Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [11.32]: I move:

That a Joint Standing Committee on the Environmental Impact of Capital Works be appointed to inquire into and report, from time to time, with the following terms of reference:

(1) As ongoing tasks, the committee is to:

(a) monitor and review both existing and proposed capital works projects of the public sector in relation to their effect on the environment and their compliance with relevant planning instruments and legislation; and

(b) conduct audits of the public sector capital works program.

(2) That such committee consist of five members of the Legislative Assembly and three members of the Legislative Council and that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders of either House, at any meeting of the committee, any five members shall constitute a quorum provided that the committee shall meet as a joint committee at all times.

(3) That Ms Allan, Mr Humpherson, Mr Knowles, Mr Richardson and the mover be appointed to serve on such committee as the members of the Legislative Assembly.

(4) That the committee have leave to sit during the sittings of any adjournment of either or both Houses; to adjourn from place to place, and to make visits of inspection within the State of New South Wales.

(5) That should either House stand adjourned and the committee agree to any report before the Houses resume sitting:

(a) the committee have leave to send any such report, minutes and evidence taken before it to the Clerk of the House;

(b) the documents shall be printed and published and the Clerk shall forthwith take such action as is necessary to give effect to the order of the House; and

(c) the documents shall be laid upon the Table of the House at its next sitting.

Today would be a landmark occasion if we were to establish this joint standing committee. The committee would do a number of things, but essentially it would scrutinise capital expenditure within this State. I shall outline a number of the reasons why this committee should be established. This is an attempt to coordinate the activities of the many agencies that impact on our environment. This is an attempt to measure and acknowledge the cumulative impact on the environment of all those activities. The linkages and coordination are weak. If there is any coordination at all it merely takes place at Cabinet level. At the moment proposals for projects that emanate from the Executive go to a Cabinet committee, but proposals for the Sydney area go to the urban policy committee. This is a secret
Page 4841
process, one in which there is no transparency and there is no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. There is a lack of the coordination and linkage that I have described.

This committee will scrutinise all capital works that emanate from government, regardless of funding. All capital expenditure emanating from government departments shall be subject to scrutiny by this committee. There are two major areas of expenditure. The first is basic infrastructure - all the simple things - which amounts to $6 billion a year. An amount of $6 billion is spent by the public sector in this State on capital works and on inner and outer budget agencies. All infrastructure will come under the ambit of this committee. The Australian Financial Review of 4 October 1994 quoted a study done by Allen Allen and Hemsley. According to that study, at present $6.7 billion is on the books for private infrastructure. Expenditure that emanates from government, which will have an effect on the community, will come under the ambit of this committee. I am putting forward a unanimously agreed recommendation of the Joint Select Committee upon the Sydney Water Board - the report of that committee was tabled in Parliament in April this year - that the committee I am proposing should be established. I wish to quote from page 40 of the report of that joint select committee, which states:

It will be the role of the Committee to comment only on the appropriateness of capital works projects vis-a-vis their anticipated effect on the environment.

It is proposed that the Committee would report during the Autumn (pre-Budget) session of Parliament and make recommendations in relation to existing and proposed capital works programs of inner and outer budget agencies, including State Owned Corporations.

After the Committee makes its recommendations for improvements to project or programs, it should become a decision of the government (or for a State Owned Corporation) how to respond to such advice either when preparing the state budget or reviewing programs or projects.

It is anticipated that the Committee's primary task would be to examine the capital works of the public sector, the State of the Environment Reports and their compliance with relevant existing planning instruments, and any other public sector business which aims to reduce the level of degradation of the state's land, air and water.

We must look closely at the impact this is having and we must adopt a coordinated approach. There have been previous attempts to provide a window into these expenditures. In fact, it goes back a long way, to November 1887, when a public works committee of the Parliament was established by the then Premier, Sir Henry Parkes. That committee continued to operate until 1930. It has never been formally abolished and is still provided for in section 21, subsection (7) of the Public Works Act. The Federal Parliament has a parliamentary standing committee on public works which has operated for the last 56 years. It has power to inquire into and report to the Parliament on each public work referred to it. There are comparable committees in other States. For example, in 1989 the Queensland Parliament, in response to the Fitzgerald inquiry, established a public works committee to examine particular projects.

Many of these committees have an economic emphasis, but the committee I am proposing will be looking at the environmental impact of those capital works. There is nothing new in this proposal. This proposed committee will look at every capital works program and will take control of its own destiny, in the sense that it will initiate a review of those works. It is important to bring to the attention of the House a case study which highlights the need for this sort of committee. I refer to the Water Board's treatment plants. There are four water treatment plants to be built at an estimated cost of $3 billion. Plants at Prospect, Macarthur, Woronora and Illawarra will be built, owned and operated by the private sector with possible purchase back by the board after 25 years.

I would like to make a few points about the process used to develop that concept. My observations are made with the benefit of my experience as Chairman of the Joint Select Committee upon the Sydney Water Board. First, the board and the Government approved the projects and selected preferred tenderers before commencing the environmental impact assessment process. Second, this lack of environmental assessment was compounded by the absence, prior to this, of a demand management policy, a catchment management policy and a cost-benefit analysis. The final contracts provided the board with no incentive to approve the water quality of the catchments over the next 25 years. I believe that this committee would make a difference if it were established. It would develop expertise in cost-benefit analysis and create an expectation of proper and holistic environmental analysis in the crucial early planning stages. The most benefit would come from the improved level of planning across all government expenditure. The certainty of scrutiny by the committee would provide an incentive for government to improve the standard of cost-benefit analysis before Cabinet decisions are made.

In the context of this debate I refer to ecologically sustainable development, which is in its early days. Central to the concept of ESD is the importance of merging economic and environmental decisions. This committee would provide checks and balances of the Executive by the Parliament. Part 1(a) of my motion requires the committee to assess projects and their effect on the environment. The definition of "environment" is the same as in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. It "includes all aspects of the surroundings of man, whether affecting him as an individual or in his social groupings". The committee would be able to examine ecological impacts and also social impacts and resource sustainability. This is an exciting prospect. I emphasise that the proposal has had the bipartisan and unanimous support of the Joint Select Committee upon the Sydney Water Board. That committee comprised members from both major parties and the crossbench. It is an opportunity to provide transparency, accountability and scrutiny to meet the balance between economic imperatives and protection of the environment. I hope my motion will be supported. It is not controversial and will provide a level of accountability that is warranted.

Page 4842

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, and Minister for Ports) [11.42]: The Government acknowledges the intent of this motion to review the environmental factors involved in capital works initiated through government agencies. However, the motion is fundamentally flawed in the manner in which it would go about achieving this objective. The motion would establish another layer of review - another level of bureaucracy - on top of comprehensive mechanisms which already exist and enjoy the confidence of this Parliament and the community at large. The motion of the honourable member for Manly seeks to establish a committee involving members from both Houses of this Parliament, with a legislative requirement that it monitor and review recurring and new capital expenditure by inner and outer budget agencies, including State-owned corporations.

The committee would be required to assess the impact of capital works on the environment, as well as compliance of the works with a range of planning instruments and legislation. The committee would dictate its own priorities: it would conduct audits of the public sector public works program with a focus on standards and/or outcomes desired for the capital works program; in the end, it would comment on whether a proposed work is appropriate, based on an evaluation of its impact on the environment. The motion does nothing to acknowledge the effectiveness of existing planning control and review procedures. We are not faced with an absence of appropriate mechanisms. In fact, a vast range of procedures, checks and balances are in place, and they are thorough and comprehensive.

Planning and construction of public projects has already been and will remain the subject of public scrutiny. The ministerial capital works committee, chaired by the Premier, and Minister for Economic Development, sets policies and priorities and demands accountability on a program-wide basis before and during construction of individual projects. That committee includes not only the Minister for Public Works but the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, the Minister for Planning and the Treasurer. This ministerial committee ensures that the Government undertakes comprehensive assessment based on factors that include a wide variety of planning instruments, such as environmental impact statements.

Public and parliamentary scrutiny of capital works may be undertaken through overview organisations, such as the Public Accounts Committee, the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman and the Standing Committee on State Development, each of which can and does initiate its own inquiries and respond to referrals. The parliamentary system - through the budget process, question time, legislative debate and the normal exchange of correspondence - also plays a role in the accountability of the capital works program. Most recently we witnessed this in estimates committees last week, where members were free to raise any questions regarding the capital works program. Freedom of information provisions constitute a further form of public scrutiny of capital works programs. Community organisations such as the Institute of Architects and the Institute of Engineers provide critical commentary on government projects.

Most importantly, existing provisions for review of capital works through planning instruments are comprehensive in assessing impacts on the community as well as the environment. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act is applicable to all public sector projects. Requirements of the Act are strictly enforced by the Land and Environment Court. This Act is complemented by a range of local and regional planning assessments requiring proper assessment and public review of the development of projects. Recent amendments to part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in particular strengthen accountability in assessment and decision making. The amendments address the fundamentals of what the honourable member for Manly is attempting to do today.

A committee as proposed by the honourable member for Manly would seek to largely duplicate the Act's requirements and would cause significant confusion between legal and parliamentary proceedings. I draw attention to another recent initiative of the Government - the establishment of a Catchment Assessment Commission - which will further help in assessment of cumulative impacts of water resources through an open public process.

Over recent years, the coalition Government in New South Wales has acted to deal with the build mentality which dominated elements of the property development industry in the 1980s. It has adopted a total asset management approach to development and provision of capital works. The government has released a total asset management system manual, of several hundred pages, establishing unprecedented guidelines and requirements for works. I have a copy of the manual in my hand. It is most comprehensive. It certainly covers all of the matters raised by the honourable member for Manly both in his bill and in speaking to this motion.

The key features of the total asset management strategy are: the acquisition of assets must be driven by strategic objectives; these objectives must be pursued through techniques of demand management, innovation and optimism; and the process must be structured and systematic. This can lead to the adoption of non-build options, such as demand management and improved use of existing assets. It contrasts with the past approach to asset procurement under which demand for services was forecast and followed by construction to satisfy the demand. At the same time, the choice of asset was made on the basis of capital cost. This approach had in-built deficiencies, as demand was often fed by provision of assets, while the capital cost approach did not fully consider long-term operating costs, maintenance costs and environmental issues.

Total asset management recognises the need for a holistic approach to capital works planning. It is one of the most important initiatives ever undertaken
Page 4843
by governments to recognise environmental considerations and incorporate them in asset planning. To fulfil the requirements of the total asset management manual, incentives have been added to capital allocations by the ministerial capital works committee. These include an affirmation that non-build solutions and other such alternatives have been considered. They also require verification that foreshadowed projects have been subjected to a fully integrated assessment procedure, not simply economic assessment. They also require confirmation that asset management monitoring systems are in place. The average size of a capital works project is less than $500,000. These are classified as minor works. Many projects over $500,000 are routine in nature, such as the construction of school buildings, which follow the demands of increasing populations and are planned well in advance of capital funding approvals. It follows that a committee as proposed by the honourable member for Manly would deal only with specific, major projects.

With the current high level of scrutiny placed on these major works it is difficult to see any benefit in adding an extra layer to the review and approval process. However, such a committee would come at a substantial cost to the taxpayers of New South Wales. Expense would be incurred in supporting the committee and in preparing submissions to the committee. There is the cost of reviewing files, writing submissions, having the submissions reviewed and finalised, preparation of the committee agenda and papers, costs of arranging committee meetings, expenses of travel for committee members and support staff outside parliamentary sittings, and all the other expenses associated with running such a committee. Nowhere have I seen any estimate from the honourable member for Manly of the total cost that would be incurred.

The Government is absolutely intent on reducing the budget deficit and extracting 100 cents of value from every hard-earned taxpayer dollar. Perhaps more important still is the concern over delays necessitated by an extra level of review and bureaucracy. The motion before the House suggests the committee would inquire into and report from time to time. Clause 4 gives the committee leave to sit during adjournments of the Houses but, as we all know, the diaries of honourable members are not easily coordinated and a committee of this kind simply cannot be drawn together at short notice, especially with the frequency suggested in the motion. The New South Wales Public Works Department has direct involvement with a Government capital works program in the vicinity of $1,000 million per annum.

This does not include roads, railways, or other such works, all of which might be captured by the terms of this motion. It is estimated that the replacement value of the entire New South Wales public asset stock is approaching $300 billion. Honourable members can readily see that this committee would be absolutely bogged down in paperwork, and the works program timetables severely compromised. The disadvantages of this motion clearly and substantially outweigh any benefits that might accrue. The motion is not consistent with sensible, rational management of capital works projects. The motion ignores the vast range of environmental review mechanisms already established, threatens a totally unacceptable waste of taxpayers' funds, and should be opposed.

Motion, by leave, by Mr Knowles agreed to:

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would allow an Opposition member being permitted to speak to the motion for 10 minutes, instead of two members speaking for a period of five minutes each.

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank) [11.52]: The proposal of the honourable member for Manly is to establish a bipartisan standing committee to oversee the environmental impact of capital works. The committee's tasks would be to inquire into and report from time to time on a range of matters, including: monitoring and reviewing existing and proposed capital works projects in the public sector in relation to their effect on the environment and their compliance with relative planning instruments and legislation; and the conduct of audits of the public sector capital works program. The Director of the Department of Planning has expressed her concern about these proposals in a briefing note to her Minister dated 13 October.

At that time the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, and Minister for Ports in his remarks addressed many of those concerns. However, in summary, the director's concerns relate to her view that there are already sufficient environmental assessment, monitoring and auditing procedures incorporated in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and that the establishment of a joint standing committee will only confuse matters and cause duplication. The director makes the point that the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act binds the Crown, and that the provisions of the Act, including its environmental impact assessment and public participation procedures, fully apply to major capital works projects. In the memorandum to her Minister she also makes the point that part 4 covers many of these major capital works programs, as do the recent amendments to part 5 of the Act, sponsored by the Australian Labor Party.

Nonetheless, the proposal to establish this joint standing committee was first discussed in the joint select committee of inquiry into the Sydney Water Board earlier this year. The committee found that such a standing committee would offer a valuable way to achieve significant economies in public expenditure; it noted the historic public works committee of Parliament, established by the then Premier, Sir Henry Parkes, in 1887; it acknowledged the fact that other States and the Australian Parliament have similar standing committees; and it expressed the view that, at present, the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor-General's jurisdiction do not extend to joint venture entities and private sector partners in the provision of public infrastructure. Certainly, that is a topical issue at the moment. It is interesting to note
Page 4844
that the report of the committee of inquiry into the Sydney Water Board produced almost no consensus, and was peppered on almost every page with dissenting views and alternative comments, particularly from Government members. However, there was one point of consensus. In relation to this proposal, Government members offered conceptual support for the establishment of this joint standing committee. The committee said, on page 47 of its report:

. . . the Government members have no objection to the proposal conceptually, although the Committee's Terms of Reference need to restrict it to examining the Capital Works Programme on a long term scale, not a project by project basis.

They did, in concept, support the proposal for the establishment of the joint standing committee.

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order: I must make the point that, at that stage, the members of the committee had not had the benefit of either seeing the motion or of hearing the presentation of it.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Rixon): Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr KNOWLES: I appreciate the point of order taken by the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, and Minister for Ports, but while the backbench rowers on the Government side may not have had the benefit of the wisdom of their frontbench colleagues, they certainly spent an enormous amount of time, as did members from this side of the House, inquiring into and investigating the proper procedures for assessing capital works projects. Before they were corralled, before they were beaten into the view that this was not a good idea, they had the opportunity to express their independent views. I thought that was a hallmark of that side of the House. I quote again from page 47 of the report:

. . . the Government members have no objection to the proposal conceptually, although the Committee's Terms of Reference need to restrict it to examining the Capital Works Programme on a long term scale, not a project by project basis.

I might point out that their objection was on the basis that individual projects cannot be examined in isolation from a department's or government's total capital works program. I understand the concerns of the Director of the Department of Planning - and to some extent the concerns expressed by Government members on the Joint Select Committee upon the Sydney Water Board - but it is fair to say that there is, as a result of a number of forced inquiries into a number of major capital works projects, a high level of cynicism and broad concern in the community that major items of capital expenditure are being authorised by executive government, or at senior bureaucratic levels, without proper scrutiny and without the appropriate endorsement of this Parliament.

In many ways this debate is less about the establishment of a standing committee and more about the role of the Parliament and its relationship to executive government. Honourable members have just witnessed an attempt by a member of the Executive to nobble a member of Parliament who was expressing an independent view on a committee of inquiry report, because it is contrary to Executive view. The establishment of a joint standing committee, provided it rigorously maintains a focused view on its stated objectives, offers an opportunity for joint, bipartisan assessment of the environmental impact of existing and proposed capital works projects by this Parliament - projects such as the water treatment plants for Macarthur, Prospect and Woronora; the M4 and M5 tollway proposals; the M2 tollway proposal; and Eastern Creek could be subject to scrutiny.

Imagine if the joint standing committee had been established when those proposals were being considered. There would have been a great opportunity to assess the environmental impact before the Government entered into binding financial and contractual arrangements. For example, in respect of the water treatment plants, we could have discovered before the secret deals were done why, despite every member of the technical evaluation committee assessing Wyuna Water as far and away the best tender of technical and environmental merit, the contracts were awarded to inferior bids. One of the members of the technical assessment panel, Mr G. Cahill, said in his summary of the assessments:

Wyuna Water probably provides the best in terms of positive and negative impacts due primarily to New South Wales Water's increased risk to acacia and lack of expressed operational safeguards.

Yet Wyuna Water was awarded only one of the three contracts. These bids were kept secret from the Parliament. Only by the use by the Opposition of the archaic Standing Order 54 provisions were these shabby deals brought to light. Recently the Auditor-General reported on the deals relating to the M5 Motorway. In relation to the environmental assessment the Auditor-General found that because of financial considerations key components of the environmental impact statement were either deferred or dropped from the construction contracts. That is totally inappropriate. The contracts should have been subjected to parliamentary scrutiny and comment. For example, the Auditor-General found that the east-bound exit ramp off the Hume Highway was deferred for two years; the widening of the Georges River Bridge was deferred; noise barriers were constructed only to a height needed to meet Roads and Traffic Authority noise guidelines for present traffic rather than traffic in the year 2010; and the separation of the intersection of Moorebank Avenue and the M5 was deferred not for any environmental considerations - despite the fact that those considerations were included in the environmental impact statement process - but simply to save $20 million, to give a free kick to a private company.

The University of Western Sydney and the NRMA recently conducted a report into the environmental impact of the motorway since it commenced operations. It is a fairly damning report and I will say more about it when time permits. However, I want to make the point that in essence I
Page 4845
agree with the Director of the Department of Planning when she says in her briefing note that there are at present sufficient legislative controls to allow proper scrutiny of the environmental impact of major capital works projects. Sadly, those processes, at least in the perception of the broader community, are being abused by a government less interested in proper environmental management than in progressing, fast-tracking and railroading shabby deals with the private sector. Until such time as the Government learns that due process must be observed, that public scrutiny is important, and that the principles of probity and transparency must be observed, none of the existing processes, Acts, and regulations - and I agree with the Deputy Premier that there are a lot on the books - will be any good to anyone. The proposed establishment of the standing committee is as much a result of the failure of a government to observe due process as it is a result of anything else. I support the establishment of the standing committee. [Time expired.]

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [12.02]: I oppose the motion, although I am flattered to have been named by the honourable member for Manly in his motion, together with other lower House members of the Joint Select Committee upon the Sydney Water Board. I suppose he is trying to bring the members of that committee together again at regular intervals for some sort of reunion because we had such a good time on that committee. During that inquiry I spoke against the proposal to establish an environmental committee on public works, as indeed many of my colleagues did. The honourable member for Moorebank referred to the minority report of the committee on the Water Board. It is true that we said we had no objection to the proposal conceptually, but we strongly hedged our remarks. We said that any such committee's terms of reference would need to be restricted to examining the capital works program on a long-term scale, not on a project-by-project basis.

Nothing I have heard from the honourable member for Manly leads me to believe that he has that in mind. We said also that individual projects could not be examined in isolation from the total capital works program of a department or a government, and that the environmental cost of a particular project may be more than compensated for by the total capital works program over more than one year. Those remarks go to the heart of the matter, and honourable members should bear them in mind when considering the motion. As the Minister has remarked, on the surface it is attractive to add mechanisms for review of environmental issues, but the motion goes too far in adding to existing mechanisms for negligible benefit but at substantial cost. I am concerned - and I have voiced my concerns to the honourable member for Manly - that the proposed committee would not have sufficient flexibility to meet quickly and frequently to ensure planning and construction are not unduly delayed.

The honourable member for Manly has acknowledged that the members of any such committee will have an enormous amount of work. Bearing that in mind, I am surprised that the honourable member, the holder of a marginal seat, has moved the motion. As he has said, there are only seven days in a week. The honourable member for Manly has noted that this State's annual capital works program involves about $6,000 million and that the value of public asset stock in New South Wales is estimated as being as much as $300 billion. The task before the members of the proposed committee will indeed be formidable. I draw attention in particular to the planning instruments already requiring comprehensive environmental assessment, including environmental impact statements and reviews of environmental factors.

The honourable member for Moorebank discussed the M2 briefly. The environmental impact procedure undertaken in relation to that project was one of the most comprehensive in memory. For us to go over the top of that and suggest that a parliamentary committee would have a greater degree of expertise than the planning authorities and the Environment Protection Authority did at that stage is a nonsense. There is a specialist Land and Environment Court to oversee implementation of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. That court evaluates everything from small development applications that may be opposed by councils to very large projects. Organisations from builders to community groups to environment groups already have substantial access to decision-making processes.

It is misleading to make direct comparisons with other States or the Commonwealth, as these jurisdictions do not benefit from the extensive public participation and appeal rights available in New South Wales. It is indeed true that there was a New South Wales parliamentary public works committee, and that there is a Public Works Committee of the Federal Parliament, but both committees were established to examine economic factors, not environmental concerns. I should like to address some remarks to what the honourable member for Manly had to say about water treatment plants because that seems to be his major concern. He said there is nothing in the contract that would provide for the Water Board to maintain its catchments. Clearly that is not true. I remember asking a question during the inquiry of a Water Board officer regarding that issue. He said quite clearly that a penalty would be associated with not providing water of a certain quality. [Time expired.]

Ms Allan: Mr Acting-Speaker -

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Rixon): The honourable member for Coffs Harbour.

Ms Allan: No, it is the Opposition's turn.

Mr Knowles: On a point of order: the arrangements negotiated with the Government Whip were that I would take two of the five speaking spots. That was agreed to. However, it was also agreed that the normal order of speaking would be maintained and the Opposition would lose its last spot on the speaking list.

Page 4846

Mr Armstrong: On the point of order: the Government Whip is not in the Chamber but my understanding is that the Opposition requested - and the request was granted - that its two five-minute slots be amalgamated into one 10-minute speaking slot.

Ms Allan: You get four slots.

Mr Armstrong: You cannot listen and talk at the same time.

Ms Allan: No, because you are not worth listening to.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order, the Minister has the call.

Mr Armstrong: You do not have to be cheeky as well as nasty.

Ms Allan: I am not being cheeky; I am being rude.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Blacktown will resume her seat.

Mr Armstrong: The Government is content to acknowledge that the presentation of the honourable member for Moorebank is correct. However, in future these agreements should be far more visible.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! Now that the matter appears to have been clarified, I call the honourable member for Blacktown.

Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [12.09]: I move:

That the question be amended by omitting all words after the word "That" with a view to inserting instead the following words:

"a Standing Committee on the Environmental Impact of Capital Works be appointed to inquire into and report, from time to time, with the following terms of reference:

(1) As ongoing tasks, the committee is to:

(a) monitor and review both existing and proposed capital works projects of the public sector in relation to their effect on the environment and their compliance with relevant planning instruments and legislation; and

(b) conduct audits of the public sector capital works program.

(2) That such committee consist of seven members of the Legislative Assembly and that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders of either House, at any meeting of the committee any four members shall constitute a quorum.

(3) That Ms Allan, Mr Humpherson, Mr Knowles, Mr McManus, Mr O'Doherty, Mr Richardson, and the mover be appointed to serve on such committee.

(4) That the committee have leave to sit during the sittings of any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place, and to make visits of inspection within the State of New South Wales.

(5) That should the House stand adjourned and the committee agree to any report before the House resume sitting:

(a) the committee have leave to send any such report, minutes and evidence taken before it to the Clerk of the House;

(b) the documents shall be printed and published and the Clerk shall forthwith take such action as is necessary to give effect to the order of the House; and

(c) the documents shall be laid upon the Table of the House at its next sitting.

The Opposition is very enthusiastic about the motion of the honourable member for Manly and the amended motion that I propose. The honourable member for Moorebank and I represented the Opposition on the Water Board standing committee earlier this year. One of the many fruitful discussions within that committee was the proposal for an ongoing monitoring process for the environmental impact of capital works. The focus of that committee was the Water Board, but it is obvious that that type of committee would have far-reaching impacts on many areas. The honourable member for Moorebank outlined those areas in greater detail.

I listened carefully to the Deputy Premier when he spoke opposing the formation of the committee. I was disappointed with his attitude because, as the honourable member for Moorebank said, Government members expressed enthusiasm for the formation of that committee. It is disappointing that the Government has now reneged on its commitment. The Deputy Premier seemed to indicate that everything is okay, everything is fine, notwithstanding a barrage of individual and organisational commentaries, criticisms, scrutinies and reports to the contrary. Even in a number of key projects that have major environmental impact - whether it is tollways; the Sydney Harbour Tunnel; various water treatment works; or activities of the Roads and Traffic Authority, to name just one major public authority with an active public works program of major environmental impact in the community - everything is fine and we do not need to do anything more! The Public Accounts Committee or the Auditor-General can continue to produce reports and everything will be fine, because the current system works well!

The Deputy Premier's attitude, certainly to important and significant reports, is naive. The standing committee that the motion proposes may give the current environmental planning assessment processes in this State an additional focus and could play an interesting coordinating role. The Deputy Premier also expressed concern about the cost of this proposed committee. It is pleasing that a Government Minister is concerned about the cost to New South Wales taxpayers, especially after the luxury of promises the Government made during the Parramatta by-election campaign, but his effort in the debate is merely to delay the process and to be negative. When has the cost of setting up a particular committee in this Chamber every been raised? Most committees work well and are fairly frugal. The cost of setting up this committee is not an issue. The Deputy Premier is also concerned about delays in the planning processes generally that the committee might generate. [Time expired.]

Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would allow the member for Coffs Harbour to speak to the motion for five minutes.

Page 4847

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [12.14]: It is about time that members of Parliament realised that homo sapiens, that is, two-legged human beings that populate this State, are part and parcel of the environment. Honourable members vying for the environmental vote are trying to put in another layer by investigating proposed capital works, that is, basically public infrastructure.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I draw to the attention of members that the standing orders do not allow members, other than the member with the call, to remain on their feet other than for the purpose of entering and leaving the Chamber. The practice, which seems to have developed this morning, will cease.

Mr FRASER: This motion is all about putting in another layer of investigation, on the basis of scrutinising proposed capital works - basically, public infrastructure, that is, work that is needed by the community. Minority groups are being appeased and homo sapiens are not considered important. The provision of schools, roads and hospitals will be given the nod by a committee. But that will only delay essential capital works projects in developing areas of New South Wales. The proposal is put forward by the honourable member for Manly whose electorate is basically developed: there is no more need for infrastructure, apart from redevelopment of existing sites. He does not understand the pressing need for the provision of infrastructure in electorates such as Coffs Harbour and others on the north coast. The people in north coast communities need the same opportunity for the provision of infrastructure, such as hospitals, roads, schools and ocean outfalls, as people living in major metropolitan communities have.

The honourable member fails to recognise that any project is subject to environmental scrutiny, whether it is a capital works project by government or major works by the private sector. For his benefit and for the benefit of other honourable members I will list the obligations on developers, whether in the public sector or the private sector, in relation to the environment. They are: local and regional planning instruments; the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, which includes environmental impact statements that give every opportunity for input into any proposed development; the Land and Environment Court; the Public Accounts Committee; the Standing Committee on State Development; the ministerial capital works committee; the Ombudsman; the Auditor-General; parliamentary committees, debates, questions, and correspondence; and freedom of information procedures. All these avenues now exist for the proper investigation of any capital works project in this State.

The honourable member for Manly wants a committee that will sit behind closed doors and will give a philosophical point of view on a capital project, and at the same time ignore the dire needs of the people that the capital project may benefit. The university in Coffs Harbour is almost complete. If the process proposed by the honourable member for Manly were applied to that project, the completion of the university would be delayed for many months. A university and TAFE college has been needed for many years in the Coffs Harbour area. It will save the community money and will give people on the north coast an opportunity for education that they have never had. The type of committee proposed by the honourable member for Manly delays those kinds of projects.

Environmental concerns were raised about the university site and they were dealt with. There is an osprey's nest at the site. The planning of the site went through the due process and the environmental impacts were considered. The process is already available. This motion is nothing but politicking by the honourable member for Manly, who likes to go under the guise of the green umbrella, and the Labor Party follows and says, "Let's do this because it is a chance to embarrass the Government". This proposed committee will not make any difference; it will cause delay and will have no result. It will be another delay to providing badly needed infrastructure for the people of New South Wales. I cannot support this motion. The estimates committees have recently concluded and very few questions on environmental impacts were asked in the Public Works committee - [Time expired.]

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [12.19], in reply: One of the remarkable things about this Chamber is the variety of intellect that is brought to debate, and the honourable member for Coffs Harbour certainly invites comment with some of his remarks. He is probably off the beam as to the intent of the motion. It is not about delaying development; it is about proper assessment and scrutiny and coordination of often competing projects, not necessarily a university in Coffs Harbour. It may well be that it must undergo a part 4 process or an environmental impact statement, and so it should. I wish to make a general comment about the Government's reaction to this. It is disappointing because, as soon as an initiative comes from the Opposition or members on the crossbenches, the Government adopts a siege mentality and thinks that it must be a bad thing. The Government resists change but ultimately can be brought round.

There is a wisdom in this, and that was debated within the Joint Select Committee upon the Sydney Water Board, as reflected in its report. This measure is not new; it was foreshadowed in the report of that committee. I wish to comment on something said by the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, and Minister for Ports. He said, as the honourable member for Coffs Harbour said also, that there are ministerial capital works committees, EIS processes for each of the projects, the Standing Committee on State Development, and so on. However, he did not acknowledge, nor did other Government members, that there needs to be a committee overview, a coordination of all those projects.

I shall give an example. The Glebe Island Bridge is being constructed over White Bay by the Roads and Traffic Authority at a cost of $350 million. A question for the committee would be whether that $350 million is best spent on a road with a bridge over White Bay, or would it be better spent by
Page 4848
increasing the capacity of the State Rail Authority? Agencies compete amongst each other, and at the moment the RTA tends to dominate. A committee such as I propose could take an arms-length approach, consider the comparative merits and overview the proposals. It is important to note that there is no effective integration of all those projects. But there is nothing new in that. Former Premier Greiner and his assistant, Mr Sturgess, also spoke about a whole of government approach. There is nothing new in that idea. If New South Wales were ever to be run by people such as the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, where would this State be? This initiative is not inconsistent with Government policy. I say to the Deputy Premier and the honourable member for Coffs Harbour that central government has been concerned for a long time about the lack of focus and the need to have coordination.

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

Dr MACDONALD: The question of the cost of running the committee was also raised. Those costs will be minuscule compared with the savings achieved through proper coordination and overview, and I believe the Minister has recognised that. It is not a criticism of the Government but the fact that agencies often get away with murder. This is an opportunity for Parliament to try to break down these interagency rivalries, to try to break down the turf wars, and to save money. The committee will come at some cost because it will have to be a comprehensive and well-resourced committee. The honourable member for The Hills also referred to time constraints. That is a valid point; it will be a load on members' time. But there are other committees - including the Public Accounts Committee, the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Staysafe committee - that work hard and meet every few weeks. The committee secretariat assists in that regard. The question of time constraints is not a valid reason for opposing the motion. The fact that the mountain is steep is no reason not to climb it, so far as I am concerned.

The proposed committee will have the ability to scrutinise recurring capital and new capital expenditure of both inner and outer budget agencies, including State-owned corporations. The committee will dictate its own priorities, conduct audits from time to time, focus on standards or outcomes desired for capital works programs. It will comment on the appropriateness of capital works in the light of their anticipated effect on the environment. Once the committee makes its recommendations it should be a decision for the Government or the State-owned corporation as to how to respond to such advice, either when preparing the State budget or reviewing programs or projects. It is expected that any additional costs incurred by public sector agencies as a result of exposure of capital works programs to the committee will be offset by a reduction in environmental damage and increased economies of capital expenditure. I urge honourable members to support the motion. [Time expired.]

Amendment agreed to.

Question - That the motion as amended be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

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

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

Mr Carr Mr Fahey
Mr Doyle Mr Griffiths
Mr Rumble Mr West

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Page 4849