,
Mr McManus Mr Beckroge
Mr Markham Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Mr Merton
Mr Beck Mr O'Doherty
Mr Blackmore Mr O'Farrell
Mr Causley Mr D. L. Page
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Downy Mr Schultz
Mr Ellis Mrs Skinner
Mr Fahey Mr Slack-Smith
Ms Ficarra Mr Small
Mr Fraser Mr Smith
Mr Glachan Mr Tink
Mr Hartcher Mr Turner
Mr Hazzard Mr West
Mr Humpherson Mr Windsor
Dr Kernohan Mr Zammit
Mr Kinross
Mr Longley Tellers,
Dr Macdonald Mr Jeffery
Ms Machin Mr Kerr

Mr Anderson Mr Peacocke
Mr Carr Mr Photios
Mr Clough Mr Souris

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bill read a third time.


Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [12.30 a.m.]: I move:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the consideration forthwith of the following motion:

That on Thursday, 7 December 1995, from the conclusion of Question Time until the rising of the House, Government Business shall take precedence of all other Business.

Mr WEST (Orange) [12.30 a.m.]: It is not unprecedented to have this many divisions at this hour of the night. At the end of a session this arrogant Government is prepared to bring in legislation that was given its first reading yesterday and its second reading today. That it requires members to debate complex issues at this late hour is totally unacceptable. The conventions of this House permit members to consult with their constituents and various industry groups once they have seen the detail of the legislation. For that reason the standing orders of this House provide that there shall be a five-day hiatus between the second reading of a bill and when it is next set down for discussion. In fact, during the last Parliament the Labor Opposition introduced sessional and standing orders to provide - as the honourable member for Manly reminded us - that landmark legislation be sent to a legislation committee. Of course, we will see none of that under this Government. Members must be given an opportunity to discuss the matters put before them. The Opposition will not accept such antics from the Government at this time.

Mr Hartcher: Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Standing Orders provide that only the mover and one other member may speak to the motion.

Question - That standing orders be suspended - put.

The House divided.


Page 4316
Ms Allan Mr Martin
Mr Amery Ms Meagher
Mr Anderson Mr Mills
Ms Andrews Mr Moss
Mr Aquilina Mr Nagle
Mrs Beamer Mr Neilly
Mr Crittenden Ms Nori
Mr Debus Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Ms Hall Mr Rumble
Mr Harrison Mr Scully
Ms Harrison Mr Shedden
Mr Hunter Mr Stewart
Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan
Mr Knight Mr Tripodi
Mr Knowles Mr Watkins
Mr Langton Mr Whelan
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Yeadon
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride Tellers,
Mr McManus Mr Beckroge
Mr Markham Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Mr Merton
Mr Beck Mr O'Doherty
Mr Blackmore Mr O'Farrell
Mr Causley Mr D. L. Page
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Downy Mr Schultz
Mr Ellis Mrs Skinner
Mr Fahey Mr Slack-Smith
Ms Ficarra Mr Small
Mr Fraser Mr Smith
Mr Glachan Mr Tink
Mr Hartcher Mr Turner
Mr Hazzard Mr West
Mr Humpherson Mr Windsor
Dr Kernohan Mr Zammit
Mr Kinross
Mr Longley Tellers,
Dr Macdonald Mr Jeffery
Ms Machin Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Peacocke
Mr Clough Mr Photios
Mr Face Mr Souris

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [12.38 a.m.]: I move:

That on Thursday, 7 December 1995, from the conclusion of Question Time until the rising of the House, Government Business shall take precedence of all other Business.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [12.39 a.m.]: The motion moved by the Leader of the House to suspend all ordinary business from the close of question time tomorrow afternoon until the rising of the House is aimed at protecting -

Mr BECKROGE (Broken Hill) [12.40 a.m.]: I move:

That the question be now put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Martin
Mr Amery Ms Meagher
Mr Anderson Mr Mills
Ms Andrews Mr Moss
Mr Aquilina Mr Nagle
Mrs Beamer Mr Neilly
Mr Crittenden Ms Nori
Mr Debus Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Ms Hall Mr Rumble
Mr Harrison Mr Scully
Ms Harrison Mr Shedden
Mr Hunter Mr Stewart
Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan
Mr Knight Mr Tripodi
Mr Knowles Mr Watkins
Mr Langton Mr Whelan
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Yeadon
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride Tellers,
Mr McManus Mr Beckroge
Mr Markham Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Mr Merton
Mr Beck Mr O'Doherty
Mr Blackmore Mr O'Farrell
Mr Causley Mr D. L. Page
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Downy Mr Schultz
Mr Ellis Mrs Skinner
Mr Fahey Mr Slack-Smith
Ms Ficarra Mr Small
Mr Fraser Mr Smith
Mr Glachan Mr Tink
Mr Hartcher Mr Turner
Mr Hazzard Mr West
Mr Humpherson Mr Windsor
Dr Kernohan Mr Zammit
Mr Kinross
Mr Longley Tellers,
Dr Macdonald Mr Jeffery
Ms Machin Mr Kerr

Page 4317

Mr Carr Mr Peacocke
Mr Clough Mr Photios
Mr Face Mr Souris

Resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

Motion agreed to.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [12.46 a.m.]: This bill is conceived in deceit and borne of a rorted parliamentary practice, the likes of which we have not seen since the Labor Party was last in power. The rorts of parliamentary practice we have witnessed in this Chamber tonight make the Enmore branch of the Labor Party look like an honest democratic institution. The father of this bill and the father of this deceit is the Minister for Industrial Relations, and the midwife of this bill is the Minister for Police. This bill has 134 pages. It amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983, the Compensation Court Act 1984, the Construction Safety Act 1912, the Factories, Shops and Industries Act 1962, the Dangerous Goods Act 1975, the Workers' Compensation (Dust Diseases) Act 1942, the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, the WorkCover Administration Act 1989, the Workmen's Compensation (Broken Hill) Act 1920, the Justices Act 1902, the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Act 1975 and the Defamation Act 1974.

I have been in possession of this bill for 6½ hours. The Labor Party has had the luxury of debating this bill, spilling blood, throwing up its collective guts, being done over by Peter Sams and anyone who is anyone in the union movement, and others besides, for weeks. The Government has had meeting after meeting, and caucus meeting after caucus meeting to discuss the detail of the bill. The front page of the Daily Telegraph Mirror today is replete with what has been going on in caucus in this regard for weeks. The Leader of the House will not give me time to have one meeting with members on this side of the Chamber who represent 52 per cent of the electorate. At the last State election only 48 per cent of the people of New South Wales voted for the rorting, conniving rabble which calls itself a government, yet we have been given a little over six hours to examine 134 pages!

Heaven knows, for all we know the Parliamentary Counsel might have to engage three or four times the number of people for a week to prepare half the required number of amendments necessary to make the bill acceptable. The Opposition should be extended the same courtesies and privileges that were always extended to the Labor Opposition by the Greiner Government when it had the numbers between 1988 to 1991. The five-day rule was always respected. The Labor caucus was always given the opportunity to meet and consider bills in those days. But now we are seeing a return to the days of Nifty and Barrie. And surprise, surprise, Barrie happens to be running the WorkCover Authority - which is a worry in itself.

Mr Whelan: You have 13 minutes to go.

Mr TINK: The Leader of the House is very happy to give me another 13 minutes. How generous! Get out the stopwatch and the little sand clock and give the Opposition another 13 minutes. Terrific! The midwife is about to get out the knife and cut off the umbilical cord. The Government is giving birth to a disaster and the Opposition is going to be rorted further. The deceit that underlies this bill commenced in June. The father of this bill confirmed that deceit in a press release today, in which he stated:

The Carr Government has been forced . . . in June to increase premiums paid by employers from an average of 1.8 per cent of wages to 2.5. per cent . . .

The Minister knows that is a lie. He recommended an increase of 2.2 per cent, as did the head of the WorkCover Authority, Ian Ramsay. From that point, the Government lost the confidence of the industry stakeholders. In the upper House the Minister for Industrial Relations lied his head off and blamed John Fahey and the former Government for the rise of 2.5 per cent at a time when he knew full well that both he and the head of the WorkCover Authority had recommended an increase of 2.2 per cent. As a result the authority has raked in an extra $136 million in premiums. For that reason members on this side of the House, many people in the union movement and other stakeholders take nothing that they say for granted in terms of there being a financial crisis.

We have to get to the bottom of that. I was pleased that the Minister said in the second reading speech that Sir Laurence Street is to be brought in when we come to consider some of the tougher provisions down the track. Sir Laurence Street is one person in this whole sorry saga who might just bring a bit of integrity to the process. The first thing he might do is demand that the Premier and the Minister for Industrial Relations come clean and say why it was that back in June premiums rose to 2.5 per cent and the Government ripped off an extra $136 million that the professionals in this business did not think was necessary. That would be a good first point for Sir Laurence to start on.

Page 4318

A good second point might be to ensure that all the actuarial reports that are floating around are tabled, because it will take something like that to return credibility to this process. It will take something like that before the Minister for Industrial Relations redeems his reputation and makes up for the lies he told in the upper House. The Opposition is in no position tonight to express any support for the bill and reserves the right to be able to caucus on it; to take advice on a 134-page bill; and to be able to consult the stakeholders, including the employers and the workers. As many honourable members know and as the key Government members know - which makes their attitude tonight so much worse - these matters involve very difficult balancing acts. The rights of workers to justifiable entitlements always have to be balanced against employment questions and costs to employers.

It is not done easily. It has to be done with full consultation and with all the figures on the table, and that has not happened. The Opposition needs time to consider this legislation and therefore cannot express support for it tonight. Regrettably, the matter will now be taken to the upper House. Heaven knows how long it will take to pass through the upper House. No doubt it will come back to this House and we will spend a lot of time mucking around and looking at it again. The Opposition cannot rule out that possibility. If that happens, it will be on the head of the Leader of the House that he wasted the time of the House when, if he had approached the matter properly in this Chamber, we would have had a little more time to consult interested people on it, especially if we had had until next Tuesday. Goodness me, the way the Leader of the House is running the House at the moment we will be here until Christmas Day!

All the Opposition asked for was for the debate to be adjourned until next Tuesday, giving it a little time to look at the bill and to have a caucus meeting; a little bit of time to talk to the employers - the Metal Trades Industry Association, the chambers of commerce - a little time to talk to the unions; a little time to talk to Mr Sams; and a little time to talk to the other stakeholders. That is what the Opposition wants and that is what we gave the former Opposition, as the Leader of the House well knows, but he is not prepared to give it back to us. This is Enmore branch rules and worse. The next person to be preselected for the Labor Party, who would be very comfortable on the Government benches if he were to be elected, would be someone of the ilk of Tom Domican. Tommy Domican would make a better and fairer Leader of the House than the present Leader of the House. That is fact.

It is interesting to see Barrie Unsworth back as head of the WorkCover Authority. I was with him the other night at the Employers Federation dinner. He looked at me and took a document out of his coat pocket. I was pleased to see that it was a copy of one of my press releases. I did not know he cared so much! I am pleased that he is taking note of what the Opposition is saying. It was a little difficult because he had been sweating so much under his armpits, I think in anticipation of a confrontation with me, that the document was a bit wet and we could only read half of it; the rest had evaporated.

When Mr Unsworth was Premier, premiums went to 3.2 per cent of average wages and were well on their way to 3.6 per cent. The former Government got premiums back to 1.8 per cent; they were going to 2.2 per cent. That is all that Mr Ramsay thought was necessary and that is all the Minister thought was necessary. Then he lied to Parliament and said it was Mr Fahey's fault it was 2.5 per cent. The Opposition knows, because the documents have been leaked to it, that Mr Egan's agenda in all of this is to take premiums to 2.9 per cent. The Government got our old mate Bob Walker to conduct a review. The Opposition's great concern is that a two-faced rort is going on and the effect of the rort is to rack up the premiums now so that there will be a nice nest egg there in year four, in the rundown to the election so that the Government can be nice to everybody.

The second rort, which no doubt has something to do with one of Mr Walker's other hats as he looks at the cost of government and how to cut it back, is to rip a dividend out of the WorkCover Authority. That is the only way he could explain the extra $136 million that has been pulled out of the system since June, against the advice of Mr Ramsay and against the advice of the Minister. The game is something along those lines. This coalition of interests has come together - Mr Unsworth, whose form was 3.2 per cent going to 3.6 per cent, and Mr Walker, who has a brief, along with others I believe, to get a dividend out of the system. No-one has given an explanation to the contrary.

The only way the Opposition will ever believe that the Walkers of this world are fair dinkum about this exercise is if the Premier and the Minister come clean about the $136 million differential and table the relevant documents. Unless and until that happens, no-one on this side of the House will believe that what is going on is genuine. I dare say the Independents in this House will not believe it either, nor will the Independents in the upper House. Unless and until that happens, the Government will have a lot of trouble down the track with the union movement when it has to make some of the tougher decisions.

As I said, the Opposition reserves the right to caucus on this issue. We always gave that privilege to the former Opposition when we had the numbers
Page 4319
to do otherwise. We did not have Enmore branch tactics as part of our repertoire. It comes all too easily to the Leader of the House. He slips into it like a knife slips into a piece of butter. For that reason the Opposition will not support the bill tonight. If it is returned to this House, and wastes the time of the House when with a bit more consultation it could have been dealt with now, it will be on the head of the Leader of the House. Shame on him! The fact that we are in this position tonight has brought discredit on the office he holds.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove) [12.56 a.m.]: It is with regret that I speak in this debate tonight. As a member of this House for only four years, I have not before experienced what has occurred here today. Members on both sides of the House agree that this is hallmark legislation. It is important legislation. I suspect that every member of the House has been lobbied by various interest groups in the past few weeks when certain proposals - not concrete proposals - were wafted through the atmosphere, mentioned in the media and distributed to certain groups in the community. No concrete proposals were outlined to members of the Opposition.

Honourable members have all been approached by interest groups who believe this legislation needs to be discussed. Once the Opposition has had an opportunity to consider it, the legislation should be distributed for widespread consultation. The Opposition believes a compromise can be reached on the legislation, provided it goes through a process whereby it can be discussed. Members of the Opposition would like the opportunity to talk to those interest groups, which include the union movement - because members of the Opposition have been approached by unions - the employers, the medical profession, the legal profession and the people in the WorkCover Authority who will have to administer this legislative scheme.

The Opposition would argue that legislation which is 130 pages in length and amends as many Acts as this legislation does, and which will affect the lives of not only the workers who are covered by the scheme but a whole lot of other groups within the community, should be properly discussed and considered. It should not be rushed through this Parliament merely because the Leader of the House has decided in his wisdom to use the bullyboy tactics to which the honourable member for Eastwood referred. As the honourable member for Eastwood said, the Opposition has only had the bill for 6½ hours, but I understand it proposes a multitude of changes to the legislation.

Mr BECKROGE (Broken Hill) [12.59 a.m.]: I move:

That the question be now put (S.O. 100)

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Martin
Mr Amery Ms Meagher
Mr Anderson Mr Mills
Ms Andrews Mr Moss
Mr Aquilina Mr Nagle
Mrs Beamer Mr Neilly
Mr Crittenden Ms Nori
Mr Debus Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Ms Hall Mr Rumble
Mr Harrison Mr Scully
Ms Harrison Mr Shedden
Mr Hunter Mr Stewart
Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan
Mr Knight Mr Tripodi
Mr Knowles Mr Watkins
Mr Langton Mr Whelan
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Yeadon
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride Tellers,
Mr McManus Mr Beckroge
Mr Markham Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Ms Machin
Mr Beck Mr Merton
Mr Blackmore Mr O'Doherty
Mr Causley Mr O'Farrell
Mr Chappell Mr D. L. Page
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Phillips
Mr Cochran Mr Richardson
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rixon
Mr Debnam Mr Rozzoli
Mr Downy Mr Schipp
Mr Ellis Mr Schultz
Mr Fahey Mrs Skinner
Ms Ficarra Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Small
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Tink
Mr Hazzard Mr Turner
Mr Humpherson Mr West
Dr Kernohan Mr Zammit
Mr Kinross Tellers,
Mr Longley Mr Jeffery
Dr Macdonald Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Peacocke
Mr Clough Mr Photios
Mr Face Mr Souris

Resolved in the affirmative.


Page 4320
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question - That the question be now put under Standing Order 100 - having previously been agreed to, the question now is that this bill be now read a second time.
Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.