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

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.


Consideration resumed from 21 November.

Clause 7

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party [9.01]: I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 1, subprogram 18.1.3, on page 141, for which I note that the Government claims that it has allocated $5.22 million. Is not half of this sum actually producers' money from the cattle compensation fund? Why has the Government tried to mislead the people of the State by claiming that it has contributed over $5 million to the program? I ask the Minister to inform us whether the reduction in the agricultural budget has been understated by $2.61 million which the Minister has effectively stolen from the cattle producers of the State. Surely this has been a con of considerable measure and it is up to the Minister and/or the Premier to clarify the position because the budget papers are totally deficient in their presentation, let alone in the programs as outlined.

I refer to Budget Paper No. 2, at page 1-44, table 1.12, which relates to measures to achieve outlay savings, and also to table 4.5, which sets out the forward estimates. In the former table the Government identifies savings for the Department of Agriculture of $31 million over the period 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. However, in the latter table the Government estimates that there will be a reduction in the agriculture budget of $34.3 million over the same period. How does the Minister explain the discrepancy of more than $3.3 million? What is the magnitude of the actual budget cut over the next three years? I have drawn attention to only two items, in which there are discrepancies of approximately $5.5 million. It is incumbent upon the Minister to either accept that the budget papers are inaccurate, and possibly fraudulent, or to give an explanation so that the public can be properly informed.

I refer the Committee to cattle tick dip sites compensation, which is dealt with in Budget Paper No. 2, page 5-28, and Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 1, page 137. In a pre-election commitment the Labor Party when in opposition, through its spokesman, Mr Martin, promised not only to buy out properties affected by tick compensation but also to pay compensation to those people affected. The decision of the Government has been postponed five times. Does the Minister intend to honour that promise? The estimated compensation is approximately $2.2 million and there is an allocation of $1 million. Where in the budget papers is there provision for the other $1.2 million or is it simply not there?

I invite the attention of the Committee to the communications unit staffing at page 130 of Budget Paper No. 3. According to the budget papers the total staffing level for the department will be reduced by 191. The Minister claimed the department has saved more than $2 million through the redeployment to front-line services of 32 communications unit staff. I ask the Minister to outline which specific front-line activities those people are now undertaking? How did the Minister save $2 million by redeploying this staff? Where does the $2 million savings appear in the budget papers? How many of the 32 staff indicated they shall resign, take redundancies or retire? Again that demonstrates a major discrepancy in the budget papers as presented.

In Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 1, at page 137 there is a line item related to expenses for noxious weeds control. How much has the Government allocated for the eradication of parthenium weed especially in the Macquarie Marshes? How much has the Government allocated for the eradication of African boxthorn? How much has the Government allocated for the eradication of water hyacinth in the western rivers system? Is the allocated $5 million sufficient for all of these problems? In the last 24 hours there have been reports that the water hyacinth problem in the Macquarie Marshes is effectively out of control. As only $5 million has been allocated to deal with all of these problems, how is the Minister going to ensure that the programs will be completed satisfactorily to conform with the law, bearing in mind that all of these weeds are noxious and therefore required to be eradicated.

In regard to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 1, page 133, subprogram 18.1.1, the line item agricultural research grants, I note that those grants
Page 3701
have been reduced from $196,000 to nil in the forthcoming year. To whom have the grants been distributed in the past? Why is there now such a significant reduction in the grants? What analysis, if any, was conducted of the rationale for this reduction? Where has the $196,000 gone to? Have the programs been abandoned? The budget papers given no indication of the answers to those questions. I note that according to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 1, page 146, subprogram 18.1.5, the department will lose 192 staff from the quarantine and export services over the next year. Is it feasible for the industry to absorb 192 staff in one year? Was it not intended that this transfer would occur over a number of years?

Water cartage subsidies for intensive industries are provided for in the Budget Estimates in Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 1, at page 150. On 14 September 1994 the then Labor Party spokesman, Mr Martin, pledged to introduce water cartage subsidies for intensive industries, piggeries, poultry farms, et cetera. There appears to be no allocation of funds for this major pre-election commitment. Is such a commitment provided for in the budget and, if not, why not? Where are the subsidies? Another matter I seek to raise is the proposed office of rural communities, and in this regard I invite the attention of honourable members to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 1, page 144, the line item expenses. In May 1995 the Premier was invited to open the annual New South Wales farmers conference and he announced that the Government would establish an office of rural communities. The Premier was given a very warm welcome by the New South Wales Farmers Association and the rural community who were guests at that conference.

One of the key features of the Premier's address that morning was the establishment of an office of rural communities. He raised that proposal at his press conference and discussed it with the journalists, and it was discussed by members of the association following the Premier's exit from the conference. It does not appear to be included in the budget. How much will it cost to establish this office and specifically what is the office going to do? How many people are to be employed in the office and where will it be located? I can find no reference to that in the budget, despite the fact that the Premier formally and publicly announced that it was going to be set up. It was a key part of this Government's contribution to the welfare of the rural people of New South Wales. Alas, some four or five months afterwards I can find no reference to it in the budget. The Premier has left himself open to ridicule and the inference that it may have been a con. I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 1, at page 131 and ask about the number of senior executive service staff in the Department of Agriculture. I shall not seek an extension of time.

Mr E. T. Page: Thank goodness for that.

Mr ARMSTRONG: The Minister realises that his Government is considerably embarrassed on this issue.

Mr E. T. Page: You have said nothing so far - there is nothing to answer to.

Mr ARMSTRONG: None of the matters I have raised is contained in the budget papers, yet all of those matters relate to promises made by this Government. The Minister is right, there is nothing in the budget about those promises. I thank the Minister for his support; I appreciate it. I turn to the matter of ecologically sustainable agriculture, and direct the attention of honourable members to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 1, at page 140. I ask why the resource management services, which provide advice to clients, including environmental plans, the publication of farming assistance and reports on water management plans, are expected to decrease by 37 in the forthcoming year. That is probably the most salient point raised this morning. Yesterday the Minister for Agriculture raised in the House as a matter of public importance the matter of sustainable agriculture, yet his own budget states that ecologically sustainable agricultural services are expected to decrease by 37 publications.

My next question is similar. Why are environmental impact studies, development applications, local government environmental plans and industry guidelines on environmental and other issues estimated to decrease by 35 in the forthcoming year? That is the second landslide decrease in the budget for sustainable agriculture. Those decreases make a total mockery of the Minister, representing the Government, yesterday suggesting that the Government has plans for sustainable agriculture. The rhetoric might indicate that there are such plans, but the facts of funding, commitment and process demonstrate that the rhetoric is a hoax. It is clear that the Minister was told to come to the House yesterday to attempt to give confidence to the Parliament and the people of New South Wales, even though no commitment has been made in the budget. The Minister was told to get off his backside and say something before the Government was caught. Well, the Government has been caught.

Mr CAUSLEY (Clarence) [9.11]: As the immediate former Minister for Agriculture, I speak with concern about the agricultural estimates. I am particularly concerned about the cuts that appear to be planned in the agricultural portfolio over the next two to three years. The Department of Agriculture is an important part of the New South Wales Government and is a very productive sector of the economy. We tend to forget in this Parliament, and probably in this city, that agriculture still produces about 28 per cent of our export income and as such is a very important part of the responsibilities of the New South Wales Government that should be supported in no uncertain terms. The budget shows, however, that the agricultural appropriation will be reduced over a period of three years by
Page 3702
some $34 million to $35 million. I know that the Minister has released press statements estimating the amount to be less than that, but, based on the figures, I fail to recognise the foundation for his press statements. The fact is that there will be considerable cuts in the Department of Agriculture.

The reductions to be made in the agricultural appropriation demonstrate that, unfortunately, Government members do not have the background or the experience in agriculture to understand or to argue the agricultural case with Treasury. There is nothing new about Treasury trying to cut the agricultural budget - it has been trying to do so for years. Treasury has the theory that agriculture should operate under a user-pays system. Unfortunately, a user-pays system does not work in the agricultural portfolio, and it does not work in other areas either. The industry cannot afford to pay the costs that would be incurred in some areas of research under a user-pays system.

A close examination of the efforts of the Department of Agriculture over the years in many areas of research shows that when a research program has become a possibility for the private sector it has been taken over by the private sector rather than being held on to by the Department of Agriculture. A typical example of that involves the research station at Grafton, in my own electorate. In the 1950s and the 1960s in particular an extensive maize breeding program developed many hybrid varieties, varieties that are probably not in use today but were of value in years gone by. That program has been taken over by the commercial sector. That example proves, to me anyway, that the Department of Agriculture does not cling on to programs that can be carried out by the commercial sector. The department is involved only in programs that are absolutely necessary for the agricultural industry, which should therefore receive the support of Treasury.

It is clear to me that there will be enormous reductions in the department's numbers of staff and programs in the next three years. How can the Minister say that the Department of Agriculture will continue as it operates at present? The reduction of $35 million in the agricultural appropriation is significant. It should also be recognised that a lot of the money appropriated to the Department of Agriculture, some $231 million, does not come from State Treasury but from research funds, much of which comes from farmers, and from the Federal Government. The amount appropriated from the State Treasury is, from memory, about $60 million or $70 million. The Government is proposing to cut nearly half of that amount. From my experience I can say that the only way that such a reduction can be achieved is by abolishing whole programs within the department.

The Minister should come clean to the Parliament and to the people of this State, and say exactly where he plans to cut the budget of the Department of Agriculture. There is great concern on the north coast about the research station at Grafton, even though the Minister has stated in the House and in press releases that the number of personnel on the north coast will be increased. That projection relates to staff who might be shifted following the closure of the station at Rydalmere, but, to my knowledge, the additional staff have not yet appeared on the north coast horizon. Some of the actions taken with regard to the personnel of the Rydalmere station bear close examination. It would appear that at Rydalmere a cynical exercise is under way to get staff to leave the department. In some instances husbands and wives who have been working at the Rydalmere research station have been transferred to different stations, one to Wagga Wagga and the other to Wollongbar. There is a fair distance between Wagga Wagga and Wollongbar, and I suspect that is a deliberate tactic: some of those people will resign and there will be no need to pay out compensation, thus resulting in budget savings.

The appropriation figures do not show where projected savings will be made this year. The only way in which the projected savings can be made is through a saving in salaries resulting from resignations. It is my suspicion that a considered decision has been made that a number of staff will resign. I turn now to the appropriation relating to tick dip sites, an issue of some contention on the north coast. The matter of contaminated dip sites is a problem for the Department of Agriculture, through no fault of the department but because of knowledge we now have of chemicals used in the past. In the north coast region there are some 1,600 sites that were used for the dipping of stock to control cattle tick. In the past both arsenic and DDT were used, and these days we are concerned about residues of those chemicals in the soil. Unfortunately, some buildings - about 16 houses - were constructed on former dip sites. It is of concern to all sides of the House that people were unwittingly sold, and built on, blocks of land that could be contaminated by chemicals.

The people concerned were not able to sell their houses. Valuations were made and the previous Government moved to buy those houses. As the Leader of the National Party said, the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, as spokesman for the previous Opposition, promised that a Labor government would not only pay out those people but would pay them compensation for the inconvenience and suffering of having to live with concerns of contamination and worry about the loss of value of their properties. The Government has made absolutely no move to honour that commitment. A Labor Party member in Maclean only two days ago said that there was no money in the budget to pay out the promises made by the Government when in opposition. The Minister should make clear what he is going to do and where the money will come from in this budget to pay for the promises made for dip site compensation.

Page 3703

At present a number of programs are being carried out at the research station at Grafton. The cross-breeding of beef cattle, a program that has been undertaken for several years, has provided considerable results to the beef industry. That will be one of the programs at risk if the Government is to save $35 million over three years. People involved in that research station are of the same opinion because they believe that those programs will be abolished. A research program is proceeding at present for breeding coastal varieties of soya beans. Over recent years the soya bean industry on the north coast has become a major part of the agricultural industry. Of course, in a high rainfall area different varieties have to be bred than are grown in the west of the State, which has a drier climate. Grafton research station has provided that service, but that is another program under threat. The research station also conducts experiments for the sugar industry, paid for mainly by research funds from the industry and from contributions from the Commonwealth Government. It is an interesting program for the sugar industry as it is investigating frost-resistant varieties of sugarcane. Sugarcane is a tropical plant and if the temperature is zero degrees for two hours - in other words, there is a frost - the growing point is killed, and the effect on the crop is obvious at harvest.

Genetic experimentation that is taking place with the help of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation - CSIRO - in an endeavour to introduce a frost-resistant plant is an important research program for that station. The industry wants to know what will be its future? There is much speculation about where the $35 million will be cut from the Department of Agriculture. These issues must be clarified as it is obvious that the Minister does not understand their impact on the industry. The Minister for Local Government will agree that departments are good at trying to hide different issues and will probably not always tell the Minister the full ramifications of decisions. I have been in that position. I dare say that it is necessary for the Minister for Agriculture to look closely at where the savings will be achieved.

Overall I am very disappointed that the present Government has not maintained the budget for the Department of Agriculture. Over the years the department's budget has not increased and, compared to the appropriation for other departments, is not a big part of the Government's budget. Just because that department is an easy touch - the Government does not have any members representing country New South Wales electorates - it has been easily targeted to have its appropriation funds reduced. The true indication for this department will certainly become apparent in the next few months. Obviously, after the Federal election we will see some of the results and what will happen to research stations across country New South Wales.

Mr Jeffery: A change of Government.

Mr CAUSLEY: The honourable member for Oxley says there will be a change of government. Hopefully that will be a breath of fresh air. Not only research programs on the north coast have been affected by the budget. The honourable member for Lismore last night referred to programs at Wollongbar, which is one of those areas with an extraordinarily diverse section of the agricultural industry. Across the Great Dividing Range research programs are being undertaken that are necessary to our rice, wheat, barley and oat industries. On many occasions as Minister I had the pleasure of releasing new varieties of crops. On every occasion those new varieties meant extra production. The only way this country can compete on the world markets is to have that production.

Crop varieties being developed by the Department of Agriculture with the help of the CSIRO have resulted in a reduction in the growing period, in many instances by up to a month. That means that the crop can be planted at a later time. If a farmer is waiting for rain before planting a crop, which is often the case in country New South Wales, he now has available a broader period of time in which to plant the crop. That benefits the State and the country. The narrow-minded thinking behind this budget that says taxpayers' money will not be put into research must be reconsidered, because it will have a big effect on the economy of country New South Wales and country Australia.

This State has had research programs since its colonisation. It is one reason that Australia has always been able to be competitive on the world market without subsidisation. If the research programs and research staff numbers are cut, obviously the cutting edge and the ability to compete on the world market will be lost. With cuts in funding for veterinary laboratories, the ability will be lost to react to outbreaks of disease and to help producers to identify and to overcome outbreaks exotic diseases or the recurrence of a disease that had been kept under control for many years. These programs cannot be pulled on and off like a tap. Those research programs and personnel must be retained. If the Government proceeds to cut the insides out of the Department of Agriculture, it will be a sorry day for New South Wales. I urge the Minister to look closely at where the cuts will be made, what programs will be abolished, the effects on the economy of this State and the productive ability of this country.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [9.26]: Clause 9 relates to community services, ageing services and disability services. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that in this area, as in many others involving the Government, rhetoric is one thing and reality is another; the promise is one thing and what happens is another. That has been amply demonstrated over the last few weeks as New South Wales comes to grips with the details of the budget for community
Page 3704
services. At the Australian Labor Party conference earlier this year at Sydney Town Hall the Premier made a speech and a lot of noise about "from the beginning, helping first those who need help most".

He spoke about the impending budget increasing total funding for the Department of Community Services, ageing and disability services by 20 per cent on the previous year. He repeated that figure twice in the House. But as we examine the detail of the budget, we see that the reality is different. Over the next couple of years the Government will pay a heavy price in this sector for raising expectations and then dashing them on financial realities. The Government would be much better off being a little more modest in what it says it is going to do so that the talk matches what happens on the ground. It is one thing for me to say that, but it is significant that the New South Wales Council of Social Services - NCOSS - in its latest newsletter of November 1995 makes a feature of the level of increases in the budget for community services.

Basically the council takes the Government, particularly the Premier, head-on about the boast of a 20 per cent increase in spending. The council has carefully considered all budget papers and has costed the increase at about 9.3 per cent - which I consider is being pretty generous. In real terms that represents a decrease in spending on the coalition's last budget for the same area. With NCOSS making the point, many people will quickly understand that the rhetoric and reality will cost this Government dearly. To give further detail about the budget estimates, I turn to some of the particular items that make up clause 9.

It becomes increasingly apparent as one goes through the specific promises Labor made in Opposition, that many have been broken. When detailed those broken promises will impact dearly on the Government. A key promise by the Government was to deal with child abuse, child notification and child neglect in the context of child deaths. I understand that the Minister had a talk with the honourable member for Pittwater, when he was the former Minister. The honourable member for Pittwater warned the Minister that his promise to increase the number of child protection specialists by 60 would do nothing to increase child specialist positions to improve front-line services. That is to say it would not improve the numbers of people who actually go out to domestic violence situations - in the field as it were - and come to grips with children at risk.

The child protection specialist positions that have been created - and one only has to look at the advertisements in the newspapers to come to this realisation - are not front-line positions. That was confirmed by the Minister during the estimates committee hearings. In reality, such a promise will not help the situation in the field. Recent tragic cases demonstrate the key problems are the failure of notification and the failure of follow-up in field work. The increase in the number of child specialists unfortunately will not address that issue. I refer next to the issue of crisis support accommodation. In this context the Sydney City Mission looms large because a great deal of its program, as honourable members know, relates to crisis support accommodation.

Cutbacks in programs for school leavers and the young unemployed, whilst themselves not falling squarely within this clause of the Appropriation Bill, nevertheless will have a significant effect on the mission. This breach of the promise specifically made and confirmed by the Minister for Education and Training, when in opposition, was contained in a letter written to a Maitland constituent in March this year. That broken promise to provide continuing finance for youth programs has cut the Sydney City Mission's budget by $3 million and has put at risk the jobs of 60 people who work at the mission. A number of jobs will go. As the honourable member for Newcastle would know, when similar issues were raised in connection with staff in the Ombudsman's office -

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Gaudry): Order! The member should confine his remarks to a consideration of clause 9 of the bill rather than range over a number of subjects, including education and the Ombudsman, which are referred to in other clauses of the bill.

Mr TINK: I am simply seeking to illustrate a point. These things have a trickle-down effect into the general capacity of the Sydney City Mission to meet its important tasks in support accommodation. Another key broken promise relates to the Seniors Card, which is relevant under the ageing and disability category of the Department of Community Services. There is no question that the Government made a commitment to extend the Seniors Card to eligible spouses who are aged 55 years and older. As the Minister for Community Services has now confirmed in the budget estimates, that promise has been specifically broken. It has created a fair bit of confusion and waste in the community.

For example, the Premier and Minister Dyer, with typical fanfare, produced a document setting out concessions for people who are Seniors Card holders. They made great play about the free admission to the Historic Houses Trust as part of their promise to extend available concessions, including free admission to such places of interest. No sooner had that happened that people, in reliance on the document published widely to all Seniors Card holders, started to turn up at the Museum of Sydney brandishing their Seniors Card and seeking free admission. They were turned away. The Friends of First Government House wrote to the Minister seeking an explanation. The Minister was forced to reply that the document published by the Government, at great expense and with great publicity and hoopla from himself and the Premier, was no longer operative. That is the nonsense and confusion that is occurring across this sector, particularly in the context of combining the ageing and disability departments.

Page 3705

Another broken promise to the disabled community was the promise to establish a stand-alone department to look after their needs and concerns. Another issue which has come increasingly to light over the last few weeks is the position of the home and community care program. This is an extremely serious matter, and at the end of the day this particular broken promise will have extremely serious consequences. Honourable members would be aware that the home and community care program is built around the principle of assisting frail older people and those with a disability to remain within the community and to assist significant disadvantaged groups in communities to help minimise their social coping and their functional difficulties. At page 10 of Labor's Plans for Older People, an election document of March 1995, under the heading of Home and Community Care, the Government promised to increase State funding - and in the policy document the following words are underlined - in real terms for the home and community care program.

That is not an increase in funding overall or an increase in funding from the Federal Government. It is an increase in State funding for the home and community care program, a specific written promise. The budget papers clearly indicate that the New South Wales contribution will be $93.4 million this year. The equivalent budget paper last year showed that the Government contribution was $92.5 million. The increase in absolute terms is $900,000, just under 1 per cent. When one matches that against the rate of inflation, which in Budget Paper No. 2 is said to be 4.3 per cent, the actual reduction in real terms of State funding for home and community care is something over 3 per cent. I remind honourable members of the coalition Government's record in this regard: last year it was $92.5 million and the year before that it was $84.6 million. Funding for the program under the coalition increased quite considerably. Under this Government it has gone down in real terms by a significant amount. A letter written by the Hon. Ron Dyer, the Minister for Community Services, on 13 November to the honourable member for Northcott stated:

I refer to your letter concerning the New South Wales State budget and the provision of growth funding for the home and community care program for 1995-96. You would be aware that the Carr Government in its election platform indicates support for the HACC program, recognises the important role it plays in the community by endeavouring to match any Commonwealth offers and a commitment to the provision of the real growth of the program. The Government has now met this commitment by providing, in partnership with the Commonwealth, real growth in the program of $4.5 million in 1995-96. This funding is on top of provisions for cost indexation for all services. Total funding for the HACC program in 1995-96 will be $239 million. Decisions concerning allocation of growth funds to services has now been considered as part of the annual HACC planning process. I thank you for raising concerns with me.

This letter is just another example of how the rhetoric of this Government does not match the reality. The letter suggests that the promise differs from the claim in election policy documents. NCOSS knows the truth of the matter and it will not let anyone forget what that promise was. I too will not let anyone forget that promise. I am concerned - because the Minister signed off in this way on official correspondence to a member of this House - about whether something so fundamentally deceptive and misleading could be said concerning the budget and about a clear, written promise. The Minister will rue the day that he said this and included it in an official letter to a member of this House. It is simply wrong. It is worse than wrong; it is deliberately wrong, and in that sense it is actively deceptive.

Finally I wish to deal with the vote for juvenile justice. Whilst overall funding for juvenile justice has increased, I am extremely concerned that programs relative to the Children (Parental Responsibility) Act are in serious danger of being cut. Is the Premier fair dinkum about his promise to be tough on crime and the causes of crime? In my opinion that was the most important promise made by Labor in the election campaign - far more important than the promises relating to tolls or anything else. If the Premier is serious about being tough on the causes of crime, he cannot turn his back on this legislation. It is incumbent upon the Government -

Mr E. T. Page: On a point of order: I am interested to hear what the honourable member for Eastwood is saying but, because of a conversation which is taking place behind him, my attention is being diverted. The conversation is drowning out the honourable member's contribution, and that is not fair to him or to those who want to hear what he has to say.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Gaudry): Order! I uphold the point of order. The honourable member for Wakehurst will cease conversing and resume his seat. The honourable member for Eastwood has the call.

Mr TINK: Mr Temporary Chairman - [Time expired.]

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10

Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie) [9.41]: Clause 10 of the Appropriation Bill deals with allocations for the Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women, the Department of Consumer Affairs - which has recently been renamed the Department of Fair Trading - the HomeFund Commissioner's Office and the Department for Women. Today I confine my remarks to the first of those departments and to the lack of Government initiatives in relation to it. Not that long before the election the Premier said that, under a Labor government, the Department of Consumer Affairs would not be a gimmick department; it would be a serious department and it would no longer be concerned with stunts and
Page 3706
killer-toy type stories. However, the Premier also said in another forum that, in effect, the State should not have a consumer affairs department; that it should be a Federal responsibility. At the outset the Government had no clear policy on where it was headed with consumer affairs. That is confirmed in the budget papers, by funding allocations and by answers to questions asked in the estimates committee hearings of the upper House.

The budget for the Department of Consumer Affairs has been reduced in toto. Several important areas of the department's activities have had funding cuts. There has been a reduction in real terms of 1.5 per cent for this not so big department. When the vote of the Department of Agriculture was considered earlier it was pointed out that, although the department performs a tremendously important function on behalf of the Government, it does not consume a huge amount of money. The same can be said of the Department of Consumer Affairs. Last year the budget for the Department of Consumer Affairs was $37,038,000. This year it is $36,500,000. As I have said, there has been a cut in real terms. If one takes inflation into account, one sees that the cut is quite significant. I said earlier that the department, which is not a large one and which has made do for some time on a fairly lean budget, also generates approximately half of its allocation in registration charges and fees. Therefore, the total draw on the Consolidated Fund is of the order of $15 million to $17 million - hardly a major drain on the public purse.

In specific terms, there has been a cut in the amount of money to be spent on product testing, an important part of the department's work - work to which the average person really relates and about which he or she is often very concerned. Interestingly, all that the present Minister has done since her appointment is engage in the very stunts that the Premier said the department would not be involved with. Most notable was the subject of last week's censure motion - it earned the censure of the Opposition, Greenpeace and the Australian Consumers Association - the way in which the Minister staged a test on hydrocarbon gases for car airconditioners. If that was not the ultimate gimmick I do not know what could be. Right from the outset that election promise was broken. At the estimates committee hearings the Opposition questioned the Minister about the budget for her department, which has been restructured and which is now called the Department of Fair Trading. The first question was: do the budget estimates actually apply to the Department of Fair Trading? Initially, her answer was, "We do not know." I thought that was a fairly simple question. The Minister then said that the estimates actually applied to the restructured department, which is fairly logical, given that the restructure occurred before the budget was brought down and it was announced as such.

Opposition members then asked what the budget was for the Minister's office - an interesting feature of all allocations in the budget papers this year. Last year all Ministers had a combined allocation for their ministerial offices and their departments. When I was Minister members of the then Opposition asked questions about staffing at the directorate and the Minister's office. I was able to give those figures, which were also reflected in the budget papers. That information did not appear in the budget papers this year. Other honourable members commented on the dearth of information that is not in the budget papers this year compared with what is. The budget for the Minister's office was not shown. It caused a scramble when Opposition members asked where it was. Someone finally figured out what the budget was. The Minister actually gave several figures, but she finally settled on $898,000 for the full year, including her full complement of staff. Opposition members then asked what the host agency was. Initially, that could not be identified, but I think it was decided that the host agency was the new Department of Fair Trading.

Questions were then asked about staffing - a matter that is of some interest given the CRA dispute - and contractual arrangements between Ministers and their personal staff. Again we received no answer. Government members tried to duck this issue by taking a point of order. We ultimately found out that the Minister had an average staff of 10. We asked what the term of their employment was or to whom they were under contract. After some hesitation we were told that they were under contract to the Public Employment Office. When we asked what their salaries were - which I should have thought would have been of interest to backbenchers because they have to contribute a fair bit of their salaries to head office - we were not told. We were informed that they were award salaries. I would really like to know what award covers staff in ministerial offices. We asked that question yet again and still it could not be answered. The Minister just said, "It is the appropriate award." We received very little information in regard to the structure of the Minister's office and its cost to the public. We still do not know.

I asked questions through my colleagues at the estimates committee. Today I would like to know - but I suspect I will not get the answers - about the restructure of the department. What is happening? How will it be affected? What impact will there be on existing staff? The proposal is to merge the Building Services Corporation with the new Department of Fair Trading. At the estimates committee the Minister told us that this merger would take up to two years. At present the Department of Consumer Affairs has no permanent director-general. It now has its second acting director-general. The head of the Building Services Corporation, who was put on the unattached list a few weeks ago, subsequently resigned and the corporation has an acting director-general as its head.

Page 3707

The Motor Vehicle Repair Industry Council, which has been tremendously effective in policing the repair industry, is arguing that it should become part of this new department. The department is in turmoil. Staff in regional offices have no idea what their future is. Indeed, many towns have a Building Services Corporation office as well as a Department of Consumer Affairs office - and in some instances not too distant from one another. I want to know if those offices have a future; I want the Minister to come clean and tell the public and her constituency, who find those offices tremendously useful, what their future will be. It is interesting to note that in all of her press releases and dorothy dix questions, much of the positive information has related to issues such as the Building Service Corporation, the network of building advisory centres -

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Gaudry): Order! The member for Port Macquarie is developing broad-ranging debate about the policy direction of the Department of Fair Trading. I ask her to return to clause 10, which relates to recurrent and capital spending.

Ms MACHIN: I am referring specifically to the Building Services Corporation which is part of the budget allocation for the Department of Fair Trading - as conceded by the Minister in the estimates committees - and to matters that were discussed in the estimates committee. The point I am making is that the staffing arrangements and structure of all those agencies are unclear. The Minister is happy to claim credit for certain things, including funding for the advisory centre in the city of Newcastle, but she has no idea how the restructure will work and no-one has a leadership role. There is no permanent staff and no head of either department. Everything is in turmoil. This cuts across the so-called serious policy the Government proposed for consumer affairs.

Another issue about which there was lack of information, and which the Opposition raised in the estimates committee, related to funding for the tribunals, which has been discussed in this place in recent times. Legislation amending the commercial tribunal was introduced in this House, and debate ensued about the regulations relating to the consumer claims tribunals. There is no line allocation in the budget for those tribunals. The tribunals, whilst they are meant to be low key and low cost, and easy for consumers to access, are still very much a part of our justice system. It really begs the question: does the Minister have a view on the separation of powers? It looks now as if the tribunals have been totally subsumed into the department and have lost their autonomy. I certainly hope that is not the case and I would like the Minister for Consumer Affairs to clarify that at some stage.

I would like to know where the allocation for the tribunals appears in the budget papers, particularly Budget Paper No. 3, volumes 1 and 2. There does not seem to be a specific line item for it. Last year the budget papers contained such a line item and honourable members could see quite clearly what these very useful tribunals were costing the Government and, presumably, what revenue they were generating because people pay fees to use them. There is some mention in the budget papers of the motor vehicle industry. That important area is policed by the Department of Fair Trading. The Opposition wants to know what the allocation is in this year's budget for enforcement and what the Minister may have in mind. I understand that the Minister would not want to signal all of the activity, because a fair bit of compliance and investigative activity is undertaken in this area.

When the coalition was in government it devoted considerable resources to unlicensed activities in the motor trade, unlicensed dealers, odometer wind-backs and so on. These are difficult consumer concerns. As has often been said in this House a motor car is possibly the second largest investment a person will make after buying a house; therefore, it is important that consumers have confidence in the market. A number of issues with regard to the motor trade industry need to be addressed. It would appear that the Minister has a bit of a blind spot because one of the people who works in that area at one stage worked for the coalition Government. It is a narrow-minded, petty view to take to jeopardise the whole of the motor industry and its security, and security for consumers at the end of the day, just because the Minister does not like one of the people who works for one of the industry groups.

Another area of real concern - and because there was no reference to this either in the budget papers the Opposition attempted to investigate the matter - is the whereabouts of the legal and policy units of the department. Consumer affairs plays an important role in determining policy, but that is clearly lacking under this Government. Competition policy is upon us, changes have been made to the Government Pricing Tribunal and to legislation, and a number of changes have occurred in respect of electricity. These issues are all outside the direct jurisdiction of the Minister for Consumer Affairs, but they have a major impact on the ordinary consumer. A strong and focused policy unit is needed in the Department of Fair Trading to ensure that the voice of the consumer is heard in government policy making. Let us face it, the Cabinet Office still has not cottoned on to the fact that consumers vote and that consumers play a significant part in the make-up of the economy.

It will take a strong policy unit and a strong Minister to keep pushing forward the view that there is a consumer side to all issues under the jurisdictions of other Ministers. One of the questions asked in the estimates committees related to expenditure on scalping. The Minister made a statement in this House a few months ago, just before the rugby league grand final, that she would unleash her inspectors at the rugby league grand final. The Opposition determined that the exercise
Page 3708
cost taxpayers $4,500 to administer. The Minister had a deputy commissioner and police lurking about the suburbs and the backblocks. She did not specify the cost of the police presence. No prosecutions were laid - honourable members would have read that in the newspaper - but still the Minister considered it a worthwhile exercise.

It really begs the question: if it was such a big problem, why were there no prosecutions? Also, why did the Minister not take action against the couple of hundred people who advertised tickets in the Daily Telegraph Mirror at prices up to $250 per ticket? It is clear that under this Government it is not okay to go along to the game and sell a ticket to a willing buyer, something which the local people often find convenient, but it is okay to sell tickets through a newspaper advertisement for anything up to five times the price of the ticket. It shows a lack of policy, a lack of direction and a lack of consistency on the part of the Minister.

In the minute remaining I want to touch on the HomeFund issue. The Labor Party when in opposition, made a lot of fuss about HomeFund. It is significant that, despite election promises to make certain changes, such as referring cases to the commercial tribunal, no funds have been allocated in the budget and the HomeFund commissioner's office has not been touched. It is going along very well. The Opposition can only assume that the current Government endorses the HomeFund policies and the HomeFund dispute resolution system put in place by the former Government; and that the Government has broken yet another promise by refusing to grant access to commercial tribunals to those borrowers it said would have access. There has been a reduction in funding, a reduction in the policy role of consumer affairs, and inconsistency with regard to actions taken by a Minister who is driven by stunts and by her bureaucrats, a Minister who has no idea where consumer affairs is heading and who has no long term vision. This is a very bad combination for New South Wales.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [9.56]: The Appropriation Bill indicates quite clearly that the Government has no commitment to adequately funding the areas of corrective services and emergency services. I refer honourable members to the budget allocation for bush fire services, and I question whether it will be adequate to fund the tasks necessary to ensure that the community will be safe in the event of major bushfires. The Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services has taken me to task on several occasions when I have pointed out the inadequate level of funding for bush fire services. To that extent I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that there is still a great deal of concern in the community about the adequacy of those services. The reality is that during the period of the coalition Government there was a 247 per cent increase in funding for bush fire services. This Government came to office in March on the strength of various promises, both oral and written, which it has failed to live up to. Page 3 of Labor's Bushfire Policy issued early in 1995 said, "Labor will" - it is not an unqualified comment - do certain things. The policy stated:

Labor will:

•upgrade petrol fire vehicles and ancillary equipment to diesel by the 1995/96 bushfire season.

Other promises were made, but that is one from which the Government has walked away. It has obfuscated, it has come out with all sorts of stories about what is going on in the community, but the reality is that this is of major concern to the broader community, and particularly to the 70,000-odd volunteers in the bush fire services who are still using petrol-driven vehicles. I call on the Government and the Minister for Emergency Services to go to Treasury, and to make sure that Treasury knows the Labor Party made that promise prior to the election. We are smack bang in the middle of the 1995-96 bush fire season, yet these worries continue.

I refer to an article that appeared on 21 November 1995 in the Manning River Times, brought to my attention by the honourable member for Myall Lakes. In the article John Byrne, a councillor from the Greater Taree City Council, raised an issue of great concern to the local volunteer bush fire brigades. He stated that 14 of the 28 volunteer bush fire brigades in the council area - that is half the council's bush fire brigades - are still using petrol-driven tankers. He cited the recent case of the Krambach brigade unit suffering a fuel vapour lock on its way to fight a fire at Tipperary Mountain. The brigade let the motor cool down before moving off again, but experienced more vapour locks. The Krambach brigade captain, Bill Hignett, is quoted as saying that the unit did reach the fire. He continued:

But because of the hot weather, the steep terrain and the problem with vapour locks I wasn't prepared to risk lives and equipment just to save some gum trees.

That is the whole problem. The Labor Party recognised the need to address this issue, yet the broader community has to cry out in local newspapers about its dangerous situation. I call on the Government to address the promise it made. If it does not want to be known as a government of lies and liars, it needs to make sure that it carries through with its promises. To that extent the coalition would like to see the Government support the promises made in Labor's Bushfire Policy 1995. I certainly make it clear to the councillors at Greater Taree City Council and to the volunteer bush fire brigades, particularly the Krambach brigade, that the coalition will do everything it can to make sure that the Government meets its commitment. The Government now has the opportunity to rectify these problems and prevent bush fire fighters from being
Page 3709
at risk by using petrol-driven vehicles. I would also like to raise the issue of the government radio network referred to in the budget under the portfolio of the Minister for Emergency Affairs. The budget states that $7.1 million will be put into the GRN. I point out to the Government and to the Minister that page 3 of Labor's Bushfire Policy stated:

Labor will:

•review the move to the GRN so it takes place only when all parties are convinced it will provide a better radio service.

The coalition wants to see the GRN work, but $7.1 million is nothing more than a drop of water on the back of a flea. It does nothing. The Government has to make a commitment spaced over a number of years so that money can be allocated as the work proceeds to increase the footprint of the GRN. I understand that Telstra is the body doing the GRN. We are faced with the crazy situation at the moment of the footprint following the road up to Lithgow, but as soon as the bush fire fighters move into the valleys around Lithgow the GRN is useless. The coalition wants to be convinced that the $7.1 million will address the problem, but we do not believe it will because we do not think the $7.1 million has been talked through adequately with the people who are installing the GRN.

We believe that having gone on to the GRN and having recognised that perhaps it is the way of the future, adequate funds should have been allocated, but only after discussions that were promised in Labor's policy document. We will be watching closely to make sure that problems with the GRN are addressed in the next 12 months, and that the allocation of $7.1 million, which the Government says is adequate, is in fact adequate. We suspect that it will not be adequate and, if that is so, we will be asking the Minister why he did not make sure that the GRN received adequate funds from Treasury. It is not only the bush fire services that have suffered in this budget, but other areas for which the Minister is responsible - and certainly as shadow minister I am responsible - including the corrective services area.

The bottom line is that some strange tales about corrective services have been coming out of the Minister's office. Allegations have been made of reducing the number of prisoners, yet in the budget, even though the Government is talking about pulling out prisoners and imposing alternative penalty methods - community service, periodic detention and so on - a marginal increase is allowed for. That does not explain what is going on. It tends to suggest that perhaps there is a difference of opinion between the Premier and the Minister for Corrective Services as to what should be happening. Perhaps it goes to the Premier's predisposition for rhetoric on locking prisoners up left, right and centre. Whatever it does, it indicates to the broader community that the Minister and the Premier are not as one on this issue. I call on the Government to be consistent.

Mr Debus: That is absolute nonsense.

Mr HAZZARD: The Minister says they are certainly not, and I acknowledge his contribution to the debate. It would appear that in the Minister's own words he and the Premier are not consistent.

Mr Debus: That is not what I said. That is absolute nonsense.

Mr HAZZARD: What?

Mr Debus: There has never been the slightest difference between the Premier and me on this matter.

Mr HAZZARD: Corrective Services needs some clear direction to address all the issues. I note a press release was issued in that regard. One of the issues about which the coalition is concerned, apart from making sure that there are adequate crime deterrents, is making sure that there is also adequate rehabilitation for prisoners when they are released from prison.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The member has strayed somewhat from the clause under consideration. Quoting press releases does not have a lot to do with the Appropriation Bill.

Mr HAZZARD: I have been watching what previous speakers have done. Line items have been referred to and the Acting-Chairmen have allowed references to press releases and newspaper articles. I ask that the same licence be granted to me, because it seems to be entirely in order with previous decisions. I note that the Minister is not taking an objection.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Passing reference is one thing, debating the issue is another.

Mr HAZZARD: I have not even got to the title yet. Fair go! Some weeks after the budget was announced, the Minister issued a press release referring to the rehabilitation of women prisoners, an item that failed to appear in the budget. The press release stated:

The Carr Government's commitment to the rehabilitation of women in prison has been confirmed today.

The reality is that women, men and groups coming out of prison, particularly the Aboriginal population, need special funding arrangements to ensure that areas that require a rehabilitation focus are addressed. It is pathetic that women prisoners had to wait until some weeks after the budget for confirmation that funding would be available for the women at work program. I note that funding for various rehabilitation programs for Aborigines is completely inadequate. To that extent I call on the Minister to fight a little harder in the Treasury battle next year. I also ask him to address one issue about which the coalition is confused. In April this year the Minister talked about the transfer of an Aboriginal prisoner to the Australian Capital Territory to attend a heritage listing ceremony at the Aboriginal tent embassy. He said it was okay. He
Page 3710
said that the prisoner was not dangerous. I think he was quoted as saying that the prisoner was classified as a medium-security risk and that it was no big deal. Only a few days ago, on 2 November, the Minister issued another press release in which he said:

At present there is NO provision in the Prisons Act for interstate travel by inmates.

That was my understanding on 18 April 1995. The Minister did not address these issues despite coalition calls for him to do so. He was aware of an illegal activity occurring on 18 April 1995. I call on him to explain why it was allowed to occur and what action he took. I also ask that in addition to the amendments to the Prisons Act the Minister is envisaging there be adequate funding to ensure that Aborigines are given a fair go in travelling to important events in their lives such as funerals or heritage functions. I call on the Minister to show the coalition where in the budget he has made adequate provision for such expenditure.

The New South Wales Fire Brigades have not received anywhere near sufficient funds for capital works required. A number of projects have been left out of the budget. Land was purchased at Port Macquarie some time ago for the building of a fire station yet no provision was made in the budget for the project. The honourable member for Port Macquarie has asked me to request the Minister to explain why the fire station has not been built. Contrary to the Minister's press releases, the firemen at Port Macquarie are working under great stress and inadequate attention is being paid to fire services in the area. As the 1995-96 budget has now been determined, we ask that provision for this project be made in the next budget.

During estimates committee meetings the Minister acknowledged a drop in funding for volunteer rescue organisations. We ask that the funding be increased to a reasonable level. The Minister admitted that the volunteer rescue organisation funding was reduced because of a contribution from the NRMA. I congratulate and thank the NRMA for its contribution. The Government funding alone is not adequate for the volunteer rescue movement. I ask the Minister to make sure that next year volunteer rescue organisations do not have their funding cut simply because a well-regarded and well-thinking member of the community puts funds into volunteer rescue organisations. Having said all that, I thank the Minister for his courtesy in dealing with the shadow minister. [Time expired.]

Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [10.11]: I ask the Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services what action his department has taken to discuss with the Minister for the Environment the siting of a fire-spotting tower at Millicent Trig in my electorate. The issue has been running for some time now.

Mr Debus: On a point of order: the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai is entirely welcome to ask me this question in my office or in the corridor or almost anywhere really but it seems to me that the issue is far outside the leave of the bill before the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I agree with the Minister. There is no line heading that deals specifically with the tower referred to.

Mr West: On the point of order: clearly, the construction of towers is within the budget of the Department of Bush Fire Services. I submit that the honourable member has the right to raise matters as to whether there is enough funding in the budget or whether it should be part of the budget estimates for such a tower to be built.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai referred to this specific matter in the House on another occasion in private members' statements. Previous occupants of the chair have ruled that passing reference to such matters is permissible but members may not debate them. The member has asked a question of the Minister without reference to any particular item in the estimates. I will allow him to continue, but I suggest that he confine his remarks to the broader issues of clause 11 rather than to one specific item. If the member wishes to refer to one specific matter, he may do so by way of another procedure in the Chamber.

Mr O'DOHERTY: Thank you, Mr Chairman. We have already occupied more of the time of the Chamber than I had intended to take. I refer to clause 11(1) 03 and the allocation for the Department of Bush Fire Services. I generally support the building of bushfire-spotting towers. I commend any action that the Government may take to build more towers. I particularly commend the Government for taking action to build a fire-spotting tower at Millicent Trig at Cowan in my electorate. Specifically, just to make a passing reference, Mr Chairman, may I once again ask the Minister, on a non-partisan basis, whether he could use his good offices with the Minister for the Environment to resolve a problem that has been going on for a number of years in my electorate to have the fire-spotting tower which was dismantled some time ago rebuilt at Cowan, where it provides excellent views of considerable distance and allows the Bush Fire Service to triangulate sitings with two other towers in the northern region of Sydney. It services the needs and the safety of people in the areas of Hornsby, The Hills, Gosford and Pittwater. It would be a considerable asset. The lack of a tower represents a hole in the ability of the Bush Fire Service to respond quickly to fires in my area.

Mr CRUICKSHANK (Murrumbidgee) [10.16]: I wish to refer to two matters under clause 11 relating to the Department of Bush Fire Services and the Department of Corrective Services. The amount being applied to Bush Fire Services shows once more that governments, particularly in
Page 3711
country districts outside the metropolitan areas, are not aware of the quantity of service provided by volunteers. There is a need for greater expenditure. It is recognised by the community if it is not recognised by government. This was seen after the January 1994 bushfires. Who came to the rescue? It was the Lord Mayor of Sydney with his Lord Mayor's bushfire appeal. My electorate has benefited from that with the provision of a new truck.

Mr Anderson: There is a 33 per cent increase in your region this year.

Mr CRUICKSHANK: You would not know anything about my region. You would not know a B from a bull's foot. Instead of sitting at the back of the Chamber making inane and stupid remarks, do something constructive and talk about things that you know about.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Members should address their remarks through the Chair.

Mr CRUICKSHANK: Thank you, Mr Chairman. More than $3 million was collected in the appeal and it was fairly distributed throughout New South Wales. With great pleasure we in Griffith accepted a brand new machine. It was bare but volunteers once again came to the rescue and provided all the necessary equipment to make it a first-class bush fire fighting machine. I just do not think governments recognise the time, money, expertise and service provided by volunteers - allowing the Government to save a lot of money. Unfortunately, governments consistently take advantage of this generosity and do not provide the full cost of new equipment.

The Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services will be well aware that the honourable member for Wakehurst and I have visited various corrective institutions in New South Wales, which has been of great interest. I have spoken before on the matter of discipline within the institutions. Some people would like prisoners to come out of gaol with broken bones, hating the place, hating all the screws and that sort of thing, but we do not accept that view. However, there has to be some discipline in institutions. It is an absolute abomination that people can just refuse to work.

People sent to gaol have to do what they are told, even if that includes work, yet they can make up their minds to sit around and pump iron all day, or play around, or lie on their beds. That behaviour is a gross departure from what corrective services is all about. Rehabilitation of prisoners is absolutely necessary and more money should be spent on it. But we must ensure that the people for whom those facilities are designed use them and do not reject them, as was evident in so many prisons we visited. The keepers, the people who run the institutions, are all in favour of that approach. They say, "Give us the power and we will make sure discipline is enforced in the institutions." However, governments continue to fail to institute appropriate running of corrective services for the benefit of inmates. Inmates would be the first to reject such an approach, but discipline should be imposed. Finally, the money put towards bush fire services does not all have to come from volunteer community contributions such as the great one made by the Lord Mayor of Sydney.

Clause agreed to.

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.


Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the consideration of Business with Precedence, Notices of Motions Nos 1 to 4, forthwith.

Mr WEST (Orange) [10.25]: I move:

That this House dissents from the ruling of Mr Speaker given on 15 November 1995 when he accepted the use of the words "You're a liar" by the Member for Bligh after clearly giving a previous ruling that such words were unacceptable and if used would result in the immediate suspension of the offending member.

It gives me no joy to have to move this dissent motion or for the Opposition to be a party to it. But if this House is to conduct its business in an orderly manner, and if we, as you, Mr Speaker, require us, are to lift the tone of words used in this Chamber, rulings must be consistent. It is such consistency that I wish to debate in moving this motion. On 14 November 1995 you, Mr Speaker, gave the following ruling:

I have ruled on many occasions that the Chair will not tolerate members directing such expressions as "lie" and "liar" at other members. Any member who attempts to do so will be placed on four calls to order and removed from the Chamber.

That ruling was clear and unequivocal, and left no misunderstanding in the minds of anyone in this House who heard it. That is the advice I have discussed with my colleagues. Unfortunately, the dilemma the House faces arose on 15 November, the very next day, when the honourable member for Bligh interjected on the Premier, who was replying to a question, and she used the words "That is a total lie, Bob Carr. That is a lie". Later she said, "You're a liar." Those words were in exactly the same terms and were exactly the same words that had been used the previous day which, Mr Speaker, aroused your wrath and caused you to make your ruling informing the Parliament that you would not tolerate those expressions, and that you would immediately put such members using such expressions on four calls to order and have them
Page 3712
removed from the Chamber. But on 15 November you did draw to the attention of the honourable member for Bligh the fact that you did not like those remarks and wanted them withdrawn. The fact that the honourable member did not withdraw her remarks and the fact that you failed to exercise your previous ruling created a clear inconsistency with which the Opposition has great difficulty.

On that occasion you, Mr Speaker, did not uphold your previous ruling, but then the Premier was invited to make a submission on whether the interjection by the honourable member for Bligh should be allowed to pass. I think the Premier said that it should be just ignored. I am sure he would not have been prepared to ignore those words if they had been used by the Leader of the Opposition or by most other members, but on that occasion those remarks were ignored. As a result of your not applying with consistency the ruling you made on 14 November, as the day of 15 November went on you were placed in a position where you had to give considerable leniency to other members, including the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party, during the rest of question time when they used the words "You are a liar", "What a lie" and "You are lying". Not only were members again flouting the ruling given on 14 November but you, Mr Speaker, had been compromised in your duty of trying to uphold the rules and tenor of this House. It is interesting that those words were not withdrawn by the honourable member for Bligh.

Mr Whelan: Why did you not move that she be condemned?

Mr WEST: The honourable member is the Leader of the House.

Mr Whelan: But it is up to you.

Mr WEST: No, it is not. He is the Leader of the House.

Mr Whelan: Mr Speaker is not a policeman on point duty. You could have moved it the next day, if you had the opportunity.

Mr WEST: It stands as the record of this House that Bob Carr is a liar. That is the clear import of what happened. But that is not what we are discussing.

Mr Whelan: That is the whole purpose of the debate. It is not about the honourable member for Bligh; it is about your scoring a point.

Mr WEST: The Minister will have his chance in a moment. The Opposition is not discussing the result. When you, Mr Speaker, make a ruling, honourable members want those rulings to be consistent. That is clearly the import of the motion. This Chamber is no stranger to the cut and thrust of debate and the political tactics that are played out on a daily basis, but both sides can play a part in the proper functioning of the Chamber only if they receive your support and you uphold the standing orders and abide by your rulings. I do not need to belabour the point. If the Government decides to vote against this dissent motion, clearly the ruling of Mr Speaker of 14 November will no longer have any weight or bearing in this Chamber and the House will be left with the rulings and the procedure that underlie what occurred on 15 November. The Opposition does not wish that to happen. It gives me no comfort to move this motion of dissent, nor to have you, Mr Speaker, sit there while I do it. With respect, however, support for the motion will help the House to return to the course to which you, Mr Speaker, tried to steer it with your ruling on 14 November.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [10.31]: I oppose the motion of dissent. Mr Speaker, you have been put in an unenviable and intolerable position by the Premier's antics, which devalue question time. Question time is a vitally important part of the parliamentary process during which the Premier and Ministers answer questions about their portfolios and are made accountable to the Parliament and therefore to the community. The Independents believed that question time was such an important part of the process that it became an important factor in the charter of reform. As part of that reform 10 questions may now be asked during question time and it may proceed for 45 minutes. An opportunity is also afforded a member to ask a supplementary question.

I wish to speak in defence of question time and in defence of your role, Mr Speaker, in overseeing the conduct of question time as the Parliament intended. This is my third term in this Chamber. I have never been put out of the House, and off the top of my head I cannot think of any occasion on which I have been asked to withdraw and apologise, though if I went through Hansard I might find one. I do not go in for name calling or misrepresentation. As an Independent I am not part of the party political process of denigration and attack. My role is to talk about matters of substance and to try to obtain outcomes for my electorate and the people of New South Wales.

There have been three Premiers in this House while I have been a member. Premier Greiner was not expansive on matters unrelated to finance, but he always maintained the dignity and decorum of the office. Former Premier Fahey could be criticised for erring on the side of being too expansive on some matters, but he also always maintained the dignity and decorum of the office. This is my eighth year in this place. Premier Carr is the crux of the problem before the House today, the crux of your problem, Mr Speaker, and of all the problems at question time. He is out of control. He has trivialised question time, made your job impossible and has devalued and misused the process.

The Premier might have missed his vocation. In this place he is meant to be a statesman and a Premier; instead, he treats question time like
Page 3713
vaudeville. Question time has become Bob's show time, and I am not impressed. He comes into the Chamber with his prepared lines, his insults - which he has probably practised in front of the mirror in his office - his jokes directed at the Opposition, and he is ready to perform. He makes your job impossible, Mr Speaker, and he disgusts honourable members because he does not answer their questions. Last Wednesday, the day to which the motion relates, was a classic example. The Premier prepared his piece on Fox. He came to the Chamber set to attack the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Whelan: On a point of order: I am reluctant to interrupt the honourable member for Bligh, but she had the opportunity to move a motion of a substantive nature against another honourable member. This is a motion of dissent from one of your rulings. It is not to be used as an opportunity to bag the Premier or any other honourable member. The honourable member for Bligh should be brought back to the leave of the motion.

Mr Hazzard: It was a passing reference.

Mr Whelan: No, for the past three minutes she has talked about everything but the motion of dissent.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point taken by the Minister. The honourable member for Bligh will return to the leave of the motion.

Ms MOORE: Mr Speaker, last Wednesday was an example of the difficulty you have in maintaining order in this place. The Premier came to the Chamber with a prepared piece on Fox. When the Leader of the Opposition asked a question on another subject, the Premier kept interjecting, "What about a question on Fox?" It was at that point that I said, "Well, I have got plenty of questions on Fox". But the Premier was not interested in addressing any of the substantial issues in relation to the future of the showground. He has not responded to the substantial issues and the letters I have written; he will not debate the urgency of the matter; and he has not answered my questions. Instead he niggles away at the Opposition and at me.

Indeed, on that same day I attended a briefing, which was nothing more than a public relations farce, with the Australian director of Fox. That perhaps explains my growing anger and frustration and was the matter that led to the remarks I made to which you had to respond, Mr Speaker. It was only at the end of question time on Thursday that the heads of agreement were tabled. What the Premier did last Wednesday that led to this motion of dissent was to seek to discredit and misrepresent the role I have been playing in criticising the appalling process that is taking place in this Chamber.

I understand the stance taken by you, Mr Speaker, in relation to my position on the showground. You have been in this place for more than seven years, and you know that I have fought consistently for the showground through three Parliaments, three Premiers and three assaults on its future. Indeed, last Wednesday the Premier referred to an article in the Sun-Herald. If the Premier wants evidence of my role on the showground site, I refer him to the 16 large Lever Arch folders in my office that reflect the work that the community and I have done over the past seven years.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has strayed from the leave of the motion. She will confine her remarks to the question before the Chair.

Ms MOORE: No wonder the Premier comes to this Chamber with his prepared piece to attack and misrepresent me and the Leader of the Opposition. It must frustrate you, Mr Speaker, that he misuses question time in this way and does not respond to questions asked. I am surprised that you have been able to hold your cool and act with such restraint on the few sitting days of this Chamber this year. You have a teaching background, as I do, and your patience would be sorely tried. You probably feel that the situation created by the Premier is tougher than any situation you encountered in your educational role.

I am not surprised that the Premier is sensitive about the showground and that he sought to discredit me because he is known by the people in my electorate as the Premier for urban blight. That is the background to my anger and concern about the Premier's misrepresentation and failure in dealing with public land and public moneys. In opposing this dissent motion, I call upon the Premier to stop the antics, the trivialising, the name calling and the misrepresentation. I call an end to Bob's show time and an end to vaudeville. I call upon the Premier and the Government to treat question time as an opportunity to show its accountability to the Parliament and the community. Mr Speaker, I call upon you to ensure, whether through the party room or through the Parliament, that this occurs and that the House returns to the proper business of question time.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [10.40]: Talk about show ponies! The honourable member for Bligh has no right to talk about show ponies after that performance. The only thing she said of major concern was how she intends to vote. At least she realises that this motion of dissent is a waste of time. The honourable member for Bligh used her time to attack the Government and particularly the Premier. Let us get down to the basic issues. This motion of dissent is a waste of public money and of the time of the Parliament. It is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to the article that appeared in the Sun-Herald about the Liberal Party in turmoil and its tactics being an absolute disgrace.

Mr Hazzard: On a point of order: the motion before the House is clearly a motion of dissent from your ruling.

Page 3714

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will quickly state his point of order.

Mr Hazzard: It is a bit hard, Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat if he does not state his point of order.

Mr Hazzard: The motion before the House is a motion of dissent from your ruling. The Minister is purporting to address the issue by references to articles that relate to matters totally -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I extended some leniency to the member for Bligh, and the debate has been fairly wide ranging.

Mr WHELAN: Members of the public are more concerned about members of Parliament doing the work they are paid to do, not with petty debates like this. Members of Parliament should concentrate on the big issues - health, education and crime prevention. The public is not interested in personality clashes. This desperate stunt was brought about by the Opposition in a last-ditch attempt to bolster the fortunes of its leader, and it has failed. The Sun-Herald article said that the Libs are in turmoil. This is the best they can do. How many clichéd stunts will the House have to endure? The Government has a legislative program that the people of New South Wales want implemented.

The Opposition must explain to members of the public why this House is wasting time debating not one, but four motions of dissent. That is a record in my 20 years in Parliament. It is an outrageous act to attack the Speaker. Speaker Murray has been fair and reasonable in this Parliament, and I am shocked - and I am sure the honourable member for Hawkesbury is shocked - at this spurious attack. I want to hear from the honourable member for Hawkesbury, because I have records of his decisions. He had something in common with Speaker Murray: he knew the difference between a ruling in this Chamber and a decision by a Speaker. Speaker Rozzoli and Speaker Murray know the decisions and the rulings. Opposition members do not draw the distinction.

I wish the honourable member for Northcott was in the Chamber because he says, "We was robbed. We are going to make the public pay for it." My staff have obtained details of the costs of running this Parliament. It costs $1.1 million to run the Parliament each week. This debate could continue for half a day. It will cost a sizeable amount of money for this House to consider these four important dissent motions against Mr Speaker. Let us look at the substance of the debate. The Speaker is in charge of the powers of the Parliament, of protecting the privileges of the Parliament, and of protecting freedom of speech. It is the duty of honourable members, if they wish, to take a point of order and for the Chair to make a decision.

The Speaker is not a policeman; he is not on point duty. Any honourable member had the opportunity to speak about the conduct, or the alleged conduct, of the honourable member for Bligh. The Government did not choose to do so, but that would not stop the Opposition from doing so. It is an abuse of process to expect the Speaker to unilaterally take over the running of the Parliament. He is not a policeman; he is the Speaker, who acts on behalf of members to protect their rights. The honourable member for Bligh referred to her comments, and in a sense she apologised when she said:

Mr Speaker, I do not intend disrespect to you, or to your rulings, or to members of this House, but on this issue that is important not only to my electorate but to the whole of New South Wales I have sought, as members of this House know, on many occasions to have the matter debated . . .

What does the Opposition want her to do - sign a confession in blood that she made a mistake; stand on her head and say she apologises? She said it. Mr Speaker, I now refer to Hansard and to your alleged role. On more occasions than not you have asked the Premier to confine himself to your rulings. You said:

The Chair has invited the Premier to comment only on the statement of the honourable member for Bligh . . .

The Premier will confine his remarks to the statement of the honourable member for Bligh and to that statement only.

In various parts of Hansard you have said:

The Premier will confine himself to giving me his views . . .

. . . if members wish to be heard on the matter, they may seek the call when the Premier has concluded his remarks. If any members wish to discuss the way in which the Chair is managing the business of the House, I invite them to see me in my chambers at a later time.

That is pure Rozzoli. The former Speaker often told honourable members to talk to him in his chambers if they had a problem. Speaker Murray took a leaf out of Speaker Rozzoli's book when he invited honourable members to see him in his chambers. Did any honourable members avail themselves of that opportunity? Did members of the Opposition talk to the Speaker? Did they come into the Chamber and move dissent against the Speaker's ruling on that day, at the first available opportunity? No, they did not. They did not move urgency motions; they did nothing about it. They failed to avail themselves of the opportunity until they were given a prod over the weekend, and now they want to run a new tactic - a waste of public money. That has arisen only because the Opposition has run out of ideas on how to attack the Government on policy issues.

The Opposition does not rely on comments of its own members but relies on those made by another member. The honourable member for Bligh is the Opposition's stalking-horse in this debate, knowing full well that she will bag the Government and bag the Premier over the issue that concerns
Page 3715
her. Nowhere in the debate - neither in the substance of what appears in Hansard, or in the substance of the difference between a ruling and a decision made by the Speaker - is there valid criticism of the Speaker. I refer honourable members to the Australian House of Representatives Practice at pages 224 and 225, which states:

The question of what decisions constitute rulings assumes particular importance in the House of Representatives because of the opportunity for motions of dissent to be moved to rulings but not ordinary decisions . . .

The Speaker made an ad hoc decision in relation to the circumstances at the time. He called the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Bligh to order, then openly said, "If members wish to be heard on the matter, they may seek the call when the Premier has concluded his remarks." The honourable member for Gosford availed himself of that opportunity. The Speaker then said that honourable members could go to his chambers to talk to him and he would do something about it. How fair can he be? [Time expired.]

Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [10.50]: I address my remarks, in particular, to the matter touched on by the Leader of the House in his concluding remarks. I refer to the distinction he drew between decisions and rulings, using the House of Representatives Practice. I submit that when it comes particularly to question time and the way in which order must be maintained in this place, there can be no distinction between a decision and a ruling in the way in which the Leader of the House has suggested. Mr Speaker, is he trying to say that you are some kind of traffic cop?

Mr Whelan: No, that is exactly what he is not.

Mr O'DOHERTY: Let me finish the argument. Mr Speaker, is the Leader of the House saying that the decisions that you make in your role of keeping order in this place, particularly during question time, have no relevance or bearing on the conduct of the House? He cannot maintain that argument. I refer the Minister to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice where it refers to the rulings of the Speaker as the case law on which the House must maintain its order. Those decisions are made by the Speaker during the heat of debate, but that is what this Chamber is all about. It is precisely the point the honourable member for Orange is making: if there is inconsistency in the rulings, the House has no basis on which to build its order; it has no basis of comparison on which to judge how a matter will be regarded.

Speaker's rulings must be consistent. When there is inconsistency the House must be able to make a decision. The procedure for doing so is a motion of dissent from the Speaker's ruling such as the motion of the honourable member for Orange. According to Erskine May, the House of Representatives Practice and the standing and sessional orders, the House is the final arbiter; it is the master of its own destiny. If, Mr Speaker, in the heat of battle you make an inconsistent ruling, this House must be able to make a final decision about it. When the order of the House is in question and you have tried to set the tone of the House by disallowing the use of words such as "liar" and "lie", there must be consistency in your rulings from day to day.

The honourable member for Bligh should not have been allowed to get away with not withdrawing and apologising because of a ruling of the previous day. The central question to the debate is: why was there a different set of rules for the honourable member for Bligh and for the rest of the Parliament? The next question is: next time this becomes an issue, what will the ruling be? What will the House use to judge the ruling that is made on that day? Should it judge it on the first ruling, the second ruling, on what the honourable member for Bligh has said, or on what the Leader of the House has said? If there is no consistency there will be no order; if this House has no order the community will have a dysfunctional Parliament. Honourable members should support this motion to settle the matter once and for all and make a decision about the question that has been raised by the use of the words "lie" and "liar" but, more importantly, on the consistency of rulings from the Chair.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [10.54]: Four motions of dissent against rulings from the Chair are before the House. I regard dissent motions seriously. Dissent from a decision of the Chair has the potential to undermine the whole process of the Parliament and the decent order and chairmanship of the Parliament. The Opposition in a sense is attacking the messenger rather than the right people. The motion should be a motion of condemnation of this Government and the Leader of the House for the way in which they have dealt with the processes of the House in the past few months. The enormous frustration that is building up in this place, from the crossbench and Opposition ranks, has brought us to this point. It is the frustration caused by a series of abuses by the Leader of the House and this Government - certainly not you, Mr Speaker - that has essentially thrown the democratic process out the window.

It is important to disclose the issues that are contributing to the frustration that is bringing about some of the poor behaviour and, ultimately, the Opposition's motions of dissent. It is not fair of the Opposition to attack you, Mr Speaker; it should be attacking the Leader of the House. Every sitting day there is an abuse of process when the Government moves dorothy dix urgency motions to counter urgency motions of the Opposition, which, excluding the motion moved yesterday, are much more important. Honourable members reach the point of asking, "What do we do?" They throw their hands in the air in frustration. The so-called family-friendly hours were supported by the Labor Party when it was in Opposition, but the House is
Page 3716
sitting until 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. Estimates committees were abandoned and question time, during which the matter the subject of the motion arose -

Mr Whelan: On a point of order: I do not mind the honourable member for Manly proceeding, but he should move a substantive motion to give me the right to reply. I would afford him the time.

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

Dr MACDONALD: I am merely drawing on those factors to illustrate the frustration that has built up in this House which has led to the moving of four motions of dissent. Question time is the cauldron in this House from which all the dissents arose. The message coming out of this debate is that the Premier should stop intimidating members of the Opposition and treat the House with a little more respect. I shall not support the motions. I cannot support a motion of dissent against the Chair for it is such a serious matter. However, it has provided the opportunity for members of Parliament to be frank and clear about the direction the Parliament is taking. Many of the gains achieved in making the Fiftieth Parliament a more civilised place are being eroded by the behaviour of this Government. It is important that I put that on the record.

Mr WEST (Orange) [10.58], in reply: I can understand the honourable member for Manly saying that we should not attack the messenger and should be attacking the Government, the Premier or the Leader of the House. However, the honourable member should also understand that because of the processes of this Chamber the Opposition has had to take the unpleasant action of moving a motion of dissent in order to get its message across. The Speaker makes the rulings and the decisions. The Leader of the House put forward a fascinating argument on cost. If honourable members are to believe the cost argument, the Parliament should sit only for half the time. Half the things the Government does are a waste of time.

Mr Whelan: I am only 50 per cent guilty.

Mr WEST: The Minister for Police accused me of being 50 per cent guilty because I am wasting a little bit of time this morning. I have been elected by my constituents to present a case and represent the cause. I am part of a team that has a duty to raise these matters. The spurious argument that the Opposition does not understand the difference between decisions from the Chair and rulings is incredible. I shall try to edify the House, and a few other people. I have in my hand the book we use: it is called Decisions from the Chair. The first page of the book repeats the title Decisions from the Chair and states, "Key Rulings of Speakers up to and including the 50th Parliament".

What is the difference between a decision from the Chair and a ruling? Surely the decision that is made, the instruction that comes from the Chair, is the ruling that the House should abide by. Basically the Government's argument is that because of the way in which the honourable member for Bligh withdrew last week, I can now stand up and say, "You are a liar."; that it is now permissible in this House to say, "You are a liar." I mean no disrespect to you, Mr Speaker. That is the process that I am arguing. Yet the Chair gave a specific instruction to the House on 14 November, when the Leader of the Opposition called the Premier a liar, that the Chair will not accept that; that members will be on four calls to order and then they will be out.

In future I will tell the Leader of the Opposition that he does not have to do it that way; he can stand up, quietly nod and bow to the Chair and say "No disrespect to you, Mr Speaker, but the honourable member is a liar." Let us try to be fair. As I said at the outset, this is not a pleasant for you, Mr Speaker, but you are the person who must uphold the dignity of this Chamber; that is a responsibility with which you are charged. We respect that but we ask for consistency; we do not want one message and one ruling one day, and another decision and another ruling another day. I am disappointed that the Independent members say they cannot support the motion. I can understand the honourable member for Bligh not supporting this motion because she is the target of the ruling. But if the Government opposes the motion, we will clearly know the standard and how to play it, and what the preamble should be, because that is the clear indication that we have been given.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House 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 Photios
Mr Cochran Mr Richardson
Mr Collins 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 Souris
Mr Hartcher Mr Tink
Mr Hazzard Mr Turner
Mr Humpherson Mr West
Dr Kernohan Mr Zammit
Mr Kinross
Mr Longley Tellers,
Ms Machin Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

Page 3717

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Ms Moore
Mrs Beamer Mr Moss
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 Tripodi
Mr Knight Mr Watkins
Mr Knowles Mr Whelan
Mr Langton Mr Windsor
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Yeadon
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride Tellers,
Dr Macdonald Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.08]: I move:

That this House dissents from the ruling of Mr Speaker given on 15 November 1995 in relation to a point of order taken by the Leader of the Opposition in which he alleged the Premier had lied.

During debate on the previous motion a point was made by the Independents that the motion was misplaced because they considered that dissent motions were actually an attack on the Speaker, whereas we should be attacking the Premier. I contend to the Independents and to this House that the forms of this House are such that if we dissent from a ruling that the Speaker has made - not against the Speaker personally - that was contrary to the decisions normally made on such a point, or against the standing orders, the only option we have is to move a motion of dissent to the ruling, not a motion of dissent against the Speaker, that allows the House to debate the ruling and decide, according to its will, what direction it wants the Speaker to take in future when a similar point arises. That is the main point that we should consider when we are debating dissent motions. My motion relates to 15 November when the Premier, in the course of answering a question from the Leader of the Opposition about a dispute on the waterfront and responding to an interjection, made certain statements relating to the acquisition of Sydney showground lands by Foxtel. The Leader of the Opposition then took a point of order which was recorded at page 36 of the proof as follows:

On a point of order: Mr Speaker, he lied yesterday and he is lying today. He is lying again!

The Speaker then said:

The behaviour of the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition is grossly disorderly.

Following that Mr Speaker said:

I uphold the point of order -

Mr Whelan: On a point of order: after listening to the honourable member I am absolutely convinced he has just eroded his own argument. In this motion of dissent, the dissent would have to be that the Speaker upheld the point of order taken by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, it is an explanation. No point of order is involved.

Mr PHILLIPS: The point of order was:

Mr Speaker, he lied yesterday and he is lying today. He is lying again!

The Speaker said:

I uphold the point of order . . .

The Premier then replied:

Mr Speaker, it is very difficult not to respond to interjections but I completely support your ruling.

The Opposition may take great delight in and applaud your erudite opinion that the Premier was lying, and your upholding the contention of the Leader of the Opposition that the Premier was lying. Gracious though it may have been of the Premier to agree with you that he was lying, I submit to this House that the Leader of the Opposition had not made a valid point of order in seeking to dispute the factual nature of the Premier's statements regarding Foxtel. It has long been a practice of this House, a device that members on both sides have used over a long period of time, to take a point of order so that they may place on the record a statement or clarification for which, in the normal course of events, there is no provision. This procedure has always invoked the ruling from the Chair that no point of order is involved, and rightly so. Mr Speaker should have ruled on this occasion that there was no point of order and not, as he did, "I uphold the point of order." Even more particularly, the disputation of facts, under cover of taking a point of order, has always been ruled out of order. To support that further I refer to page 25 of Decisions from the Chair, under the heading Points of Order, and to a decision by Speaker Rozzoli in the period 1988-90 at page 1972 of Hansard:

The question whether a member or minister is misleading the House is not raised by taking a point of order.

The next decision on that page, again by Speaker Rozzoli in the period 1988-90 at page 5198 of Hansard is as follows:

Page 3718

Misstatements of fact by members in the course of debate cannot be the legitimate subject of a point of order.

Speaker Ellis, in the period 1968-69 at page 3235 of Hansard, said:

Misrepresentation is not a basis for taking a point of order.

Speaker Rozzoli again in 1991 at page 2887 of Hansard ruled:

Points of order should not be used to respond to or repudiate matters which are raised by the Member moving the motion for suspension.

That is what occurred on this occasion. Those are consistent rulings from the Chair over many years, but on this occasion when the Leader of the Opposition said, "On a point of order" he was obviously trying to clarify a statement. Mr Speaker ruled it was in order when the Leader of the Opposition said:

. . . he lied yesterday and he is lying today. He is lying again!

Therefore, we have the ludicrous position, particularly if this motion of dissent is not carried, that any member in this House can move to the lectern and say, "He is lying" and Mr Speaker can uphold that if a point of order is taken. I hope he would not uphold that in future. I hope today honourable members pass this motion of dissent to reflect that this was not a valid point of order. Extended further, it means that members could dispute a fact by taking a point of order. That, of course, is not in compliance with rulings in the past and it should not be in compliance with rulings today.

It is important for the House to uphold this totally proper position and vote for the dissent motion for the purpose of correcting the record. Failure to do so could only bring the House and its practices into disrepute. What would be the consequences of voting against this dissent motion? The House would assume that disputation of fact was a genuine basis for taking a point of order. A member could, by way of a point of order, declare the member speaking to be a liar and Mr Speaker could uphold that point of order. That, of course, is unacceptable. Members should support this motion of dissent to make it quite clear that a point of order cannot be taken for the purpose of calling someone a liar or disputing a fact. That is why I have moved dissent from Mr Speaker's ruling, not dissent in him as Speaker. In the past the Speaker wore a wig and cloak because he represented a position, not an individual. It is very clever of the Government to try to make this a personal attack, but that has nothing to do with it. Members of this House have a responsibility to give clear directions to the Speaker on how he should rule, and that is what this motion is all about.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [11.18]: I am as bemused by this dissent motion as I am by the others that are proposed. The fact is that after the Leader of the Opposition said, as recorded in Hansard, "On a point of order:" and other things, Mr Speaker said - and this is what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not read:

The behaviour of the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition is grossly disorderly.

How can you get anything fairer than that? The Speaker said that the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier was grossly disorderly. The Speaker did not say there was no substance to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition did not say, "I want to make a point of order." He said:

On a point of order: Mr Speaker, he lied yesterday and he is lying today.

Mr Speaker upheld the point of order and asked the Premier to return to the subject matter of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. There was no point of order. Why has the Opposition moved dissent against the Speaker?

Mr Phillips: It is against the ruling.

Mr WHELAN: Why move dissent against the ruling of the Speaker when it has no substance to it? Did the Opposition gain an advantage by the Speaker's ruling? The answer is clearly yes.

Mr Phillips: That is not the issue.

Mr WHELAN: This motion is an academic, time-wasting exercise to allow Opposition members to be able in the House in future to use the word "liar" or to say that someone has lied. That is the whole point of the exercise. On this day the Premier returned to the podium and said:

Mr Speaker, it is very difficult not to respond to interjections, but I completely support your ruling.

Mr Speaker said:

Order! If the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition does not improve, he will be placed on three calls.

If the Leader of the Opposition was distressed about this incident why did he not take a further point of order on the Speaker's ruling? Because from the commencement of the debate there was a prod from within the system about the failure of the Opposition to attempt to get involved in some tactical manoeuvre to take over the running of the House or to create mayhem. The Opposition is simply wasting time. I am tempted - and I say this in jest - to vote for the motion because the Opposition is criticising you, Mr Speaker, for upholding the point of order that the Leader of the Opposition took. Hansard shows that the Speaker has been eminently fair, that he has been unambiguously critical of the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier, and although the point of order had no substance, he upheld it. The reason I suggest you followed that course, Mr Speaker, was because there was a deal of interruption, noise and mayhem and you were seeking to regain control of the House, which was in a very noisy state. Like the first motion for dissent, this is a gross waste of time.

Page 3719

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [11.22]: I am impressed by the arguments put forward by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I have sought to draw on decisions from the Chair, and should have done so before coming to the Chamber, but I did not consider this motion had much substance. However, now that the debate has proceeded -

Mr Phillips: It is in my name.

Dr MACDONALD: I know, and I apologise for that. I am impressed by the argument of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. At page 25 of Decisions from the Chair a ruling of Speaker Rozzoli in the period 1988-1990 at page 5198 of Hansard says:

Misstatements of fact by members in the course of debate cannot be the legitimate subject of a point of order.

This is a fundamental debate about the process of points of order within the debate procedure. Clearly, that ruling says that it is not a proper basis of a point of order to state a fact - in this case, the Leader of the Opposition saying that the Premier lied. I really must support the motion of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, notwithstanding that it is unclear what is meant by the notation "Interruption" in Hansard. I can only proceed on what appears in Hansard. It appears that you, Mr Speaker, upheld the point of order by the Leader of the Opposition about the Premier being a liar; and we do not want that to be a precedent for taking a point of order in the future. If it were, members would be misled in future about the purpose of a point of order. There is substance in the motion of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, which could be further supported by other decisions of previous Speakers. In my view, the motion has substance.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [11.24]: Having served as Acting-Speaker for 2½ years I support the motion. On this occasion I emphasise that the motion is not a reflection on you, Mr Speaker; it is about the conduct of the processes of the House and the framework for the fair running of the House in the interests of all members. The House is very much like a court. It has certain precedents, standing orders, and a regulatory framework that honourable members can refer to in order to understand how they should conduct themselves. But we also must look at how your decisions interpret the standing orders and framework. If there were not decisions or rulings from the Chair - they are interchangeable - the standing orders would not be adaptable. Of course, these procedures flow from the Westminster system. Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, the twenty-first edition, at page 181 dealing with Speakers rulings, says:

The Speaker's rulings, whether given in public or in private, constitute precedents by which subsequent Speakers, Members and officers are guided.

That is the crux of this issue. The rulings you make, Mr Speaker, whether in the heat of battle or otherwise, are the precedents by which subsequent Speakers, members and officers are guided. The honourable member for Manly said that other honourable members will turn to Decisions from the Chair for guidance. Of course, all honourable members have a copy of that little book on their desks. In the future honourable members will rely on those decisions from the Chair - not from you as a person, Mr Speaker, but from the Chair. Erskine May continued:

Such precedents are collected and in course of time may be formulated as principles, or rules of practice. It is largely by this method that the modern practice of the House of Commons has been developed.

And it is largely by this method that the rules and principles of practice of this place have been developed. It is not in the best interests of this House for the Chair to rule, and thereby establish the precedent, that it is acceptable for a member to say, "He lied yesterday and he is lying today. He is lying again!" I say that notwithstanding that many people on both sides of this place believe the Premier fits well into that category and probably did lie yesterday, probably is lying today, and will definitely lie tomorrow. The reality is that we must ensure that the framework on which this place runs is sound, and that the decisions of the Chair are crystallised.

It is the obligation of all honourable members in this place, including the honourable member for Manly and the honourable member for Bligh, to vote with the Opposition. I hope Government members also support the motion. The Minister for Police said he might vote with the Opposition; he has acknowledged that the Premier has lied and that this motion must be supported. On that basis, if he votes against the motion, he will be held accountable in the public forum. To ensure the future good order and management of this House, this ruling must be dissented from and the House should vote almost as one for the motion - I would not expect you to support it, Mr Speaker.

Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.30], in reply: The Government tried to turn this dissent from ruling motion into a personality debate. Mr Speaker, it tried to turn attention away from the substance of your ruling to an attack on you, and words to convey that impression were used. That is not what this motion is about. By tradition Mr Speaker is dragged screaming to the chair. Mr Speaker, you have the unenviable task of upholding standing orders and observing previous rulings in this Chamber. It is a difficult task, particularly during question time. If we do not ensure that consistent rulings apply to all honourable members it will be very difficult for you to uphold order. As is the wont of this place, all honourable members push the rules as far as they can, particularly in the heat of debate, which leaves you, Mr Speaker, with the tough task of trying to deliver consistent rulings.

There will be occasions when you, Mr Speaker, will get a ruling wrong. There is nothing wrong with that. In the heat of debate, in the heat of the moment and in the confusion that sometimes occurs no-one expects someone in your position to make correct rulings 100 per cent of the time. But when something of substance is quite clearly wrong and it sets a poor precedent for members of this
Page 3720
House in the future, it must be corrected. That is what my motion of dissent from your ruling is all about. The Leader of the House, the Minister for Police, tried to twist the words that were used in debate. The Hansard reports Mr Collins as saying:

On a point of order -

you allowed the Leader of the Opposition to take a point of order -

Mr Speaker, he lied yesterday and he is lying today. He is lying again!

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

I presume everyone quietened down. You then said:

The behaviour of the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition is grossly disorderly. I uphold the point of order.

Mr Speaker, you said that the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition, who challenged the facts, was a genuine point of order. The Premier said:

Mr Speaker, it is very difficult not to respond to interjections but I completely support your ruling.

On that occasion both you and the Premier were incorrect; it was not a genuine point of order. Today I am asking this House - as the honourable member for Manly and the honourable member for Wakehurst rightly pointed out - to correct this error on the record so that members know where they are going and they know how to respond to points of order in the future. I ask all honourable members to support the motion I have moved.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

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 Cochran Mr Photios
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 Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Mr Humpherson Mr Turner
Dr Kernohan Mr West
Mr Kinross Mr Windsor
Mr Longley Mr Zammit
Dr Macdonald Tellers,
Ms Machin Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

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 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 Tripodi
Mr Knight Mr Watkins
Mr Knowles Mr Whelan
Mr Langton Mr Yeadon
Mrs Lo Po' Tellers,
Mr Lynch Mr Beckroge
Mr McBride Mr Thompson

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The vote being equal, I give my casting vote with the noes and declare the question to be resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [11.40]: I move:

That this House dissents from the ruling of Mr Speaker given on 15 November 1995 in which he ruled that the Member for The Hills must confine himself to the reasons for urgency and not enter upon debate relevant to the substantive motion after having earlier ruled that the Minister for Land and Water Conservation was within the leave of the standing orders when he had canvassed a similar scope of material.

It is axiomatic that this House cannot function if there is no consistency in the rulings of the Speaker. I listened earlier to the honourable member for Wakehurst comparing this House to a court room. It is an appropriate analogy. Perhaps it would also be appropriate to compare it to a game of cricket or football in that a contest is going on and rules are laid down for the game. If one is talking about football or cricket, a referee is on the field to interpret the rules. In this House you are that referee. The game of cricket or football would very quickly dissolve into chaos if consistent rulings were not given by the referee or umpire at the time. I think we are witnessing the same situation in the Legislative Assembly.

I want the House to look at what happened last Wednesday when consideration of urgent motions took place. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation had put up his motion, I had put up
Page 3721
my motion, and we were arguing which motion should be given precedence. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation was talking about a matter that clearly was not urgent. I note that the honourable member for Manly is in the Chamber, and I am delighted to see him here because I spoke to him about this matter in the lift shortly after it occurred, and I noted his frustration with the way in which the House was being run. The Government was insisting on putting up what are essentially Dorothy Dixers to try to combat matters being put by this side of the House that are genuinely of urgent consideration, matters of genuine concern to the State and to our constituents.

The Minister for Land and Water Conservation spoke about three major areas of concern - land degradation, declining water quality and loss of biodiversity - as being a matter of urgency. He talked about government initiatives and government reforms. He kept using the phrase, "It is a matter of urgency" to try to convince the House that the matter should be given priority when it would have been better done by way of a ministerial statement, a Dorothy Dixer, or even a matter of public importance. You, Mr Speaker, made no attempt to intervene despite the fact that the Minister, for much of his speech in attempting to establish urgency, was really speaking to the substantive motion. After four minutes or so the honourable member for Lismore took a point of order and said:

. . . the Minister has strayed from giving reasons for the urgent consideration of the matter he put forward. He is talking about events that took place in 1981 and 1984.

You, Mr Speaker, ruled that the Minister was within the leave of the standing orders. I then came to the table and started to speak. I had been speaking for perhaps a minute when you, of your own volition, intervened to tell me that I was straying from the leave of the debate and I must seek to establish why my motion should be given precedence. At the time I had been talking about a meeting that had occurred only two nights previously at which 130 people at the Beecroft community centre had voted unanimously to establish a steering committee to take the Government to court over the M2 special acquisition issue. That committee was to have been meeting on the night that our debate was taking place in this House.

Clearly, this was a matter of extreme urgency, and I was arguing why it was urgent and why it should be given precedence. Yet you, sir, saw fit to intervene of your own volition, without even a member of the Government having risen to take a point of order, to tell me that I was straying from the leave of the debate and I must seek to establish why my motion should be given precedence. That is not consistent with the ruling that you, Mr Speaker, gave on the point of order that had been taken by the honourable member for Lismore. It is not consistent with the fact that you permitted the Minister for Land and Water Conservation to run what was a dorothy dix motion, speaking entirely to the substantive motion and not attempting to establish urgency whatsoever. I had proceeded for about another minute when the Minister for Land and Water Conservation took a point of order. He suggested that I was not pointing out why the matter was urgent. He said:

. . . To illustrate my point, he was speculating on the outcome of a court case, and that is not a matter of urgent consideration for this House.

I was attempting to show that a meeting would take place that night that could end up involving the Government in a degree of litigation that would cost the taxpayers of this State a considerable amount of money, and that it clearly was a matter for urgent consideration by this House at that time. The honourable member for Orange jumped up and spoke to the point of order. He said:

. . . you must be consistent in the way that you, Mr Speaker, allow this House to proceed. You have allowed the Minister for Land and Water Conservation in his contribution to give detailed facts and to talk about events that took place in the early 1980s. The Minister provided more detail than that to which the honourable member for The Hills referred in advancing reasons for his motion taking precedence.

Your ruling, Mr Speaker, was:

The honourable member for The Hills will abide by the rules and standing orders of the House and state why his motion should be given precedence over that of the Minister.

Very clearly I had been doing that to a far greater extent than the Minister for Land and Water Conservation had done during his speech. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that I was so concerned about this issue that I came to see you in your chambers, as you invited honourable members of this House to do that day, and we discussed the matter at some length. Indeed, it is a manifestation of my concern that I have moved this dissent motion today. I believe that the processes of the House cannot continue in an orderly fashion and that we on this side of the House will be unable to bring matters of concern to the people of New South Wales and our electorates before the House unless there is a consistency in these rulings.

The Government's tactics in this matter are very clear. The strategy is to try to interrupt the train of thought of honourable members on this side of the House to make it impossible for them to present a cogent and coherent argument as to why a matter that they wish to bring before the House should be given priority. By your rulings, Mr Speaker, you are unfortunately - and, I suspect, unwittingly - playing into the hands of the Government. You are making it impossible for us to bring these matters before the House, and you are making it impossible for us to establish a cogent and coherent case whereby the House can determine whether a matter is urgent. In fact, Mr Speaker, you should have ruled, as you did on the Minister, that I was within the leave of the standing orders. If you had done so your ruling in both instances would have been consistent.

Page 3722

In fact, sir, I venture to suggest that you have only been consistent in your rulings on the relevance of matters raised in these debates by your inconsistencies, which is a matter of serious concern to all honourable members. Honourable members must know where they stand as to what is admissible and what is not. To vote in favour of this dissent motion is to uphold your ruling on the Minister. To vote against it is to admit that your ruling on the Minister was wrong. I say to the Minister for Police, the Leader of the House, that we are not wasting time, as he suggested earlier in this debate. In fact, we are bringing substantive matters before the House. We want to be able to debate in this Chamber, in an appropriate fashion and with the same rules applying to us as apply to members of the Government, issues that are of concern to the people of New South Wales.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [11.50]: During this debate reference has been made to Decisions from the Chair, key rulings of Speakers up to and including the Fiftieth Parliament. However, members have been guilty of selectively reading those decisions. Members should read the introduction to those collected decisions, which in part states:

While it is usual for established practice to be followed, Speakers have maintained their authority to accept or disregard any particular precedent depending upon the circumstances of individual cases.

Page 1 deals with the function of the Chair under Standing Order 55. Members should read, and understand, the rulings of Speaker Ellis in 1965, confirmed in later rulings by Speaker Kelly. The first paragraph under "Functions of the Chair", on page 1, states:

There was no practice which precluded the Chair from taking the initiative if any form of procedure, whether a question, motion or otherwise, was not in accordance with the rules and practices of the House. It was the Speaker's duty to intervene in the preservation of order and to ensure that proceedings conformed to the standing orders and practice of the House, whether or not any point of order was taken.

The essential part of that passage is the first sentence:

There was no practice which precluded the Chair from taking the initiative if any form of procedure, whether a question, motion or otherwise, was not in accordance with the rules and practices of the House.

The honourable member for The Hills complains that he was ruled out of order. However, he failed to understand - as the member who took the point of order pointed out to him, and as Mr Speaker also said - Standing Order 120 deals with the consideration of urgent motions. Standing Order 120(5) states:

If more than one notice is given:

(a) The Members giving the notices shall each be permitted to make statements of up to 5 minutes so the House may establish the priority of such matters.

The honourable member did not do that. The Minister took the point of order that the member was talking to the general substance of the debate, which he could have done only following the success of his motion. On that occasion the Speaker ruled:

The member is straying from the leave of the debate.

And the honourable member for The Hills must concede he was. He was entering into the substance of the debate. About 15 lines in Hansard show that. The honourable member spoke about the history of the matter, about 56 houses having been settled under the special acquisition program and about people not wishing to make a contribution of $90,000. The honourable member was then pulled up by the Speaker. If there is a mistake in the ruling, it is that the honourable member was permitted to continue for a considerable time to enlarge on the substance of the debate, by saying:

It is clearly impossible to press the matter of urgency without referring to matters like a meeting . . . It is urgent because of the clear and unequivocal commitment made by the previous Government . . . That point was made clearly on Monday night . . . A further meeting of the steering committee will take place tonight . . . Clearly, debating and passing my motion today could save the taxpayers of New South Wales an unnecessary expense . . .

The substance of the debate comes through in that passage. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation then took a point of order. The honourable member for The Hills claims that the Minister for Land and Water Conservation got more leave than he did. Well, he did not. A reading of Hansard shows that the honourable member thwarted previous rulings and standing orders in his 26 lines of recorded debate, whereas the Minister had only seven lines of debate. But the Minister was more relevant. He said:

Finally, let us take a look at how essential this motion is and thus how important is a discussion of the Government's support for it. Let us examine just a few of the natural resource problems that our State confronts.

The Minister did not engage in a wide-ranging debate of every national resource implication. He spoke about just a few. Then the honourable member for Lismore took a point of order, and the Speaker ruled that the Minister was within the leave of the standing orders. I heard the honourable member for The Hills say that he went to the Speaker on the Wednesday. I am not privy to what he and the Speaker discussed. It was open to the honourable member to move a motion of dissent against the Speaker at the first available opportunity on the Thursday. Why did he not do that?

Mr Richardson: That is not relevant to what we are talking about.

Mr WHELAN: Of course it is relevant. The honourable member had a private party meeting on the Tuesday. He has moved this motion with all the mala fides he could muster. He had no intention of moving a motion. The honourable member let Thursday go past and he did not raise the matter in
Page 3723
the Chamber. It was only after his fellow members decided at a party meeting that the way to attack the Government and take up the time of this House was by attacking the Speaker, that the honourable member decided he would join in putting up that facade just to waste time. The honourable member has no bona fides or any case on the merits. If anything, the Speaker and the Minister were too lenient with the honourable member in permitting him to go into the substance of the debate in great detail. As I have said, it takes up at least 26 lines in Hansard. The honourable member was not complying with the standing orders because his obligation was to establish the priority of such matters.

Having read the honourable member's initial contribution, in which he canvasses the substance of the debate, I realise what a hypocrite and lame duck he is. He should not have contemplated this action. He has been using this debate as nothing more than an opportunity to join with his party in an unprecedented attack on the Speaker. The honourable member should have taken that step last Thursday when he had the opportunity, not yesterday. He should not give me the nonsense about dissent rulings being made in three days. Today, Wednesday, exactly one week later, the honourable member rose hot under the collar. If he had moved his dissent motion last Thursday I could have given him urgency and we could have considered it. But he did not. The only reason he has moved this motion today is that his party room directed him to do it.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [11.57]: This issue is all about the running of the Parliament and about the framework of standing orders as interpreted by the Speaker. It is about honourable members knowing what is expected of them and letting the procedures of the House run fairly and freely, subject to that framework. Many decisions by the Chair, especially those interpreting Standing Order 120, leave room for consideration and licence. The Minister for Police said that that standing order enables urgency to be established. With respect, his assertion is not right. Standing Order 120 states:

The procedure for consideration of urgent motions shall be as follows. . .

(5) If more than one notice is given:

(a) The Members giving the notices shall each be permitted to make statements of up to 5 minutes so the House may establish the priority of such matters.

The honourable member for The Hills and the Minister for Land and Water Conservation were trying to establish enough pertinent facts for the House to decide on the priority of their matters. With the greatest respect to the Chair, the very essence of those words in subclause 5(a) implies and calls for consideration of the substantive motion. Sufficient facts must be presented to allow the House to make its judgment of which honourable member's motion should have priority. To that extent, any intervention by the Chair to limit one party against another simply introduces inequity and unfairness in presentation of facts to establish such priority. The essence and obligation of the Chair is to ensure fairness to members and ultimately to the House by enabling all relevant facts to be put before the House.

As the honourable member for The Hills pointed out, in this case you took it upon yourself, Mr Speaker, to intervene in the debate without a point of order having been taken by a member of the Government. Perhaps that is a reflection of what had been occurring that day. The bottom line is that sufficient facts must be put fairly by both sides to allow the House to decide priority. This dissent motion simply seeks to confirm that in a debate to establish priority between two competing motions for urgent consideration, members are entitled to put before the House sufficient material from the substantive motion to enable the House to decide in an informed and proper way which of the motions should be debated. To that extent I support the motion.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [11.59]: I do not support this motion of dissent. It is interesting to contrast what has been put by the mover of this motion with what was put by the mover of the second motion of dissent. Mr Speaker, I believe that your ruling in this instance was correct, and I do not understand how the Opposition can argue with it. In your ruling you stated that the honourable member for the Hills must confine himself to the reasons why his motion should be given precedence and he must not enter into debate relevant to the substantive motion. The substance of the motion moved by the honourable member for The Hills has not been properly expressed. He is questioning your judgment, and that is different from dissenting from your ruling. The ruling is consistent with Standing Order 120, and I would not support dissent from the ruling.

It is another matter as to whether your ruling that the honourable member for The Hills had strayed from the reasons for establishing urgency and had dealt with the substantive motion was flawed The honourable member for The Hills has now moved dissent from your ruling. Over the past few months the Government has moved many trivial urgency motions. The comments in relation to those seeking to establish reasons for priority work both ways. Members on both sides of the House have got away with blue murder when arguing why their urgency motions should have priority. If the honourable member for The Hills wanted to raise this issue in the House he should have done so by expressing his lack of confidence in your ruling. Frankly, the ruling was correct.

Page 3724

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [12.02]: One of the basic principles of this House is that all members are equal and the rules should apply equally without regard to where members sit or to which party they belong. If that principle is applied, the motion of the honourable member for The Hills must be successful. When the Minister for Land and Water Conservation spoke about why his urgency motion should be given priority he referred, among other things, to native vegetation, salinity and other matters from 1974 to 1989. He referred also to water usage in the Darling area. Clearly those are all matters of extensive history. It is extremely hard for the Minister to substantiate the argument that his motion for urgent consideration should have priority on that day, 15 November.

In contrast, the honourable member for The Hills had given notice of a motion for urgent consideration of a matter that had been raised at a meeting on the Monday of that week, so 15 November was the first opportunity he had to raise it. The Minister had given notice of a motion concerning a matter that been of general concern for year, if not decades. Therefore, virtually by definition the motion of the honourable member for The Hills was more urgent. It was clearly unfair for the Chair to have intervened when the honourable member for The Hills was speaking. One should look at the substance of what had been raised in the two arguments to establish urgency. It was unfair for one to be ruled in order and the other to be ruled out of order; the members were not treated equally.

The means by which honourable members seek to establish priority, as set out in Standing Order 120, need to be taken into account. It is almost impossible for a member to establish urgency in the minds of the members who will vote on the question without referring to a reasonable degree to the substance of the debate to follow. In normal circumstances the standing order allows for 40 minutes of debate on a motion for urgent consideration. The House deals with substantial matters in that form of debate. However, a member seeking to establish urgency needs to spend a couple of minutes of the five minutes available referring to what is envisaged to be the substance of the debate. If members seeking to establish priority are not permitted to do that, the other members of the House, who will have to decide the question of priority and have no knowledge of the background of the two competing motions, will be unable to decide which motion should have priority.

Members should be entitled to a reasonable amount of latitude when referring to the substantive debate. A short while ago the Leader of the House argued against that. He said that members should not be able to refer to the substantive motion. However, as I have said, they must be able to refer to the substance of their arguments if they are to persuade members of the House to give their motions priority. The honourable member for Manly referred to the Government's use of motions for urgent consideration. By definition, such motions are urgent. The Government has moved motions for urgent consideration in this House to stymie the Opposition. Such motions have no substance and seek to do little more than congratulate the Government. Two unfortunate examples of that have occurred recently: one occurred yesterday and another occurred about three weeks ago. Both motions related to tragedies, one in Frenchs Forest and one in the Campbelltown area.

On both occasions the Government used motions for urgent consideration to express concern and to offer condolences. The Opposition would not disagree with that, but the Government then went further and congratulated itself for its policies. Those motions clearly resulted in partisan debates. That is an extremely inappropriate way of dealing with a matter of urgency. The standing orders make provision for dealing with that type of matter as a matter of public importance or by way of substantive motion. If such matters were dealt with in that way, I am sure they would have the support of the Opposition. I have made my point to the best of my ability. Members of this Chamber, regardless of which party they belong to, should be given equal opportunity to argue that their motions are urgent. That standard has to be applied consistently. Members should also be given the opportunity to argue the substance of their arguments to a reasonable degree. If they are not they will be unable to demonstrate to the other members of this House why their motions are urgent.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [12.08]: This is an important debate on an important motion. I disagree with the previous speaker who said it is a waste of time. The substance of this motion relates to the same issues that I raised in the debate on the first motion moved by the Opposition. The Government is abusing the process for dealing with motions for urgent consideration. It has set out to systematically overturn the achievements of the reforms made during the Fiftieth Parliament. Those reforms were designed to make this Parliament more democratic and more accountable. Motions for urgent consideration were introduced during the Fiftieth Parliament at the request - indeed at the urging - of the honourable member for Ashfield, who is now the Leader of the House.

In the Fiftieth Parliament the Independents met regularly each week with the Government and the Opposition. At that time we were considering the charter of reform and reform of standing orders. The honourable member for Ashfield kept stressing the point that motions for urgent consideration were important. He stressed that it was important that Opposition members and Independent members had an opportunity to raise urgent matters. The concept
Page 3725
of motions for urgent consideration was therefore introduced. Motions for urgent consideration were intended to provide opportunities not otherwise available to the Opposition and Independent members to have urgent matters debated in the House. At that time the honourable member for Ashfield kept stressing the point - and I reiterate it now - that Ministers have other opportunities to put matters before the House. They can make ministerial statements, they can give prepared answers to those dorothy dix questions that honourable members hear in question time every day, and they can their staff prepare matters of public importance for discussion. Matters of public importance also come before the House on most sitting days.

At the strong urging of the honourable member for Ashfield, the Independent members took this proposal to the former Government and it was agreed to. Now, sadly, the same members are now Ministers in a government with a majority of one and they are abusing this opportunity. They are systematically denying the Opposition and Independent members the right to put urgent matters before the House. In this session the Government has attempted at every turn to avoid embarrassment and accountability. It is beyond my comprehension why a government only seven months into its term of office, which is proud of its achievements and its budget, would want to avoid opportunities to debate issues of importance to the people of New South Wales. I would have thought that the Premier, Ministers and, indeed, all Government backbenchers would welcome every opportunity to debate the important matters about which they are now making decisions. I am amazed by what has occurred because the same members made the most of the reforms that took place during the Fiftieth Parliament that allowed them to participate properly in the processes of this place.

I feel strongly, as do members of the Opposition and other Independent members, that the proper processes of this place should be upheld. I call upon you, Mr Speaker, to rigorously exercise your judgment each day, because each day Ministers move motions for urgent consideration that do not relate to urgent matters. Such motions are simply ploys to avoid debating or discussing urgent matters that members of the Opposition and Independent members have no other means of putting before the House. The urgency debate process has been totally abused by the Government. It is astounding that the Government has done this. I can imagine caucus meetings in which members ask themselves what they can do to prevent the Opposition or Independent members from raising urgent matters. They probably say, "You talk about bushfires, or you talk about this or you talk about that".

The only urgency motion I have voted for was the urgent motion moved yesterday, because it was urgent. It brought before the House the terrible fire and the conditions in which people live in Department of Housing homes in Claymore. When they come into this place Government members should be prepared to be accountable. They should be prepared to go through a proper question time, and they should be prepared to stand their ground in any urgency debate. That has not occurred. I call upon you, Mr Speaker, not to allow any more Clayton's urgency debates. I call upon you to listen carefully to what Ministers say when they move motions for urgent consideration. I have listened carefully on each occasion, and on most occasions the matters have not been urgent. Ministers have not been stopped; the motions have proceeded because Government members have voted on party lines. That is an abuse of an important opportunity and it is an abuse of the process. I am disgusted with the way the Government has conducted itself on this important matter, as I am with the way the Premier has run question time.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I give the call to the honourable member for The Hills, I wish to announce that my attention has been drawn by the honourable member for Lismore to the presence in the gallery of a group of school children from Goonellabah. I hope that they enjoy their stay in Sydney and their visit to the Parliament.

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [12.14], in reply: I thank the honourable members who have contributed to this debate. I certainly take issue with the points raised by the Leader of the House. Indeed, I understand clearly that we are debating the process for establishing priority of a motion for urgent consideration under Standing Order 120(5)(a), which states:

The Members giving the notices shall each be permitted to make statements of up to 5 minutes so the House may establish the priority of such matters.

That is exactly what I attempted to do last Wednesday, and I believe my case was well made out. I repeat what I said on that day: it is impossible to establish why a particular motion should be given priority without some reference to the substantive motion. The honourable member for Davidson emphasised that point in his contribution to this debate. One need only compare the wording in the Minister's speech on why his motion should be given priority with the wording in his subsequent substantive speech to understand that, essentially, when he was seeking to establish that his motion should be given priority he was speaking to the substantive motion. He said:

Between 1974 and 1989 nearly 60 per cent of native vegetation on the western slopes of New South Wales was cleared. Dry land salinity has increased to the point where an estimated 6 per cent of the State could be at risk to this environmental scourge. Water use in the Murray-Darling system increased by 8 per cent between 1988 and 1994, an increase of 1.6 times the volume of Sydney Harbour. In 1991 a 1,000 kilometre algal bloom on the Darling River -

Page 3726

At that point the honourable member for Lismore interrupted and appropriately took a point of order because the Minister had clearly strayed from the leave of the motion and the leave of the standing orders. The honourable member for Manly missed the central point of this debate. That is, if the ruling you gave, Mr Speaker, which was that the Minister was within the leave of the standing orders, was appropriate, clearly you should not have ruled subsequently that I should abide by the rules and standing orders of the House and explain why my motion should be given precedence over that of the Minister. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation made no attempt to establish why his motion should be given priority over mine. Indeed, I recall - and this is obviously not recorded in Hansard - that at the end of my speech, when I was arguing my case against that of the Minister, the Minister was so taken with the idea of taking spurious points of order to interrupt the flow of debate that he jumped to his feet and attempted to intervene again, and you appropriately sat him down at that point.

As I said, the honourable member for Manly missed the point. The central point at issue is consistency. Like the game of cricket or football that I alluded to earlier, if there is not consistency in the rulings of the referee and the rulings from the Chair, the game or the House will descend into chaos. Clearly we do not wish that to happen. We owe it to the people of New South Wales to conduct ourselves with a degree of decorum. I echo the points made by the honourable member for Bligh in her worthy contribution. The Government is attempting, in moving these alternative dorothy dix, motherhood alleged motions of urgency, to avoid accountability and to avoid debating matters of genuine concern to the people of New South Wales.

I agree with the honourable member for Bligh that the Government should be prepared to stand its ground in any urgency debate. If the decisions taken by the Government on behalf of the people of New South Wales are correct, the Government should be prepared to debate those issues in Parliament and establish that the course of action taken is appropriate and correct. As the honourable member for Bligh cogently established, the Government is clearly not doing that. All honourable members on this side of the House deplore the tactics taken by the Government to try to stifle genuine and legitimate debate. All members in this House must be treated equally, and therefore you must rule consistently on points of order. If you do not, the House will descend into chaos and will not be able to perform the most important function that it is carrying out for the people of New South Wales. I urge the House to support the motion.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

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 Cochran Mr Photios
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 Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Mr Humpherson Mr Turner
Dr Kernohan Mr West
Mr Kinross Mr Zammit
Mr Longley Tellers,
Ms Machin Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

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 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 Tripodi
Mr Knight Mr Watkins
Mr Knowles Mr Whelan
Mr Langton Mr Windsor
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Yeadon
Mr Lynch Tellers,
Dr Macdonald Mr Beckroge
Mr McBride Mr Thompson

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [12.26]: I move:

That this House dissents from the ruling of Mr Speaker given on 15 November 1995 in which he ruled against the Member for Oxley on a point of order in relation to the anticipation rule.

Page 3727

I have been a member of this House for almost 12 years and this is the first time I have moved a motion of dissent from a ruling of the Speaker. I do not do so lightly. On 15 November I took a point of order arising from a question asked by the honourable member for Badgerys Creek of the Minister for the Environment. My point of order was that the Minister had that day introduced the Waste Minimisation and Management Bill into the House and had delivered her second reading speech. Clearly, debate on that bill is therefore currently before the House. I further indicated the Minister was giving information that was already on the record.

I agree with the honourable member for Bligh, who said earlier today that question time was being misused. The ruling in relation to which I have moved dissent is a typical example of what has been happening during question. I agree also with the honourable member for Manly, who said we have to comply strictly with the rules and forms of this House. That is what I was doing on 15 November. Former Speakers have consistently ruled that the purpose of a question without notice is to seek information or to press for action. In this instance the Minister was restating information given earlier in the day and, therefore, was not able to comply with the requirement to provide further information. The question did not press for action, because the House had that day agreed to action being taken.

Although previous Speakers have also ruled that it is in order to seek information for use in the current debate, the broad framing of the question impinged the companion ruling that questions should not canvass debate not concluded. To come within the first of these two rulings, the honourable member should have framed her question in a way that sought information on a specific aspect of the current debate. Because the Minister was asked a general question and she will have an opportunity to speak further in the debate when she addresses the House in reply, the question and the answer clearly infringed the rule of anticipation. The question also infringed the rulings that prohibit questions that seek information set forth in statutes, reports, printed speeches, et cetera.

Clearly the information sought by the honourable member for Badgerys Creek was contained in the bill and in the Minister's second reading speech. The question was general and did not seek specific factual information. It could have been raised by the honourable member in the course of her contribution to the second reading debate and answered by the Minister in her reply. It is important to note that in context it is rare that such a question was asked, it was that context that attracted the rule against anticipation. The Minister for Police, the Leader of the House, responding to my point of order on 15 November correctly stated previous rulings, but he was correct for a different reason. It is important that the rules and forms of this House are upheld and that question time is not abused by questions that are outside the leave of the standing orders.

In an earlier motion for dissent from a ruling of the Speaker the Leader of the House said, "The Speaker is not a policeman, but he is there to protect members' rights." This motion for dissent is about protecting the rights of honourable members of this House. The point of order I took was completely correct. If this motion is not agreed to, the House might as well throw out its standing rules and orders. It is an erosion of the rights of honourable members that questions generally seeking information within the time allowed for each sitting day are asked. It is essential that the record is corrected and that all honourable members have a clear understanding of the rules and of their rights and obligations. The Leader of the House said that he referred Opposition members to rulings of former Speakers. I seek the support of all members and ask that this motion for dissent from the Speaker's ruling be upheld.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [12.31]: What a lame duck excuse for trying to promote a dissent motion against this Speaker.

Mr Jeffery: You know I am right.

Mr WHELAN: I know the honourable member is absolutely wrong. I know that he is absolutely and totally incorrect. Former Speaker Rozzoli, who I know is part of the conspiracy, also knows that the honourable member is wrong. On the day I spoke to the point of order I referred specifically to the ruling of Speaker Rozzoli of 9 September 1993 at page 2976 of Hansard. On that occasion the honourable member for Monaro asked a dorothy dix question of the then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. The then honourable member for Port Stephens took a point of order and said:

The Minister is anticipating debate on a matter in respect of which notice has been given.

Speaker Rozzoli said:

It is obvious that the member for Port Stephens has not read past rulings of Presiding Officers which have allowed questions seeking factual information which may be of use in forthcoming debates. The question and answer are in order.

The honourable member for Oxley has confused the anticipation rule in relation to questions and answers. It has been long acknowledged in this Chamber that the Speaker has no control over the way Ministers answer questions. The honourable member's point of order should have been about the question and not about the answer. On that day the honourable member for Oxley said:

On the point of order: the Waste Minimisation and Management Bill is listed on today's notice paper. The Minister is repeating material that she has raised during her second reading speech . . .questions should not refer to debates in the current session.

Honourable members are encouraged to ask questions for the purpose of eliciting information about matters before the House. The very essence of question time is to ask Ministers about the
Page 3728
conduct of legislation within their portfolios. The question of the honourable member on that day was eliciting information. The honourable member for Oxley is confused about the purpose of the anticipation rule with regard to questions and Ministers' answers. I repeat that the honourable member for Oxley said, "The Minister is repeating material she raised during her second reading speech." That does not offend the rule of anticipation. Mr Speaker, you ruled correctly that there was no point of order and then acknowledged the presence in the Chamber of the honourable member for Hawkesbury. I have referred already to a ruling of former Speaker Rozzoli. The honourable member for Oxley is confused about the anticipation rule and another important issue. The honourable member took a further point of order and said:

What the Leader of the House has said is correct.

Straight after I had taken the point of order and referred to the ruling of former Speaker Rozzoli, the honourable member for Oxley said that I was correct.

Mr Jeffery: Read a bit further.

Mr WHELAN: I am coming to that, and I will be delighted to read it. The honourable member for Oxley said:

However, the fact sheet sent from the office of the Speaker to all members was issued after the date of that ruling.

Of course it was! Speaker Murray was not the Speaker until the House elected him on 2 May. The honourable member for Oxley cannot expect fact sheets issued from the office of the Speaker to have relevancy to the current debate. One has to depend on the facts and circumstances of the individual debate. I draw attention to the caveat on the reverse side of the program of the House, which states:

This is not an official document. The above programme is for general guidance only and the business listed may be varied without notice.

That statement applies to what the honourable member for Oxley says is fiction. That is not the substance of his motion. The dissent motion is not to the effect that the Speaker departed from what is allegedly on his fact sheet.

Mr Jeffery: You're trying to mislead the House.

Mr WHELAN: No, I am not trying to mislead the House. The honourable member for Oxley is trying to waste the time of the House. How can anyone consider voting in support of this motion when the honourable member said in relation to the point of order I raised:

Further to the point of order: what the Leader of the House said is correct.

The case rests. I do not have to say anything more. The honourable member is indicted by his own words. He should just nod in agreement and seek a section 556A recognisance But to get a section 556A one has to be of good behaviour, enter into a recognisance, and find someone who will vouch for you. That may be the difficulty for the honourable member for Oxley, given the way he treats people at National Party branch meetings - just like his predecessor Jimmy Brown did without any difficulty; 600 in a weekend, which is a record.

Mr Jeffery: You should have one at Ashfield.

Mr WHELAN: I had one. My preselection meeting at Ashfield comprised at least a thousand delegates. It was amazing.

Mr Jeffery: And they all voted against you.

Mr WHELAN: I was elected unanimously. I did not notice any dissension at that meeting. We should not be frivolous about such a serious issue - a motion of dissent from a ruling of the Speaker. The honourable member for Oxley is indicted by his own words. He acknowledged former Speaker Rozzoli's ruling and that I was right. The honourable member is confused about the operation of the anticipation rule in relation to questions and answers. The House should vote against the motion.

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [12.40]: I did not intend to speak in debate on any of these motions as I did not think it was either necessary or appropriate. But the nature of this motion is more academic than those of the other dissent motions that have been moved this morning. The anticipation rule has rarely been invoked correctly in this House, but I believe that on this occasion it was invoked correctly by the honourable member for Oxley. Mr Speaker, I submit that the ruling that you made was incorrect. The Leader of the House was incorrect in the point of order that he took. The honourable member for Oxley said, as I remember it, that the Leader of the House had correctly referred to previous rulings. He quoted rulings which, in themselves, were correct, but he did not correctly apply those rulings on that occasion. He condemned himself out of his own mouth by quoting a ruling which states that members may ask questions to elicit information for forthcoming debate.

The difference in this case - and I repeat it happens very rarely - is that this was debate that was current. It is current at this very moment. There is only one exception to this rule, which was covered by the quotation to which the honourable member for Oxley referred, and that is that we should not canvass matters which are the subject of current debate. Clearly, that has been stated in the rulings of former Speakers. This matter was trapped by the currency of debate. The only exception to that is the budget debate. It has been acknowledged by Speakers long before I was Speaker that, in relation to matter of such duration and of such a detailed nature, members should not be allowed to ask questions which elicit facts that can be used in debate. The other matter which I draw to the attention of honourable members - and which I believe traps this situation - is that if the honourable member for Badgerys Creek had asked a question specifically about a particular matter, say, waste management in her own electorate, and the
Page 3729
Minister chose to give a wide ambit answer, the point taken by the Leader of the House would be quite correct. Whether or not the Minister gave a wide ambit answer is irrelevant to the fact that the question was a broad ambit question. It did not seek facts for the purpose of ascertaining information for forthcoming debate but for current debate.

The question that was asked did not seek specific facts; it was a generalised question. In fact, Mr Speaker, you could have ruled that the answer was equivalent to a ministerial statement, so wide was the ambit of the question that was asked. I appreciate that it is probably difficult for honourable members to understand the specificity of this case. I compliment the honourable member for Oxley on taking the point of order in the first place. It shows that he was concentrating on what was happening at the time. I appreciate that it is difficult for honourable members to understand the technicalities but, looking at it from a technical viewpoint, I am sure all honourable members would agree that, on this occasion, a mistake was made. I restate the point was made earlier: if an error is made - and I concede that everyone, including me, makes mistakes from time to time - it should be corrected and the record should show the true position.

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [12.44]: Most of the debate on this matter has been about interpreting and applying the anticipation rule. In my view the Leader of the House tried to distort the position and apply his own interpretation to the matter. The honourable member for Hawkesbury said that the question that was asked sought information that related to a current debate. In fact, the bill had only been read a second time that morning. Debate on the waste minimisation issue was current. I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House, who refers frequently to standing orders in this place, Standing Order 137(4)(a), which states:

Questions should not refer to -

(a) debates in the current session . . .

The question that was asked referred to a debate in the current session. The Leader of the House should apply standing orders to himself in the same way as he tries to apply them to others. The fundamental point that has to be made concerning the anticipation question raised by the honourable member for Oxley is the way in which Ministers treat questions without notice in question time. Many questions do not always anticipate debate but they relate to expressions of policy. As the honourable member for Hawkesbury said, often they are ministerial statements which should be made before or after question time. On many occasions Government members abuse question time by asking questions which are very broad and wide in their ambit to which Ministers respond by making ministerial statements. Page 35 of Decisions from the Chair defines ministerial statements. On a number of occasions Speaker Kelly made this clear ruling:

Statements of public importance which announce and touch on some policy of or proposed action by the Government constitute a ministerial statement.

Time and again issues are raised in question time either because Government members are devoid of questions or because the Government seeks to deny to members the appropriate use of question time by resorting to ministerial statements in the form of responses to questions without notice. The Minister for Sport and Recreation said on Sunday that she intended to make an announcement in Parliament in relation to her portfolio. It will be interesting to see whether she is asked a question relating to that issue and whether she will make an announcement. According to the ruling of Speaker Kelly such a statement would be a ministerial statement. By definition, the matter raised by the honourable member for Oxley, under standing orders and according to rulings of previous Speakers, clearly contravenes the anticipation rule. As the honourable member for Hawkesbury said, it does not happen very often, but it certainly applies in this case.

Mr Whelan: Get up and apologise.

Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [12.48], in reply: The Leader of the House should apologise. If he did, I would accept such an apology.

Mr Gibson: Because you are a fair man?

Mr JEFFERY: I am a fair man and a fair member. I thank the honourable member for Hawkesbury for his contribution. He defined clearly and eloquently the anticipation rule. I thank the honourable member for Davidson and the Leader of the House for their contributions. Although the Leader of the Opposition was wrong, I acknowledge his contribution. However, he tried to put a different twist on this matter. I think all that could have been said has been said by me, the honourable member for Hawkesbury and the honourable member for Davidson. Earlier, the Leader of the House threw in another red herring by referring to the following reference on the Legislative Assembly program:

This is not an official document

The above programme is for general guidance only

And the business list may be varied without notice

I agree. But is the Leader of the Government saying that Standing Order 137(5) refers only to documents that are not official? Is the Leader of the Government saying that we might as well take no notice of the fact sheets that are sent out from the Speaker's office? That is silly! Such documents are for guidance only. Are you saying that no notice should be taken of anything that happens in this House, or of what appears in Hansard? Are you saying that none of it is correct? The Leader of the House has been trying to twist and misconstrue the standing orders. I am very sad to have to move this dissent motion, but I say to every honourable member: if you value the rights of honourable members of this House, you really have no option but to support the motion.

Page 3730

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House 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 Photios
Mr Cochran Mr Richardson
Mr Collins 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 Souris
Mr Hartcher Mr Tink
Mr Hazzard Mr Turner
Mr Humpherson Mr West
Dr Kernohan Mr Windsor
Mr Kinross Mr Zammit
Mr Longley
Ms Machin Tellers,
Mr Merton Mr Jeffery
Ms Moore Mr Kerr

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 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 Tripodi
Mr Knight Mr Watkins
Mr Knowles Mr Whelan
Mr Langton Mr Yeadon
Mrs Lo Po'
Mr Lynch Tellers,
Dr Macdonald Mr Beckroge
Mr McBride Mr Thompson

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

[Mr Speaker left the chair at 12.56 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

Mr CARR (Maroubra - Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs) [2.15]: On 3 November 1993 school teacher Mr Craig Jephcott was fatally stabbed at Coogee beach. He was supervising a school excursion at the beach when an incident between some students and a fisherman occurred. In the struggle that ensued between Mr Jephcott and the fisherman, Mr Graeme MacDonald, the young schoolteacher was fatally stabbed. At the first trial of this matter the jury was unable to reach a verdict in relation to murder charges against Mr MacDonald. On 13 November 1995 Mr MacDonald was arraigned on a charge of murder, and pleaded not guilty. On 14 November Mr MacDonald pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Mr Craig Jephcott, and the Crown accepted the plea in full satisfaction of the indictment against Mr MacDonald.

On 17 November His Honour Mr Justice Abadee deferred passing sentence on Mr MacDonald pursuant to section 558 of the Crimes Act 1900. Mr MacDonald was placed on a $5,000 five-year good behaviour bond. This sentence outraged the family and friends of Mr Craig Jephcott, and I raised the matter with the Attorney General. On Saturday the Attorney General announced he would request the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider an appeal. I can inform the House that the Director of Public Prosecutions has today confirmed that he will appeal the sentence. I have had several telephone conversations in the past two days with Mrs Margaret Jephcott, the mother of the young school teacher. I have today conveyed the Director of Public Prosecutions's decision to her.


Petition praying that the National Parks and Wildlife Act not be amended, and that any attempt to ban open season and the sport of hunting game birds for recreational and environmental purposes be opposed, received from Mr Windsor.

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 Fraser, Mr D. L. Page and Mr Rixon.


Mr THOMPSON (Rockdale) [2.22]: I move:

That General Business Notices of Motion (General Notices) No. 16 be reordered to take precedence on Thursday, 23 November 1995.

Page 3731

This motion should take priority tomorrow so that the family of the late Paul Cooper is more quickly relieved of the anguish and suffering they have endured since his tragic death some eight years ago. This is the first real opportunity I have had to pursue this matter in the House. The anguish I refer to has been intensified since the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service commenced public hearings, with the attendant daily media focus on instances of corruption. Mrs Cooper, the mother of the deceased, is not in good health and further delay in clearing the air in relation to this matter may well have a further adverse effect on her. In the eyes of the Cooper family this case has never been closed. Vital evidence has not been considered. They want Dr Clark's evidence on the record, to be considered and weighed up in proper fashion by an appropriate arbitrator or judicial officer. Mrs Cooper and her family want to finally close the book on this tragic episode. They deserve to have this motion given precedence so that their anguish is not prolonged and justice is done without further delay.

Motion agreed to.



Mr COLLINS: My question is directed to the Premier. Does he agree with professional assessments that the showground film studio complex is worth $5 million in rent per year after zoning changes and the $32 million clean-up to be funded by taxpayers? Will he now release the BZW rental assessment to justify his showground rent give-away of $150 million?

Mr CARR: The showground would have been worth more in rent if the previous Government's plans for high-rise housing on the site had proceeded or if the ideas of valuers quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald were adopted.

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

Mr CARR: There is no doubt that if the site were used, as one valuer said, for a huge regional shopping centre, the Government would get a higher rent. There is no doubt that if the National Party was called in - it had a brainstorming session - and if the site were promoted for a slaughterhouse, a space port, or a vast tourist resort, as the coalition Government was promoting for the coast of New South Wales, we could have got a higher rent.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Upper Hunter to order. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order.

Mr CARR: We have expressly ruled out a theme park or a supermarket for the site.

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

Mr CARR: While the Liberal Party weeps into its gins, lamenting that there will not be high-rise housing adjacent to Centennial Park, we have secured for Sydney the largest film and television production centre in the English-speaking world outside Hollywood.

Mr Collins: It's a lie.

Mr CARR: The honourable member said "It's a lie". Last week he tried to claim credit for it.

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

Mr CARR: The week before he was in tears as he rang the editor of the Daily Telegraph Mirror and said, "Please print an article on the feature page giving me credit for thinking up this idea first." That is what he said. He has had a lot of different positions on the showground.

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

Mr CARR: In the Sydney Morning Herald today valuers advanced the theory, no doubt correct, that a regional shopping centre on the site or a major commercial development or intensive residential development would secure a greater rent.

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

Mr CARR: We took a different position.

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

Mr CARR: Our position was to win a major slice of the world's filmmaking industry in Sydney and Australia with immense economic benefits: to create jobs for young Australians, and to find a suitable use for an extremely important site and retain its essential heritage open space and public use characteristics. The showground should become the site for major filmmaking, and that is the decision we reached.

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

Mr CARR: The showground rental and other aspects of the agreement are a negotiated outcome with these fundamental objectives in mind.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection from members on both sides of the House. I am sure the school children who are visiting the Parliament today from Woolgoolga and Sandy Beach are disappointed with the behaviour of members in the Chamber. Members should refrain from interjecting.

Mr CARR: Under this proposal we will not only gain the social, cultural and economic benefits of being a major player in the world film industry,
Page 3732
we will also for the first time receive a financial return from the showground of at least $2 million a year or 5 per cent of the gross trade of public revenue from the entertainment facilities. At present there is no rental return. Under this proposal, while getting all the economic benefits for the State of the biggest filmmaking facility in the English-speaking world outside the United States, and in addition to the 6,000 jobs identified in the Kinhill report produced for the previous Government, for the first time we will get a rental on the site. Moreover, as the Treasurer has repeatedly identified, this is the least-cost alternative to the taxpayers. More money would be spent by the Government on the site if it were being set up for parkland. More money would be spent by the Government on the site than what we are spending on remediation if we were keeping the Royal Agricultural Society at the showground. If we were keeping the Royal Agricultural Society there, we would be required to spend at least $100 million on the site, according to assessments publicly available. So we get a huge economic advantage, a new investment and job base for this State - one that without our efforts would have gone to Queensland or to Victoria.

Mr Collins: On a point of order: for the second day running I asked the Premier to release the BZW report. That was the question; nowhere has the Premier addressed that. He will not release the report.

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


Mr McMANUS: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Police. Is he aware of Opposition allegations that the Task Force Roderick report recommended the removal of a person involved in administration of the harness racing industry? Will he release the report?

Mr WHELAN: Task Force Roderick was established as a result of allegations of race rigging in the harness racing industry.

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

Mr WHELAN: Those allegations were made to the office of the former Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing - the honourable member for Sutherland - in September 1993. That means that the allegations were known to the member back in 1993. The allegations were subsequently passed to the Commissioner of Police, and Task Force Roderick was formed in July 1994. The report was completed in February this year, six weeks prior to the last election. It raises the question of why the former Minister, the member for Sutherland, did not act on those allegations or associated issues related to harness racing until last week when he raised them in the House. Moreover, it raises the question of why he chose to identify a prominent figure in harness racing and allege that Task Force Roderick had recommended the sacking of that person, when the allegation is completely untrue. If there is a scandal, it is in the way the Opposition has handled the matter. It says more about the Opposition's failure and desperation than any other issue.

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

Mr WHELAN: Stung by criticism, the honourable member for Sutherland seeks to shore up his position by identifying members of the public and making unsubstantiated claims about them. The only explanation is that he has followed the example of his leader.

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

Mr WHELAN: Hot on the heels of his leader, with a denunciation of KPMG and his leader's unprecedented attack on a government staffer, the member for Sutherland has used parliamentary privilege in the most inappropriate manner, as his leader has done in the past. Neither of them was prepared to make those allegations outside.

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order: it is a well-established rule of this House - I cannot recall the exact Standing Order - that an attack on a member must be by way of a substantive motion. The Minister for Police is using this question as an opportunity to launch an attack on the honourable member for Sutherland. I therefore ask you, Mr Speaker, to rule, consistent with the standing orders, that the Minister must desist; and, if he wishes to continue in that vein, that he must move a substantive motion.

Mr WHELAN: I was making passing reference. I understand why the honourable member is so sensitive on the issue.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has assured the House that he was making only a passing reference. He will now return to the subject matter of his answer.

Mr WHELAN: The honourable member is too sensitive. Even his mate Joe reckons that he is a dud. Joe reckoned that he was the third head to go. The Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Sutherland have made the outrageous allegations I have referred to, and neither of them have had the courage of their convictions to repeat the allegations outside the House. This whole of this exercise has been mischievous.

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

Mr WHELAN: There is no substance at all from any honourable member opposite.

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

Page 3733

Mr WHELAN: The Opposition and its leader are playing a dangerous game. In relation to persons identified in the report and comments I made in the House yesterday, I make the following point. The allegations made to the honourable member for Sutherland and to Task Force Roderick were serious but were later found by police to be unsubstantiated. I quote from page 24 of the report:

It might be noted that no arrests, charges or prosecutions have been preferred or recommended by members of this task force.

It was the strong opinion of the police, backed by legal advice, that the report should not be released publicly. I am mindful that it would set an undesirable precedent if the Government indicated its preparedness to identify a lot of the information, including police informants. For those reasons I have asked the Commissioner for Police to read the report with a view to deleting names and any confidential or sensitive police operation material. Subject to the Commissioner's advice, I intend to release the report either later today or tomorrow. I repeat that the report states on page 24:

It must be noted that no arrests, charges or prosecutions have been preferred or recommended by members of this task force.

I am advised that the report's recommendations did not single out any individual for disciplinary action or prosecution. However, the report made a number of recommendations relating to the administration of harness racing. These recommendations were passed to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, which is currently working with the Harness Racing Authority and the Department of Racing to reform the industry. Given the ICAC's involvement in this steering committee, do the honourable member for Sutherland and the Opposition, and particularly that genius in the other place, the Hon. Richard Bull, suggest that the ICAC is not independent? Are they suggesting the Independent Commission Against Corruption is somehow compromised by being part of the harness racing steering committee? Any sensible person should await the deliberations of the ICAC on these matters to avoid any unnecessary duplication by a parallel independent inquiry.

The suggestion that this Government does not take the administration of any form of racing seriously is quite unfounded, given its swift response to the jockey tapes affair. When this matter came to the Government's attention it was immediately referred to the State Crime Commission for investigation. Following its report the Government appointed Mr Temby to investigate measures to fight corruption in the racing industry. The Commissioner for Police has been asked to examine the Temby report with a view to implementing its recommendations in relation to the policing of illegal activities in the racing industry.

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

Mr WHELAN: I repeat that subject to the Commissioner's advice I intend to release the report either later today or tomorrow.

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


Mr DOWNY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Gaming and Racing. Did the honourable member's Federal ALP colleague Mr Peter Cleeland, Chairman of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority this morning advised punters "not to have a dollar on a harness horse"? Will you now acknowledge the state of crisis in the New South Wales harness racing industry and appoint an independent inquiry?

Mr FACE: We will accept the plea of guilty with an explanation.

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

Mr FACE: What has been said about you here today clearly -

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

Mr FACE: What you tried to do regarding the Harness Racing Authority in New South Wales -

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

Mr FACE: The fact is that you will stand condemned, I warned you yesterday.

Mr Photios: On a point of order: the Minister is not only seeking to incite members of the Opposition by directing questions to them, he is directly warning a member by pointing at him. The Minister should direct his questions through the Speaker.

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

Mr Hazzard: On a point of order -

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will address his point of order through the Chair and disregard members' interjections. I call the honourable member for Lane Cove to order for the second time.

Mr Hazzard: The point that you just made to me, Mr Speaker, was that I must address my comments through the Chair. That was the point that I was going to take under the standing orders. The honourable Minister is dragging this House into disrepute by addressing highly emotive comments directly to the shadow minister. I ask you to direct him to address his comments through the Chair.

Page 3734

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst has correctly interpreted the standing orders. I suggest that the honourable member for Sutherland, who asked the question, cease interjecting and diverting the Minister's attention from the Chair.

Mr FACE: I repeat that the honourable member for Sutherland will stand condemned forever, because he was warned yesterday about the dangerous path he was going down. The answer to his question about an inquiry is, no. You take a long time to learn. I told you yesterday that various activities were taking place.

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

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order: the Minister is not complying with your ruling. Once again he is addressing the honourable member for Sutherland -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will make a decision on that.

Mr FACE: I have already indicated to the House that the Harness Racing Authority is conducting inquiries. A further matter has developed today, which is in stark contrast to the actions of the former Government, having in mind that this matter dragged on for a lengthy period of time. The Harness Racing Authority today announced it has opened a further inquiry into the running of race 4, the Australia Post Superfecta Pace at Harold Park on Tuesday 14 November.

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

Mr FACE: I do not propose to say anything further than that because I might go into the reason for the inquiry. The inquiry is vital. It has no connection with what the detractors in the Opposition, including the honourable member for Sutherland and his informers, have been raising in the past few days, because it is a separate incident altogether. It indicates that the Department of Racing and the Harness Racing Authority are being proactive and are taking action, unlike the situation when the Opposition was in government. What Mr Cleeland said in Federal Parliament is true. I understand that he has called for some sort of inquiry into greyhounds in Victoria and harness racing in New South Wales. If Mr Cleeland wants to bring the National Crime Authority into this State, he is at liberty to do so. However, I will not have the industry destabilised in the way it is now being destabilised by various people who are trying to gnaw away at it in the same way as the honourable member for Sutherland.

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

Mr FACE: That will not deter the Harness Racing Authority, which has already initiated an inquiry. If there is any wrongdoing, that will be dealt with. As I have indicated on many occasions in the House, any matters of a criminal nature will be referred to the police.


Mr RUMBLE: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. What is the Government's success rate in attracting investment and jobs in New South Wales?

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order, especially the honourable member for Port Macquarie. Such a response by members to a question is unacceptable.

Mr CARR: I can understand the response. The only response the honourable member for Port Macquarie got for her electorate was the private sector buying out a public hospital. I have got news for you! We have substantial new investments that this Government's policies have secured for the people of this State. Investments mean job growth. It means jobs for the young people in our schools and colleges, who are the focus of the Government's State economic development policies. In total the investments secured by the Government will result in 4,000 quality direct jobs for young Australians.

That is a conservative figure and does not include the thousands of jobs that will be created by the Government's recent tourism initiatives in Japan and Korea. This afternoon I will officially open the $40 million Siemens Nixdorf centre of excellence for financial institutions. That company chose Sydney over Brisbane and Melbourne - like State Street, American Express, Foxtel and Fox studios - because it has the better investment climate and we are securing the jobs. Sydney is already the centre of information technology for telecommunications, the focal point of entertainment, of movie making and pay television, the financial capital and the key tourist drawcard of this country.

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

Mr CARR: The Siemens Nixdorf centre, which is based at St Leonards, will initially generate 40 jobs for young Australians, and a further 170 over the next five years. Within a fortnight the Treasurer will make a major announcement involving the rejuvenation of the industrial area near the Homebush Bay site. At this stage I can only reveal that a major Australian company is involved, which will invest more than $100 million in the economy of New South Wales.

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

Page 3735

Mr CARR: This will create 200 jobs in Sydney's west. While I am on this subject let me outline the Government's other success in attracting investment and jobs.

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

Mr CARR: Isn't he objectionable? How did he escape the fine Italian hand of the honourable member for Wagga Wagga when he was listing those for demotion? He is smiling. He is secure because he is the very model of a contemporary New South Wales Liberal. The others are at risk. Can you imagine the battle to get on the Joe Schipp ticket for the front bench? If ever a front bench needed rejuvenation, it is the one opposite. It has a few extinct craters from the last Government.

Mrs Skinner: They don't even laugh at your jokes. You're pathetic.

Mr CARR: Joe Schipp says you walk in here every day to get slaughtered; for you this is another day in the slaughter house. The Government is concerned with a positive story, one of job growth, quality investment and jobs for young people in this State. American Express was looking for a new base for its regional headquarters. Brisbane offered money, Melbourne offered incentives, but Sydney was chosen because of its business climate. This Government secured American Express. The coalition had nothing to do with it.

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

Mr CARR: State Street from Boston has established its first overseas headquarters and opted to come to Sydney because of its business climate.

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

Mr CARR: State Street brought $200 million and 300 jobs to Sydney rather than anywhere else in the Pacific Basin.

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

Mr CARR: Foxtel's head office and main operation centre is coming to Sydney because it offers the better business climate. When the coalition was in office Foxtel was on the point of going to Brisbane. In the first weeks Labor was in office it secured Foxtel, thereby also securing the three cable television companies to establish headquarters in Sydney. That is another big win for the Government.

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

Mr CARR: Once fully operational, the Fox studios development, according to the Kinhill report produced for the previous Government, will generate 6,000 jobs. When the AT&T Pacific rim care centre is fully operational it expects to have approximately 200 employees.

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

Mr CARR: AT&T could have established the centre elsewhere in the Pacific Basin. It could have gone to Brisbane or Melbourne, which were both offering money.

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

Mr CARR: The Government secured that centre for Sydney. That is another example of the Department of State Development working closely with an international organisation to select Sydney as its business location. Bankers Trust decided to set up its custody banking operation in Sydney. That will generate 300 jobs and a $19 million investment. Let every young person emerging from vocational training or universities understand clearly that this Government is securing quality investments that will give them quality jobs they need and deserve.

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


Mr SCHULTZ: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Gaming and Racing. Did the Minister say yesterday that he had made immediate inquiries into the status of Operation Roderick on becoming Minister? Given the comments by the Minister for Police that lives will be placed at risk as a result of this report into the harness racing industry, why has the Minister for Gaming and Racing failed to take any action in the seven months he has been Minister?

Mr FACE: This is another Dorothy Dixer. I answered this question yesterday. I will send the honourable member a copy of it. He should ask the Minister for Police. The honourable member takes a long time to learn. I instituted an inquiry about it, but the report was not available to me and I was not entitled to it. How many more times do I have to tell the honourable member? I have not been sitting on it for seven months at all.


Mr TRIPODI: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing. What action has the Minister taken to fulfil the Government's commitment to restructure Landcom?

Mr KNOWLES: The Government has decided to restructure the role of Landcom as part of its fight against urban sprawl. The new approach has three key elements. First, the Government will embark on the strategic and managed sale of Landcom's land bank. Landcom controls a residential land bank comprising an area of 4,500
Page 3736
hectares, or approximately 52,000 equivalent lots, of which more than 20,000 are currently zoned residential. This sale will proceed on a wholesaling basis with multiple blocks grouped and placed on the market together. This process will be carefully managed to maximise the Government's returns and to ensure the release is carefully timed to reduce any undue influence or market impact. The new policy will benefit home buyers by offering a greater choice of land for housing as well as allowing for the much needed shift in Sydney development patterns from urban sprawl to restocking inner and middle ring suburbs.

I am pleased to announce that the first public tenders for the wholesaling of land will be called this month. That call for tenders will involve 17 sites. The parcels are located in the Sydney metropolitan, central coast, Hunter, Camden and Illawarra regions. It is estimated that the parcels offered for tender will yield some 2,000 home sites. Those sites have been carefully chosen to ensure suitability for wholesaling. Locations include Castle Hill, Stanhope Park, Cecil Hills, Casula, Hoxton Park, St Clair, Cromer, Buff Point, Kariong, Mardi, Maryland, Narara, Narellan Vale, Mount Annan and West Dapto. The land parcels fall within three size ranges, giving small and large organisations the opportunity to submit expressions of interest. If all sites are sold, Landcom should generate revenue of between $60 million and $80 million.

This wholesaling approach will give the private sector new opportunities to become involved in urban development and further stimulate this important sector of the State's economy. The second and important key element of Landcom's new role will see the organisation promote urban renewal projects in the inner and middle ring suburbs of Sydney. One of the difficulties with land in these suburbs is the fragmentation of land-holdings. Landcom will either amalgamate these fragmented parcels of land to bring them into a state ready for production or will enter into joint venture arrangements with the private sector. Landcom will aim to achieve better urban design results through implementing regional plans prepared by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning in cooperation with local government.

The first step in this approach will see $12 million redirected to sites in the inner and middle ring areas of Sydney which are suitable for medium density housing. Landcom clearly has the skills and expertise in land development to move easily into its new role in the inner city and surrounding suburbs. This move will complement the wholesaling of land and the move away from development in greenfield locations, moving away from urban sprawl, consolidating Sydney's growth and better utilising existing infrastructure. A review of Landcom's land bank is also occurring to identify further land parcels for inclusion in an on-going wholesaling program. In addition, Landcom is presently compiling a register of sites suitable for urban renewal. These include difficult sites or urban voids where infrastructure has been provided but development has not proceeded.

The Government's intends that Landcom should bring these areas into production. Clearly, this is good news for home buyers in New South Wales. Degraded areas close to the city will be given a new lease of life with new residential populations. It will also alleviate the sprawl on Sydney's urban fringe and help to reduce pressure on existing infrastructure and services. This program is an important part of the Government's urban renewal reforms, an important reform of a government trading enterprise, and another example of how this Government is delivering better results for the people of New South Wales in urban reform and home ownership.


Mr HARTCHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. Has Peter O'Farrell from Gosford been asked to transfer to a Sydney hospital for elective surgery despite the fact that this would result in daily travel on public transport for post-operative physiotherapy? When his mother refused on the advice of his doctor was he placed in category four and therefore removed from the waiting list?

Dr REFSHAUGE: It is not surprising that the honourable member for Wagga Wagga had a hit list of dopey people who should be removed from the Opposition front bench. Once again he has shown that not only could he not run his own portfolio, but when he walks into some other area he also gets it hopelessly wrong. It is absolutely imperative that the honourable member for Wagga Wagga and other Opposition backbenchers tell the Leader of the Opposition, "You have got to improve this lot on the front bench." It is important for democracy to have a solid opposition. We do not have that. Members of the Opposition regularly get the waiting lists wrong. Later, when we have a debate on suppressed memory syndrome, the honourable member for Gosford could try to remember how waiting lists were compiled by the former Government to ensure that they were accurate. The Government is compiling waiting lists in exactly the same way as the former Government compiled them. There has been no change.

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

Mr Hartcher: He was on the list and you took him off.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member for Gosford that he asked the question and that he was on two calls to order. I now place him on three calls to order. If he wishes to hear the answer, he should listen in silence.

Page 3737

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Opposition referred to an orthopaedic surgeon in the Riverina who was asked whether his patients were seeing another doctor.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: If patients decided that they did not want to see another doctor they would be classified category four: not ready for care at the moment.

Mr Phillips: On a point of order: the question that the honourable member for Gosford asked was quite clear. Why did the Minister take a Gosford patient off the waiting list? The question had nothing to do with the Riverina.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: It is not surprising that Opposition members do not like this; the answer is quite interesting. The Riverina doctor to whom the Opposition referred was certainly contacted by the Riverina District Health Service.

Mrs Skinner: You took 150 patients off his list.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: The honourable member for North Shore said that 150 patients had been taken off that doctor's list.

Mr Hartcher: What is the figure?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I think it is around that number. I do not have the exact figure. Who was the Minister when that doctor was contacted in December 1994? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition! This was the policy of the former Government. The former Government went around asking doctors, "Can we contact your patients and ask them whether they want to see another doctor?" The former Government's policy was the same as this Government's policy. This Government followed the policy of the former Government. Peter O'Farrell, a young man on the central coast who has an intellectual disability and needs an Achilles tendon repair, was contacted and told that because of the classification that his orthopaedic surgeon had given him, and because of the long waiting list his doctor had, he would not be able to get into hospital for about 12 months. He was asked whether he wanted to go to Sydney to see another doctor.

The patient consulted with the doctor and said no. What did we do? Nothing. He is still in the same category. He is not a category four patient. He is in the same category as his doctor insisted he would be at the time he was put on the waiting list in August. He was classified then as a category three patient, and he is a category three patient now. If he wants to see another orthopaedic surgeon on the central coast that option is available to him. Another orthopaedic surgeon with a shorter waiting list would be able to treat him within one to two months. The honourable member for Gosford had the temerity to bring this poor young lad from the central coast to Sydney for a press conference. He cannot cope with coming to Sydney for an operation but he can cope with coming to Sydney for a press conference. It is fair to expect him to have his operation in Sydney and to undergo physiotherapy on the central coast. The honourable member for Gosford says he cannot come to Sydney to have his operation, but he dragged the young boy to Sydney for a press conference. The honourable member or Gosford lied when he said he was no longer a category three patient but a category four patient. On his doctor's admission he is a category three patient; he is category three now. If he is prepared to let another orthopaedic surgeon on the central coast perform his operation, he will be able to be treated within one to three months.


Mr ANDERSON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. Have agribusiness groups shown an interest in cooperating with New South Wales Agriculture to provide information and extension services to agricultural industries in New South Wales?

Mr AMERY: Last night the Leader of the National Party raised the issue of private involvement in agricultural extension services. Obviously, the honourable member for St Marys heard his speech, as I cannot imagine that he would have got his question from anything else. It is timely for us to address private involvement in advisory services, get it out in the open and take the politics out of it. The debate has been going on for some years. The other side of politics has been a little shy about recognising this issue, but it is now being used as a political football in country New South Wales.

Most agribusiness groups recognise the value of employing well-trained specialist staff. In most cases those staff members have been trained in the public sector. I intend to have my department commence constructive negotiations with a range of agribusiness groups to develop a cooperative relationship to provide top-class advisory services to rural industries. Yesterday, meetings took place at Gunnedah and Armidale - today meetings will take place at Griffith - between New South Wales Agriculture and Wesfarmers Dalgety to plan three pilot programs to undertake joint delivery of selected advisory services to primary producers. Wesfarmers Dalgety requested New South Wales Agriculture to join it in designing appropriate pilot programs to provide these services to existing and potential clients in the districts where pilot programs will be established.

Page 3738

The company will pay full commercial rates for the input by departmental agronomists. It is envisaged that each agronomist will provide eight to 10 days of service each year to Wesfarmers Dalgety clients. New South Wales Agriculture staff will provide, and will continue to provide, unbiased technical advice and information to the whole farm community. They will not be involved in promoting any of Wesfarmers Dalgety specific products or services. There is no exclusive agreement between Wesfarmers Dalgety and New South Wales Agriculture. Ongoing discussions have taken place with all key agribusiness companies involved in reselling agricultural input over the last two years to ascertain how we can better cooperate to deliver services to farmers. All discussions have been at the instigation of the private companies concerned.

I invite all agribusiness companies to adopt similar pilot programs in cooperation with New South Wales Agriculture so that we can evaluate this method of providing relevant and up-to-date information to farmers and to the agricultural industry. Dr Nigel Monteith, President of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Scientists, responded last week to news of these meetings between Wesfarmers and New South Wales Agriculture in a very positive and supportive manner. I reiterate that the primary aim of the pilot program is to develop the most effective way of delivering technical information to primary producers without duplicating services by New South Wales Agriculture and the private sector. In summary, the preferred future option of New South Wales Agriculture is to work hand in hand with the private rural service industry. This will result in an improved service to farmers as we combine the expertise of the private sector with New South Wales Agriculture.

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

Mr AMERY: In the process, New South Wales Agriculture will be providing specialist technical expertise to the private sector at full commercial rates.

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

Mr AMERY: The pilot program is the culmination of two years of consultation. It is not something new. Agribusiness currently provides advisory services on a broad scale across the State. For example, with regard to rural advisory services, in the Moree area New South Wales Agriculture has only one adviser, the private sector has 26 agronomists. There were 55 in the boom times, before the drought, including 10 advisory staff with resellers, two of whom are former New South Wales Agriculture personnel, nine cotton agronomists and eight corporate agronomists. In the southern cropping area, from Cowra to Wagga Wagga, the SBS-IAMA group has 17 agronomists and New South Wales Agriculture has only seven.

Tamworth has 12 private agronomists, eight of whom are engaged by Agribusiness. There is one independent agronomist, and New South Wales Agriculture has only one. Griffith has nine agronomists, eight engaged by private Agribusiness, and one independent. New South Wales Agriculture has one. The cotton industry is serviced by 52 consultants, 60 resellers and corporate agronomists - all on a part-time basis. New South Wales Agriculture has 2.6 positions devoted to cotton extension work and 3.8 industry-funded positions. All of the above private agronomists rely heavily on departmental advice.

The boosting of rural research facilities into the 14 key centres concept provides opportunities for my department to forge closer links with agribusiness and to allocate specific expert advisers to each regional key centre to continually upgrade the business and technical skills of all advisers, both departmental and private. These options hold great promise for the future of our department and rural services, and clearly spell out that the process of private involvement in agriculture extension services is the culmination of two years work, which was commenced by the previous Government. It is not to the credit of the Leader of the National Party that he has tried to make a political football out of this issue.


Mr WINDSOR: My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. If the research staff he proposes to move from Rydalmere Biological and Chemical Research Institute to other country research stations do not accept those transfers, will he guarantee that the positions will be filled in country research stations, and not made redundant?

Mr AMERY: The theme behind the decentralisation of Rydalmere is clear and I have made it clear to the House on many occasions, last night being the last occasion. I will come to the guarantee shortly. The rationale for the decentralisation of Rydalmere is to get essential services to the locations where the business is. The question asked what will happen -

[Interruption]

We should leave the honourable member for Wagga Wagga out of this. He is in enough trouble. As a matter of fact, I think the honourable member for Wagga Wagga has been very unfair in his criticism of the Leader of the Opposition. One only has to look at the face of the Leader of the Opposition to see just how unfair he is. There he was last week in the House cutting and thrusting. All the Ministers were nervous; we could not answer questions. The Premier could not respond to his questions. The backbench was up in arms and waving bits of paper around. Then the alarm went and he got up to go to work.

Page 3739

On the weekend I read an article that reported the honourable member for Wagga Wagga as saying, "We are getting slaughtered in the bearpit every day." When I read it I thought it may have been an animal welfare issue concerning my portfolio, but I realised it was a reference to the performance of the Opposition. I repeat: leave the honourable member for Wagga Wagga out of this; he is in enough trouble. I give the honourable member a guarantee that no services to the farming community will be lost as a result of the decentralisation of Rydalmere or the closure of any veterinary laboratories. The issue he raised is what will happen to the individuals concerned. Of greatest concern, of course, is that some employees cannot move - as happened when the former Minister for Agriculture decentralised the Department of Agriculture to Orange. In that move quite a few staff members could not go, because their partners were involved with careers in Sydney. It is logical that some people, either at Rydalmere or for example in the Rural Assistance Authority, will not be able to leave Sydney.

When the Department of Agriculture decentralised to Orange, a recruitment campaign was conducted and the numbers improved, nearly matching what they were in Sydney. I cannot say what will happen to every Mr and Mrs Smith involved in the decentralisation. But I can give the honourable member for Tamworth an assurance that the services now provided by Rydalmere will be maintained by New South Wales Agriculture. The honourable member for Tamworth will be the beneficiary of the decentralisation of Rydalmere and he will get the services we have promised for his region. Whether the people of Rydalmere will follow that service to Tamworth I do not know, but we will make sure that the service is maintained by recruiting other staff if necessary. That is the best assurance I can give. It will be similar to the move of New South Wales Agriculture to Orange.

Mr O'Doherty: What about the research project?

Mr AMERY: Is the honourable member interjecting, or has he got a catapult? One has to be careful of people with slingshots! We talk in fuzzy, warm terms about decentralisation, but it is difficult to implement. What we do with employees is a difficult question. My department is doing all it can to address those human problems.


Mr MOSS: My question is directed to the Minister for Local Government. Will the Government legislate to force cat owners to register and desex their pets?

Mr E. T. PAGE: This is certainly a timely question. On Monday, at the local government conference, I announced that I am developing a companion animals bill, which I expect to have before the House for consideration in 12 months.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a response to the last question to be asked in question time today. I suggest that members listen to it in silence. I call the honourable member for Baulkham Hills to order.

Mr E. T. PAGE: I expect to have the legislation before the House for consideration in 12 months.

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

Mr E. T. PAGE: The legislation will have two main purposes: first, to protect the welfare of animals; and, second, to protect the community from the actions of irresponsible owners. The question of the honourable member referred to what regulations will apply to the ownership of cats. The options referred to in the question of the honourable member will be considered. However, I would like to emphasise that before any legislation is drafted all aspects of the proposals will be canvassed amongst industry groups and the community. At present there are no requirements in New South Wales for owners to register their cats.

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

Mr E. T. PAGE: There is a requirement to have dogs registered. It is cheaper to register a desexed dog than it is to register a non-desexed dog. If animals are not wearing any identification and they become lost, the chances of their being returned to their owners are very slim. In the 12 months to 30 June this year a total of 17,000 cats were in Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals shelters throughout New South Wales, and only 110 were reclaimed by their owners. More than 13,000 cats were euthanised by the RSPCA over that 12-month period.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member for Ermington and a number of his colleagues on the Opposition frontbench that they are on three calls to order and fortunate not to be placed on four calls to order.

Mr E. T. PAGE: Animal lovers will be appalled by the attitude of Opposition members on this issue. Registration and identification of cats by microchip will be considered so that lost cats can be readily identified. Of the 43,000 animals of all types received by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals over the last financial year, 95 per cent were not wearing any identification. Animal identification is important for the welfare of the animals, the community and the environment in which we live. Such identification will be one of the aims of the legislation. We are also looking at tightening up regulations on vicious dogs. Dog attacks are a continuing problem. Most dog attacks occur against small children, who given their relative height are invariably attacked around
Page 3740
the face. The honourable member for Ermington thinks this is a joke and is laughing about what I am saying about children being attacked by dogs. A little seriousness on his part will make him a better member of Parliament, and he would better represent his constituents. Vicious dogs and dog attacks might be a joke to the Opposition, but they are not a joke to the rest of the community. I hope when this matter comes before the Parliament in 12 months' time that the galahs opposite will be more responsible and pay attention to the issue; they might even be included in the legislation as companion animals, although I would not like to keep company with any of them.

Questions without notice concluded.


Mr ARMSTRONG: I wish to make a personal explanation.

Leave granted.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Small Business and Regional Development will remain silent.

Mr ARMSTRONG: Earlier today the Premier's response to a question about State development indicated that the companies Amex, Foxtel, Fox, AT&T and BT Australia were drawn into New South Wales as a result of his Government's work. All of those projects were commenced by the previous coalition Government.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection. I must be able to hear the honourable member to enable me to make a decision on the matter.

Mr ARMSTRONG: I bet Government members do not want to hear, either.

Ms Allan: We don't want to hear because it is not a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the National Party will make his personal explanation.

Mr ARMSTRONG: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your ruling on propriety. The Premier today indicated that the companies Amex, Foxtel, Fox, AT&T and BT Australia were all drawn into Australia as a result of the Government's work since March this year.

Mr Scully: On a point of order: this is a disgraceful misuse of standing orders, which were never designed for this purpose. The Leader of the National Party should be asked to desist.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the National Party is about to tell me why he is seeking to make a personal explanation. He should do that immediately.

Mr Whelan: On a point of order: I wish to remind the Leader of the National Party that he is strictly confined to explaining how his reputation has been affected. He should not embark on the detail of what the Premier said.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is the substance of the ruling I made yesterday.

Mr ARMSTRONG: I concur entirely with the proposition of the Leader of the House. However, my shadow responsibility is state development. Today the Premier misled the House when he indicated that Amex, Foxtel, Fox, AT&T and BT Australia -

Mr Whelan: On a point of order: the Leader of the National Party has said that the Premier misled the House. If he continues in that vein, he should be asked to move a substantive motion for consideration of the House. A personal explanation procedure provides members with an opportunity to explain how their reputations have been affected.

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

Mr ARMSTRONG: This Parliament has been misled this afternoon. It is my responsibility as the Opposition shadow minister to indicate that the record -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the National Party has only one option left: to explain to the House, and to the Chair in particular, how he has been maligned. If he continues on the tangent he has been following, I will sit him down immediately.

Mr ARMSTRONG: My point has been made. It has now been recorded in Hansard that the Premier lied to the House this afternoon.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the National Party will resume his seat.


Mr DOWNY: I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before the honourable member for Sutherland commences his explanation, I trust that he has heeded the ruling I just gave in relation to personal explanations and that taken by the Leader of the National Party.

Mr DOWNY: Certainly, Mr Speaker. Earlier today the Minister for Police claimed that I had seen the report of Task Force Roderick. I want to explain to the House that that is not true.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The purpose of a personal explanation is to enable a member to explain not that what someone said was wrong but how his or her character has been maligned.

Page 3741

Mr DOWNY: My character has been maligned because the Minister claimed here today that I had seen the report on Task Force Roderick. That is not true. When allegations were brought to the attention of my office about malpractice in harness racing, I acted immediately and had those allegations investigated.

Mr Whelan: On a point of order -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Sutherland has completed his personal explanation.


Mr Speaker announced, pursuant to section 30 of the Ombudsman Act 1974, receipt of the annual report of the Ombudsman for the year ended 30 June 1995.

Ordered to be printed.


Mr KNIGHT (Campbelltown - Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads) [3.29]: This motion is urgent because, for narrow political reasons, the Federal Leader of the Opposition John Howard is holding to ransom investment in this State. By his actions last night John Howard is not only threatening investment in this State but is also threatening tourism potential, economic growth and jobs for western Sydney residents. What could be more urgent than an issue arising from a motion which was passed by the Senate only last night? This motion is urgent because John Howard's move is once more a typical Liberal attack on the people of western Sydney. By his actions he has denied the people of western Sydney the opportunity for jobs and economic growth. The problems of unemployment are significant in the west; they are significant In places like Claymore, which was referred to yesterday. The Badgerys Creek airport proposal offers economic development and a chance for jobs. This motion is urgent because these opportunities will be diminished by the cynical move of John Howard. John Howard is acting like the Gaddafi of the Federal Parliament. He is holding this State to ransom for narrow political gain.

Like every classic hijacker, he is subjecting his victims to psychological torture. It is therefore urgent that this House discusses a way to put a stop to it. People around Badgerys Creek airport need some certainty about the ownership of their properties. They need to know what is happening with the airport; they need a clear indication of when it will be built. John Howard has stopped any certainty they may have had. There is also uncertainty for business, for tourism, for the aviation industries, and for State instrumentalities, which will provide the vital infrastructure to make the airport work.

Mr Photios: On a point of order: Mr Speaker, under rulings that you have made in this House the Minister at this time must present arguments to establish the urgency of his motion. He is giving a detailed list of reasons why the policy should not be implemented.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The Minister will confine his remarks to the leave available to him, and that is to establish priority.

Mr KNIGHT: It is important to give certainty to the people of western Sydney and to those currently affected by Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. It is urgent that this House discuss how John Howard will prevent Badgerys Creek from alleviating the noise over the inner city. Above all, this motion is urgent because the Federal Parliament is still sitting. With a united approach from this Parliament, putting the needs of the State before John Howard's 3 per cent margin in his own electorate, we might be able to get the Federal Opposition to change its mind.

Mr Photios: You have got no chance.

Mr KNIGHT: The honourable member for Ermington interjects that there is no chance. He has clearly nailed his colours to the mast and indicated what he thinks about the people of western Sydney, the people of the inner city who are affected by flight paths, and his opposition to pressing on with Badgerys Creek airport. Time has not yet run out on achieving a sensible decision for this State, because the Senate and the House of Representatives are still sitting. It is therefore urgent that the State express its view before the Federal Parliament rises. Perhaps the real urgency of this matter is whether the Leader of the Opposition can show some leadership skills. Can he be counted on to put New South Wales first?

Mr Photios: On a point of order: Mr Speaker, whilst you were in discussion with the Clerk, the Minister canvassed the motives of the Federal Leader of the Opposition in relation to this matter and posed questions which are subject to the main debate and germane to the motion if it should proceed.

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

Mr KNIGHT: I cannot imagine anything more urgent than the Liberal Party of New South Wales needing to find some leadership. What could be more urgent after eight months of a complete void.

[Interruption]

Perhaps, as the honourable member for Port Jackson interjected, it is not so much urgent as desperate. Yesterday the Leader of the National
Page 3742
Party bleated about there not being enough new investment in this State. His Federal cronies are threatening the biggest investment opportunity that this State has. Nothing could be more urgent than trying to get the Parliament, in bipartisan fashion, to put pressure on the Leader of the Opposition in Canberra for a sensible resolution. [Time expired.]

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [3.34]: This morning in debate honourable members stated that the aim of motions for urgent consideration is to provide an opportunity for Independent and Opposition members to raise important matters that they would not otherwise have the opportunity to debate. Ministers can refer to important matters by way of ministerial statements, answering dorothy dix questions and raising matters of public importance. I wish to put an urgent matter before the House. Unlike the Minister who has just spoken, I will not have another opportunity to do so. The Government is poised to finalise a 50-year lease over 24 hectares of important public land, using $70 million of taxpayers' money, in the face of growing community and professional criticism.

It is urgent that this House ensures that the Government does not proceed with signing a 50-year lease on the showground for an entertainment complex and film studio and implement planning provisions over the site in the face of strong community opposition, without addressing serious criticisms about the bypassing of processes established to ensure accountability and probity, and questions over the value of the deal to New South Wales. It is urgent that this House scrutinises the disparity between what has been exposed in the last week between the original showground studio tender called for by the previous Government and what has been delivered by this Government.

The Premier has defended the actions of his Government by saying that he is continuing with the process initiated by the previous Government. The heads of agreement, tabled in this House last Thursday, reveal the extraordinary difference between the deal delivered by this Government and the initial proposal for the showground by the previous Government. This House urgently needs to debate why a film studio and entertainment complex will be built on 24 hectares when the original tender called for a film studio on 9 hectares. We need to openly look at why the film studio complex will not be commercially viable and relies on income from the entertainment complex even though the original tender called for a commercially viable studio complex.

We need to know why the public is footing the bill for a $32 million refurbishment, $7 million in State concessions, $25 million for the Royal Agricultural Society transfer to Homebush and $7 million from the Federal Government for remediation works, even though the original tender called for no cost to the Government, actual or underwritten, and the operator to take the showground in its existing condition compared with the original requirement. We also need to consider why studio tours, a cinema complex, restaurants and shops will comprise 80 per cent of the income base, compared with the original requirement for some associated leisure activities but no theme park; and why the lease is for 40 years with a 10-year option, when the original requirement was for a 20-year lease with a 20-year option.

In the light of these new revelations, it is urgent that the House consider whether the people of New South Wales are being ripped off by this proposal. No revenue or profit projections have been released by the Government. The peppercorn rent proposed for the showground has been damned by independent assessors in the Sydney Morning Herald today. The rent was assessed on different assumptions from the current situation. The matter is urgent and needs to be debated by this House because the House needs to be made aware of the serious concerns expressed by the film industry as recently as last night, certainly since the heads of agreement was tabled in Parliament.

New information from film industry sources shows that at a major film industry association meeting yesterday unanimous doubts were expressed about whether there is any benefit for the film industry in the showground proposal. Industry sources believe there will be no more than one or two studios and no working back lot. While the film industry is deeply concerned about the Fox proposal, I am informed that retailers of fun-fair rides are excited about the proposed new plans for the showground. The Minister for Public Works and Services, who has just spoken, talked about the Federal Parliament. This matter deserves urgent consideration because the Federal Parliament will decide whether to put $32 million towards the proposal. The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning needs to be informed. The community is seriously concerned about the gazettal of a State environmental planning policy last Friday. That SEPP will virtually rezone the showground for commercial purposes - [Time expired.]

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [3.39]: Sydney West Airport should be urgently addressed by this House but not in the terms or for the reasons advanced by the Minister for Public Works and Services. The responsibility of this House is to the people of New South Wales, and the capacity of this House is to carry out activities under the control of the New South Wales Government. Therefore, my urgency motion proposes that the New South Wales Government be condemned for its failure to provide for the necessary infrastructure for Badgerys Creek and to encourage a second environmental impact statement. These matters are within the competence of the House an that is why my motion should have priority over that of the Minister. My motion is
Page 3743
sensible, and the House has the power to deal with it. It is not simply a conceptual one, as the Minister would have us believe. There has been sufficient argument about the showground and it is time for a proper decision to be made about Badgerys Creek.

The Federal Government has badly failed the people of New South Wales. In inner city areas people have been bombarded with noise daily since the closure of the east-west runway. The Sydney West Airport, the development of Badgerys Creek, is urgently needed to relieve that suffering in the inner city areas of Sydney. Further, the announcement only yesterday by the Federal Minister that the airport may not be finalised by the year 2000 makes it extraordinarily important that this House now take a stand and condemn the Carr Government for its failure to provide the necessary infrastructure for the development of Sydney West Airport and for its failure to stand by the residents of Sydney's west and demand an updated environmental impact statement.

Mr Knight: On a point of order: we have allowed some latitude, but the honourable member for Gosford has long since strayed from the leave of the urgency motion.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is straying.

Mr HARTCHER: The House must make a decision about these matters urgently. Time is running out. If we are to get Badgerys Creek airport up and running by 2000, which is the scheduled date, we cannot afford to continually defer the decisions. Two decisions to be made are vital and affect the operations of the Government in this State.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member should explain why it is urgent for the House to debate his motion.

Mr HARTCHER: We must debate this because, as I said, we need to start planning now if the airport is to be up and running by the year 2000.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member must explain why his motion should be heard urgently.

Mr HARTCHER: My motion should be heard urgently because it is within the competence of the House to do something about it. My motion states that the present Government has failed to develop the necessary infrastructure for the Sydney West Airport, and failed to allow for a second environmental impact statement, which would address the concerns of residents in that area who are seriously concerned that Mascot will be revisited upon them. If the Government's inactive policies are allowed to continue, Mascot, with all its attendant evils, will be transferred to Sydney's west. That is why my motion is urgent. We must make decisions about the railway line from Glenfield to Sydney West Airport via South Creek - it must be planned and developed - and the upgrading of Elizabeth Drive and the capacity of the M4 tollway. Above all, we must make a decision about the environmental impact statement.

Mr Crittenden: On a point of order: we will have a railway to nowhere until the airport is built. The honourable member for Gosford has not addressed that point.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is an explanation, not a point of order. No point of order is involved.

Mr HARTCHER: Most urgently, the House must make a decision this afternoon about the environmental impact statement. There is no matter of greater concern to the people of Drummoyne than planes going overhead. I am sure that you above all, Mr Speaker, support the idea that if the airport is relocated to Sydney's west, the people of that area should be properly protected by an environmental impact statement. The evils visited upon Drummoyne should not be visited upon any other area. The only way to avoid that is to update the 1985 data for the EIS and obtain new data in the light of new aircraft, new expectations as to flight paths and new expectations as to traffic volume. [Time expired.]

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

The House divided.

Mr Amery Mr Markham
Mr Anderson Mr Martin
Ms Andrews Ms Meagher
Mr Aquilina Mr Mills
Mrs Beamer Mr Moss
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 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 3744

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 Cochran Mr Richardson
Mr Collins 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 Souris
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

Ms Allan Mr Photios

Mr SPEAKER: The vote being equal, I give my casting vote with the ayes and declare the question to be resolved in the affirmative.


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

That this House:

(1) Condemns the Leader of the Federal Opposition, Mr Howard, for his action to delay the construction of the Sydney West Airport at Badgery's Creek; and

(2) Calls on the New South Wales leaders of the Liberal and National Parties to make representations to their Federal colleagues for a reversal of that decision.

This matter is urgent because it is essential to understand exactly what John Howard has done in the Federal Parliament. John Howard has cynically blocked the Federal Government airport leasing legislation, and the proceeds of the leasing arrangements are essential to fund the development of Badgerys Creek airport. John Howard has taken this stance, not on the basis of a reasoned policy position, but because of a myopic and parochial demand. It is cynical and cowardly to prevent the development of western Sydney's most significant infrastructure development ever, for no other reason than to try and shore up a 3 per cent lead in his own marginal seat of Bennelong.

This action is cowardly because John Howard knows that if he were to be elected Prime Minister, he would have it within his power to open the east-west runway if that was his wish. But he knows that is not a solution; he knows that as a strategy, it is unsafe and he knows that in practise it would visit worse aircraft noise on people in the inner city. He is simply playing politics. The development of Badgerys Creek airport is fundamental to solving the long-term air traffic needs of Sydney and of New South Wales. John Howard's stance represents a massive slap in the face to the people affected by the third runway. But it is typical of the attitude of the Liberals on the airport issue.

When the honourable member for Southern Highlands, the leader of the late but unlamented Government, called for Mascot airport to operate 24 hours a day during the Olympics, he made no commitment to develop Badgerys Creek airport, and his colleagues do not have any commitment now. His colleagues in Canberra clearly share that view. John Howard is doing all he can to make the former Premier's vision of a 24-hour operation at Mascot airport a reality. The Government opposes the lifting of any curfew. The Government hopes that John Howard is never in a position to implement a 24-hour-a-day airport at Mascot in the year 2000 or at any other time.

The air traffic needs of Sydney will increase significantly in the future, particularly with the 2000 Olympics, when traffic movements will have increased to almost 300,000. The delay in the building of Badgerys Creek airport will consign the people of the north and south of the runway to years of extra aircraft noise. John Howard's treachery will come back to haunt him. I refer to the impact that John Howard's decision will have on Sydney's ability to host the 2000 Olympic Games. Sydney will be able to cope with only one airport for the Olympics. The games are not at threat nor should people be put off coming to Sydney. However, John Howard's decision will tarnish Australia's international reputation at a time when the eyes of the whole world are on Sydney.

How can anyone who aspires to be Prime Minister allow something like that to happen? John Howard's decision is a setback, a headache, a nuisance, whatever you want to call it. The Government will have to go about developing some alternative arrangements and that may cost taxpayers. John Howard's decision will make it more difficult to get people in and out of Sydney for the Games. It will effectively reduce the number of flights able to use Sydney for passengers and cargo at the time of the Games. It will effectively mean delays in the processing of passengers and baggage. John Howard's decision is just plain dumb.

Everything was going well with the Olympics - the facilities and infrastructure at Homebush Bay, such as the Royal Agricultural Society move, the master plan and the rail link are well under way. The Sydney Organising
Page 3745
Committee for the Olympic Games has its first two marketing partners; one is an international company and the other is one of the biggest and most reputable companies in Australia. Then along comes John Howard to throw a spanner into the works. We will have a successful Olympic Games, let there be no question about that, but the 250,000 to 300,000 visitors from international and domestic locations who will come to Sydney at the time of the Games will be inconvenienced by John Howard's decision. That decision illustrates the complete absence of commitment to developing jobs in the western Sydney area. Of course that has never been a priority of the Liberal Party or the National Party, and why would we expect them to change now.

Mr Kinross: Nor Keating for the last 13 years.

Mr KNIGHT: The honourable member for Gordon interjects. His former Government did nothing to progress Badgerys Creek in the seven years that it was in office. The Standing Committee on Public Works has issued a unanimous report - even the Liberal and National Party members of the Committee supported it - which identified that there will be 7,500 jobs at the airport and employment growth of up to 40,000 in western Sydney generally, and that is what John Howard is putting on hold. It is only under Federal Labor and State Governments that there has been any real progress towards the establishment of Badgerys Creek airport.

The former coalition mouthed platitudes about the development of a second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek but it accomplished nothing. Under this Government a major report, to which I have already alluded, on the infrastructure needs of Badgerys Creek, recently tabled in this House, has been completed by the new Standing Committee on Public Works, yet another initiative of this Government. That report identifies the infrastructure needs for the development of the second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek. It is a crucial step in ensuring that the State is well placed to facilitate development at Badgerys Creek. The report indicates that a lot of work is under way by both the Federal and State Governments. For example, $152 million is allocated for the acquisition of the airport site and noise-affected properties as well as upgrading local access roads. The sum of $306 million has been allocated for the airport development, the runway, the terminal and the cargo facilities. Another $21 million has been put towards the control tower and other Civil Aviation Authority facilities.

Mr Photios: But what is the State Government doing?

Mr KNIGHT: The honourable member for Ermington asks what the State Government is doing. In the roads portfolio alone the Government is upgrading road links to make that airport work. A second Sydney airport will not work without proper road links to the rest of the city and to Mascot airport. The Government is continuing the M5 east extension, which the coalition did nothing about and left as a potential environmental disaster. The Government will re-route the M5 east extension to protect the residents of north Arncliffe and Turrella and get the construction of the road under way. The State Government is working with the Federal Government to upgrade Elizabeth Drive and the western Sydney orbital. It is working with the Commonwealth, basically with funds it has committed and the $25 million the State Government has contributed, to ensure the upgrading of that road link. Cowpasture Road will be upgraded between Bringelly Road and Elizabeth Drive at a cost of another $25 million. The Government is spending $100 million on widening the M4 between Penrith and Parramatta. Part of that road will help people access the western Sydney orbital to get to Badgerys Creek airport.

John Howard is a man without vision, a man who aspires to be Prime Minister but who cannot see beyond the short-term interests of his now perilous electoral position in Bennelong. He has no chance of success. John Howard is behaving like a candidate running for first-time election with no chance of winning. He needs to be brought back into line. This motion is a major test of the leadership of the honourable member for Willoughby, the current and short-term Leader of the Opposition, and whether he is prepared to stand up to John Howard and take a glove on behalf of the citizens of New South Wales. His leadership of the Liberal Party to date has been non-existent, but I hope, in a major departure from his spinelessness and lack of leadership, he can do something about protecting the needs of the State. [Time expired.]

Mr ZAMMIT (Strathfield) [4.02]: In my 12 years in this Parliament I have never come across a more hypocritical action than that of the Minister for Public Works and Services today. I was part of the march that blockaded Sydney airport 12 months ago. Many State Labor members of Parliament marched beside me in the interests of the people of Sydney saying with the crowd, "Reopen the east-west runway." We were there for hours and all I heard was that catchcry from State Labor Party members of Parliament. It has taken the courage of John Howard to say, "Let's reopen the east-west runway." Where were the Labor Party members of Parliament? What were they saying? They should have been saying, "Good on you, John Howard. Good on you for thinking about the people of this State." Those Labor Party members are a bunch of hypocrites. Not only have the lifestyles of those people been affected by the closure of the runway, their personal wellbeing and health have also suffered.

I turn briefly to two matters that the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads touched upon. The first is about the curfew. It was not the Federal or State Labor Governments that introduced
Page 3746
or spoke about the introduction of the curfew. The Federal Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, introduced the Sydney Airport Curfew Amendment Bill, which has now been enacted. Where was the Minister then? Where was he today? Obviously, he was not aware of what transpired last night in the Federal Parliament. He was conned by his Federal mates into bringing this motion forward today. Many things need to be discussed in relation to this issue. Many lies have been told repeatedly, especially by the Federal Labor Government. I challenge the Minister to allow full debate on this issue, rather than just the 10 minutes that I have to speak to this motion.

[Interruption]

The honourable member for The Entrance keeps interjecting. He has no feeling for the people of Sydney whose lifestyles have been affected by the airport. For the past two or three hours he has been studying his interjection; I suspect he has been standing in front of the mirror, like the Premier, practising his interjection. There is more at stake on this issue than the honourable member's interjection. The Minister has the opportunity to allow a full and open debate on this issue. In the 10 minutes I have to contribute to the debate I have no alternative but to move the following amendment to the motion:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after the word "House" with a view to inserting instead:

(1) Supports the Leader of the Federal Opposition, the Hon. John Howard, for his successful actions in the Federal Parliament through his Sydney Airport Curfew Amendment Bill thus ensuring that the curfew is protected by legislation;

(2) Congratulates Mr Howard for his actions in attempting to re-open the East-West Runway; and

(3) Calls on the New South Wales leaders of the Labor Party to make representations to their Federal colleagues to re-open the East-West Runway for a fair and safe distribution of aircraft noise and pollution, the result of which will be to develop Badgery's Creek Airport.

Yesterday I received a fax of a joint media release co-authorised by Bronwyn Bishop, Federal shadow minister for privatisation and for Commonwealth-State relations, and Senator Warwick Parer, Federal shadow minister for aviation, tourism and customs. The release was headed "Senate votes for re-opening of east-west runway". John Howard said that the east-west runway has to be reopened to share the noise equitably and fairly. The privatisation of Sydney airport is subject to the noise issue being satisfactorily addressed. I see the dilemma that the Keating Government faces. It has dug itself into a deep hole with no way out. Having been spurned at the council elections on 9 September when huge swings were recorded against the Labor Party -

Mr McBride: That is not true.

Mr ZAMMIT: Swings of 10 and 20 per cent were recorded at council elections.

Mr McBride: Where?

Mr ZAMMIT: There are many examples.

Mr Knight: Name them.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If members wish to contribute to the debate, they should advise the appropriate Whip, who will arrange to have their names added to the list of members who will speak in this debate. If it is not their wish to so contribute, they should remain silent.

Mr ZAMMIT: Having been spurned at council elections and rejected by the Senate for the reopening of the east-west runway, where are the State Labor Party members now after yelling out at the march, "Reopen the east-west runway"? They are very silent because they see the dilemma they face. A prediction was made in that press release from Senator Bishop and Senator Parer, which said:

The Senate's decision to support the amendment creates a major dilemma for the Government. The fate of the privatisation of the airports now rests squarely on the Government itself.

The press release went on to state:

The Government must now decide if they adopt the Bill as amended in the House of Representatives and thus protect the integrity of their program or try to score cheap political points by blaming the Coalition and the Senate for delaying the program.

Members of the Labor Party said: "Who else can we con? We have conned the people of Sydney. We should try to find somebody else to con who will take up this battle for us because we are looking pretty bad in regard to this issue. Who can we approach?" They went to the Carr Labor Government and conned it into taking up this issue. There is nothing left for Government members to say to the people of Sydney other than they are sorry for not supporting John Howard and for not allowing their Federal colleagues to go along with John Howard in reopening the east-west runway, privatising Sydney airport and building an airport at Badgerys Creek. I will touch briefly on what the Minister said about infrastructure development in western Sydney. He made particular reference to Sydney West Airport at Badgerys Creek. I was interested in his choice of words. He did not say, "We have expended the money on infrastructure development." He did not refer once to spending money.

Mr Knight: It is in the budget.

Mr ZAMMIT: Exactly. The Minister for Public Works and Services says that it is in the budget. What has occurred at Badgerys Creek after 13 years of Federal Labor Government? I visited Badgerys Creek the other day to have a look. Nothing has happened. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You have bought only a fraction of the properties that you should have in that area.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable
Page 3747
member for Strathfield will direct his remarks through the Chair.

Mr ZAMMIT: Government members should stop their hypocrisy. They have talked about doing the right thing. The right thing is re-opening the east-west runway, privatising the Sydney Airport and building an airport at Badgerys Creek. This is a very sad day for the people of Sydney. [Time expired.]

Mr LANGTON (Kogarah - Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism) [4.12]: I wholeheartedly support my colleague the Minister for Public Works and Services in his condemnation of the Federal Opposition for this blatant political stunt, which will jeopardise the construction of Sydney West Airport. The Federal Leader of the Opposition, in a selfish move designed to save his own political skin, seeks to throw careful, long-term planning into chaos. The Federal coalition, by blocking the Commonwealth Government's airport leasing legislation in the Senate, has prevented an essential step towards further innovation and benchmark competition in the provision of airport services in this country. It is a contemptible act and one which should be abhorred by anyone who wants New South Wales and Australia to get ahead in jobs, the economy, and a better standard of living for all.

From a tourism perspective the issue is simple. Tourism contributes $14 billion each year to this State's economy. That is $27,000 per minute. John Howard, by his action last night, will cost this State millions of dollars in tourism revenue and thousands of jobs into the bargain. He will have to accept the blame for keeping thousands of young people out of work - young people who would reasonably expect to enter the tourism and hospitality industries over the next few years and young people in south-western Sydney who were looking forward to the employment bonanza expected to accompany the completion of Sydney West Airport. Tourism, a key employment growth area, already generates 149,000 jobs in this State. It employs 5.4 per cent of this State's work force and it is expected to deliver an additional 21,000 jobs over the next four years.

In simple terms, so that even the Federal Leader of the Opposition can understand, for every 18 international visitors to New South Wales one job is created. For every 1,800 domestic visitors to New South Wales another job is created. If there is a serious delay - or any delay at all - in the construction of a second international airport at Badgerys Creek, New South Wales can kiss those jobs goodbye. My colleague the Minister for Public Works and Services has already spoken of the need to complete Sydney West Airport prior to the Olympics. The Government understands that Sydney West Airport at Badgerys Creek is crucial to this State's capacity to cope with tourism growth. The Government is also aware that a second international airport is crucial for future flexibility in handling inbound tourism to this country. The speedy completion of Sydney West Airport is vital to assist in funnelling more and more international visitors out to the regions.

This Government's tourism strategy is simple. We want to ensure that the Olympics, the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Sydney Opera House and other icons are used as magnets to attract tourists, and that those tourists will then see all the other great things that New South Wales has to offer. This Government has a real commitment to increasing regional tourism. Last year tourism generated $558 million into the economy of the Hunter region, $460 million into the Illawarra region and $402 million into the north coast area. Direct tourism spending is worth $5.4 billion to regional areas of this State. The Government is working to improve that result. International tourism is growing at a remarkable 11 per cent per annum, yet only one in three visitors to Australia ventures outside our capital cities. A long-term integrated framework must be provided to boost tourism. A crucial part of that strategy will be ensuring that the Government plays the part it has to play in funnelling those people who are coming to Sydney, both internationally and domestically, to other places in New South Wales.

That strategy has now been placed in jeopardy by the political posturing of the Federal Opposition. This stunt has left the New South Wales Opposition with a serious problem. It is no secret that this political stunt has placed the Leader of the Opposition and members of the Opposition in something of a quandary. It is no secret that Opposition members know the terrible cost that this decision will bring with it. Only one thing is not a secret, and that is whether the New South Wales coalition has the guts to stand up to its Federal colleagues and urge them to do what is right for the people of New South Wales. Any member of this House who is serious about representing the people of this State must support the Minister's motion. I urge Opposition members to pressure their Federal colleagues to reverse yesterday's decision. I condemn the Federal Leader of the Opposition, but I offer the State Leader of the Opposition a chance to redeem himself in the eyes of the people of this State. [Time expired.]

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington) [4.17]: I place on the record clearly, squarely and without qualification the joint position of the State Opposition and the Federal Opposition with regard to safety issues, noise and the environmental implications of the Federal Government's actions. Let me put it in the context of what the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism quite rightly and properly described as the priority for this State of expanding tourism opportunities for the people of New South Wales. The State Opposition, like John Howard, are in no way, shape or form opposed to the privatisation of Sydney airport or any other airport. We support the Federal Government in this vital principle and call on that Government immediately to progress the privatisation of the nation's airport infrastructure in the context of the
Page 3748
resolution of the Senate - which represents the national Parliament and the people of this country - to protect the environmental amenities of those who have been savaged by the Federal Government's heartless, ill-thought-out, incompetent and irrational decision to shift the configuration of air usage at Sydney airport without proper reference to those who are being affected and without an appropriate environmental impact study.

I refer in particular to those in north-western Sydney and those in the northern districts. I challenge Government members, particularly the honourable member for Gladesville, to tell the people in Ermington, Gladesville and Eastwood - electorates which come within the Federal electorate of Bennelong - whether they support the reopening of the east-west runway. A motion should have moved in this House today requiring each and every one of us, jointly and severally, to stand before the bar of the House to state our positions. The honourable member for Strathfield, who led for the Opposition in this debate, has made it clear that he supports John Howard. Does the honourable member for Gladesville support John Howard in keeping the east-west runway open? Does he support a curfew on that airport? Does he support the privatisation of the airport as an important and immediate priority? As shadow minister for transport, I issue another challenge to a member is another place. Mary Easson, the Federal member for Lowe, needs to make her position is clear. My challenge on behalf of the Opposition and the next member for Lowe, Paul Zammit, as unusual as it is, is to invite Mary Easson to come before the bar of this House and to explain to the New South Wales Parliament where she stands on the east-west runway. We invite Mary Easson and the honourable member for Gladesville to state whether they support the re-opening of the east-west runway. It is a critical challenge, and one from which they cannot hide.

Mr Knight: On a point of order: it is not the prerogative of the honourable member for Ermington to invite people from outside this House to appear before the bar of the House. Indeed, if anything, his inflammatory behaviour suggests that he may have spent too long in a bar in another part of this House.

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

Mr PHOTIOS: I clearly reiterate the point. The Opposition supports the construction of the Badgerys Creek airport with entirely appropriate environmental safeguards. We call on the Federal Government, and the State Government particularly, to move to develop the airport west rail link. The Minister promised that rail link in his recent state transport policy, yet in the budget a fraud was perpetrated on the people of New South Wales because no money was allocated. The position of the State Opposition is clear and unequivocal. The Minister should be brought to account for dishonouring his promise to build the airport link between Badgerys Creek and Mascot. That has shown the Minister for the fraud he is. We support the privatisation of the airports and we want Mary Easson brought before this House to account for her position. [Time expired.]

Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong) [4.22]: At the outset it should be made perfectly clear that the State Labor Party has always opposed the third runway; the Liberal Party has always supported it. To find confirmation of that statement I need go back no further than 19 September 1990, when the then Premier, Mr Greiner, said:

It is equally clear that the way to go . . . is to proceed with maximum haste to get the third runway at Kingsford-Smith airport built and to leave Badgerys Creek to be developed when traffic justifies it.

Traffic will justify development of Badgerys Creek in the year 1999. The former Premier also stated:

It is obvious that if Sydney is to host any major international event by the year 2000, including an Olympic Games, it is necessary to bring the international gateway to Australia, which is and will be Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, up to twentieth century standards, and hopefully twenty-first century standards.

That is the solution of the Opposition. It has no vision. It never believed that Badgerys Creek airport should be built, and it still does not believe it. The Opposition regarded the third runway as the perfect panacea, but clearly it is not. Notwithstanding that, the Opposition is still trying to pull this great hoax on the people of New South Wales by saying with some subterfuge that it does not want Badgerys Creek airport to be built. I am concerned that the secret agenda of the Federal Liberals, and obviously the State Liberals are in their hands, is to build more runways at Kingsford-Smith airport to handle the additional traffic that is obviously coming our way. The Opposition wants more runways at Kingsford-Smith airport. It wants the north-south runway to affect more people than it does at present. Obviously that is not a solution, and it is not a viable option for the people of inner Sydney.

The honourable member for Strathfield had the audacity to claim that he is concerned about his Federal aspirations. The State Government realises the need to expedite construction of Badgerys Creek airport, and to work in unison with the Federal Government to ensure that Badgerys Creek airport is up and running. That is why the Minister for Public Works and Services gave, as the first reference to the Standing Committee on Public Works, the state infrastructure requirements for Badgerys Creek airport. Members of the Government, the Liberal Party, the National Party and Independents members of that committee worked together to achieve what I believe is the definitive document to ensure that Badgerys Creek airport is up and running by 1999. Clearly my colleagues opposite who were members of that committee believe the same thing. No member of the committee even went close to presenting a dissenting viewpoint, although the committee met
Page 3749
over a truncated period of four months to bring down the report.

The solution was clear. In four months the committee was able to stipulate what was required, but in seven years the previous Government had never come close to analysing exactly what the State infrastructure requirements would be for Badgerys Creek airport. If the Sydney West Airport is to be open in 1999, we are on a critical path. Immediate action is required from the Commonwealth in relation to Sydney West Airport to ensure that it is built in time for the Olympic Games. Any delay in the program of the Federal Government will delay the entire process and those of us who are concerned about ensuring that Badgerys Creek airport is constructed will not achieve our objectives. Honourable members opposite clearly do not share those objectives.

The people of western Sydney will benefit from the Sydney West Airport. Of the 17,500 jobs the construction of the airport will generate across Australia, 7,500 will go to the people of western Sydney. About 40,000 jobs, including direct and indirect employment, will be available when Sydney West Airport reaches its capacity. Export opportunities will be enhanced as a result of closer integration with national and international markets and upgraded infrastructure. As the Minister for Tourism pointed out, tourism will increase, and changes to land use planning in western Sydney will establish a growth pole in the region and attract high value-added industries, including tourism, hospitality, aerospace, engineering and just-in-time warehousing. The Government has been concerned to ensure that Badgerys Creek airport is up and running, because it is the solution. Today the Opposition has demonstrated that it is part of the problem. It does not want to be part of the solution, it simply wants more runways built at Kingsford-Smith airport. That has been the agenda of the Opposition all along. [Time expired.]

Mr KNIGHT (Campbelltown - Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads) [4.27], in reply: Let me deal first with the matters raised by the honourable member for Strathfield, for whom I have some sympathy. He has been in this Parliament for a long time. People of inferior talent bypassed him into the ministry. The coalition would not give him a spot in the ministry and would not help him in his electorate. I was recently on the border of his electorate announcing -

Mr Zammit: On a point of order: the matters raised by the Minister have absolutely nothing to do with the motion. I would ask you to bring him back to the leave of the motion.

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

Mr KNIGHT: The honourable member for Strathfield has received no support from his party. This is a major issue about the State's infrastructure. John Howard has created a threat to orderly development in this State. Do we see the shadow minister for the Olympics? Do we see the shadow minister for State development? Do we see the shadow minister for public works and services? Do we see the shadow minister for roads? No. The honourable member for Strathfield has been lumped with carrying the can in this appalling defence of John Howard's attack on the people of New South Wales.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Ermington and the honourable member for Port Jackson will cease interjecting.

Mr KNIGHT: The honourable member says he would like a longer debate on this issue; he would like more time to discuss it. Honourable members opposite voted against this debate being called on. But now the honourable member for Strathfield cries crocodile tears and claims that the debate does not go long enough. Then he complains that the State Labor Government has not spent any money on the Badgerys Creek airport. He is right. The Government has not spent any money because it is only a month since it brought down its first budget. Unlike the coalition, which brought down seven budgets but spent nothing at the Badgerys Creek airport site, the Carr Labor Government has allocated substantial funding in this year's budget to fulfil this State's responsibility to have Badgerys Creek airport up and running.

The Government is putting its money where its mouth is. The Opposition, however, is joining with John Howard in sabotaging a program that will benefit western Sydney and the whole of New South Wales. However, the coalition did spend some money at Badgerys Creek while in government - not in building infrastructure, but on new housing developments in areas that will affected by the flight path. The Opposition has put residents smack bang under the flight path. Was that action malice or incompetence? The answer is that is was probably both. The honourable member for Strathfield asked about the position of Labor members, including the honourable member for Gladesville, on the east-west runway. Let me make several things perfectly clear. A submission put on behalf of the Government backbench airport committee to the Senate select committee on the issue said that the following was required, among other things:

An independent review of the traffic management at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport designed to examine how the existing system of air traffic management operates, including its success and failures in limiting noise impacts and the reasons for these, and to explore options for additional noise amelioration measures for residents around Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport.

Mr Photios: On a point of order: the Minister has opposed the amendment to the motion, but he has now given a detailed explanation why John Howard is right and why the backbench committee supports him.

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


Page 3750
Mr KNIGHT: The Labor Party backbench has said that we need to have a sensible look at the issue.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Hansard is having difficulty hearing what is being said.

Mr KNIGHT: That should be contrasted with what John Howard says. In effect he says that he will give Air Services Australia - the group entrusted with managing air safety, the group that has already said it is dangerous to fully reopen the east-west runway - a political direction that will put lives at risk.

Mr Zammit: On a point of order: there have been so many interjections -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved. The honourable member for Strathfield will resume his seat, or he will be removed from the Chamber.

Mr KNIGHT: If John Howard does not fully re-open the east-west runway he will re-open part of it. That will put more small planes on that runway, which will lead to a greater concentration of the bigger and noisier planes over the inner city, the north, and the Lowe electorate.

Mr Zammit: On a point of order: Mr Speaker -

Ms Nori: Howard is crucifying you, and you don't even know it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Port Jackson is becoming a little excited. No point of order is involved.

Question - That the words stand - put.

The House divided.

Mr Amery Mr Markham
Mr Anderson Mr Martin
Ms Andrews Ms Meagher
Mr Aquilina Mr Mills
Mrs Beamer Ms Moore
Mr Clough Mr Moss
Mr Crittenden Mr Nagle
Mr Debus Mr Neilly
Mr Face Ms Nori
Mr Gaudry 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 Tellers,
Dr Macdonald Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

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

Ms Allan Mr Fraser
Mr Carr Mr Hazzard

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.


Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [4.41]: I ask the House to note as a matter of public importance the risks associated with prosecutions based upon repressed memory syndrome and the consequential impacts. Recently the Sydney Morning Herald reported that four people in New South Wales have faced court since last year in sexual abuse cases in which allegations of satanical ritual abuse and child abuse were made. To date virtually no corroborative evidence has been produced to support claims of organised ritual abuse made by some of the alleged victims. Honourable members would be aware of a number of such cases that have been referred to in recent times. It is in the interests of the community that these matters be discussed.

In one case a Wollongong man was sentenced to six years gaol, but was acquitted by the Court of Criminal Appeal last December after having served seven months. A more recent case to which I will refer involves a number of my constituents. Last year in Western Australia allegations were made by a daughter against her father. Most of the
Page 3751
allegations relate to satanical or ritual child abuse cases in which allegations arose following psychological treatment. Memories that had been repressed for a number of years have returned following therapy.

The case I want to use to illustrate my concerns involves a number of my constituents, whom I will not name. In this case a committal hearing has been set down for March next year. However, the matter has been before the Children's Court for the last 18 months, involving 106 days of hearings, and court costs for the family and for various State government departments are already in excess of $1 million. The family has fallen apart. Four children have been taken from the parents, and both parents have lost their jobs. They have used up about $300,000 of their savings fighting this case. As recently as Monday the Children's Court magistrate essentially found that the sexual abuse allegations were untrue.

All the allegations were initially made by the eldest daughter and arose following about 30 sessions with a psychologist. A number of the allegations involved ritualistic abuse, forced abortions and sacrifice of family pets. Her parents were arrested and charged, and her 74-year-old grandmother was also charged. On Monday these sexual allegations were found to be untrue. The magistrate, Mr Rooney, concluded, amongst other things:

With respect to the allegations of sexual abuse of the four children by their parents and grandmother, I have been drawn slowly and inexorably over many hearing days to the firm conclusion that they are, on the evidence presented, essentially and substantially untrue.

That was a significant finding, given the time and effort that has gone into the case. The allegations followed therapy with a Doug Keir, a psychologist. He was never called to give evidence by the Department of Community Services in the court proceedings, nor was the 19-year-old daughter who made the allegations. The magistrate stated:

. . . the psychologist to whom [the daughter] made her first complaint, appears to have encouraged her to remember details of events in her past which may . . . have been blocked out of her conscious memory . . . no opportunity has been afforded to this Court to evaluate the possible consequences of such an approach, nor the actual method adopted by the psychologist, whether by hypnosis or otherwise.

The court case has taken over 18 months, and 106 days of court time. The family has been torn apart on the basis of sexual abuse allegations by the daughter. This is a matter of public importance because matters of this nature deserve public scrutiny. The Department of Community Services has to recognise the role it plays and, most importantly, its powers, to ensure that they are utilised in the proper manner. The department initiated the charges, and it involved the police. The police were not criticised by the magistrate for the role they played. The Department of Community Services refused to call the psychologist to support his evidence. The case officer involved - a lady by the name of Michel McPherson - was primarily responsible for the case at a local level. It is instructive to see that she made some file notes in relation to the case, and the notes were subpoenaed. One of her file notes stated "Police suspect a network of adults and children in ritualistic abuse". That file note was not correct; police said they had never reached such a conclusion.

Police notes state that the Department of Community Services seemed anxious to put everything before the Children's Court - that is to pursue the case - even though the allegations could not be supported by fact or evidence. I have been advised that the specific case officer has also been involved in a number of other cases. On one occasion when she was asked in evidence what she did on hearing some allegations she said, inter alia, that she went down to confirm the allegations. On that occasion her role should have been to seek evidence or information rather try to confirm allegations that had been made.

In another case before the court which involved a family in Collaroy, in which similar allegations of a sexual nature were made, she did not appear in court and the case was thrown out. She had gone on a week's holiday. The role of Michel McPherson in a number of these cases deserves to be reviewed. DOCS was further criticised by the magistrate for its leading questions when interviewing the three younger children. A number of the children made allegations after having been interviewed over a period of weeks, but subsequently all have either fully retracted those allegations or, in one case, partially retracted them.

It must be acknowledged that the magistrate has concluded that there was not a perfect family environment in the home. There was evidence of mild physical abuse of the children, which was in the form of slapping, pushing and threatening with a belt by the parents. He also said there is further evidence of some sexual play between some of the children at a younger age, of which, apart from one incident, the parents said they were not aware. The magistrate said he felt there was evidence of both of the allegations. He referred to the primary allegations of sexual assault, and the fact that potentially a trial could commence next year without any corroborative evidence. The police bugged their home and searched it. The police, in the file notes, acknowledged that they could find no supporting evidence, and the magistrate said that the allegations of sexual assault by the parents and grandmother of the children could not be substantiated. Those particular charges should be reviewed as a matter of urgency.

A consequence of the allegations is that the four children have been taken from the family home. The court costs, personal costs and public costs relating to the case amount to more than $1 million. I make the point that at least two of the children would like to return to the family home,
Page 3752
particularly the youngest daughter, who is 12 years of age. Basically the children want to put it all behind them. The youngest daughter has said on a number of occasions that she wants to go home. The son, the second eldest, was abused when he was put in care for six weeks. He has confirmed, together with the youngest daughter, that there was no basis for the allegations made by his older sister. Indeed, neither of them can understand why the allegations were made. Looking at this case, it is clear that these are complex issues. The Department of Community Services should concentrate on counselling the people involved, rather than pursuing sexual assault charges. [Time expired.]

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [4.51]: The honourable member for Davidson has outlined well the risks associated with prosecutions based on repressed memory syndrome and some of the consequential impacts in this particular case. I shall concentrate more on the issue of repressed memory syndrome. Obviously it is not a black and white issue. There is a wide range of opinion within the psychiatric profession regarding the mechanism by which people deal with trauma. The issue is one of great importance because of its obvious far-reaching implications.

The media have pushed the view that most people recover traumatic memories during counselling sessions. However, strong anecdotal information suggests that people remember parts of traumatic incidents, and that is what in fact leads them to seek counselling. The fact that there is a wide range of opinion obviously means that there is still much to be done. In relation to adult memories, much of the controversy centres on their recovered memories of childhood abuse. Most commentators in this area agree that memory is flawed and subject to a range of influences. Until we know more about how memory works, or unless it can be corroborated, no-one can guarantee that a memory is entirely true and not overlayed with impressions and subsequent ideas.

The area relating to children's memories is not well researched. However, it has been concluded that false allegations are rare. A common argument used to discredit children's memories of abuse is that often they retract their allegations. Therefore, it seems clear that it is not an issue that can simply be resolved; as I have suggested, the legal and clinical implications are vast. This matter was raised in the House on 12 October by the honourable member for Davidson in the context of a recent court case. It would be premature and inappropriate for me to comment on the magistrate's findings at this point.

From the perspective of the Department of Health, it is a therapeutic and counselling issue. It appears that much of the controversy about recovered memory therapy centres on the competency of the therapist and how the therapy is used. These are certainly matters to be dealt with by the respective professional bodies, which are responsible for the establishment and maintenance of professional standards. However, the general issue of admissibility of evidence based on recovered memories is one for the Attorney General. There is a lot more to be done before we can be sure about the exact nature of repressed memory syndrome, its usefulness in court cases and how effective counselling can be for the individuals concerned.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [4.54]: It is fundamental to our system of law that evidence given in court cases must be a direct presentation of the facts by witnesses based upon their own perceptions and their sensory organs, be it smell, taste, sight, feeling or hearing. Opinion evidence has never been allowed except in the case of accredited expert witnesses. For the same reason, hearsay evidence, which is evidence of what someone else has told a person, is not allowed, and no assistance may be given to witnesses. The challenge posed so eloquently by the honourable member for Davidson is that repressed memory syndrome, which has become fairly well established in modern psychiatric practice, is leading to the possibility of tainted evidence being given in court cases.

I make no judgment or comment about repressed memory syndrome. That is a matter for another day. But I shall look at the impact that it may have in court cases. The untested nature of evidence that comes through repressed memory syndrome - untested in the sense that there is no way of evaluating its objectivity - means that third parties are involved in reconstructing memories for people. Be the third party a psychiatrist or a counsellor, that person is expected to sit down with witnesses and resurrect and retrieve memories that they may or may not have. The risk arises that the memory will not only be distorted by having faded or having been overlayed with new impressions, but that it will be adapted for presentation to the counsellor or the psychiatrist, or may be influenced by the psychiatrist or the counsellor. Even the most adequately trained psychiatrists or counsellors cannot avoid influencing memory simply by the phrasing of questions, however neutrally they may seek to phrase them.

The result is that the evidence that comes from this process may well be tainted in the legal sense. It may be a valuable psychiatric tool to help people to overcome their traumas and difficulties. No-one disputes that. The honourable member for Davidson has put to the House, as he has done on two previous occasions, the danger of relying on such evidence in court cases. I congratulate the honourable member on the strong and persistent way that he has drawn the attention of honourable members to this matter, and on the way that he has sought to advance the interests and protect the welfare of not only his clients but the people of New South Wales in this new and untested field of psychiatric counselling.

Page 3753

We have before us the evidence in the Wollongong case, which the honourable member referred to, and in the Western Australia case. In the Western Australia case a deacon of a fundamentalist church was accused by his daughters of sexual malpractice. He was subsequently exculpated when the two girls were found to have collaborated in the presentation of their evidence, which resulted from counselling for repressed memory syndrome. The Western Australia case, as has been the case in the matter in which the honourable member has been involved for a period, dealt terrible harm to the parents and caused them enormous emotional suffering, enormous loss of respect in the community and, of course, an enormous financial burden. Their lives have been traumatised as lives never should be - and, hopefully, never will be again. Many of these cases involve allegations of ritualistic abuse or satanic worship.

The connection between repressed memory syndrome and these forms of activities is yet to be determined. The interesting point is that they are a modern trend and phenomenon, and somehow they have become interlocked with the discovery of repressed memory syndrome. We should not abandon repressed memory syndrome - the honourable member is not arguing for that; it may be a valuable tool in counselling - but we should look at it with great caution in respect of court cases. We should be aware, as the honourable member for Davidson put it, of the implications so that justice is done and is done according to ordinary common law principles of directly presented evidence that has possibly been tainted by third parties. The Parliament should be indebted to honourable member for Davidson for waging this ongoing campaign. [Time expired.]

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [4.59], in reply: I thank the Minister for Health and the honourable member for Gosford for making a contribution to this important debate. I echo the words of the honourable member for Gosford, who said that we need to be cautious when we deal with repressed memory syndrome. Certainly there may be opportunities for it to be utilised in some manner but a significant degree of caution should be exercised. Counselling should be a primary consideration in matters of this nature. Clearly in the example I referred to, the Department of Community Services utilised the extent of its powers, and if it believed there were genuine concerns it should not be criticised. However, as time passed and the lack of supporting evidence became more apparent, there should have been some review of the position and greater focus placed on mediation and counselling rather than seeking to pursue the matter over such a long period of time. Eighteen months is a long time, and to take any family apart in the way this family has been taken apart is difficult to excuse.

All members of the immediate family have suffered, as have members of the extended family - the four children, the parents, the grandmother and aunts and uncles. It is to be hoped that the children will develop a relationship of some sort with their parents in the future. In such cases where allegations are made by people of such tender years serious consideration should be given to mediation and counselling services as a primary option. If counselling had been given to the eldest daughter, who made the allegations, and in respect of some of the other family problems referred to by the magistrate, the matter may well have been resolved within a far shorter period, perhaps in a more constructive manner and certainly at a much less financial cost to the family and the community. This case has taken up an enormous amount of time of the Police Service and the Department of Community Services.

The Department of Community Services has substantial powers in such cases. If those powers are used appropriately, the department ought not be criticised. But if on extreme occasions someone takes a fairly vexatious approach to such matters, a lot of damage can be caused. I have serious concerns that may have been a motivating factor in this particular case. As the honourable member for Gosford indicated, in repressed memory cases involving a third party coming in and reconstructing what may or may not have happened, there will always be an element of doubt about one's recall of events that took place many years ago and of the assistance that is provided to enable one to recall. It may be accurate, it may not be. With the test in a criminal court being beyond reasonable doubt, it is always going to be difficult to gain an absolute conviction. In a number of cases, in Australia and in the United States, great difficulty has been experienced achieving guilt verdicts beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, many cases have been rejected by courts. That only reinforces my assertion that counselling should be a priority in such matters to try to mediate and remediate those involved rather than pursuing the matter at great public expense and ultimately, in many cases, at great detriment to families.

Discussion concluded.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services) [5.04]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The periodic detention scheme began in 1971. It is fair to say that the scheme has been a success. On the one hand, periodic detention provides criminal courts in this State with a sentencing option which, while rigorous, is not as drastic as full-time imprisonment. On the other hand, periodic
Page 3754
detention enables an offender to serve a sentence for his or her crime but does not require the offender to give up his or her job or leave his or her home and family for more than two days at a time. Indeed, in some cases, periodic detention enables an offender who is unemployed to obtain relevant work experience which will assist the detainee to gain paid employment later on. It also forces the offender to make a practical contribution to the community as a recognition of the effect of the offence on the community generally. Hundreds of community projects are completed each year by people serving periodic detention orders.

A periodic detainee gets a sentence ranging from three months to three years. A periodic detainee serves this sentence by attending a periodic detention centre two days per week - usually on weekends. If a detainee's progress is satisfactory, the detainee is placed on what is known as "stage 2 periodic detention" and does not have to stay over-night at the detention centre. It is important to remember that periodic detention has always been, and remains, a sentence of imprisonment. Thus, if a periodic detainee fails to adhere to the conditions of periodic detention, he or she faces the prospect of serving the remainder of the sentence in full-time imprisonment. This prospect is real. In 1994-95, 399 periodic detainees had their sentences converted to full-time imprisonment for non-compliance with the terms of their orders for periodic detention.

As at 12 November, there were 1,481 offenders in New South Wales serving sentences of periodic detention. In the week ending 12 November 1995, by far the majority of these offenders actually attended periodic detention centres as required. However, some level of non-attendance is inevitable. Some detainees cannot attend because they are genuinely ill, or have some other legitimate reason for not attending. There are, however, detainees who simply fail to attend. I trust honourable members will appreciate that it takes a lot of self-discipline on the part of a periodic detainee, weekend after weekend, for up to three years, to leave family and friends and go to a periodic detention centre to do unpaid community work. For an offender - someone who is probably not used to exercising self-discipline - the temptation not to turn up is strong.

I have taken some time to give the House the background to the bill I am introducing. I feel that this background is necessary to understand what the bill is all about. The bill is designed to make a series of amendments to the Periodic Detention of Prisoners Act - 31 amendments altogether. These amendments, when added together, will tighten up the periodic detention scheme. No one amendment will cause the number of non-attendees to fall but, collectively, the amendments should reduce that number. These amendments on their own will not significantly reduce non-attendance, because the periodic detention scheme is largely catering for people who are not by nature self-disciplined. The amendments will be supported by other administrative measures such as judicial education and qualitative improvements to periodic detention programs in order to bring about lasting change.

I now turn to the bill itself. For the assistance of honourable members, I will make my remarks in the same order as the points made in the Parliamentary Counsel's explanatory note to the bill. As there are so many amendments, I will address only the more important of them. The bill will insert new section 5AA into the Act so as to require a sentencing court, when making an order for periodic detention, also to make an order that the offender concerned submit to the taking of identifying particulars - in other words, to having his or her fingerprints and photograph taken. This amendment is designed to ensure that a person who turns up at a periodic detention centre is in fact the person who was sentenced by the court. Officers administering the periodic detention scheme have, on occasion, suspected that the person turning up was not the person who was actually sentenced.

It may at first seem strange that someone would do another person's sentence but, either for money or through fear, it seems that some people may have done so. I might mention that the same problem does not arise with a sentence of full-time imprisonment as the offender is taken straight from court to imprisonment. So far as the fingerprinting and photographing is concerned, I emphasise three points. First, that these procedures will not be carried out by court officers. In almost all cases, they will be carried out by corrective services personnel, though there may be some cases where, by prior arrangement, the fingerprinting and photographing of detainees will be done by police officers. The second point I emphasise is that the fingerprint records of periodic detainees will be held exclusively by the Department of Corrective Services and will not be entered on the national police fingerprint data base, known as the automated fingerprint identification system.

The third point I emphasise is that the fingerprinting and photographing of periodic detainees under proposed section 5AA will not mean that persons currently not fingerprinted will in future be fingerprinted. It will simply mean that the same persons will be fingerprinted and photographed twice: once at the court at the time of sentencing; and a second time at their initial arrival at the detention centre. The bill will amend section 21 of the Act to increase from two to six weeks the maximum period by which a sentence of periodic detention may be extended to penalise a periodic detainee for failure to report.

At present if a detainee fails to report, and does not have a legitimate reason, the detainee must make up the lost week, and also automatically incurs an additional week on his or her sentence. If the detainee again fails to report, another penalty week is incurred. If a detainee fails on a third occasion to report, the Commissioner for Corrective
Page 3755
Services is able to apply to the court to have the periodic detention order cancelled and, if the offence is proved, the detainee sent to full-time imprisonment for the remainder of the sentence. Since court processes take a little time, however, a detainee who continues not to report while the commissioner is applying for cancellation of the order incurs no penalty for those further failures to report. By increasing to six weeks the maximum period by which a sentence of periodic detention may be extended for failure to report, the amendment will impose a greater penalty on a detainee who persistently fails to report.

The bill inserts new section 20A into the Act so as to enable the Commissioner for Corrective Services, or his delegate, to direct that a detainee take leave of absence. At present, the powers of correctional officers to send home a detainee who is, say, under threat from his or her co-offenders, are unclear. The amendment will overcome this sort of problem by clarifying that correctional staff have the power to send home a detainee when necessary. Detainees often work at more than one location during any two-day detention period. For example, a group of detainees may perform work in a number of different schools over a number of weekends. At present, detention centre staff have to issue an order to each detainee in respect of each work site each weekend.

The bill amends section 10 of the Act to enable staff to issue an order to each detainee covering a number of detention periods and simply stating the various approved registered places where the detainee must work. This amendment will reduce unnecessary paperwork. The bill repeals section 29 of the Act and inserts in section 27 a new formula for calculating the unexpired portion of a sentence of periodic detention. This amendment deals with a complicated problem, and I will explain it as succinctly as possible. Prior to 1992, if a periodic detainee failed to turn up for periodic detention, and was unable to provide a legitimate excuse, the penalty was imprisonment for up to one year or a fine of up to $1,000. In 1992 the Act was amended to extend automatically a sentence of periodic detention by up to two weeks as a penalty for unauthorised absences. As I have already mentioned, the number of weeks by which a sentence may be extended for unauthorised absences will now be a maximum of six weeks.

When the 1992 amendment was made, the wording of section 21 was changed to give effect to the proposal. It can be argued that the new wording of section 21, read in conjunction with section 29, has the effect of extending the sentence, not by up to two weeks, but by the total number of weeks during which absences occurred before the periodic detention order was cancelled. As a result, it can further be argued that the balance of a sentence of periodic detention may now sometimes end up far longer than the original sentence. The Department of Corrective Services has not, in fact, implemented this formula as the formula is clearly contrary to Parliament's intention. But the anomaly needs to be removed.

At present, a court may refuse to cancel a periodic detention order in respect of a person who has failed to report on three or more occasions if it is satisfied that the person ought to have been granted leave of absence or an exemption. The bill amends section 25(3B) of the Act to limit the court's discretion in this regard so that a court will only be able to refuse to cancel an order where the person actually applied for leave of absence or exemption. Anything less than an application will not be sufficient grounds for a court to refuse to cancel a periodic detention order after three failures to report. At present, when a court cancels a periodic detention order, it can impose a term of full-time imprisonment or make a parole order.

The bill amends section 27(4) so that a court may, if it considers it appropriate, impose some other penalty on a detainee whose periodic detention order it has just cancelled. For example, a court may decide to impose a community service order. This increased flexibility is desirable as circumstances for detainees can change considerably - for example, through unemployment or because of family illness - making full-time imprisonment inappropriate. To ensure that this amendment does not lead to detainees having a de facto right of appeal against their sentences of periodic detention, the bill states that an application under proposed section 27(4) may only be made by the Commissioner for Corrective Services. When a court imposes a sentence of periodic detention, the offender is given an order which includes the date on which to report for periodic detention, and the location where to report. Section 8 of the Act requires that the commencement date of an order must not be earlier than seven days after the date on which the sentence was imposed.

Instances have, however, occurred where a court has specified a commencement date less than seven days after the date on which the sentence was imposed and, as a result, the offender has turned up early at the detention centre. In some cases, the officer in charge of the centre has felt it necessary to send the offender away. To avoid that sort of thing happening, the bill amends section 8 so that an order containing a date error is not invalidated and a periodic detainee who turns up early as a result of the error can start his or her detention immediately. When an offender reports for his or her first detention period, staff at the detention centre must carry out a number of procedures which do not have to be repeated at subsequent attendances. These procedures include checking the order, taking fingerprints and photographs, recording personal details of the detainee and making a health assessment. In addition, staff conduct an abbreviated induction session so that the new detainee is in no doubt about what is expected of him or her. The whole exercise takes about two or three hours.

The bill amends section 9 of the Act so that a
Page 3756
new detainee, instead of reporting with other detainees on the evening before the start of his or her first two-day detention period, will report at 8.30 a.m. on the following day. Staff will then be able to conduct a comprehensive induction session with new detainees without the distraction caused by checking in existing detainees. Section 18 of the Act provides for the transfer of an unruly detainee from a detention centre to a correctional centre for the unexpired portion of a detention period. In the event of such a person subsequently committing a prison offence, there is some doubt about whether that person can be disciplined under the Prisons Act or whether the person has to be disciplined under the Periodic Detention of Prisoners Act.

The bill amends section 28 to make it clear that such a person can be disciplined under the Prisons Act. When the Department of Corrective Services applies to a court to cancel a periodic detention order, the department may provide to the court a certificate stating that the person concerned is a detainee and giving particulars of the detention order and the failure of the person to abide by that order. Section 25(5) of the Act provides that, before such a certificate can be admitted into evidence, the court must be satisfied that reasonable efforts have been made to serve a copy of the certificate on the detainee. Courts have, however, been reluctant to accept service by post to the detainee's last known address as satisfactory service for the purpose of section 25(5). As a result, the department has not in recent times attempted to submit section 25 certificates.

The bill amends section 25 to require the court simply to be satisfied that a copy of the certificate was delivered personally to the detainee, sent by post to the last known address of the detainee, or faxed to a number nominated by the detainee. Offenders who report late for periodic detention can cause considerable disruption. They also set a precedent for others to follow. On the other hand, sometimes a detainee reports late because of genuine transport difficulties, or because of work commitments combined with the distance travelled to the centre. At present, detention centre staff must either require the detainee to return home and make up the whole two-day detention period another time, or make special arrangements to vary the hours for that detainee. Varying the hours is not a viable option, as staffing costs are such that detention centres cannot be kept open to accommodate one or two detainees after all the others have left.

To give the department other options for dealing with a detainee who reports late, the bill inserts new section 21AA into the Act so that, depending on the particular circumstances, the department can treat late arrival as failure to report; or can allow a detainee to make up the time later, for example, during stage two of the program. There have been a number of instances where a detainee has submitted a certificate from a medical practitioner in support of an application for leave of absence but the department has had reasonable grounds to doubt the validity of the certificate. To curb such behaviour, the bill amends section 34 of the Act to allow regulations to be made requiring a detainee to undergo a medical examination by a government medical officer, if the department considers such an examination to be necessary. The examination would be at the department's expense but in the detainee's own time.

Periodic detainees under the influence of alcohol and illicit drugs can be extremely disruptive and even dangerous to staff and other detainees. Clauses 32 to 38 of the Periodic Detention of Prisoners Regulation 1995 enable the department to test detainees for alcohol and drugs. There is some doubt, however, whether the Periodic Detention of Prisoners Act provides sufficient legislative base for these clauses. The bill amends section 34 to confirm the existing power to make regulations relating to testing detainees for alcohol consumption and drug-taking. That concludes the remarks I wish to make about particular amendments contained in this bill. I would like to reiterate, however, the point I made at the outset. This bill contains 31 amendments, the cumulative effect of which will be to tighten up the periodic detention scheme. The amendments are sensible responses to areas where improvement can be made. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Hazzard.


Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [5.22]: I should like to address the education appropriation and some of the things the Minister touched on in the estimates committee. I will refer also to other matters within the budget which are of great concern not only to the Opposition but also to parents, teachers and students in New South Wales. I will briefly address bank accounts. The Minister made much in the estimates committee of the amalgamation of all school banking accounts into one central fund and the additional interest that
Page 3757
would accrue. We were not able to get a straight answer from the Minister at the estimates committee, so I would like him to say now whether all additional interest will go to individual schools according to the amount that they have on deposit. In other words, will individual schools receive all the benefit from the additional interest of $15 million that he has created by amalgamating these bank accounts into one central account?

Has the Minister estimated and discussed with Commonwealth Bank branches, particularly in country areas, the impact of this lesser amount of business going through local branches and the greater amount of business going through the central office or through electronic banking? I would like the Minister's assurance that no bank branch, particularly in country areas, will be disadvantaged or closed as a result of this centralisation of school banking. Has the Minister consulted with parents at schools? Does he know how much of these accumulated bank accounts is parent money, raised by them in lamington drives and school fetes? This money is held on deposit with Department of School Education money because that is the way schools get greater benefit from interest over the years. Were parents consulted before the Minister decided to sweep all their money into a central account?

Members of parents and citizens associations tell me that they are extremely concerned about this matter. Does the Minister have any idea how many parent groups, parents and citizens associations and parents clubs will stop giving their money to the school's central account, hold it in their own accounts and only let out small amounts of money project by project? Has the Minister destroyed an important partnership that has existed over the years between schools and parents? Make no mistake, as a result of the Minister's announcement in the estimates committee in relation to fees, school fees are now compulsory. There is no question about that. During the estimates committee the Minister said that the amount that had been lost was $3.7 million for the year ended 30 November 1994. He went on to talk about a cumulative loss that might have accrued of about $14 million. This is not the Minister's money. These are voluntary parent contributions. Until the legislation is changed they will remain voluntary contributions.

It is arrogance in the extreme for the Minister to say at the estimates committee that this money has been lost and he will get it back. It is not his money. Parents are telling me that it is unbelievable that the Minister could make the arrogant assumption that that is his money by right. They are concerned at the link that has been created between the money the Government uses to fund schools and the contributions made by parents. The Minister said at the estimates committee of this Parliament, "I am keen to retain the notion of capping contributions for the time being because the Government is concerned that there should be links between the level of voluntary school contributions, the financial position of individual schools, a school's performance and the distribution of resources to schools in the form of funding, staffing and physical facilities."

The Minister has established for the first time in history a link between so-called voluntary parent contributions and the amount that the Government will give to all schools. What will flow from this? I note that the Minister has not seen fit to grace us with his presence in the Chamber. I would like him to address one question. If he calculates the amount that accrues to the school through voluntary contributions and the amount that schools receive from parent fees and he links that to the school's contribution from the department and the fees that parents are asked to pay, will that money be taken into account when school funding is allocated by the department? Is a school penalised by the Minister for Education every time a parent does not pay a school fee? Does that money come out of a school's core funding?

I firmly believe that will be the result of the policy announced by the Minister and that will be the provision in the budget. I firmly believe that will be the result of this Minister's so-called voluntary school contributions. Make no mistake, this is a school tax. I want to know from the Minister what code of practice he has put in place for schools. Where is it? When can we see it? How can he guarantee to this Chamber and this Parliament that no parent will be forced, no child will be humiliated and no person will be persuaded beyond reasonable means to pay a voluntary contribution because he has made these contributions not voluntary for all time? It is something about which the Opposition is extremely concerned, and that concern is shared by parent groups. We will speak a lot more about this matter in this Parliament between now and the next election.

I have concerns also about the restructure of the Department of School Education, particularly in regard to the amount of money that will save. Budget Paper No. 2, page 1-45, table 1.12, shows that Treasury's estimate of savings as a result of the restructure of the Department of School Education is $6 million for 1996-97 or 1997-98. It is clearly there in black and white. When the Minister was asked about this in the estimates committee he could not provide a straight answer. All he could do was parrot, "The full impact of the $17 million savings is planned to be achieved in 1997-98. I make that quite plain."

Either the Minister is wrong and has therefore misled the estimates committee or Treasury is wrong, but both of them cannot be wrong. The Minister says that the saving is $17 million in 1997-98. If that is the case it should be in Treasury's table in Budget Paper No. 2. I would back Treasury over the Minister every time. Treasury says the saving from the massive destruction of the Department of School Education
Page 3758
is $6 million. If it is just $6 million, why are we going through all this pain? Why are schools reporting to me, virtually daily, that they have suddenly discovered that the help they have always relied on from the region is gone; and why cannot senior educators in the department apply for their own jobs under the restructure?

Why are we losing the expertise of people in the department who have worked their way through certain career structures provided under the previous Government? Why are people from head office and the former regions falling back into school positions, and stagnating - constipating, as I said the other day - the proper process of career enhancement of teachers? Why is all of that happening for a saving of only $6 million? It makes no sense to the Opposition, none at all. I would like some assurances from the Minister about those issues. I should like to speak about class sizes. The Minister has spoken about additional teachers in schools, but as the Opposition has demonstrated, most of the additional teaching positions are not classroom positions but training places: positions that will allow the Minister to put teachers into professional development courses, which we applaud. We think the professional development of teachers is extremely important, but it is very wrong of the Minister to pretend that he has put classroom teachers into the system when he has not; they are mostly training places. I would like the Minister to have addressed these questions, but once again I note that he is not in the Chamber to respond, as full accountability requires.

It is a mockery of the process of having this Committee consideration if the Minister to whom the allocation applies is not here to address the questions. It reflects very badly on the Minister. He knew this debate was scheduled, as did every member of this House. He should be here. But, as he is not, I ask the very courteous Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services, who is present, to take these questions to the Minister for Education and Training. What has been the change in the school staffing formula for teachers in the following categories: preschool teachers, kindergarten to year 2 teachers, years 3 to 6 teachers, years 7 to 10 teachers, and years 11 and 12 teachers?

I am not a betting man, so my guess is that there has been no change to the staffing formulas for any of those year categories in schools and - this will give the proof to what I said earlier - the teacher positions created by the Government in this budget are not classroom teachers but a statistical trick. Class sizes have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of the policies of the Australian Labor Party. Class sizes have gone off Labor's agenda. Nowhere in the budget are class sizes reduced. Not one composite class is done away with by this budget, which makes a mockery of the rhetoric of the Australian Labor Party during its years in opposition, and the so-called commitments it made. Forget them; they are more broken promises. I require answers to those questions on behalf of students, parents and teachers.

I require answers to questions about capital works. Why has capital works funding been slashed by over 12 per cent? Why was the capital works budget for major and minor works for 1994-95 $198.5 million? Why is it $173 million this year? Why has the minor capital works budget been cut by one-third from $93.2 million to $60.7 million? Is it because the Government has gone soft on school maintenance to try to shore up other aspects of the budget? The first budget of the Carr Labor administration is consistent in that capital works generally across New South Wales have been slashed, cut, slowed down. The bottom line is that it is regressive for employment. It will have a devastating impact on the quality of education delivered in schools.

Minor capital works have been cut by more than one-third. In the estimates committee the Minister confirmed that the regular cyclic maintenance program, which under the previous Government guaranteed that every one of our 2,222 schools received a certainty of maintenance funding, has gone. Schools in the electorate of the honourable member for Newcastle, the Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services and all honourable member opposite will not receive a certain, regular cyclic maintenance allocation. It is now a needs-based allocation. In Labor parlance that means white-board based.

For example, under the previous Labor administration Asquith Boys High School in my electorate had holes in the floor because Labor governments had never spent money where it was needed. That will happen once again as a result of what the Minister has done in this budget. I would like him to address why he saw fit to do away with the regular maintenance that is so important to schools, and why he has cut maintenance funding and capital works funding overall. I have a number of other questions which, if time allows, I will address later. The Opposition is extremely concerned about the big issues of bank accounts and school fees. It is concerned about the restructuring of the Department of School Education, in particular savings that accrue, and class sizes. [Time expired.]

Mr RIXON (Lismore) [5.37]: When a New South Wales Government has recurrent expenditure of $4,704,832,000 and capital expenditure of $306,620,000 it is important that there is a staffing structure, a supervisory structure to ensure that the money is well spent. Does the Minister have in place a staffing structure to ensure that these funds are spent efficiently, with the greatest possible value obtained for each dollar spent? Let us investigate what will happen to property maintenance and new building construction on the far north coast. The north coast regional office had an excellent properties group led by Dave Muddiman. With his expertise and team, he put together the plans, working drawings and everything needed to build
Page 3759
two classroom blocks more cost effectively than has ever been achieved anywhere in New South Wales. In fact, his model is now being used throughout the State.

The same properties team supervised the construction of new schools in such a way that the fast-growing north coast area of this State was served to the best possible advantage. In addition, that team organised school building maintenance in such a way that each time they visited a school the buildings were gradually upgraded. Many of the school buildings in that area were constructed in the 1880s. They might have been adequate for education in those days, but even if they had survived in mint condition they would be inadequate for the needs of 1995. However, continual maintenance and improvement of those buildings by the properties team enabled schools to satisfy modern-day resource, teaching, environmental and educational requirements.

Dave Muddiman and his team, with pure dedication to their job, were able to achieve miracles on ordinary rates of pay. They were miracle workers who were able to go way beyond what was normally required of any other properties group in New South Wales. They set a State benchmark that all other properties groups aspired to match. But they have been disbanded and wiped out; their expertise has been lost. Notwithstanding the huge amounts of money allocated to education, it appears that the school buildings on the north coast will be supervised and maintained by a group operating 1,000 kilometres away in Newcastle, Sydney, Bathurst or Wollongong, or wherever the properties office will end up.

The result of that budget decision is already surfacing: virtually zilch construction or maintenance of school buildings on the north coast. Stage one of the Nimbin school was completed at the end of last month; stage two should be proceeding. Students at Nimbin live in a disadvantaged area which is remote from Lismore and not easy to get to. Central Nimbin school has old, demountable buildings. The whole primary school was in demountable buildings. The whole secondary school is in buildings older than any member in this Chamber - perhaps even older than some honourable members opposite. Stage two of construction, which should have been started, has been put off for at least 12 months. Because construction is not going ahead according to plan, students in the secondary part of that school have to walk one kilometre from one classroom to another between periods. The new classrooms for art are in the new building, and classrooms for other subjects are in the old building. Those conditions are intolerable for even a short time, but students will have to endure them for at least another 12 months, all because of some whiz kid's idea about reorganising the supervision of buildings.

The north coast properties group was able to put together cost-effective and efficient plans for getting libraries and other necessary and much-needed facilities into schools to provide students with the educational environment they deserve, an environment that is commonly enjoyed by pupils in the Sydney area. Schools on the north coast are often remote from towns, which in turn lack accommodation to substitute for classroom buildings. New schools had been opening each year and there were ongoing plans to gradually upgrade schools in the north coast area. Lismore High School and Wyrallah Road Public School were scheduled to have new library blocks during the coming year. Plans were being drawn up, and tenders should have been called this year.

But our properties group has been destroyed. Plans for those classrooms are not going ahead. Consequently, we will not receive the value for the dollar that we would have received if our properties group had been maintained. Because of a false cost-cutting measure we will pay more for school buildings and school maintenance on the north coast than we might have done otherwise. If that properties group had remained in operation, the whole State would have benefited to the tune of many millions of dollars. Such cost cutting is a false economy. The Government wants to spend a shilling to save sixpence. Instead of saving $6 million, the Government will be spending $12 million.

The people on the north coast are extremely disappointed with the budget, not so much about the amount of money being put into education but about the way it will be spent. Support will be lacking for teachers, students, administration, for those travelling on buses, and for those who expect to have buildings of a reasonable standard in which to conduct classes. Lismore High School, an excellent school, has a substandard library and will have to put up with it for a few more years. I should admit that I have a special interest in Lismore High School. I went to that school, which over the years has been gradually improved and has maintained modern educational standards. But that improvement will not continue and the buildings will be allowed to become second rate. My children, who attend that school, will suffer because they do not have access to adequate library facilities enjoyed by most other schools throughout the State.

Exactly the same situation applies at Wyrallah Road Public School; it is so named because it is just off the road to Wyrallah. For years that school has had to tolerate a substandard library building. A tender for new buildings was supposed to be put out this year, but that also has been lost. I have used those examples to show how the budget and the Minister's policies will cost education in New South Wales huge amounts of money as a result of lack of supervision of properties. The same shortfall will occur across the State in a host of other areas because past standards of supervision or service in schools cannot be continued. Children, especially those in country areas, will suffer.


Page 3760
I ask the Minister to look closely at what he is doing. He should compare what has been happening with what is about to happen, and give the people on the north coast a fair go. The nearest boundary of my electorate is further from Sydney than the boundary of any other electorate in New South Wales, with the exception of Murwillumbah. No electorate is more remote from Sydney than the electorate of Lismore, and the service the electorate gets from Sydney is obvious. If the Minister for Education and Training, who should be at the table, intends to look after the children of New South Wales he should look beyond Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong to more remote areas of the State and serve the children in those areas as well.

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.

Pursuant to standing orders business interrupted.



Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [5.51]: I speak as a patron of the Peat Island Residential Centre, which is located on the Hawkesbury River. The centre has become the subject of unfavourable media publicity in recent days, and comments have been made about it by the Minister for Community Services, the Hon. R. D. Dyer, in another place. His comments are ill-founded and mistaken. He stated, for example, that there are 170 nursing staff on the island, when in fact there are only 86, of whom 26 are on various forms of leave. Effectively there are only 60 staff to look after 136 patients. The Minister stated that the Department of Health owns the island. That is true, but the bulk of the facilities - such as 17 houses, the Mooney Mooney petrol station, the chapel, the staff quarters and the recreation hall - are all located on the mainland and are owned by the Department of Community Services.

The statement of the Minister that caused the most concern was his statement that the centre must close. His guarantee yesterday that residents would have full facilities available to them for the rest of their lives cannot be taken seriously. The Minister is in no position to give such a guarantee; he can only speak for his term of office and for the term of office of the Labor Government. Staff and residents on the island are seriously concerned about their future. One particular aspect of their concern is an inquiry that has been ordered by the Minister under the Public Sector Management Act into allegations of sexual abuse of one of the residents on the island. Eric Holtmann, the director, has been compelled to take stress leave; Geoff Green, the deputy director, has gone away on stress leave; Warren Martin, a senior nurse with 34 years of service, has had to take stress leave and has now transferred to recreation leave; Alan Murchie, another senior nurse on the island, has had a forced transfer to Gosford; Alan Burt, another nurse, has resigned; and Ellen Beven, who was on stress leave, has recently returned.

Those six senior people have all been caught up in these tragic events. They relate to a 19-year-old boy, Darren, who is alleged to have sexually molested a girl. Darren is severely disabled and is unable to express his affection. He sought the affection of a girl and followed her around. He hugged her and on a number of occasions acted in various improper ways. As a result, an inquiry has been ordered - not into Darren's conduct but into the six staff. The inquiry is being conducted under the Public Sector Management Act by Dr Moira Carmody. The allegations against the six members of staff boil down essentially to an allegation that they failed to report the allegations of sexual assault to police. As the staff have pointed out: what could the police have done? The boy is severely disabled, he is in the centre, and he is not responsible for his actions. The staff had in fact informally reported the matter to police and discussed it with them.

Dr Moira Carmody is not a public servant. She is an academic and an alleged sexual assault expert. The inquiry is being conducted with narrow terms of reference. The staff are only allowed an observer. Dr Moira Carmody has a stenographer, who gives the staff a transcript. The report of the inquiry into the actions of the staff will not improve matters on the island but will simply hold the staff vicariously liable for these tragic incidents involving Darren. Darren has been on the island for 3½ years. He was originally placed there on respite care, and he has a record of seeking affection from all sorts of people, both male and female.

It was pointed out to me in the Minister's circular, No. ADS/116 dated 7 April 1995, that any expression of affection such as hugging can be termed sexual assault. When the Minister visited a centre at Armidale recently he was hugged by one of the residents. Under his definition that action would have constituted a sexual assault. The staff are being victimised and persecuted by this inquiry; they have suffered greatly. They believe the inquiry is only an excuse to cast aspersions against the administration of the centre as part of a broader agenda to eventually close the centre. I seek an assurance that the terms of reference will be widened to enable the inquiry to be conducted properly and fairly, and that the staff will not be made victims of a tragic incident involving a severely intellectually disabled 19-year-old boy. The staff involved have the full confidence of the parents. The staff have been on the island for many years and have given long and dedicated service to residents of the island. [Time expired.]


Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [5.56]: I draw the attention of the House to a booklet entitled "Animal
Page 3761
Research Saves Lives - Humans and Animals Both Benefit", which has been widely circulated by the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture, both in New Zealand and in Australia. I am deeply concerned at the large number of glaring inaccuracies in this booklet, which grossly overstates the importance of animal-based research to medical progress. Under the rhetorical subheading "What if we Halted Research Using Animals Today?" the pro-vivisection bias of this booklet is obvious. That is not surprising, as the booklet is prepared with the connivance of a number of societies and foundations dependent on animal experimentation.

It presents a list of vital research projects which it is claimed would have to be abandoned unless laboratory animals were used. Dogs have been the preferred choice for cardiac research but are poor models, given the many differences between dogs and humans. The cardiovascular systems of dogs and humans are different. The blood of dogs is less likely to clot than human blood. Dogs walk on four legs, thereby placing less stress on the circulatory system than upright humans. In dogs the left coronary artery dominates, while in humans the right dominates.

The pacemaker is a result of direct patient studies and can be credited to the work of Dr Walton Lillihei, at the University of Minnesota, with ventricular septal defect in children. Many important medical therapies have been held back by misleading data derived from animal models. An example is the development of coronary artery bypass surgery, where dog experiments falsely indicated that veins could not be used to replace clogged arteries. Another vivisection myth is the claim that the treatment of blue babies, who suffer from a congenital heart defect known as tetralogy of Fallot, was discovered through animal experimentation, whereas Dr Helen Taussig of the Pediatric Cardiac Clinic of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in the United States of America suggested a successful surgical procedure based on clinical observations and human autopsy studies.

Most people believe that Banting and Best, by their well-publicised experiments on dogs, were the discoverers of a cure for diabetes. Their experiments were strongly criticised at the time as ". . . a wrongly conceived, wrongly conducted, and wrongly interpreted series of experiments." The important links between the pancreas and diabetes came from clinical observations and were first demonstrated by Thomas Caulley in 1788, when he examined a patient who had died from the disease. Further autopsies by the American pathologist Dr Moses Barron, amongst others, revealed that the islets of Langerhans, a part of the pancreas, were damaged or even completely missing in diabetic patients. Only when the biochemist, Dr J. B. Collip, succeeded in purifying the crude pancreatic extract from animals did the preparation become less toxic and able to be used by patients. Ultimately, this was a crucial step in providing a relatively safe form of insulin. It must be stressed that insulin is not a cure for diabetes, and that its long-term use can lead to serious health problems such as permanent blindness. The causes of diabetes mellitus remain unknown in both man and animals, but there are obvious links with wrong diet, high sugar and animal fats, and obesity. Ross Horne in The Health Revolution wrote:

Dr James Anderson of the University of Kentucky Medical Centre, said: `With this kind of approach, diet only, 80 per cent of diabetics in this country could be normal in thirty to ninety days'.

With the marked differences between diabetes in animals and humans, and the fact that there is no laboratory method of inducing diabetes, research should concentrate on epidemiological studies and clinical research rather than continue with wasteful and misleading studies on animals which do not have the same type of diabetes as humans. Time precludes me from giving further examples of the many errors made in the booklet to which I have referred. I hope, however, that I have said enough to convince the House that the contents of the booklet should be viewed with a high degree of scepticism.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [6.01]: I thank the honourable member for East Hills for raising his concerns about the booklet entitled "Animal Research Saves Lives - Humans and Animals Both Benefit". The booklet broadly explains why animals are used in experimentation. As I said to the House last night, in response to the statement by the honourable member for Illawarra, most members of the community have concerns about the use of animals for medical research and, in some cases, cosmetic research. When researching this matter some time ago, I was assured that animals are not used in New South Wales for cosmetic research, they are used in medical research.

The honourable member for East Hills challenged what was probably standardised thinking by those who advocate the use of animals in such circumstances. As I said last night, the animal research review panel is in the process of planning a seminar to be held next year. The seminar will discuss and promote alternatives to the use of animals in teaching. I intend to send a copy of the Hansard containing the honourable member's speech to the animal research review panel to ensure that the challenge that he has put to the House and to the writers of the booklet is taken into consideration when the seminar is conducted. I refer the honourable member for East Hills to my comments last night. I commend him for his interest in this important issue. I hope that the use of animals for medical or cosmetic research will be eliminated much more quickly than the snail's pace in recent years.


Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [6.03]: I draw the attention of the House and the Minister for Gaming and Racing to a problem that has arisen in relation to Totalizator Agency Board agencies across
Page 3762
country New South Wales trading on Sundays. These agencies are now obliged to open on Sunday race days. There are 13 Sunday race days between now and next March, with meetings being held on 3, 10 and 17 December. The TAB Agents Association has raised the matter with TAB management. It has requested that current remuneration, which is 2 per cent of turnover, be renegotiated to give owners a better reason to open on Sundays. At present 2 per cent of a turnover of about $7,500 is equivalent to $150 for opening for eight hours on a Sunday. A turnover of $7,500 on a Sunday equates to one extra staff member. One staff member costs TAB agents an hourly rate of $30.64, which equates to about $250 for a Sunday. TAB agencies in country New South Wales that open on Sundays stand to lose $100.

Agents are looking at losing between $1,300 and $1,500 on the 13 Sunday race days between now and next March, purely because they are providing a service to the people of New South Wales, particularly country New South Wales. The agents are a little scared that the Government plans to push them out of the picture and to eventually give all TAB facilitates in country areas to PubTAB and ClubTAB. It should be noted by the House that PubTAB and ClubTAB are provided by clubs as nothing more than services to their patrons. While clubs are paid commission, they are prepared to run ClubTAB and PubTAB at a loss because of their poker machine income and the income they receive over the bar.

It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that small businessmen are given an opportunity to open on Sundays to provide a service to those who wish to have a punt on designated Sunday race days, most of which are legislated dates. To enable them to do that, they must be given fair remuneration. The agents have requested that they be paid $34 an hour, which would cover the cost of staff, plus l per cent of turnover. The average Sunday turnover is about $7,500. Many small agencies have a turnover of about $4,000, 1 per cent of which is about $75. In addition they receive the $240, which constitutes a meagre profit for one day. However, owners are happy to open under those circumstances to provide this service.

Mr Bob Wicks, who runs the TAB agency at Coffs Harbour, has raised this matter with me. I wrote to the Minister, advising him of these grave concerns. The Minister must act urgently. He must give TAB agents the opportunity to open on Sundays between now and Christmas. The agents have only three Sundays off between now and Christmas; those three days I have mentioned have now been set down as race days. Although the agents are prepared to open, but it must be worth their while. If they are to provide a service to the public, Mr Wicks and his colleagues must be given an assurance that their remuneration will match their effort.

People who wash dishes in restaurants are paid a rate of $28 an hour, yet people running their own businesses will take less than $100 for eight hours work, even under the suggested renegotiated position. The agents do not want to lose business to ClubTAB or PubTAB. As I said, it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that these people are given an opportunity to remain in business and to earn a wage that is better than that of their employees. At present, they earn well below what their employees receive. I ask the Minister to commence urgent negotiations with the TAB Agents Association and with the management of the TAB to ensure that the race days set down will afford the TAB agents an opportunity to make fair wages. After all, the agents provide a large amount of income to the Government; $7,500 per TAB is not bad income for the Government. [Time expired.]


Mr CLOUGH (Bathurst) [6.08]: I thank the Minister for Education and Training for his appreciation of an important education group located in Bathurst known as the media and marketing unit. For a number of years the job of this extremely professional group of people has been to record activities of schools in the western region, and make the film available to commercial stations for regular programming. Unfortunately, in the reorganisation of the Department of School Education there was a move to do away with this unit. I made a personal approach to the Minister during the week and he has given me an undertaking that the unit will continue until the end of 1996, by which time the unit should be self-supporting. My purpose in bringing the matter to the attention of the House is to pay a tribute to the man who heads the unit, Bruce Ryan, and the staff who work with him, including the communications staff from Charles Sturt University and a number of other people who are associated with the programs that they make throughout the western region of New South Wales.

The degree of professionalism in this unit is extremely high. The quality of the work produced by its officers is magnificent. The equipment is modern and the unit knows exactly what it is doing with it. It is not as if the unit is taking up space that is urgently required by the Department of School Education; it occupies the old south Bathurst primary school. I can only imagine that in the days when it was a primary school there must have been very few children attending as it is a very small area. Studios have been set up by the unit and it is capable of producing high-class work. Mr Ryan and his staff have operated on a very small budget over many years. They receive funding from the department for 1.5 people - not a great amount of money for possibly the best public relations unit the Department of School Education could hope for.

The staff travel all over New South Wales and their salaries are moderate to say the least. The Minister has made the right decision to keep the unit operating until the end of 1996. I know that the staff are pleased to hear that they will be guaranteed
Page 3763
employment until then, that the various programs that they have put into place will be finalised, and that by 1997 they will be in a position to fund themselves. The Minister has given an undertaking in that regard and I thank him very much for it. I commend Bruce Ryan and his media marketing unit in Bathurst to all of those government departments that require public relations expertise. The unit is an excellent unit and I congratulate it.

Dr KERNOHAN (Camden) [6.12]: I speak on behalf of the aged, the infirm, the disabled and mothers with babies in prams or toddlers in strollers in my electorate and the electorate of the Minister for Public Works and Services - some of the many people who use Campbelltown railway station. During the term of the last Government I convinced former Minister Baird to bring forward the upgrade of Campbelltown railway station. It is an old-fashioned railway station with an overhead bridge. Two lifts were to be included in the upgrade so that the disabled, the aged, the infirm and mothers with strollers could have easy access to the station. I thank the present Government for continuing with this project. It is under way and I hope it will be finished very soon.

However, in discussions with former Minister Baird, I noticed in the detail of the proposal that a special bus zone exists at the very location of the lifts from the street. That means that only pedestrians and able-bodied people who could use the buses or walk to the station will be able to use the lifts. Motor vehicles are not able to use the buses-only area; motorist who drive their vehicles into the area will be booked. Parking spaces for the disabled is a minimum of 200 metres away. Would the Minister for Public Works and Services agree with that?

Mr Knight: I do not want to interject.

Dr KERNOHAN: I was asking the Minister to agree with my estimation of 200 metres. Disabled people and the aged will have to walk a minimum of 200 metres from parking to the station lifts. When I brought this matter to the attention of former Minister Baird he said, "Right, that is true, we will look at it." The solution offered was for the inclusion of a third lift on the other side of the bridge where there are steps leading down to an State Rail Authority car park. This proposal was agreed to by the Department of Transport to ensure that there would be a lift in close proximity to parking spaces for the disabled.

Recently I was informed by SRA employees - later confirmed by the Department of Transport - that a third lift was not going to be installed until next financial year. It appears that the lift has been included in a major interchange proposal in the car park area. This proposal involves land transfers and negotiations with the SRA and the Campbelltown City Council. There is no guarantee that these negotiations will be successful. The disabled and the aged, who cannot walk for any distance, will not be able to use the two lifts that are provided. It is ridiculous as the only other place at which a lift could be installed is at the other end of the bridge, on land owned by the SRA. So there will be two departments involved in the negotiations.

I beg the Minister for Transport to talk to the two departments to expedite the provision of the third lift so that it becomes operative at about the same time as the other two come on line. Let the two departments haggle over the interchange and any other part of the proposal. Surely it must be cheaper to install three lifts at the same time in the one area than it would be to install two lifts now and install a third later. I am hoping that the Minister for Public Works and Services, in whose electorate the station is located, will support my request to ensure that the lifts will be installed as soon as possible.

Mr KNIGHT (Campbelltown - Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads) [6.16]: I have noted the comments of the honourable member for Camden. This statement is just one more step in the very long saga of these lifts. The honourable member for Camden is keen to draw attention to her involvement in the matter following the 1991 election; I was involved in it after the 1988 election when I had great difficulty persuading the then Government to do anything. Indeed, after I had persuaded the Government to allocate funds it subsequently took it back half way through the year and sent it off to Strathfield. This project has a long and sorry history. However, I will take up with my colleague the matters the honourable member for Camden has raised and see what can be done to ensure that we get an optimum solution at Campbelltown railway station. I am not sure that the solution she is proposing is the optimum one but I acknowledge that the problem she has raised is a genuine one.


Ms NORI (Port Jackson) [6.17]: Earlier today the House debated an urgency motion relating to the appalling comments and behaviour of the Federal Leader of the Opposition and his attempts to stop the progress of Badgerys Creek airport. I would like to comment on the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition in the Federal Parliament and his attitude generally to airport issues. One more time I put on the record that many people were opposed to the third runway, and took airport issues in Sydney seriously, right from day one in 1989 and even earlier. That cannot be said of everyone in this House and those who have participated in the general debate. I can say with a clear conscience that those of us who opposed the
Page 3764
third runway never received support from the coalition parties in the State Parliament.

Neither the previous Government nor Mr Howard ever really got it right. We now have the spectacle of the Leader of the Opposition in the Federal Parliament putting forward legislation that seeks to betray the curfew provisions and will allow aircraft movement 24-hours a day on the east-west runway. The Federal Leader of the Opposition did not consider the fact that aircraft have pathways and many of those aircraft will end up again crossing traditional north-south areas creating even more havoc. In contrast, despite what the Opposition tried to do today this Government has a comprehensive response to aircraft matters.

The Minister for Planning will be setting up the Sydney West Airport Development Corporation. The Minister for Public Works and Services requested the Standing Committee on Public Works, as its first terms of reference, to determine infrastructure requirements for Badgerys Creek airport. The Government has also established a backbench committee which made, may I say - because I was the author - a very substantial and worthwhile submission to the Senate Select Committee on Aircraft Noise. The Federal Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, has always supported the east-west runway. He has been very equivocal with regard to the curfew, but his latest foray into trying to find a solution to the runway issue really takes the cake.

John Howard wants to fully reopen the east-west runway. Yet, he will not acknowledge how he will overcome the obstacle that Air Services Australia is legislatively entrusted with the responsibility for determining what is and is not safe with operational requirements of airports and runway usage. I am not quite sure why the media has never taken him to task on such a complex issue. How will he instruct that organisation to fully reopen the east-west runway? Whether or not it is desirable to reopen that runway, I should have thought that any future Prime Minister, if that is how John Howard views himself, would have difficulty instructing Air Services Australia on safety matters.

Of course, Air Services Australia will not say it is safe to reopen the east-west runway. Rightly or wrongly that is the view of that organisation and it is sticking to it. It will say that post-intersection take-offs and departures are safe. In other words, light aircraft can use that portion of the east-west runway that does not intercept with the major north-south runway. For every small aircraft that is on the east-west runway, either landing or taking off, will liberate not one but two more jet aircraft movements north-south. What a terrific response, Mr Howard! Thank you very much from those of us who live north-south of the runway. I am sure his constituents will also thank him for that decision.

John Howard has never got it right. He is now calling for non-designated flight paths. Not only will those people already suffering have to put up with increased aircraft noise, but also extensive areas over the inner city will be sprayed with aircraft noise. It never ceases to amaze me how opportunistic and downright ignorant John Howard is about such complex issues. Of course, he does not realise - or perhaps he does - that if he succeeds in opening the east-west runway in a manner that Air Services Australia will permit, the capacity of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport will increase. That is terrific! Where is the impetus to build Badgerys Creek airport, which is the only solution to the problems of the people of the inner city? [Time expired.]

Mr KNIGHT (Campbelltown - Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads) [6.22]: It is enlightening to hear the honourable member for Port Jackson speak about the Sydney airport issue and what John Howard is doing to prevent Badgerys Creek airport opening on time. Throughout her career in this House she has been entirely consistent on this issue on behalf of her constituents. She took that line in opposition and takes the same line in government. She has taken a consistent approach when it has been helpful to her Federal colleagues and when it has not. Unlike the blatant and naked opportunistic people, such as John Howard and many honourable members opposite, she has been thoroughly and totally consistent in defence of the interests of her electorate. She has again shown today that not only does she hold a consistent position and have a persistent concern for her electors, but she also has a great deal of knowledge on the subject. The matters that she has enlightened the House about today concerning the third runway could well help John Howard understand.


Mr TURNER (Myall Lakes) [6.24]: I bring to the attention of the House the interference of bureaucracies with many voluntary groups that are prevalent within my electorate. I specifically refer to an organisation called Senior Day Care. What this organisation is going through is reflective of the predicament that many organisations in my electorate find themselves in. It is a simple case of bureaucracy gone mad. A representative of Senior Day Care visited me recently because he had reached the end of his tether with regard to forms he is required to complete. He gave me a list of those forms, which I shall read to the House. Honourable members should bear in mind that this is a small organisation, the basic purpose of which is to look after senior people by taking them on daily outings for recreation. All in all, it does a marvellous job.

The following forms are required to be completed: an authority from the Department of Gaming and Racing to fund raise; a continuation of
Page 3765
funding document from the Department of Community Services, which is 13 pages long; an application for continuing funding, 20 pages long, also for DOCS; a declaration of funding agreement and conditions, 20 pages long; an annual statement for the consumer affairs department which comprises numerous pages; a home and community care Commonwealth-State review of efficiency and effectiveness of HACC survey form, which is 22 pages long; a HACC form to find the unit cost of providing the service, 83 pages long; a survey document to find the unit cost, 10 pages long; a HACC daily data collection sheet, to be provided twice yearly, which I am told is impossible to complete, comprising 22 pages; a survey of policies and procedures for handling and monitoring consumer complaints from the Community Services Commission, which comprises six pages; and various newsletters and documents.

This is bureaucracy gone mad. The organisation is operated by retirees working to help other retirees by trying to provide a bit of quality of life for people in their twilight years. It is being hounded by bureaucracy. One document the representative was particularly concerned about is 83-page HACC document to find the unit cost of providing the service. My constituent told me that he started working on the document because, with bureaucracy the way it is, he was fearful that if the document was not completed, the organisation would not receive any funds. Big brother is at work! Of course, people are sitting in their offices dreaming up these documents to justify their positions; creating huge empires and bureaucracies around them. The representative, after spending four hours filling in the document, came across the following paragraph:

In brief, financial data (eg annual financial statements, monthly reports) relating to service delivery over a particular period is collected and this information is used to complete the Cost Framework to find the total cost of the service provision for that period.

This form must be completed to determine that cost. The paragraph continued:

Service provision data for the same period is collected and the total units of service are calculated. The total cost of service provision is divided by the total units of service to find the unit cost.

The purpose of filling out the form is to determine the unit cost, yet the form says that the unit cost is already available by following the procedure I have just read to the House. In his letter to me the representative said:

Thus, with the financial data (eg annual financial statements) which are sent to three separate agencies, and the HACC Service Provision Data Collection, which is supplied for the months of May and November, the information is already in the hands of H.A.C.C. and its associated agencies. The Service Providers should not be required to waste time duplicating their book work unnecessarily.

I agree wholeheartedly. This is a clear example of bureaucracy gone mad. This organisation is losing time - time which could be better spent with elderly people, young people and other needy people in the community. It is being asked to satisfy the egos of a multitude of bureaucrats who have to justify their positions by designing forms for such organisations to fill out. Some forms are obviously necessary, but surely they can be simplified so that the time of such worthy organisation is spent doing what they do best: providing a richer and better quality of life for the needy people of our community.

Mr STEWART (Lakemba) [6.29]: Tonight I pay tribute to a special constituent in my electorate. Two weeks ago Mrs Elsie May McVeigh of Liberty Street, Belmore, turned 100 years young. Elsie McVeigh, an amazing person, has lived in and contributed to my local area for nearly 80 years. I pay tribute to her for her contribution to our community. During her life she has struggled, sometimes against the odds. I thank Elsie McVeigh for being an outstanding and great Australian. Elsie May McVeigh was born on 8 November 1895 in the little New South Wales country town of Tallawang, near Gulgong. Gulgong is the town - small though it may be - where Henry Lawson spent some time; it is depicted on the old $10 note. Elsie grew up in that area. She was the fourth child in a large family of eight children. Her father was the local publican at Tallawang. From about the age of eight Elsie found herself working in the local hotel, not serving alcohol but doing odd jobs such as cleaning and other chores around the place. Basically, Elsie has never stopped working.

When she was 10 years old she moved to Coolah, which is north-west of Gulgong. From that time on during her childhood years she moved around with her family as her father took on new jobs as a publican. She helped out with those jobs and strongly supported the initiatives of her father and her family. In 1914 Elsie McVeigh moved to Craboon, where she met her husband, Hugh. She married Hugh in 1914 at the local pub at Craboon as there was no other place at which to hold the ceremony. At that stage there were very few houses and there was certainly no church. The priest had to come from Gulgong, which was miles away, to perform the marriage service. Elsie and her husband then moved Penshurst in Sydney - her first visit to Sydney. In 1918 she finally moved to Liberty Street in my local area of Belmore where she has resided for the past 77 years. At that time Belmore was very different from the Belmore of today. It was a rural community, even though it was so close to Sydney. In those days it was sparsely populated and very much a dairy farming community. Elsie made the best of that life. She spent her time rearing her young family.

She started to contribute to the community from the time she arrived in Belmore. She became involved with a number of community members in my local area who were raising money for a project which was as important then as it is today, that is, Canterbury Hospital. Canterbury Hospital, unlike
Page 3766
many other public hospitals, was not initially funded by the Government but by money raised in the local area, through chook raffles, various functions and dances. Elsie was at the forefront in raising that money and ensuring that Canterbury Hospital remained viable. That hospital, which has been preserved by this Government, is still operating today. During the 1930s - the Depression, which was obviously a tragic period for many Australians and for Elsie and her family - Mr McVeigh had to move to the country. For seven years he lived away from home - in the far west - while he was trying to get some money together for the family by doing odd jobs in rural communities.

Elsie raised her family of three children, kept house and maintained the family unit. She is to be commended for that. In that period she worked as a babysitter and did odd jobs. She told me that she charged 10 shillings a child and worked from 7 a.m. until 5 p.m. six days a week. That was not a bad achievement! Elsie McVeigh is an amazing person. A few weeks ago I had the humbling experience of giving her a bunch of flowers and thanking her for her contribution to our society and to Australia. Elsie is a true Australian. Because of people like Elsie - who are the backbone of our society - we have a great country. People like Elsie have made our future possible. I hope that the children of today and those of tomorrow remember people like Elsie. She should not be forgotten.


Mr LONGLEY (Pittwater) [6.34]: I refer to a matter of great importance to my electorate of Pittwater and to people living in the northern beaches area. This Government is in the process of reducing the number of police in that area. There is a grave risk that the police station at Avalon will be closed and that Mona Vale police station will suffer a severe reduction in staffing levels. That is simply unacceptable. The reduction in the number of police at Collaroy and Dee Why police stations is also unacceptable to people in the northern beaches area. Yesterday the Minister for Police made comments in this Chamber which need to be challenged. I challenge the Minister to justify those statements which are clearly untrue. He said:

. . . the previous Government, which decided that an establishment review - under the auspices of the former Minister for Police - would proceed to look at the establishment numbers in Warringah.

The honourable member for Wakehurst and all honourable members representing electorates in the northern beaches area are concerned about this issue. They spoke to the former Minister for Police, the Hon. Garry West, who said that the establishment review was not initiated by him but by the Police Service. The present Minister for Police has to justify his comment that the previous Government was involved in that issue. If he does not, it could be said that he has lied and misled the Parliament. Yesterday the Minister for Police also said:

In other words, 11 more police officers will be stationed in the region than would have been the case under the former coalition Government.

That is an abject and outright lie. The Minister for Police must justify his statements and provide documents to substantiate his comments in this place. He will be given the acid test to produce documentary evidence and to justify his statements in this Parliament in light of the fact that he said, "The answer I have just given in the Parliament is correct." This issue is important to the people in my area, as demonstrated by the 4,000 or more signatures on petitions that are presented by people in my area and people in the northern beaches area to this Parliament almost every day. It is demonstrated also by the 1,000 or more people who attended the Stop the Cop Drop rally. I commend Col Crawford on his role in organising that rally and I thank the staff of the Manly Daily for their support. An article in today's Manly Daily stated:

The Warringah peninsula would get its fair share of 650 new police . . .

The decision to cut police numbers in our area should be immediately reversed. If we are to have 650 new police, these cuts will not be needed. If the Government is serious about those additional police officers, it will reverse its decision to cut police numbers. Perhaps in reality these 650 new police officers are just another Labor lie.

Mr SCULLY (Smithfield - Minister for Small Business and Regional Development, Minister for Ports, Assistant Minister for Energy, and Assistant Minister for State Development) [6.39]: It is unfortunate that the honourable member for Pittwater chose to make a number of accusations about the Minister for Police in his absence. On behalf of the Minister for Police I express disappointment. The honourable member would be aware that police resources were plundered by the previous Government and allocated to coalition electorates above and beyond requirements. When I was in opposition I met a blank wall when I asked for police resources, but I am delighted to say that this Minister is fair dinkum about allocating police where they are needed. I am happy to convey the honourable member's thoughts to the Minister, but I resent the use of the word "lie" and the words "misleading the House". Such allegations are not becoming of the honourable member. He is regarded as a gentleman, but I think it was ungentlemanly of him to make such allegations.


Mr SULLIVAN (Wollongong) [6.40]: On Wednesday, 8 November, and Thursday, 9 November, the New South Wales Primary Schools Sports Association held its 1995 State athletics championships at the Homebush athletic centre. Over 4,000 children from across New South Wales, including 160 from the south coast region,
Page 3767
participated in events over the two days. For those two days the children of New South Wales displayed fine form in athleticism and sportsmanship, and provided an excellent example for us all. However, the championships were spoiled, not by the actions of the competitors but by the inflexibility of its administrators. I am concerned about the awarding of the Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal in particular, which is awarded to the outstanding athlete of the meet.

When competition ceased on Thursday, 9 November, it was time to recognise the outstanding athlete of the carnival. Two candidates for the award became immediately obvious. One was Michael Doggett from Lithgow Public School in the western region, who had significant achievements. He gained first place in the 11 year boys 200 metres, first place in the 11 year boys high jump, second place in the 11 year boys 100 metres and fifth place in the 11 year boys shot-put. The second candidate was Hayley Mathieson from Mt St Thomas Public School, who also had significant achievements. She gained first place in the 12-13 year girls long jump, first place in the 12 year girls 100 metres, second place in the 12-13 year girls 200 metres and third place in the 12-13 year girls high jump.

In gaining these achievements Michael and Hayley each broke more than two pre-existing records. Michael and Hayley are a credit to their schools, their regions and athletics generally. More importantly, they are both a tremendous credit to themselves and their families. They represent the spirit of our school sports program and the aspirations for our Olympic future. I am convinced that spectators at the State championships witnessed two outstanding athletes, both of whom should have received deserving recognition. The award should have been shared by these competitors - that is the general view taken on the south coast. But on the day, officials decided to award the coveted title to Michael.

Michael deserved the recognition as the championship outstanding athlete, but Hayley Mathieson deserved similar recognition. The discrepancy arose due to an administrative error. Hayley Mathieson, from Mt St Thomas, was registered as Hayley Thomas for the high jump final and her placing for the event was not counted in her final achievements until after the Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal was awarded. I should like to quote from a letter written by the Central Wollongong PSSA explaining the difficulties that occurred. The letter stated:

(1) Hayley's High Jump event was late finishing because it had to be held up to allow Hayley to race over to compete in the 200m final, race back, jump again, go over for the 200m presentation, race back to jump again, race over for the 100m final and come back to give her details. The high jump results were also the very last of the individual results to go in.

(2) Hayley's name was incorrectly written in the program. She was listed as Hayley Thomas from Mt St Thomas School. This also may have affected the computer print-out.

I have a copy of the print-out. I have written clarification from Mt St Thomas Public School outlining exactly what the situation was. The school had two participants in the athletic championships, Hayley Mathieson and Joshua Hatcliffe, but no-one by the name of Thomas represented Mt St Thomas school. The print-out of the result has H. Thomas as the third-placegetter in the high jump. I am concerned that no written or standardised criteria had been established to determine the awarding of this prestigious award. In this instance an excellent athlete, and I am not detracting from the achievements of the boy from Lithgow, has been denied the recognition that many believe she should have received.

Mr Scully: The Lithgow flash.

Mr SULLIVAN: No, the Mt St Thomas flash. I would ask the Minister to investigate this matter to, first, set a criterion that should apply in awarding the Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal; and second, consider this case to determine whether a dual award could be made this year for both Hayley Mathieson and Michael Doggett.

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.

[Mr Speaker left the chair at 6.45 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]


Bill received 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 Courts Legislation Further Amendment Bill seeks to amend various court legislation to provide for minor reform of certain court procedures and administration. The proposed amendments are minor in nature and have arisen primarily in the course of discussion with the respective jurisdictions on improving the administration of the courts. The objects of the bill are:

(i) amend section 64 of the District Court Act 1973 to permit a subpoena for production to specify a place other than the court, as the place of production;

(ii) amend section 95 of the Supreme Court Act 1970

Page 3768
and section 85 of the District Court Act 1973 to more clearly define the existence and circumstance for the exercise of the power to award interest on the amount of taxed costs;

(iii) repeal section 19(3) of the Coroners Act 1980 so that the Director of Public Prosecutions is no longer obliged to inform the Attorney General as to whether or not the director intends to proceed with criminal charges against the person concerned;

(iv) amend the Local Courts Act 1982 to provide for the delegation of the Minister's authority to the Director-General of the Attorney General's Department, to appoint a person to act temporarily in the office of Clerk of the Local Court;

(v) amend the District Court Act to provide that if two registrars are appointed for a particular place, each will be the registrar for the entire jurisdiction of the court, each having the functions specified in the ministerial order permitting the appointment of two registrars;

(vi) amend a number of statutes relating to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal and the Court of Criminal Appeal as follows:

(a) rationalise existing leave to appeal provisions;

(b) introduce a leave requirement in certain appeals relating to caveats under the Real Property Act 1900 and winding up under the Corporations Law;

(c) rationalise provisions relating to appeals to the Court of Appeal from the district and the Dust Diseases Tribunal to create essentially uniform provisions governing appeals from tribunals of co-ordinate status;

(d) make a minor amendment to the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to require leave to appeal from costs orders made by that court in class 4 matters;

(e) amend section 171F(4) of the Legal Profession Act 1987 and section 34(1) of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986, to limit the right to adduce fresh evidence in appeals from the Legal Services Tribunal and the Veterinary Surgeons Disciplinary Tribunal;

(f) amend section 46A of the Supreme Court Act 1970 to allow benches of two judges of appeal to deal with applications for leave to appeal, and applications involving questions of practice and procedure in appeals and other matters in the court which cannot be dealt with by a bench constituted by one judge;

(g) amend section 22 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 to increase the powers of the court when constituted by a judge sitting alone; and

(h) amend section 18(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 to make it clear that the justification for an order that time served pending determination of an appeal to the court is not to count, is confined to the deterrence of unarguable or frivolous appeals and to remove from it references to substituted sentences.

Section 64 of the District Court Act.

It is proposed to amend the District Court Act to allow subpoenaed documents to be delivered to a location other than the District Court. This proposal involves only minor legislative amendment and is confined to the District Court for the present to allow the District Court to test new procedures in a pilot study. In 1994 a review of court services was conducted. A discussion paper was released for comment on various proposals for reform arising from the review. One proposal was for reform of the subpoena process. The reform proposed involves the issue of a subpoena requesting the holder of the documents to provide photocopies of the material directly to the person who requested it, upon payment of sufficient conduct money to meet the reasonable costs of that photocopying. This would mean that instead of the original documents being forwarded to the court registry to be photocopied at that location, the photocopying will be conducted without the intervention of the registry.

The present procedure places a significant burden on all parties concerned, including the court. Having regard to the low incidence of objections to access orders being made, the fact that most of the material subpoenaed is photocopied by the parties, and that much of the material subpoenaed is not tendered in evidence, this proposal will limit the involvement of the court in the inspection of documents and material required in court proceedings to those occasions where intervention is clearly required. An additional benefit will be that the occasions on which a solicitor will be required to attend court to obtain access to subpoenaed material will, in most cases, be reduced. In the event that the holder of the documents should object to the photocopying of the subpoenaed material - for example, the holder does not have the facilities to photocopy the material, or the material is too bulky - it will be open to that person to make alternative arrangements directly with the solicitor concerned, for example, to view the documents on the premises of the holder of the documents.

In the event that a claim for privilege is to be made, the document holder would communicate that intention directly to the solicitor who issued the subpoena. If the solicitor intended to pursue obtaining access to the material subject to the claim, it would then be incumbent upon the issuing solicitor to file a notice of motion to list this matter before the court for the claim of privilege to be determined. A copy of this motion would be served on the holder of the documents, who would then attend court to argue the claim of privilege. It is noted that statistics obtained from the District Court reveal that a claim for privilege or an objection to access is made in relation to only 5 per cent of subpoenas issued. To allow such a scheme to be piloted, the District Court Act needs to be amended to permit the delivery of documents to locations other than the District Court.

Section 95 of the Supreme Court Act and section 85 of the District Court Act.

In the case of McWilliams Wines Proprietary Limited v Liaweena (NSW) Proprietary Limited the then Chief Judge of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court, Justice Rogers, proposed that the Supreme Court Act be amended to allow the court to order an unsuccessful defendant to pay interest on
Page 3769
a successful plaintiff's costs from the date upon which such a plaintiff paid the amount in respect of costs to his solicitor. At present, a litigant claiming damages in a division of the Supreme Court, other than the common law division, cannot obtain interest on moneys paid to solicitors on account of costs. The litigant may have paid a sum of money on account of costs to his or her solicitor at a time distant to an order for costs being made and the eventual receipt of a taxed bill. In such circumstances, that litigant will be out of pocket for what may be a matter of years. Under section 95 of the Supreme Court Act there is currently no power in the court to compensate such a litigant by allowing the court to order interest to be paid on the money held on account of party-party costs. It is proposed to amend the Supreme Court Act and the District Court Act to confer on the Supreme and District courts a discretionary power to order that a party against whom a party-party costs order is made also pays interest on such costs to the party in whose favour the order is made. The power will be available on the basis that:

1. It is exercised only when the special circumstances of the case warrant the making of such an order.

2. Interest should accrue from the time when the party in whose favour the order is made had made payment or payments to his solicitor in respect of work done or disbursements paid.

3. The entitlement to interest should not be dependent upon taxation or assessment under the Legal Profession Act.

4. The rate of interest should be equal to that prescribed from time to time pursuant to section 95(1) of the Supreme Court Act.

Section 19 of the Coroners Act 1980.

Section 19 of the Coroners Act 1980 provides inter alia that a coroner may terminate an inquest or inquiry when the coroner is of the view that the evidence establishes a prima facie case against any known person for an indictable offence related to the death or fire or explosion the subject of the inquiry. Section 19(3) requires the Director of Public Prosecutions - the DPP - to furnish a notice to the Attorney General advising him of a determination to proceed with the matter. Section 28(2) of the Coroners Act 1960 provided that when a coroner was of the opinion that a prima facie case was established against a person the coroner was required to forward the matter to the Attorney General together with the details of that person and the particulars of the offence. As the Attorney General at that time had the sole responsibility for filing indictments, the Attorney General would examine the evidence taken by the coroner and make a decision as to whether to proceed with the matter.

When the 1960 Coroners Act was replaced by the 1980 Coroners Act, section 19(2) of the new Act reproduced the requirement to forward this material to the Attorney General. In 1986, at the time of establishing the office of the DPP under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, section 19(2) of the Coroners Act was amended to remove the reference to "Attorney General" and to insert instead a reference to "Director of Public Prosecutions". At that time section (3) was also introduced, which required the DPP to indicate to the Attorney General whether he or she intended to proceed with criminal charges against the person concerned. It is not considered necessary for the Attorney General to be advised of these matters in this manner. The DPP does provide in his annual report statistical details of no bill applications, including the number of applications granted and the general reasons for granting the applications. The annual report also provides details of matters referred to the DPP by the coroner pursuant to section 19(2) of the Coroners Act. The State Coroner has indicated that he has no objection to the proposed amendment.

Delegation of Authority.

Section 10(4) of the Local Courts Act 1982 provides authority for the Minister to appoint a person to act temporarily in the office of Clerk of the Local Court. As this authority cannot be delegated, the Minister must approve all occasions of staff acting in these positions. This is an administrative process which could be streamlined. It is therefore proposed to amend the Act to permit the Director-General of the Attorney General's Department to approve the appointment of acting clerks of the Local Courts.

Registrars of the District Court.

At present, section 18G(4) of the District Court Act provides that if two registrars of the District Court are appointed for any proclaimed place, one is to be the registrar of the court in its civil jurisdiction for the place and the other is to be the registrar of the court in its criminal jurisdiction for the place. This amendment removes this distinction between the two jurisdictions. If two registrars are appointed to a particular place, each will be the registrar for the entire jurisdiction of the court, each having the functions specified in the ministerial order permitting the appointment of two registrars.

At present, section 18H of the District Court Act provides that a registrar for a proclaimed place can exercise certain prescribed functions. Section 18J provides that an assistant registrar for a proclaimed place has such functions as may be specified in the civil procedure rules or the criminal procedure rules. These amendments clarify that a registrar for a proclaimed place may exercise functions only in respect of that proclaimed place. However, the amendments do not apply this limitation to the exercise of functions of any registrar or assistant registrar appointed for Sydney. Such a registrar or assistant registrar may exercise his or her functions in respect of any place.

Court of Appeal and Court of Criminal Appeal

Paragraph (a) - Rationalise existing leave to appeal
Page 3770
provisions.

Section 48 of the Supreme Court Act defines specified tribunals from which an appeal to the Court of Appeal lies as of right. Other non-specified tribunals may appeal to a division of the Supreme Court and then may, by leave of the Court of Appeal - under sections 101(2)(h), (i), (j) of the Supreme Court Act - appeal to the Court of Appeal. It is proposed that sections 101(2) (h), (i), (j) be repealed and replaced with a single provision which will apply to all appeals to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court arising in turn from an appeal or review of a decision of a court or tribunal other than those from a specified tribunal. Such a provision would cover appeals to the Court of Appeal from judgments or orders in the Supreme Court granting or refusing prerogative or declaratory relief in relation to proceedings in the Local Court, the Licensing Court, the Residential Tenancies Tribunal, the Commercial Tribunal, the Mental Health Tribunal and any other court or tribunal which currently exists or is hereafter created. It will also mean that section 101(2) will be applicable to other tribunals when they are created unless subsequent legislation determines otherwise.

Paragraph (b) - Introduce a leave requirement in appeals relating to caveats under the Real Property Act 1900 and windings up under the Corporations Law.

It is proposed that leave be required to appeal from decisions made in a division of the Supreme Court - usually the equity division - from judgments or orders under sections 74K, 74MA and 74O of the Real Property Act 1900, which respectively deal with: the extension of the operation of caveats; the withdrawal of caveats; and the lodgment of successive caveats. It is also proposed that leave to appeal be required from judgments or orders - usually in the equity division - made under the Corporations Law which relate to: setting aside demands under section 459G; restraining the presentation or advertising of presentation of a winding up petition; and making a winding up order. The rationale for these amendments is that although the relevant orders are final in form and therefore attract an appeal as of right, they are interlocutory in substance and, therefore, fall within the intent of section 101(2)(e) which requires leave to appeal from interlocutory judgments or orders made in the court.

Paragraph (c) - Rationalise provisions relating to appeals from the District Court and the Dust Diseases Tribunal to create essentially uniform provisions.

It is proposed that sections 127, 128, and 130 of the District Court Act 1973, which deal with appeals to the Supreme Court and which are unnecessarily complex, be repealed and replaced with one provision. The proposal does not alter the policy underlying the existing sections. Appeals from erroneous directions to juries are preserved and a provision will be retained, analogous to section 128(5b), which prevents a litigant, once a hearing has commenced, from seeking leave to appeal from an interlocutory order, thereby disrupting the trial. Currently, the Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989 fixes a $5,000 threshold for appeals as of right to the Court of Appeal. It is proposed that this be raised to allow a right of appeal where $10,000 or more is involved, and that otherwise appeals from the Dust Diseases Tribunal be as proposed for the District Court.

Paragraph (d) - Amend the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to require leave to appeal from costs orders made by that court in class 4 matters.

Currently, a general appeal on fact as well as law lies from orders or decisions in class 4 proceedings, and in the case of interlocutory orders or decisions the right to appeal is by leave only. The Court of Appeal has received a number of appeals as to party/party cost in class 4 cases. At present, such appeals lie as of right. It is proposed to amend the legislation to require leave to be granted in such cases.

Paragraph (e) - Limit the right to adduce fresh evidence in appeals from the Legal Services Tribunal and veterinary surgeons disciplinary tribunal.

Currently section 171F(4) of the Legal Profession Act 1987 which was inserted into the principal Act by the Legal Profession Reform Act 1993 provides that appeals to the court from the Legal Services Tribunal shall:

be by way of a new hearing and fresh evidence, or evidence in addition to or substitution for the evidence received at the original hearing may be given.

Section 171F(4) re-enacts section 164(4) of the 1987 Act. The hearings are de novo, not re-hearings. The proposal is that the appeal be changed to a re-hearing. Experience indicates that parties use the hearing before the tribunal as a dry run. Adducing fresh evidence or putting a different case before the Court of Appeal wastes resources. It is also argued that such an appeal is an anomaly. Appeals from other tribunals which discipline members of professions such as medicine and dentistry are not treated in this manner.

It is proposed to repeal section 171F(4) and allow section 75A of the Supreme Court Act to operate in appeals from the tribunal. This would mean that hearings would be by way of re-hearing and fresh evidence could only be received in special circumstances. Section 34(1) of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986 allows for appeals to the Supreme Court from the Veterinary Surgeons Disciplinary Tribunal, and by sections 48(1)(a)(vii) and (2)(f), such appeals are assigned to the Court of Appeal. Sub-section (3) creates an appeal which is a hybrid of an appeal by way of re-hearing and a hearing de novo, in that it provides the appeal shall be by way of a new hearing de novo, but that new evidence may only be adduced if the court is satisfied that there were good reasons for its not having been adduced before the tribunal - an element of a re-hearing. Repeal of section 34(3)
Page 3771
will allow section 75A of the Supreme Court Act to operate so that hearings are by way of re-hearing and fresh evidence can only be received on special grounds.

Paragraph (f) - Amend section 46A of the Supreme Court Act to allow benches of two judges of appeal to deal with applications for leave to appeal, applications involving questions of practice and procedure in appeals, and other matters which cannot be dealt with by a single judge.

Section 46A, which was inserted into the Supreme Court Act in 1994, allows the Court of Appeal constituted by two judges to hear appeals on the quantum of damages in cases arising out of death or personal injury where no contested matter of principle arises. Where the court so constituted is equally divided, there is a re-hearing before a bench constituted by three judges of appeal, with the costs of the hearing before the two-judge bench being paid from the Suitors Fund. It is proposed that section 46A be amended to allow two judge benches to deal with applications for leave to appeal, and applications involving questions of practice and procedure in appeals, including interlocutory appeals and other matters in the court which cannot be dealt with by a judge sitting alone. This proposal would result in a more practical use of judge time on application days in the Court of Appeal. The United Kingdom and Queensland have permanent courts of appeal and powers such as those proposed are exercised by benches of two judges. The proposal is conservative, and comparable with those in other jurisdictions.

Paragraph (g) - Amend section 22 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 to increase the powers of the court when constituted by a judge sitting alone.

Section 22 of the Criminal Appeal Act lists the powers of the court exercised by a judge of the court sitting alone. Where applications made by an appellant under section 22 are refused there is an automatic right of appeal to the court constituted by three judges. It is proposed that the following be added to this list: the power under section 12(a) to order the production of any document, exhibit or thing concerned with the proceedings; the power under section 12(b) to order the attendance of persons before the court for examination; the summary dismissal of appeals for want of prosecution; and the power under section 18(3) to order that where an appeal or application for leave to appeal is abandoned, time spent in custody is to count towards the sentence imposed. In all cases it is proposed that the existing right of an appellant to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal constituted by three judges be preserved.

Paragraph (h) - Amend section 18(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 to clarify the basis upon which an order may be made that time served pending determination of an appeal to the court is not to count.

Section 18(1) of the criminal Court of Appeal Act provides that an appellant not admitted to bail pending determination of his appeal shall be treated in such manner as directed by regulations made under Acts relating to prisons. Subsection (3) provides that if a person in custody pending a determination of an appeal is specially treated, in the absence of an order to the contrary, time spent in custody shall not count, and an original sentence shall resume, or a substituted sentence shall begin to run, from the date upon which the appeal is determined. Most appellants in custody are specially treated. It is understood that the policy behind section 18(3) was the deterrence of unarguable or frivolous appeals. It is proposed to amend the subsection to make it clear that normally the exercise of the discretion provided in section 18(3) will involve an order that time count except where the appeal was unarguable or frivolous. I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Tink.


Ms ALLAN (Blacktown - Minister for the Environment) [7.54]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Game Birds Protection) Bill was introduced in the upper House by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones on 12 October. This bill amends the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 to ban game bird shooting for sporting or recreational purposes and provides for the cessation of open duck-shooting seasons. More specifically, the bill will amend section 70 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act to make it an offence to take or kill for sporting or recreational purposes game birds within a wildlife district, wildlife refuge, wildlife management area, conservation area, wilderness area or area subject to a wilderness agreement. The bill will repeal section 95 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act, which will prevent open seasons from being declared.

The bill will amend section 98 of the Act, which relates to provisions regarding the taking or killing of protected fauna, other than endangered fauna, to make it an offence to take or kill for sporting or recreational purposes game birds that are unprotected fauna. The bill will make it clear that a licence under sections 120, 121 or 122 does not authorise the taking or killing of game birds for sporting or recreational purposes. It will make it clear that an authority under section 171 - authority to take or kill in lands within the national parks estate - authorising the taking or killing of game birds does not extend to the taking or killing of game birds for sporting or recreational purposes.

Hunting during an open season for the taking
Page 3772
of waterfowl has been in place since 1901, when legislative protection of native birds was first introduced. In recent times an open season has been gazetted each year with the exceptions of 1983 and 1995, when drought was considered to place waterfowl populations at risk. Under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service is the authority for the protection and care of fauna, including waterfowl - ducks geese and swans. Under schedule 12 of the Act, four species of waterfowl are listed as endangered fauna. All other native waterfowl, including those subject to an open season, are regarded as common and their legal status is protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act.

Under section 95 of the Act the Minister may declare an open season by order published in the Government Gazette. The order prescribes the species which are subject to the season and may also prescribe the locality of an open season, conditions or restrictions. A game licence under section 122 of the Act is needed to take fauna as prescribed in an open season declaration. Generally, seven duck species and three quail species are gazetted as game birds. Duck open season has in the past been declared from March to May, and quail season from May to August. Two other types of licence for the taking of fauna under the National Parks and Wildlife Act may relate to game birds. These licences are issued for damage mitigation and do not relate specifically to open season. They are generally referred to as mitigation licences.

A licence may be issued pursuant to section 121 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act to a landowner or occupier of land to take or kill fauna, other than endangered fauna, that are causing damage to crops, that is, an occupiers licence. While such licences can be issued for a variety of species of fauna, for example, kangaroo, they are also issued for waterfowl. Section 120, or general, licences may be issued to persons other than landholders to shoot waterfowl on rice fields for which a section 121 licence has been issued. [Quorum formed.]

In effect these two sections mean that the property owner can shoot waterfowl on his or her property or he or she can arrange for a licensed shooter to shoot them on that property. Currently the Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria declare open season for waterfowl. The Australian Capital Territory and Western Australia do not have an open season. I turn now to the impacts of duck shooting. In 1987 at the instigation of the then Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Janice Crosio, and the then Minister for Planning and Environment, the current Premier, the New South Wales Animal Welfare Advisory Council inquired into duck and quail hunting practices in New South Wales. The report, completed in 1988, concluded, firstly, that the cessation of sports hunting would not have significant economic consequences, and, secondly, that the level of suffering and pain through cruelty was unreasonably high.

On the basis of cruelty the council concluded that hunting was unnecessary and unjustifiable in circumstances where the activity is undertaken to satisfy a sporting urge. Accordingly, the report recommended the cessation of recreational duck shooting in New South Wales. While the Government accepts that all available scientific evidence shows that recreational duck shooting has limited effects on the conservation status of game species, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones' contention that duck shooting should be banned on the grounds of cruelty is supported by the Government. This support is based on a strong belief that a civilised society should not tolerate a recreational activity undertaken to satisfy a sporting urge, if it is cruel. This bill will implement the recommendation of the council by providing for the cessation of the open duck shooting season.

The bill was introduced in the upper House on 12 October 1995 and was passed in that House on 24 October. Following the bill's passage through the Legislative Council it has become apparent that community concern has developed that the bill would impact on the operation of mitigation licences. In light of the ensuing public debate the Government has taken careful account of community views and I will be moving amendments to the bill to clarify the existing practice that appropriately licensed recreational shooters will be permitted to shoot ducks for the purpose of mitigation. To this end recreational shooters may be used to shoot ducks for damage mitigation purposes where the property concerned is covered by an occupier's licence, and the shooter holds a current licence and has passed the waterfowl identification test.

This afternoon in a series of discussions which I held with the Field and Game Federation of Australia the issue of the ability of a duck shooter to pass the waterfowl identification test was specifically raised. It was suggested by the association's National Director, Reid McLachlan, and New South Wales President Richard Mould that the National Parks and Wildlife Service should consider working closely with that association and other shooters' associations to enable the accreditation of the members of those associations so that they will be able to manage the administration of the waterfowl identification test. I acknowledge that at times it is difficult for recreational duck shooters and other shooters of ducks to access the testing arrangements that are sometimes put in place to enable shooters to pass the waterfowl identification test. I gave an undertaking to the Field and Game Federation of Australia this afternoon, an undertaking I will implement to ensure that -

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Rogan): Order! The member for Murrumbidgee will have an opportunity to contribute to debate on this bill at the appropriate time.

Ms ALLAN: I have given an undertaking to the association that the National Parks and Wildlife
Page 3773
Service will begin discussions with them to work out ways and means of accrediting members of those associations so that the passage of the waterfowl identification test for shooters is expedited. Under this legislation, as amended by the Government, there will be no relaxation of mitigation licences when the open season ceases. As I have indicated, the possibility of the cessation of the open season has produced some considerable debate already within rural New South Wales, in some areas of metropolitan Sydney and interstate. At present it could be argued that the large majority of recreational duck shooters that shoot during the game season in New South Wales originate from Victoria. Last Friday morning in Albury I had a direct discussion with some Victorian shooters who are concerned about the proposal that the Government might support the Jones legislation.

As a result of concerns that have been expressed, the Government has entered into a series of negotiations with interested parties. Obviously we have been waiting to have discussions with the Hon. John Tingle of the Legislative Council who was elected on behalf of the Shooters Party at the March election. The Government has also had dialogue with other sporting associations and I will be having further meetings with those associations over the next few days. I have been seeking to reassure those people that whilst under this legislation the duck season will cease, there will continue to be an opportunity for recreational duck shooters to shoot ducks for mitigation purposes. It is the intention of the Government, by way of legislation and by way of its own direct action and the administration practices of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, to ensure that no particular impediments are placed on recreational duck shooters who are genuinely seeking to shoot ducks on private property for mitigation purposes.

Some specific suggestions have been made, not only by the Hon. J. S. Tingle but also by various shooting associations, about ways to improve on the Jones legislation. The Hon. J. S. Tingle has suggested, for example, that the human safety regulation that has been introduced in Victoria should also be introduced in New South Wales to restrict the distance between the people protesting against duck shooting and the duck shooters themselves. This year we have not experienced the publicity that usually surrounds the protesters against duck shooting, because we have not had an open season. I am sure that many members on both sides of the Chamber are well aware of the emotional situation and confrontations that arise between people in the community who choose to protest against duck shooting directly, by taking themselves to the areas around New South Wales where the open season is occurring, and the shooters.

In some cases there have been potentially explosive situations when protesters have sought to place themselves between ducks and the shooters. The Victorian response has been to introduce human safety regulations which, amongst other things, would ensure that protesters are required to keep out of the water where the ducks are prior to 10 a.m., in duck hunting areas. Also the regulation has sought to restrict the distance within which protesters can approach hunters at other times. The Hon. J. S. Tingle believes that it is appropriate for the regulation to be applied in New South Wales. In an open game season I acknowledge that there is some point for these regulations, because they seek to reduce conflict between shooters and protesters. However, I do not think it is appropriate at this stage that we pursue that course of action.

The enforcement of those regulations would require significant numbers of police and National Parks and Wildlife Service officers to be present, but I am not sure whether they would be required in the regime that will be set up under this legislation. If the legislation is passed, there will not be a limited open game season with these types of flashpoints, if honourable members will excuse the pun. Lack of an open duck shooting season will reduce opportunities for confrontation between shooters and protesters because shooting will be restricted to private properties. The Hon. John Tingle and the Field and Game Federation of Australia have raised the need for the legislation to be kept under review. If problems arise, the Government will consider the application of these regulations in New South Wales.

I emphasise that consultation on this issue will be ongoing. So far, the introduction of the legislation and the Government's amendments has raised concern among recreational duck shooters that they will not be able to access private land for duck shooting for mitigation purposes. Accordingly, I have instructed the National Parks and Wildlife Service to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that cooperative arrangements between shooters, farmers, in particular rice growers, and other property owners who may require duck shooters are put in place. Such an arrangement could take a variety of forms. It could take the form of a register of recreational duck shooters and farmers or other property owners who are seeking shooters for mitigation purposes.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service will look at the possibility of developing a register. Development of a register would be relatively easy, because the service licences shooters and farmers seeking to have shooting conducted on their properties and has access to the information. It would also be appropriate for the National Parks and Wildlife Service to consult not only recreational shooting bodies but farming bodies on how best to implement a register. As I said, I have instructed that the process of consultation begin. Other anxieties have been expressed, particularly in rural New South Wales, about the impact of the proposed ban on the duck shooting season. A more obvious concern expressed, not only in south and south-western New South Wales but by shooters and gun owners throughout New South Wales, is that the legislation is an indicator that the Government intends to seize the guns of licensed shooters. I can reassure them that that is not what the legislation is about.


Page 3774
This legislation will certainly result in the cessation of open duck shooting season, but it will not mean that licensed duck shooters will have to hand their guns to local police stations. It may well be that people who currently have duck shooting gun licences will be able to continue duck shotting over an extended period; it will probably be for much longer than the traditional eight to 12 weeks of duck shooting season. It does not mean that honourable members or people in the community who choose as their hobby or interest in life the carriage of guns and the use of them for shooting purposes will be forced to hand in their guns. There will be mischief making in the community by some of my colleagues opposite on this issue. I put it on the record that people with licensed arms will not be compelled to hand in their arms under the legislation.

The Government's amendment will ensure that recreational duck shooters are able to continue to take part in duck shooting, but for mitigation purposes. The Government recognises that it will have to keep a close eye on the implementation of the legislation over the next 12 months. It has given an undertaking that there will be a general review of the legislation in 12 months time. I hope that we will get a good picture of the impact of the legislation, not only as a result of the ongoing review but also as a result of the ongoing discussions that I as Minister for the Environment and some of my colleagues with an interest in this matter, for example, the Minister for Agriculture, may have with sporting and farmers' associations over the next 12 months. This issue will create opportunities for debate in this Chamber as well as in the community generally, but the legislation is overdue.

[Interruption]

The constant chatter, particularly from urban members, is amazing. I am sure that duck-shooting constituents of the honourable member for Northcott will be impressed by his performance in the Chamber this afternoon. I can also hear the cry of the duck-shooting constituents of the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai on this issue. It is important to acknowledge that cessation of open duck shooting season is overdue, and that it will cease under this legislation. The Government's proposed amendment to the legislation of the Hon. Richard Jones will ensure that licensed recreational duck shooters are still able to shoot ducks on private property for mitigation purposes.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Longley.


Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

Clause 12

Mr SULLIVAN (Wollongong) [8.17]: I congratulate the Minister for Education and Training on the establishment of a Department of School Education State office in Wollongong. This will have a major benefit locally; it will generate 82 jobs. One of the functions of the State office will be to handle all teachers' salaries for New South Wales. That is a major important development if growth in Sydney is to be curtailed. Consequently, as announced by the Premier -

[Interruption]

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Clough): Order! I remind the honourable member for Oxley of the notification of the allocation of time for discussion for consideration of the appropriation bills. I warn him that if he interjects again, I will have the greatest pleasure requesting the Speaker to direct the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove him.

Mr SULLIVAN: Relocation of many head office functions to the Illawarra, the Hunter and the central coast will facilitate decentralisation. I am pleased with the establishment of a Department of School Education State office at Wollongong.

Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [8.20]: Recentralisation of the Department of School Education, as mentioned by the honourable member for Wollongong, will cost the economies of country centres such as Lismore, Wagga Wagga and Tamworth more than $30 million. How can the honourable member, who represents a country electorate, justify the impact of that loss on those country centres? How can the honourable member justify the impact of the restructuring of the Department of School Education on country communities? I referred to this in previous contributions, and the House will hear plenty more on it from Opposition members later in this session. I turn my attention to training and further education. I have further questions for the Minister for Education and Training, who is not here to answer them. Once again he is showing the lack of accountability on the part of the Government to the Parliament. I have a number of questions about TAFE, starting with its restructuring. The Minister referred to savings that will be achieved from restructuring TAFE. He said that merging TAFE with the Department of Training and Education
Page 3775
Co-ordination will provide savings of $17 million. I ask the Minister how those savings will be achieved, particularly this year.

In the estimates committee hearing the Minister said that 5,000 places were going to be created starting in 1995-96. To provide those places he needs to achieve savings and as honourable members know, the Minister has been either unwilling or unable to tell us his real agenda for TAFE. On more than one occasion, according to my information, a Cabinet minute was drafted and was withdrawn because it was too controversial for the Government to be proposing the virtual privatisation of TAFE. My great fear is that at the end of the school term or perhaps on Christmas Eve the Minister for Education will announce the restructuring of TAFE, hoping that nobody will notice.

It is simply not good enough for the Minister to say to the Parliament that he will walk away from the due process of restructuring TAFE, as he said the other day to journalists who are now reporting the Minister as saying there will not be any change to the legislation. The Opposition will look very closely at the Technical and Further Education Act and other Acts that relate to this field, because there could be an argument that even what has been done currently is outside the provisions of the Act and represents a management decree to break up TAFE into a series of virtually private operations bidding for funds on the open market, being totally driven by the market, in a far too Hilmerised process for the Opposition, and certainly for the marketplace.

What are the true believers saying? They do not believe for the moment the actions of the Minister. They do not buy what the Minister for Education wants to do to TAFE. There was a significant demonstration outside this Parliament by 2,000 TAFE teachers; and there will be more, they will be back next year. I receive calls and letters every day of the week from people in Labor electorates and coalition electorates right across the State. They do not like what the Government is doing to TAFE. The Minister must demonstrate how he intends to achieve these additional places without gutting TAFE, because there is something that just does not add up in the budget estimates for TAFE.

Oppositions members would like to know about TAFE redundancies. How much of the recurrent appropriation is it estimated will be required as a payout for redundancy payments and other payments related to people retiring or resigning from TAFE in 1995-96. Redundancy offers are being made this minute. If the Government is making redundancy offers now does that not give the proof that we are looking for that it is about downsizing, cutting services, cutting equity programs and that it is about making TAFE a series of market-driven private providers alone? Is it not the proof we were looking for? What are the answers to the questions about how much in this budget is allocated for redundancy payments in TAFE?

Can the Minister outline the future plans for the National Arts School, which is another controversial issue that the Labor Party has walked away from? People from the National Arts School are telling me that they need to know what courses they are running next year but they do not even know what form the school will take next year because of the equivocation of this Government and this Minister on this and many other questions. How can they enrol students if they do not know what form the National Arts School will take next year? When will the Minister provide an answer and why is he not here tonight to provide the answers that the Opposition is seeking on behalf of the students and teachers of New South Wales?

If I can turn to workplace and get started programs, something that you, Mr Deputy-Chairman, will be very much aware of. I have received letters from Lithgow about the axing of workplace and get started programs. People from your electorate, Mr Deputy-Chairman, who are the third generation of unemployed in their family, are writing to me telling me how disenchanted and disgusted they are at the decision made by the Labor Government in New South Wales to axe employment programs which were providing them with real opportunities to get into employment. That is so not only in the electorate of Bathurst but in electorates right across New South Wales.

Mr O'Farrell: Maitland?

Mr O'DOHERTY: Yes, in the electorate of Maitland and I thank the honourable member for Northcott for reminding me of the electorate of Maitland. The Minister wrote to Tony Keating. Do honourable members remember Tony Keating? He was Labor's candidate. The Minister wrote to Tony Keating during the election campaign specifically to assure him and the constituents, the good burghers of the electorate of Maitland, that "Labor will continue to fund all present State-funded employment programs. Specifically we will continue to fund the mature workers, workplace and get started programs in their current format".

The Minister can hang his head in shame about that big lie. It is a broken promise; and that is at least two broken promises related to education for the electorate of Maitland. The other one was the Astonfield primary school - no funding for that. What does the Maitland Mercury say on the front page? The headline asks,"Where is our school" Mr Aquilina? The people of Maitland are asking why the Minister has dudded them again. They are asking that question about schools and in relation to the workplace and get started programs which the Minister had specifically promised would be maintained in their current formats. There can be no clearer example of a Labor lie than what the present Minister for Education said to the people of
Page 3776
Maitland in the 1995 election campaign.

Will the Minister confirm that vocational guidance services have been given the shaft by him? Why is it that not only has he cut employment programs but within the Department of Training and Education Co-ordination he has cut vocational guidance? Why does he alone believe that the vocational guidance programs being run by DTEC were being duplicated by other services? The people delivering the service tell me that that is an absolute untruth. Their service is not duplicated elsewhere and they were running services that were specifically applicable to disadvantaged people in our community. If Labor is said to believe in the disadvantaged, this budget gives the big lie to that. Education is one of the areas that proves that it does not care about the disadvantaged.

The vocational guidance unit has proved its ability to provide quality counselling to many clients, including school students and recent school leavers, retrenched workers, women returning to the work force, people with disabilities, people from non-English speaking backgrounds, people wishing to develop appropriate career paths, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders - the people Labor has forgotten in the 1995 education budget and across the board. What policy advice did the Minister take to shaft vocational guidance and employment programs? That is another one of the questions that the New South Wales Opposition wants answered by the Minister, who once again is absent from the Chamber.

There are many further questions that the Opposition wishes to ask about this subject and we will take the opportunities afforded by other forms of the House to do so. In general we are very concerned that above all else economic rationalism in education - cuts for the sake of cuts alone - is driving the educational agenda. There is no educational rationale for anything that is done in this budget. None of the cuts in Department of School Education, in TAFE, in DTEC, is driven by educational rationale. If funding for education is not driven by educational rationale it is based on the wrong format and wrong philosophy. If it is driven by economics alone, it is inappropriate to serve the needs of the people of this State.

Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [8.30]: I am pleased to follow the shadow minister for education on such an important issue to highlight the many omissions from the budget estimates. I specifically asked the Premier why he saw fit to showcase St Ives High School to the world. He regards it as a model example of educational excellence but he refuses to provide a paltry sum of $250,000 to upgrade its administration block, which is in an absolutely disgraceful condition. It is grossly deficient as far as working conditions are concerned and the school has been advised that it is an occupational health and safety disaster that could potentially render the State liable for more cost than the wretched building is worth. I would have thought the Premier would have approved the upgrade. The surprising thing is that the Premier profits from promoting this school as one of excellence.

Overseas students from non-English speaking backgrounds pay approximately $12,000 per head per year to attend St Ives High School, and there are approximately 18 such students at the school. Quick mathematics will reveal that in one year the Government would recoup the cost of constructing a new administration block. The failure to upgrade the building sends a negative image to the rest of the world and to the students. It is a poor example to overseas countries, parents and prospective teachers from the Asia-Pacific region of local education facilities. The previous coalition Government acknowledged the excellent work of the high school and its educational achievements. The Carr Labor Government has shown a marked tendency to perpetuate class warfare; a them and us attitude that is wrecking this country and the economic development of this State.

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [8.32]: I wish to acknowledge the members of the Warringah branch of the Liberal Party present in the gallery. I am sure they are taking a great deal of interest in the comments being made about the provision of education in this State.

Mr Sullivan: That is a small branch.

Mr HUMPHERSON: It is not the whole branch; there are just a few members of the branch.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Clough): Order! I remind the honourable member for Davidson that he is discussing the allocations in the Appropriation Bill, not welcoming members of his party branch. He will return to the leave of the clause under consideration.

Mr HUMPHERSON: I place on record my concern that in the capital works budget for education there is no appropriation or allocation for a multipurpose centre at Killarney Heights High School. This project was third in line for development and funds this financial year but this Government has made a blatant political decision to remove it from the priority list. Last year 45 of 48 such projects were funded in the capital works budget. Killarney Heights High School was not reached last year but was guaranteed to be included in this year's list, but it was pulled from the budget purely for political reasons in order to drag money from deserving areas of northern Sydney to western Sydney.

Funds should have been provided in the 1995-96 budget for the development of the multipurpose centre. Only one high school in the metropolitan north region of Sydney does not have a hall - Killarney Heights High School. Throughout New South Wales only five high schools with enrolments of more than 500 students do not have a multipurpose centre or school hall. Killarney Heights High School is one of those five. To date the Department of School Education has invested
Page 3777
$42,000 to get the project designed and approved through council. The project was ready to roll and there is no reason for funds not to be provided in this budget. I invite the Minister for Agriculture, representing the Minister for Education and Training, to tell the House why students of Killarney Heights High School are treated with such contempt.

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [8.34]: It is disappointing that the budget contains no appropriation for Burraneer Bay primary school, which urgently requires a school auditorium. For many years staff and parents have been working patiently to raise funds for this facility. The people involved in the school community have had a hard fight. They have followed the due processes in order to obtain funding for this project. I now bring the matter to the attention of the House to express the disappointment of my electorate that justice once again has not been done by this Labor Government.

Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie) [8.35]: Once again I advise the House of my concern about some capital works priorities and other programs not funded in the 1995-96 budget. I was most concerned that no funds have been allocated in the estimates for Camden Haven high school. From inside information, that school was pretty high on the list, if not at the top -

Mr O'Doherty: Number one.

Ms MACHIN: My colleague advises me that it was number one on the capital works budget last year.

Mr Sullivan: On a point of order: it seems that the honourable member is talking about an item that does not appear in the budget papers. I thought we were discussing items that appeared in the budget papers. I ask that this particular line of discussion be ruled out of order.

Mr O'Doherty: On the point of order -

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Clough): Order! I do not need the assistance of the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai to rule on the point of order. The purpose of considering the various allocations is to draw attention to the impact of those allocations on electorates. The honourable member for Port Macquarie is well within her rights to say that funding that should have been provided to her electorate was not provided. No point of order is involved.

Ms MACHIN: I am indeed talking about the estimates, which cover a wide range of issues. Indeed, the budget debate has discussed many programs and cuts to programs, such as the get started program. I have documented evidence that funding was suppose to be received for a new high school at Camden Haven. In the last few days I received another letter from one of the parent groups expressing concern at the situation of Kendall Central school. This school is currently overcrowded and is one school that does not have a multipurpose centre, as mentioned by the honourable member for Davidson. The school was to be upgraded and reverted to a primary school to service that part of the community and a new high school was to be constructed.

The local community raised substantial funds in preparation for the joint venture construction of a multipurpose centre. Naturally it is extremely disappointed at the budget developments. The Minister has not endeared himself to the community or the local media by ringing up saying that I am essentially lying and he would send documents to prove that was the case. Of course, when the documents turned up they verified everything I had said. He is doing his usual job of getting off side with as many groups as possible around the State.

I shall briefly touch on the programs mentioned by the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai. The Minister for Education and Training also promised organisations and people running the work skill and get started programs that funding would be retained. The Minister is on public record in Port Macquarie making that promise. Not only has he lied in the marginal electorate of Maitland, but he has signed letters and made public statements. Of course, another broken Labor Party election promise. That program was highly successful in Port Macquarie and the local community is extremely disappointed to see it go by the board. Education is an area that will come back to haunt this Government. People have long memories when it comes to the provision of education, as coalition members acknowledge. The community will have bitter memories about these changes at the next election.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [8.40]: Tonight I refer to TAFE cutbacks. I am happy to provide a line item, but essentially I refer to clause 12(2)03 of the Appropriation Bill. I register publicly my enormous dismay at the direction that this Government is taking. It is remarkable that a Government that is meant to thrive on the principles of social democracy has taken this direction with TAFE. Essentially, we are looking at the potential dismantling of TAFE. During the term of the previous Government we withstood an ill wind of economic rationalism which seems to have infected this Government. I believe that the Government and the Minister for Education and Training should resist this part of the Hilmer competition policy of reform. If the Minister does not already know, I come from a middle heartland electorate, if there is such a thing.

Morale at TAFE institutes is at an all time low. The corporate integrity of TAFE is about to be dismantled. If we lose that it will probably never be recovered. The concept of service provider splits, which was talked about in the delivery of health services, is now being talked about in the delivery of tertiary education. If we go down that path of bidding for particular services and
Page 3778
TAFE loses its corporate integrity, it will never recover. I was speaking only yesterday to an educator from the United States of America who told me that New South Wales TAFE is regarded worldwide as a model of technical and further education. I hope that the Government, in its wisdom, corrects the decisions that it has made and draws TAFE back from the brink. This sad line item in the budget deserves comment.

Mr O'FARRELL (Northcott) [8.43]: I express concern, as have my colleagues, about the funding allocations for the Department of School Education and the exclusion of Beecroft primary school from this year's capital works program. Beecroft primary school, one of the oldest schools in my electorate, which was built in the old style, has problems with ventilation. It tends to be too hot in summer and too cold in winter. The former Minister made a commitment to give priority to a replacement ventilation system and said that the school could expect some funding. That has not eventuated. It appears that this Government has redirected the money elsewhere. This matter, and the comments made by my colleague the honourable member for Gordon represent a clear move away from the north shore. This Government was elected - certainly in Sydney's west - on a promise of ventilation and airconditioning for schools in that area. The former Government made its decisions on these matters on merit. I would have hoped that the case of Beecroft primary school would have been strong enough to have seen it as an issue in this year's budget.

Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [8.44]: I am allowed under standing orders to make a final contribution in this budget debate on education. I mention in particular two schools in my electorate which, like schools in the electorates of other honourable members, have been taken off the capital works list by the Minister for Education and Training and this Labor Government. Tonight I will highlight Wahroonga public school. A number of senior members of Wahroonga community who are present in the gallery tonight will join me in attesting to the fact that Wahroonga public school is sorely in need of a rebuild. The buildings at that school belong to a previous century. It is an anachronism in a suburb, which admittedly is a fairly affluent suburb, that over the years successive administrations have not put money into buildings at Wahroonga public school.

Mr Sullivan: What did you do in seven long years?

Mr O'DOHERTY: The honourable member for Wollongong asked what the previous Government did in seven long years. It provided funding for a school hall - a joint community project. That did not happen under any previous administration. The community joined with the Government to build a school hall, of which they are justifiably proud. The previous Minister gave planning approval for the school to be redeveloped. The previous Minister and the Department of School Education recognised the need for classrooms to be redeveloped and rebuilt. The honourable member for Wollongong would not want those classrooms in his electorate. It does not matter what electorate honourable members represent; this Government is supposed to govern for all the people. What worries me most about the way Labor has politicised capital works for education is that, like everything else in its budget, it is punitive and divisive. The Government says, "We do not care about you if you do not live in one of our electorates." In my community children at Wahroonga public school are in draughty classrooms which leak and which are below code. Children trip over holes in an uneven playground.

This school must be redeveloped. It was within the top 30 priorities of the Department of School Education, but it was not funded by this Government. Another school in my electorate which was not funded is Mount Colah public school. The projections of the Department of School Education for enrolments at Mount Colah show that it will literally burst at the seams within the next two years. There will not be enough room for the children in that fast-growing area of Mount Colah in which I live. That school, which was also within the top 30 priorities of the Department of School Education, had also been given planning approval by the previous Minister. Work had been done on both schools by the department. That work is now lost because the current Minister did not see fit to fund those projects in my electorate. The needs of the children in my electorate have not been met. As I represent those children and adults in my electorate I will argue against this divisive and punitive Government. I am sure every honourable member would do the same.

Just to illustrate the point, three of the top 10 priorities on the five-year planning cycle capital works list of the Department of School Education, which were taken off the list and have not been funded by the current Minister, are in coalition electorates. The Minister for Education and Training is not in the Chamber tonight. Talk about accountability of government! He would not answer questions that we put on notice in the upper House. He simply refused to be accountable to the people through the Parliament. He is not in the Chamber tonight to answer questions asked by Opposition members in the budget debate. Shame on him! If he were here I would be asking him what justification he had in taking away programs that had already been funded in coalition electorates and replacing them with programs in Labor electorates that were not even on the priority list.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13

Mr LONGLEY (Pittwater) [8.48]: This Carr Government has dramatically betrayed the environment and environmental supporters by cutting funding to existing programs. When we
Page 3779
make adjustments for new and transferred programs we find a substantial decrease in recurrent payments to the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Environment Protection Authority. By contrast, over the last two years the Fahey Government increased recurrent payments for the National Parks and Wildlife Service by $25 million to $89.8 million and, for the Environment Protection Authority, by $7 million to $68 million. The contrast could not be more stark. When we make adjustments for all the accounting jiggery-pokery in the environment budget and throughout the budget papers we find a substantial decrease in real funding.

At first glance the budget for the National Parks and Wildlife Service reveals an apparent increase of $7.5 million, or 6.9 per cent, to $114.8 million, but if we look below the surface it is apparent that the increase includes $7.6 million from the environmental trusts for new national parks, $0.4 million for a new biodiversity unit, $0.5 million for an inventory for urban bushland, and $0.4 million for Penrith State Recreation Area and Lake Macquarie Park. In other words, a substantial sum of money is directed to new or adjusted programs, or, more particularly, has been taken from other parts of the budget, overwhelmingly from the environmental trusts. The adjusted figure shows a real decrease in the environment budget. Instead of a budget increase from $107.3 million to $114.8 million, it is a budget decrease from $107.3 million to $105.4 million. When adjusted for inflation, that amount reveals a decrease in real funding of 6.9 per cent to the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Such a reduction in budget funding is nothing but a damnable indictment of a government that claims rhetorically to be a friend of the environment. In other words, there has been a real cutback in the budget for the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

I turn to the budget for the Environment Protection Authority. The budget shows an apparent increase of $8.4 million, which seems to be an increase of 12.5 per cent to $75 million, but if one looks behind the numbers one sees that funding for the new waste management initiative, introduced into Parliament in the Waste Minimisation and Management Bill, is $6.8 million. It is also apparent that the Government has performed another sleight of hand in relation to funding for the National Environment Protection Council. I have already raised that matter in this House and received a very unsatisfactory answer from the Minister. She said that there would be no additional funding for the council, and that recurrent costs would be in the order of $0.2 million per annum. If the budgets for the new waste management initiative and the National Environment Protection Council are taken together it is apparent that funding for the existing programs of the Environment Protection Authority has been reduced by $1.6 million.

Pollution continues to remain in the public consciousness. When we are confronted with continual problems of air pollution, pollution to our waterways - rivers estuaries and coastal - land degradation, significant salt level problems, and cutbacks to the funding of the EPA we realise that this Government is not genuinely committed to the environment, but is only committed to rhetoric and grandstanding. Could any Government justify cutting back funding for the Environment Protection Authority in this day and age? In addition, however, funding for the Metropolitan Air Quality Study - MAQS - has been cut. I have not included that in the calculation, because part of the funding is of a capital nature, so I am being more generous to the Government than perhaps I should. The reduction in MAQS funding from $3.4 million to $1.4 million per annum is a decrease of $2 million per annum. This decrease in funding will most seriously affect the people of western Sydney, where air quality problems are of such a magnitude that they cannot be ignored. The coalition Government initiated the MAQS study and its progressive cutback by the Carr Government is nothing short of disgraceful. It is something for which the people of western Sydney will never forgive the Labor Party.

This issue is important now, but it will become increasingly important in the next five years as a combination of a wide range of factors exacerbate the air quality problems of western Sydney. It is clear that although the budget involves jiggery-pokery in relation numbers, behind the numbers are very real and serious cutbacks. The Minister for the Environment has been unable to save the environment portfolio from Michael Egan. The Premier's much-vaunted support for the environment is clearly very shallow. I turn to several other issues in the environment portfolio that deal with the capital budget and impact on a number of other areas. The first and most important is that funding for the National Parks and Wildlife Service fire management program has been slashed from $2.8 million last year to $1.03 million this year. A 64 per cent cutback in the National Parks and Wildlife Service fire management program is reckless and dangerous. How can anyone have forgotten the devastation of the 1994 bushfires? It is obvious that the Labor Government has forgotten. Perhaps that is because the Leader of the Opposition as he then was, the Hon. Bob Carr, was overseas and did not feel compelled to come back to Sydney during its hour of desperate need.

Since many of the 1994 bushfires originated in national parks, such cutbacks are potentially fatal, because lives may be at risk. Of cutbacks of more than $7 million in the National Parks and Wildlife Service recurrent budget allocation, the cut to fire management funding is the most shameful and will significantly increase the fire risk to communities adjoining national parks both in city and rural areas. I represent the electorate which was the second most severely affected in the State - 20 houses were destroyed - and that cutback is unacceptable.
Page 3780
Provision for new and replacement fire fighting vehicles is also inadequate. Other cutbacks in the capital program of the National Parks and Wildlife Service include a drop in the allocation for the pest and management program from $1.5 million to $0.5 million, a 65 per cent reduction.

Funding for the heritage and nature conservation program has been reduced from $11.3 million to $5.1 million, a cut of 55 per cent. The wonderful public relations machine of the Government has been working overtime, boasting about how much money is being spent on national parks and on the Environment Protection Authority, but the stark truth is that funding for national parks, the Environment Protection Authority, crime prevention, fire management and other important services have been slashed. These cutbacks are unacceptable. It is time to alert the people of this State to the Government's gross negligence across the broad environmental spectrum. That negligence is not confined to the strict environment portfolio but affects a range of portfolios that impact on environmental issues.

Today the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning delayed spending that would upgrade tertiary treatment at the Cronulla sewage treatment plant. In the Pittwater electorate cuts have been made to environmental projects at Bungan Beach, despite Sydney Water reports that such spending is essential for environmental reasons. The Government pays lip-service to the environment, but its commitment to resources and funding pales into insignificance in comparison with the dramatic funding increase under the previous coalition Government, which included a $25 million lift in funding for the National Parks and Wildlife Service. [Time expired.]

Mr SULLIVAN (Wollongong) [9.03]: I speak in support of clause 13. The present Minister has established an excellent record, which includes the announcement of 11 new national parks. I well remember the promises made by the previous Government which were never honoured. I am particularly interested in the extensions and other arrangements for the Deua National Park and the south-east forests on the far south coast. The Minister should be commended on her strong performance. I am sure she will be greatly admired when history evaluates her work as Minister for the Environment.

Mr SMALL (Murray) [9.04]: I speak to clause 13 and seek an explanation of funding that will be available for the Willandra Lakes World Heritage listed area. Our Minister for the Environment and Senator John Faulkner, the Federal Minister for the Environment, have jointly agreed to fund compensation for farmers within that area, 17 of whom are in the Murray electorate. I have looked through all of the budget papers, but I cannot find in them any provision for the promised funding from the State and Federal Governments. In the early 1980s the then Premier of this State recommended the Willandra Lakes for World Heritage listing. At that time the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments agreed that within about two years the owners of World Heritage listed land would receive a final and detailed report.

Time has passed, and parts of that listed land have been locked up and not utilised. Only recently, the State and Federal Ministers reached agreement. Plans have been set in place and guidelines drawn up. Compensation of $1 million each from the Federal and State Governments has been agreed. However, total compensation could amount to about $14 million. What provision has been made for ongoing compensation? The budget papers mention a total annual appropriation from the Consolidated Fund of $231.848 million to the Minister for Environment. I have looked at every budget paper and document but I cannot find any reference to funding for the Willandra Lakes World Heritage listed area. I ask the Minister for the Environment to explain where in the budget funds are provided for compensation and for purchase of land in that area. On page 389 of Budget Paper No. 3, volume 2, the 1995-96 National Parks and Wildlife Service recurrent services appropriation is shown to be $90.264 million, and at page 408 a figure of $114.771 million is given for estimated total current payments for the same financial year.

I do not suggest that provision has not been made for the Willandra Lakes area, but it should be identified. Discussions of this issue have been ongoing for 14 years, and in that time the 17 farming families in the listed areas have suffered severely. The listing has stopped them from selling their properties. Buyers are not interested in buying land subject to a heritage listing, for it brings an unknown element to the future of the tenure. As I have said at many meetings with the NPWS and with the present and previous Ministers, I hope that at long last those families will be treated with the respect they should have been accorded perhaps 12 years ago. I ask the Minister for the Environment to identify the source of that allocation. I know that the Minister for Agriculture will be good enough to bring this issue to the attention of the Minister for the Environment. My constituents should also be assured of receiving compensation for the areas that can be sold. Perhaps Aboriginal people within the Mungo Lakes National Park, which is part of the World Heritage listed area, would like to expand some of that area if they were able to purchase land that is for sale.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [9.10]: The honourable member for Murray asked some specific questions in relation to his electorate involving announcements made by the Minister for the Environment. I do not have answers to those questions on hand at the moment. He has stated that the figures he is looking for are not in the budget papers. I take on board his comments and the constructive way in which he has presented them to the House. I will make sure his
Page 3781
comments are referred to the Minister for the Environment and will ask her to reply directly to the honourable member.

Mr LONGLEY (Pittwater) [9.11]: The honourable member for Wollongong made a point that appears to have been lost on the Government: the creation of new national parks requires additional resources. Those additional resources have not been forthcoming. Former Labor governments have traditionally created new national parks and have not resourced them. The result has been degraded national parks and a run-down system. To compensate for that gross negligence and for the shortfalls in funding by previous Labor governments, the former coalition Government increased funding for the National Parks and Wildlife Service by a staggering $25 million. That is in stark contrast to the reduction in real funding for the National Parks and Wildlife Service by the Labor Government, despite an increase in the number of national parks. The Labor Party never comes to grip with that problem.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14

Mr DOWNY (Sutherland) [9.12]: In relation to clause 14 of the Appropriation Bill, it should be noted that the Government expects to receive in the order of $335 million in revenue from racing. Many people do not understand that the racing industry is the second largest industry in the State. It employs about 50,000 people. The revenue that is raised by the racing industry is returned to the community for the funding of hospitals, schools and roads. The Government's mission must always be to protect the public interest, particularly in relation to wagering on race events. Bearing in mind some of the comments made by the Minister during the estimates committee hearing, the Government seems to be reinventing of the wheel.

The Minister was very much on the defensive about the setting up of a taxation working party. He made the point that taxation on racing is a most important issue. The three codes of racing - galloping, harness racing and greyhounds - are going through a tough time. The three codes have rightly made the point that something must be done to improve their lot, when the level of taxation in this State is compared with that of other States. As is always the case, Treasury stands in the way. It has a different point of view. The racing industry has been regarded by Treasury as the great milch cow. That attitude has to be changed.

The previous Government had initiated a consultation process with the industry. It realised that if the racing industry were to prosper taxation levels had to be reduced. One of the commitments that was made by the Labor Party before the State election was the elimination of rounding down. The Premier, who was at that time the Leader of the Opposition, made it clear in an article in the Sunday Telegraph earlier this year when he said he agreed with the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and that rounding down would go once he was Premier. He said that was official Labor policy.

Unfortunately, there is no mention of that in the budget, and I do not suggest that any such move is likely in future Labor budgets. It is a tall order; a hard ask. We are talking about the Government foregoing $30 million by doing away with the rounding down of dividends. It would be a brave government that took that step. However, it is important that the Government consider the level of taxation and ways of implementing taxation reductions so that funds can be returned to the industry. I turn to some issues that were alluded to in the estimates committee hearing. One issues relates to consultation with clubs. Honourable members have heard proposals from the Minister for Gaming and Racing for a thoroughbred racing industry council.

Mr O'Farrell: That will be a waste of time.

Mr DOWNY: It will be a total waste of time, as the honourable member for Northcott has said. The whole process of consultation in relation to taxation and other reforms that are essential to the industry has been delayed because of the Temby report. The Government is dilly-dallying with the so-called reform of the racing industry because of its desire to impose a government-controlled principal council on the galloping industry of this State. The Opposition believes that the Temby report is a weak excuse for inaction on taxation.

The whole process drew attention from the real issue: taxation and a due return to the racing industry. At the estimate committee hearing the Minister also referred to the corporatisation of the Totalizator Agency Board. Under the previous Government the consultation process leading to corporatisation of the TAB had already started. Representative of the three codes had been brought together and asked to put forward proposals for the corporatisation of the TAB. They had also been asked what the respective industries wanted out of that corporatisation. The corporatisation of the TAB is important. It is now the largest offcourse betting organisation in the world. Although it is operated on a commercial basis, it is subject to a degree of ministerial control that the Opposition believes is unnecessary in this day and age.

Obviously the Opposition regards the corporatisation of the TAB as a most important issue. The coalition has always said that the corporatisation of the TAB should be the cornerstone for reform of the racing industry in this State. The Minister and the Government have lost the point. In talking about corporatisation of the TAB, I refer to the Racecourse Development Fund. It is curious that no taxpayers' money goes into the Racecourse Development Fund; it comes from the TAB. The money comes from the industry itself. We have the curious situation whereby money from the TAB, from the punter, goes into the Racecourse
Page 3782
Development Fund, and the Minister must then approve distribution of that fund. The amount of the fund is contained in the budget. As Minister I always found that to be curious.

I have always believed that the Racecourse Development Fund and the Racecourse Development Committee should be taken out of the political realm and placed wholly within the confines of the TAB. The chairman of the TAB is the chairman of the Racecourse Development Committee, and the general manager of the TAB is a member of the Racecourse Development Committee. When the Government considers corporatisation of the TAB, which the Minister has indicated he will do, it is most important that it looks at the whole question of the Racecourse Development Fund and the Racecourse Development Committee, and where that organisation is placed in the scheme of things.

It is most important that the Government stops talking about taxation and does something about reducing taxation. All we hear is talk; we do not see much action. We have heard about the working parties that are being set up. The Opposition wants some action. We will be keeping a close eye on what the Government intends to do in regard to taxation, and on the reforms that the Minister indicated will be introduced some time in the next three years.

Mr SULLIVAN (Wollongong) [9.22]: I did not intend to speak in this debate but the comments made by the honourable member for Sutherland need to be addressed. The previous Government was in office for seven years and it poured $5 million into a racing facility at Goulburn to cater for about one quarter of the number of horses that are currently training at Kembla Grange. In the process it denied further growth at Kembla Grange because it did not provide any money to upgrade and expand training facilities. I am pleased to announce that the Minister for Gaming and Racing has seen fit to organise it so that a major debt that the Kembla Grange.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Gaudry): Order! If the member for Wakehurst and the member for Port Macquarie wish to engage in conversation, they should do so outside the Chamber.

Mr SULLIVAN: As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by those honourable members with no manners, the expansion that could have and should have taken place at Kembla Grange has been on hold for many years. Indeed, the local turf club was put in a straitjacket; it lost money on its race meetings that clashed with major functions in Sydney. I am pleased that the Minister is addressing these issues and listening to complaints about the financial burden. He is also looking at expanding training facilities, which will lead to the facility at Kembla Grange being expanded to cater for 600 horses in training at any given time. Currently it has about 350 horses. It is nonsense for Opposition members to talk with tongue in cheek about objectivity and not being prone to milking funds for devious purposes. The previous Government's record in this regard demonstrates that it followed irrational approaches to important decisions. I refer to Goulburn again. I will not mention whose electorate Goulburn is in; I think that we all know that. The point needs to be made that at long last sensible, rational decisions about racing and gaming are being made. I compliment the Minister.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15

Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [9.25]: I shall refer to a number of health matters, starting with recurrent services, and to a number of questions that the Minister was asked in the Legislative Council estimates committee. The questions were put on notice because they were not able to be asked during the hearing. The waiting list reduction program is referred to in the budget. We have heard much about this program in this place and outside over the past eight months. The Minister has allocated $64 million to that program. As I have said on many occasions, I have received information from far and wide, particularly from country hospitals, that the money allocated is insufficient to meet the targets established by the Minister. One serious concern - Government members should be concerned about this - is leading to a bleeding of funds from other essential clinical services. That is of particular concern to country areas, although it is of concern right across the State. In some areas, for example -

Mr Martin: You are not fair dinkum.

Mrs SKINNER: I am fair dinkum. When I wheel out the doctors to talk about this, the Minister will not have a smile on his face. There is insufficient money to meet the political promise made by the Premier on behalf of the Minister. I refer to the first question put to the Minister in the estimates committee hearing: will he repeat his promise to resign if he does not meet this promise? Of course the Minister refused to repeat the promise, as he has refused on every occasion that he has been asked to do so, because he knows that he cannot meet the target without fraudulent means. I give the Minister credit; at least he will not lie to our faces.

[Interruption]

Members opposite are suckers. They have fallen for the lies of the Minister.

Mr Sullivan: You have beautiful eyes.

Mrs SKINNER: I thank the honourable member for that compliment. But in my case it is eyes, not lies. When the Minister was brought back to the main point of the question he said that it was irrelevant. That shows how much regard he has for the waiting list reduction program. I shall refer to a
Page 3783
couple of specific matters that were raised in the estimates committee. First, the Minister was asked about the statement made by the Premier in about May that waiting list payments would not be made if specific health areas did not meet their targets. The Premier came out in his usual blustery way and said, "No, we will not pay them for something that they do not achieve."

I advise honourable members that documents I have received under freedom of information legislation reveal that a range of areas have not met their targets. The Minister fluffed around and tried to answer the question. He got into problems so he asked his mate Mick Reid, who has been employed in a curious way - a question was asked about that as well - who said, "All areas and districts are being paid on a net reduction basis. That is the problem with this program." They know damn well that if they do not meet their targets they will not get their money. So what did they have to do? They had to withdraw funds from community health services and emergency departments. That is why the system is bleeding. In recent times doctors have expressed concerns to me about patients they call S-patients. This is the new technique, S-patients: suspended from the waiting list. In answer to the question the department prepared the following response on behalf of the Minister:

given that over the last six months in the Central Coast Area Health Service alone over 900 people have been removed from the elective surgery waiting list without being treated -

That is almost half the people on the waiting list.

Mr Sullivan: Is this information from the Gosford health hotline, that most reliable institution?

Mrs SKINNER: No, it did not come from the hotline, this came from the Minister. It is in the questions and answers paper. The Minister provided this answer himself, and it reveals a lot of interesting information. I do not have to conduct hotlines to get these really honest answers from the Minister. The department prepares them for him, and I suspect that half the time he does not read them. He said in one of his answers that 900 patients were removed from the waiting list in the central coast area without being treated. I also asked about how many patients had been removed from the list in total across the State. He responded by saying that there have been 120,000 patients admitted to hospital from the elective surgery waiting list between April and September. That figure does not even match the figure for last year. Government members should listen to this; it is interesting.

Mr Sullivan: I have got no alternative.

Mrs SKINNER: I know. I have this wonderful captive audience. Some government members are grinning like monkeys, some are blushing, and others have gone into shock. Patients have been taken off the list because the treatment was no longer required. The Government wrote to the patients, they did not ask the doctors whether treatment was no longer required. I assure Government members that doctors will be saying more and more about this as time goes by. Each month 550 patients are removed because they are not ready for care, that is, people who cannot immediately go to a hospital for one reason or another; people who refuse to change doctors; and people who have refused an offer to move out of their local area to have treatment. That is a shameful state of affairs. The Minister should be really concerned.

Mr Sullivan: Category 4?

Mrs SKINNER: Yes, that is category 4. He then said, "We have 400 a month who have not been treated because they were not contactable." They are written to after six months but no effort is made to find out whether they still reside at the address provided. I assure the Minister that in my electorate there is a 50 per cent turnover of constituents between elections, so many would not reside at the same address. I have got copies of these letters, people send them to me, the -

Mr Amery: Put a private investigator on them and track them down.

Mrs SKINNER: I am tracking them down, I am going to continue to bring them to attention. At least the good thing about my bringing them to attention is they receive their treatment. As many as 400 patients a month were dropped off the list because they were not contactable. Does the Minister have any idea what that adds up to?

Mr Amery: You will introduce compulsory surgery: whether they want it or not.

Mrs SKINNER: I have got a fantastic calculator that does these sums. Between April and September this year 13,000 people were dropped off the waiting list, and that figure does not include excluded procedures: people waiting for colonoscopies, gastroscopies, endoscopies, and dental procedures. The Minister is the Carmen of New South Wales.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Gaudry): Order! I have warned the honourable member for Wakehurst already about disrupting the proceedings. I do not appreciate the fact that he is walking around and Chamber and conducting himself in a most unparliamentary fashion. If he does not remain seat and silent, I will ask him to leave the Chamber.

Mr Hazzard: On a point of order: Mr Temporary Chairman, there was a certain degree of stirring going on from members opposite. Their behaviour was not entirely appropriate. I did not interrupt the debate, I did nothing to interrupt the parliamentary practice, and I submit that it is totally inappropriate for you to call me to order without requiring members on the Government side of the
Page 3784
House to do likewise.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! No point of order is involved.

Mrs SKINNER: Patients have been placed in category 4 and therefore removed from the statistics because they have refused to travel out of their region for treatment. In response to a question on notice the Minister said that patients who decline a reasonable offer are transferred from category 3 to category 4, which is in keeping with longstanding departmental policy. The material I have received pursuant to freedom of information provisions show that much larger numbers are being transferred now than ever before. I refer to the patients who are contacted but do not reply. The Minister has stated that if patients do not reply the information has to be obtained from the treating surgeon before a change is made in the waiting list. I can assure honourable members that is not the case. I have the name of a doctor who claims that 150 of his patients have been removed from his list without any reference to him, contrary to Australian Medical Association guidelines in relation to this matter. I have drawn the matter to the attention of the AMA and it is investigating this serious allegation.

Mr Sullivan: Your doctor is probably not numerate, I suggest.

Mrs SKINNER: I shall pass that remark on. I will draw that remark to that doctor's attention so he knows what kind of members sit on the Government benches. I will now refer to capital works and other matters in the budget. My colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke earlier in this debate about the dramatic effect that a reduction in capital works funding to western Sydney has had on a number of hospitals in that region. I refer specifically to Nepean Hospital, which under the coalition Government was to have gone to stage 3, and that included a much-needed maternity wing. That hospital is located in an area with one of fastest growing populations in Sydney. Nepean Hospital was expanded and brought up to teaching hospital status by the coalition Government, as were many other hospitals in western Sydney, and it was promised a maternity wing. But what has happened?

I refer to some papers that have been received under freedom of information legislation that were prepared for the Minister's visit to the Wentworth Area Health Service on Monday 11 September. They refer to capital works in progress at Nepean Hospital. That is the work that was initiated by the coalition Government - awaiting confirmation. There is reference to upgrading emergency departments and at operating theatres; Blue Mountains District Anzac Memorial Hospital; and hydrotherapy services in the Blue Mountains. There is nothing in the budget to indicate whether that has been done, but I presume it has. The residents of the Penrith area are very angry with this Government for delaying that much needed work on Nepean Hospital, just as the people of the inner west are angry because the Government has not proceeded with the inner west hospital on the Croydon site.

Mr Langton: Can't you control yourself?

Mrs SKINNER: I am totally controlled, Minister, which is more than I can say for people in the Government. One of the questions that was asked in relation to the inner west hospital was: Had the Government gone to a new tender because it had stopped all work at Croydon, thus letting down people in that part of the world who were expecting a $70 million state-of-the-art hospital that would meet their needs and would form part of the network of hospitals for the inner west. There is going to be no new tender process because it is basically the same. My colleague the honourable member for Strathfield will have more to say about that in his contribution.

Mr Sullivan: He is going to Canberra.

Mrs SKINNER: The people from his area will know all about this before he goes to Canberra. I would like to briefly talk about the Royal North Shore Hospital, because the Minister referred to it in scathing terms in relation to comments that the honourable member for Lane Cove made in a local paper to the effect that no funding had been allocated to Royal North Shore Hospital.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Members should reduce the level of conversation and allow the member to be heard in silence.

Mrs SKINNER: I refer to the two documents provided by Treasury in which the Government displays a little honesty. All honourable members have copies of these documents. The 1994-95 capital works report provided to me as the honourable member for North Shore identifies money allocated to the Royal North Shore Hospital. What do we find in the 1995-96 allocation for the hospital? Nothing; not a cent. I assure honourable members that I placed a question on the paper and the Minister suddenly found the money. [Time expired.]

Mr SULLIVAN (Wollongong) [9.40]: This has to be one of the best health budgets ever brought down in this State - without qualification. I refer specifically to page 45 of Budget Paper No. 4, State Capital Program. An amount in excess of $11 million has been allocated for the clinical services building at Wollongong Hospital. This is more than a token health budget; it is an excellent health budget. The allocation has been included for the clinical services building project on the work-in-progress program, which has been active since 1988. Over the years little money has been received, and for most of that decade the program has received virtually no funding. Finally we have a government that is prepared to tackle this issue and provide appropriate funding. This project will be completed well within the time of the present
Page 3785
Parliament. This is an excellent health budget. Recurrent expenditure for the Illawarra Area Health Service has been boosted by the allocation of an additional $15 million.

Mr Langton: After seven years of neglect.

Mr SULLIVAN: After seven interminably long years of neglect. The local community has raised just on $1.25 million, which will be matched by at least a $1 million allocation from the Government for renovations to the children's ward at Wollongong Hospital. These works in progress in the Illawarra have suddenly been showered with funds by one of the best governments and best health budgets for quite some time. I am pleased to be a member of the Government and proud to be the member for Wollongong.

Mr ZAMMIT (Strathfield) [9.42]: I wish to address three specific issues in the health budget. One issue concerns the inner west hospital, to which my colleague the honourable member for North Shore briefly referred. It is a serious and important issue that affects the people of inner western Sydney and has concerned the inner west community for several years because of the downturn in the health budget by the previous Labor Government. As a result, the Fahey and Greiner governments poured huge resources into the inner west to provide the best possible state-of-the-art health facilities for the local community. The Labor Opposition said it wanted more consultation on the proposed new hospital for the inner west. In this Chamber the coalition offered the Labor Opposition the opportunity - the like of which has not been offered in this place for the past 12 years - of joining the coalition Government, other health experts and the inner west community to discuss the provision of health services for this community.

The Labor Opposition refused to enter into meaningful discussions. In this House Opposition members said, "You are the Government, you resolve the issue. We are not joining you in this proposal." The coalition Government put together a plan of action to try to ensure that whatever was done in the inner west was with the full consultation of its community and health experts. A consultative committee was established from a cross-section of the community, comprising local councillors, mayors, health experts, and nurses and doctors of the inner west who showed an interest in this project. Everything possible was done to ensure that the right decision was reached.

At the conclusion of the consultation process the task force recommended that a new hospital be built on a greenfields site at Croydon Park. The honourable member for Canterbury, and the then Mayor of Canterbury, Councillor Gorrie, both agreed with the recommendations of the consultation committee to build a hospital in Croydon Park. I disagreed with that decision because I did not want to see a greenfields site taken from the local people. My view was conveyed very strongly to the then Minister for Health, the Hon. R. A. Phillips. Further consultation and negotiations were undertaken with the local community. Two public meetings were held on site, and I recall, while standing on that site looking back in a northerly direction, seeing hundreds and hundreds of home units.

Mr Langton: You will always be looking back.

Mr ZAMMIT: The Minister says I am looking back. All I can say is that what Government members have said tonight -

Mr Langton: That is why we are in government; we look forward.

Mr ZAMMIT: I will talk about the Labor Party being in government in a moment. Government members said, "The honourable member for Strathfield is going to Canberra." I agree, but I think their Federal colleague will not be too pleased when she hears that.

Mr Nagle: On a point of order: I have been misrepresented. I did not say the honourable member for Strathfield was going to Canberra. He is not going to Canberra.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr ZAMMIT: I will not waste my time responding to such inane interjections. Further consultation was required to ensure that the right site was obtained for the hospital. The community of the inner west, especially that of Croydon Park, asked that the park not be taken from them. As a result, the letting of the tender to build the new $70 million hospital was delayed. Contracts were signed in early February to build a 274-bed state-of-the-art hospital with the best possible facilities that could be provided to the people of the inner west. Work started almost immediately on the building of the new hospital. I place on record tonight that the Minister was ready to sign the contract for the new hospital nine months earlier, but building unions placed a black ban on the site. That immediately stopped work on the construction of the hospital. The unions threatened to take the Government to court over the issue - the usual strongarm and bullyboy tactics.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member for Strathfield has the call. Members should cease interjecting.

Mr ZAMMIT: The more Government members interject the longer I will speak.

Mr Nagle: We did not say stop. It was your side who said stop.

Mr ZAMMIT: Other Opposition members want to speak on this important issue. I am concerned about what has occurred. The work that started on the Innerwest Hospital - $6 million worth of work - has been completed. In fact, the underground car park and the concrete walls around the car park had been completed. We were getting ready for the second stage. Work was stopped
Page 3786
immediately after the State election. As far as I and the inner west community are concerned, that is Labor's shame. We will keep reminding it of that fact. The other issue I raise is the important question of Concord hospital. A deal was arrived at between the Federal and State governments which involved about $1 billion to bring Concord hospital into the State system. We were able to guarantee for people in the inner west, at Croydon, Burwood, Strathfield, Concord, Concord West, North Strathfield, right across to Drummoyne, Haberfield and Five Dock that they would have the best possible service. In addition, we provided the Innerwest Hospital. The Innerwest Hospital was taken away from those people. We will make sure that -

Mr Nagle: You hypocrite!

Mr ZAMMIT: Mr Chairman, I ask you to ask the honourable member for Auburn to withdraw that statement.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Honourable members will come to order. The honourable member for Strathfield has the call.

Mr ZAMMIT: This Labor Government took $50 million from Central Sydney Area Health Service. It should be ashamed because of what it is doing to people in the inner west. It will pay a heavy price for that not just at the next Strathfield by-election but when the Federal election is upon us, which is not that far away. This Labor Government will not be forgotten.

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [9.53]: What hypocrisy for the honourable member for Strathfield to talk about hospital closures! When I became the member for Auburn in 1988 Auburn electorate had three major hospitals. After seven years of Fahey-Greiner Liberal governments there is only one. The former Government accelerated the closure of hospitals.

Mr Langton: That is why they got chucked out.

Mr NAGLE: Exactly! That is why the former Government was chucked out. I appreciate the assistance given to me by the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism. Money has been allocated in this budget for the building of Bankstown Hospital, which will compensate for what happened to Lidcombe Hospital and St Josephs acute care hospital.

Mr O'Farrell: On a point of order: I thought we were debating the estimates. We are supposed to be addressing matters in the budget and not making statements.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! No point of order is involved. I warn the honourable member for Northcott that another such point of order might well invoke a different response from the Chair.

Mr NAGLE: The money that has been allocated for the Department of Health will be used to extend buildings at Bankstown Hospital. However, that does not compensate for the loss of Lidcombe Hospital, a specialist hospital which cared for people in western Sydney, in the Auburn electorate and in surrounding areas. St Josephs acute care hospital, a most important hospital in my electorate, was closed. My mother passed away in that hospital, so it was an emotional time for me when that hospital was closed by the previous Government. Recently I met with the honourable member for Bankstown to discuss extensions to Bankstown Hospital and the allocation of moneys. Some of the patients in the geriatric ward at Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital were moved to Lottie Stewart Hospital at Carlingford and patients with brain damage were moved to Liverpool Hospital.

[Interruption]

Let me tell the honourable member for North Shore, who is attempting to interject, what I was told by a bureaucrat. He said, "I visited those people and they were happy as Larry." I said to the honourable member for Bankstown, "Who is Larry? I would like to meet him to see how happy he is."

Mrs Skinner: Ha, ha!

Mr NAGLE: I am glad that the honourable member for North Shore enjoyed that joke. That must be why she is on the front bench. I commend the Minister for Health for putting together a good budget, keeping health services up to a high standard and reducing waiting lists which were caused through the mismanagement of the previous Government.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18

Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie) [9.56]: I take this opportunity to speak to two areas covered by clause 18 in the Appropriation Bill - the appropriation for the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. I will make remarks concerning both those portfolio areas. It became clear at the estimates committee and after an examination of the budget papers that the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries dealt with matters in a hands-on fashion. That goes to show that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. It supports the case for not having someone who has worked in an area in charge of a department. Doctors should not be Ministers for health, and that applies to a number of other areas.

The Opposition asked a number of questions at the estimates committee. The Minister might like to respond to those questions as he is now in the Chamber. A number of staffing matters have cropped up in the department. There is an allocation in Budget Paper No. 3 for staffing matters. The Opposition asked questions in regard to the Department of Fisheries and, in particular, about the position of the former director, Mr Paul Crew. We would like to know what entitlements Mr Crew is getting. Is the Minister prepared to tell us why his position was terminated so abruptly? To
Page 3787
date we have been told four different stories.

Mr Martin: On a point of order: this matter is the subject of a question on notice. Answers have already been submitted. It is inappropriate for the honourable member to raise this matter as a question has been placed on notice.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! If a question on the matter has been placed on notice, it is not a matter for consideration in Committee on the estimates. I suggest that the honourable member try a different tack.

Ms MACHIN: Further to the point of order: if a question has been answered, that matter can be raised. This is a fresh issue. There is no question before the House.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I suggest that the honourable member relate her question to a line item so that consideration may continue.

Ms MACHIN: I refer to page 554 of Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, and to employee related expenses. Does this allocation make provision for the termination payment of former director Mr Paul Crew? Will the Minister advise the House of his reasons - we have not been provided with answers - for terminating Mr Crew's employment? He might also like to discuss the conditions surrounding the employment of the new Director of Fisheries. Resource management and fisheries management - areas of fundamental importance to the industry, recreational fishermen and conservationists - are referred to in numerous programs in the budget papers. The latter group is particularly concerned about the allocation to a share-managed fisheries approach and to the notion of total allowable catch that goes with it. The Minister might like to clarify what is happening, because the budget papers do not give any indication of his policy direction.

On the one hand he tells us that he does not like the share-managed fisheries approach. He says it was rushed through Parliament, although I note that 84-odd amendments were moved. I would like to know how, in a hung parliament, 84-odd amendments can be rushed through. I do not recall it happening so quickly. The Minister was the odd one out. The legislation referred to in the budget and to which funding has been allocated was lauded not only around the country but internationally. The Minister was at odds with it and it is a matter of ego for him. Now, as Minister responsible, he is trying to overturn it. I am sure that as the weeks and months go on, a lot more will be said about it. The industry and all related parties would like to know what allocation the Minister has made for his alternative proposals. I am not sure whether he refers to them as management advisory committees or resource allocation committees.

[Interruption]

The Minister will get his chance to reply. He has unlimited time, and I have at least three opportunities to speak. Plenty of other honourable members will want to debate the issue if the Minister wants to take it on. So the Minister should stop patronising me and wait until it is his turn. The industry, conservation groups and recreational fishers would like to know what funding will be allocated. They are now running behind time. Where does that leave resource management for the next year or so until an alternative regime is in place? The estimates provide funding for marine reserves. It is also referred to in Budget Paper No. 2. I again ask the Minister specifically what funding has been made available for the three additional reserves indicated in the budget papers and, more importantly, what will the administrative arrangements be? There is considerable interest as to whether the Department of Fisheries or the National Parks and Wildlife Service will be in charge.

This question was asked in the estimates committee, but because it involved the National Parks and Wildlife Service the Minister said it was the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment. I would have thought it was of fundamental importance to the Minister and he would be going in to bat for it, not wanting to hand over a large portion of his administration to another agency. The Minister might also like to enlighten us about the reference made in Budget Paper No. 2 and Budget Paper No. 3 to resources being devoted to ecologically sustainable development. What fisheries does it refer to? What funding will be allocated? What are the priorities? Does it apply to the commercial and recreational sector? What will be the management arrangements as the Minister considers some sort of management plan and some sort of ecologically sustainable development? Will recreational fishers and commercial fishers have some input?

Last year the budget allocated a certain amount of money for maintenance and minor capital works. This year approximately $400,000 to $500,000 of that money has been transferred to recurrent funding. What implications will that have for the Minister's maintenance program? It is a significant amount out of his budget and, as the Minister knows, he does not have a huge capital works budget. Was that action responsible in part for the Minister's claim for a 15 per cent increase in recurrent funding? The transfer of capital works money into recurrent funding has also occurred in other areas of government funding. When Labor was previously in power, capital works money was transferred into recurrent funding, and we paid for it for many years after we came to government.

The Minister cannot afford to wind back his maintenance too much, and he has not been allocated a huge amount of money for maintenance. Equipment, including buildings and plant, will run down, and the longer it is left the more expensive it will be. More importantly, and more significantly, was the fiddle with the books, the fact that capital funds were transferred into recurrent funding - while the Minister tried to say that his budget had been
Page 3788
increased. I now turn to the mining section of the Minister's portfolio, which is probably a less controversial aspect because he does not have a background in mining. Given the importance of mining and the income that it generates, the industry is disappointed with the budget and the fact that the portfolio has been allocated to a junior Minister. This is not unique to the State, it happens at the Federal level, too. In the estimates committee we also drew the attention of the Minister to the Earth Exchange Geological and Mining Museum, which has indicated savings of $1.4 million in a full year. We have not heard a peep out of the Minister as to why it is being closed, what action he took to try to save it and what will happen to the museum's significant collections, such as the Chapman collection. When this issue was raised in the estimates, it was hived off as the responsibility of Treasury initially, then of someone else.

The most exciting program in the mining industry and in the Department of Mineral Resources in recent years has been the discovery 2000 program. It initially was a $40 million program over several years. In the estimates the discussion came back to a $35 million program. A section in Budget Paper No. 2 identifies where the Government's total savings are coming from, not just savings for this department. A line in that section identifies savings of $2.5 million for the next two years in the discovery 2000 program. It is particularly disappointing to industry to think that such an important program has been cut significantly in percentage terms and, more importantly, that neither the Minister nor the director of the department could or would give a longer term commitment to that funding and that program being continued for its full term.

I should like the Minister to give the House an assurance that Discovery 2000 will continue. He knows how successful it has been, and I am sure he would like to see it continue. Another matter that is important to the mining industry and also relates to the discovery 2000 program is the program being undertaken around Broken Hill. Recently the Minister for the Environment released a report on the Pinnacles, just south of Broken Hill. This matter was also raised in the estimates, and again we were told to ask the Minister for the Environment about it. This issue is of significance not only to Broken Hill - it could potentially mean another Broken Hill - but to the State. I do not think it is good enough for the industry to read in Hansard, which is being sent to them, that when asked a question of such significance the Minister's only answer was that it is a matter for the Minister for the Environment.

The industry wants to hear the Minister say that he is in there fighting, he is in there batting and trying to ensure that if there is a significant mineral deposit south of Broken Hill the Government will be in there discovering it to keep that town going, as well as bolstering the economy of New South Wales. I have not had the opportunity of seeing the report that was released in the last couple of days, but I have requested a copy of it from the Minister for the Environment. The Department of Mineral Resources should be led by its Minister in its fight for the future of Broken Hill, rather than the Minister saying that it is the responsibility of another Minister. The same response was elicited when the Opposition raised mining approvals, specifically in relation to the Cadia Hill proposal near Orange. It has some problems with a water licence, which I am sure the Minister is aware of. We asked him about the proposal and we were told that we should speak to the Hon. Kim Yeadon, the Minister for Land and Water Conservation - but anybody who lives outside Sydney has found that to be a waste of time. Where is the Minister responsible for mining when he is supposed to be out there promoting a responsible, active and successful mining industry? Why is he not in there batting for it and saying something a little more positive than, "Refer this to my colleague"?

The estimates committee was extremely disappointing with regard to both the fishing and mining portfolios. In the fishing area a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and this Minister, with his middle-level bureaucratic background, has really wreaked havoc. The fishing industry does not know whether to invest and, as the Minister would know, banks are starting to call in debts in the abalone industry. I have a copy of a letter sent to the Minister by a bank concerning his policy decision about abalone divers. The Minister has no policy direction. According to both the commercial fishing industry and the conservation movement, the Department of Fisheries is in turmoil. That turmoil is certainly reflected by the inconsistencies in the Minister's estimates and funding allocations. On one hand, money is allocated for share-managed fisheries, which the Minister says he does not favour; on the other hand, he talks about resource committees or management advisory committees - MACs - or whatever he likes to call them, but provides no funds for them. What is the Minister trying to do? Why will he not make his policy clear so that both the industry, conservation groups and recreational fishers know the ground rules exactly?

Mr MARTIN (Port Stephens - Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [10.11]: I am less than delighted to have listened to the 20-minute attack by the honourable member on people who cannot protect themselves in this Parliament. She was critical of the former Director of Fisheries. She has already put a question upon notice, has received a reply to it in the questions and answers paper, and has asked a question about this matter in the estimates debate. Yet she still cannot or will not understand - or she has a very short memory. The matter has been handled, clearly defined and stated, down to the pay-out figure. However, the honourable member chooses to play the man, not the issue. The new Director of Fisheries, a Master of Business Administration with three PhDs, has strong capabilities in fishery
Page 3789
research and will take the Department of Fisheries to the position it once held as the leading fisheries management body in Australia.

In the past, fisheries tended to be run by people who did not know much about them. I am glad that the person appointed understands fisheries science and fisheries management, and is well qualified in people skills. He will do an excellent job. I am only too happy to send the honourable member the director's curriculum vitae, which is outstanding evidence that he is capable of doing a top job. The honourable member asked about share management and about the future of that aspect of fisheries. On becoming Minister I inherited legislation, and in my first couple of months in office I was told by my public servants that I would be issuing shares in fisheries but that people would not know what they meant. Members opposite from the corporate sector pretend to understand the issues, but surely they must acknowledge it would be crazy to issue shares to people who do not know what they mean. I established a review to ensure that people know what they are receiving.

The legislation I inherited was based on 1986 New Zealand legislation that had been amended. We are no longer talking about property rights but about guaranteed access. We are moving towards paying royalties and away from freehold title to fish in the sea. The previous Government was trying to impose that arrangement on the people of New South Wales, who rejected it wholeheartedly. The honourable member for Port Macquarie does not understand that. I established the review to make our plan transparent. The purpose of the review is to make shares available in an abalone fishery first and then in a lobster fishery, and so on. By next February we will have issued scoping papers that will determine the method of management of each of the 14 fisheries. Those papers will facilitate excellent consultation, and the fisheries will be processed in order of priority. Members may not be aware that fisheries can be managed in one of two ways: by input or output controls. The Opposition wants to use output controls, but that approach does not work in some fisheries.

The Opposition mentioned alternative proposals. The proposed arrangements will be transparent so that anyone can comment on them. The Opposition should play the game fair and square, and protect the fish. Do not play people, play the fish. The honourable member mentioned three reserves. In fact, there are to be two reserves - at Jervis Bay and the Solitary Islands. Arrangements have not yet been finalised for those reserves, but they will have maximum levels of conservation and public access. The Government is committed by its election promise to those aims and goals. It will not allow sewage outfalls from headlands into the marine environment, or allow any of the other excesses the previous Government wanted to permit. Arrangements are being upgraded. Conservation is about stopping ocean outfalls flowing into pristine marine environments, rather than following the practice of the previous Government of encouraging them.

I know from correspondence I have found that the honourable member for Port Macquarie was once close to establishing an extensive marine zone excluding activities other than diving in the Seal Rocks area. There is plenty of correspondence on the files to show she supported exclusion of other activities. I am keen to sit down with her to work out what she wants, to see if the Government can accommodate her wishes. I turn to sustainable ecological development. Unfortunately, the previous Government neglected to establish a database, and is massively behind in its knowledge about fish populations. It cannot talk about going into a share-managed fishery without knowing about fish reserves. The Government will be doing all it can to catch up on the seven lost years of data so that sustainable fisheries can be achieved. The Government has already started negotiations with Commonwealth and other authorities to have interchangeable computer packages, at minimal cost to my department, so that common databases can be used.

The honourable member asked about commercial and recreational fisheries. Some fisheries, such as that for snapper, are multi-use, and recreational and commercial fisheries should have a say in their management. In other fisheries such as that for the east coast prawn, based on the northern rivers of New South Wales, minimal input is needed from recreational fishers. A balance will be struck in the scoping papers. The minor capital works issue is an accounting exercise undertaken by Treasury. Funds are available to undertake the work; it is just the method of accounting adopted by Treasury, as formulated under the previous Government. The Treasury officials responsible for it now were also there under the previous Government. It is just a method of evolving an accounting system. The honourable member for Port Macquarie raised the abalone issue. She spoke on Radio Illawarra for some time this week about the abalone fishery and how the banks are worried about the two-for-one issue. She also spoke about shares, and about the legislation introduced by the previous Government. I draw the attention of the House to a letter dated 20 November written by Alan Pickering, State Manager, Business Banking New South Wales, a sector of the ANZ Bank. The letter stated:

Thank you for your letter of 15 November 1995 . . .

The position is that Mr Smeaton's letter does not reflect the views of the Bank and was unfortunately written without reference to those in the Bank who are responsible for policy matters. This is a regrettable situation for which the Bank apologises . . .

Firstly, in relation to Mr Smeaton's suggestion that proposals for finance from new entrants into the abalone industry are now unlikely to be favourably received by the Bank I would like to make it clear that all proposals for finance received by the Bank are considered on a case by case basis and on their merits after consideration of all relevant factors . . .

Page 3790

Secondly, Mr Smeaton mentioned in this letter that existing abalone diver's loan facilities with the Bank are presently under review. On this point you will appreciate that the Bank routinely reviews its arrangements with its customers from time to time and at these times all aspects of the arrangements are examined. This is normal banking practice and applies to the Bank's abalone diver customers.

The Bank has not, however, placed those customers in a special category and continues to apply its usual lending criteria to them.

The letter was written in response to some mischief created by the honourable member for Port Macquarie on Radio Illawarra this week and in response to other activities that have been taking place. Abalone fishers have been fed a line by members opposite who do not understand that this Government is following the legislation of the previous Government in an orderly fashion. The Opposition is trying to create mischief, and its attempts are totally unwarranted. Lies are being spread among abalone fishers.

Reference was made to the Earth Exchange Geological and Mining Museum. The admission charge for families to the Earth Exchange was almost three times that of the Australian Museum. The number of visitors was not sufficient to warrant a massive injection of funds from the State, so the Government withdrew the extra funding that was to go to the Earth Exchange museum. I can proudly tell the Parliament that the Chapman collection will go to the Australian Museum. Other workable exhibits will go to the Powerhouse Museum, and other exhibits from that museum will be distributed among those who make application.

The discovery 2000 program is a six-year program that is now in its second year. Funding for the program was underspent by $1 million last year. That has been carried forward to this year. This year the amount of $9 million will be spent and, if need be, funding will be increased. The honourable member does not understand the sensitivity of the issue, but it would seem to be appropriate to deal carefully with the Pinnacles and Aboriginal heritage in Broken Hill. The Government does not want a racial backlash on this sensitive issue. I would have been happier if the issue had been worked through by now, but that has not happened. Credit should be given where it is due: the process is in place. We should not complicate the process and make matters worse. We should get on with the job and work through the process sensibly. The Cadia Hill project is on track. Environmental impact statements were released this week and certain notices in relation to the water issue will appear in the Government Gazette on Friday. All in all, I am proud that this Government has done the right thing in the minerals and fisheries portfolios. It will continue to do so. It is with a great deal of pride that I support the budget.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 19

Mr WEST (Orange) [10.25]: I want to say a few words in respect of clause 19 of the Appropriation Bill, which relates to the budget allocation for the New South Wales Police Service. Before I do so, I draw the attention of the House to an answer given by the Minister for Police during the estimates committee hearing. In answer to Dr Brian Pezzutti the Minister said that he was delighted to have a record number of police. He said that there were 15,107 police officers in the State of New South Wales. The Minister had better get it right, because there are not 15,107 police officers in New South Wales. There are only 13,000-odd police; the remainder are civilians in administrative positions. There are 15,000 people in the Police Service, but they are not all police officers. It is important not to mislead the people of this State.

Overall I was delighted that the budget allocation to the Minister for Police was sufficient to meet the cost of the additional police numbers promised by the former Government when I was Minister for Police. The coalition Government undertook to provide an additional 500 police over the next five years. The previous Government also undertook to provide an extra 150 clerical and administrative officers to relieve police from desk duties, and to continue the program of transferring the escorting of prisoners to the Department of Corrective Services. That is how the figure of 650 was derived. I am pleased that the Minister for Police and the Government have continued with that program and have provided sufficient funds to do so.

However, the Minister for Police must be disappointed by one fact. In November last year when he was shadow minister for police he used Standing Order 54 to gain the disclosure of a large number of documents. The shadow minister was well advised; he chose a Monday as the production deadline for the documents. He wanted to know how many police officers were on duty around the State. If one gets the right advice one chooses a Monday, because that is the lowest staffing day of the week; it follows the weekend rosters. The shadow minister came up with a figure of 10 per cent of police being off duty on an average day.

Monday was shown as an average day. He said he was committed to ensuring that those 10 per cent of police who were off duty on the average day would be restored to duty. To do that, he would have needed, in addition to the increased budget that has been provided, an 11 per cent increase in the budget. This year's budget for the New South Wales Police Service has been increased by 5.3 per cent. An additional 11 per cent would have been needed to fulfil the shadow minister's commitment. We all accept that law and order is an important issue for the people of this State, but they should not be hoodwinked by such a claim. In time he will be asked to explain why he has been unable to fulfil that commitment.

If I had similar access to the Minister's books
Page 3791
on a Monday, I would find that 10 per cent of the Police Service is not on duty because officers are on annual leave, on sick leave or on various courses and work programs. Another matter brought to my attention only today is the impact of staffing problems on the stock squad in the Peel district in the northern part of the State. The stock squad is an important facet of policing in country areas. Honourable members know that with the tough times in the bush, people have resorted to cattle duffing to make a quick quid. That must be stamped out. I am advised that the authorised strength of the stock squad in the Peel district is five detectives. At the moment there are only two. A sergeant is normally in charge of the squad, but at present there is no sergeant. Sadly, investigations into important matters cannot be conducted because the Minister for Police has allowed vacancies to continue; he has not been prepared to fill the gaps.

In the estimates committee hearing the Minister was asked about a backlog in the fingerprinting of recovered stolen motor vehicles. An edict had been issued that stolen motor vehicles would not be fingerprinted unless the thefts also involved more serious offences. The Minister was asked question on notice about that matter. He stated subsequently that the State commander had advised him that there was no backlog in the fingerprinting of recovered stolen motor vehicles. The Minister should go back to the State commander and ask him for a copy of the notice sent out by the officer in charge of the physical evidence unit advising of that new procedure. The notice that went to all the patrols clearly indicated that fingerprinting would cease because of the difficulties involved with the backlog. I do not intend to detain the committee any longer. The time will come when I will be able to do a search of the number of people in the Police Service who are at work on a particular day. I will choose a Monday. I am sure that I will find that on average 10 per cent -

Mr Martin: Try using Standing Order 54.

Mr WEST: I will not use Standing Order 54 because I know that such a motion would not be passed in this House. However, it may be passed in another place. I will simply wait for an appropriate occasion.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [10.33]: I refer to the expenditure on recurrent services and capital works for the Police Service. I put on record the concern of many residents of New South Wales, particularly those in the Warringah area, that regrettably none of the modest 5.3 per cent increase in the budget appears to be allocated to the police district of Warringah. The Minister for Police keeps saying that an 650 additional police will be available. I am not sure whether he means 650 new police officers, or whether he is simply playing games with words. However, he is dragging police numbers from the Warringah district at a rate of knots. Since 25 March five officers have gone. The Minister has admitted that he will drag another 13 police out of the area, and I hear that he may be dragging out others.

The people of the Warringah region are concerned that the apparent reduction in funding for police in their district is being used to shore up Labor electorates around the State. Nowhere in the budget could I find any allowance for additional training for police. Bearing in mind what happened at Crescent Head, the police in Warringah are concerned about the lack of training facilities. The community is rightly concerned about the lack of police training facilities. The police from Warringah must train at Hornsby. They stand in their uniforms at the rifle range at Hornsby, as they are instructed to, and they fire their Smith and Wessons at paper targets from five to 20 metres away. They train in that manner because there is no money to train them properly.

All members of this House, including the Minister for Mineral Resources, want police to be properly trained to handle the combat-type situations that, regrettably, are becoming more prevalent. To that end, I ask the Minister for Police to find funding somewhere in the budget to increase training for police officers around the State, particularly in the Warringah area, so that they can use their pistols for training in appropriate environments at least two, and possibly three, times a year. That leads me to the issue of staffing. Unless the staffing numbers are increased to a reasonable level, the police will simply not be able to take the necessary time off to undertake this training. In view of the lateness of the hour and the enormous pressure on members to speak quickly, I shall desist from making any further comments.

Mr O'FARRELL (Northcott) [10.37]: I refer to clause 19(1), which relates to recurrent services. I express concern at the operation of Neighbourhood Watch, particularly the Westleigh Neighbourhood Watch scheme. That scheme is well supported by the local school community. My concern relates to the failure of the police computer to adequately provide checks for people whose homes become safety homes. The local community and the local school are concerned that no-one has been accepted into the scheme since last year because of apparent computer failures. That is placing the scheme under great stress. Perhaps the scheme will not be operating next year. The local community will certainly be greatly concerned about that. I simply seek an assurance from the Minister for Police that the Neighbourhood Watch computer checking service will be remedied quickly.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 20

Mr CHAPPELL (Northern Tablelands) [10.38]: The lack of consideration given to the impact on business of strikes such as the pilots strike in the past couple of weeks is symptomatic of
Page 3792
the lack of preparation of the budget. The impact of that strike on the section of the budget dealing with the ports portfolio is unknown. I need go further than that to show that there is a considerable deficiency in the preparation of the ports budget and, indeed, in the administration of the ports portfolio at the present time. Five months ago the newly elected Government agreed to the establishment of ports authorities for the major ports in New South Wales. The legislation to establish those authorities had been prepared totally by the previous Government and was about to be enacted. The legislation was not enacted because time got away from us. However, five months later the members of the board still have not been appointed. Presumably those in Sussex Street have not yet spoken.

A permanent executive has not yet been appointed, and there are no major marketing staff. I suppose that is why the transition arrangements that were necessary for the transfer of the pilotage contract fell apart and there was a strike. That strike diminished the business prospects of the port and the prospect of the budget for the ports portfolio meeting its targets during the coming year. Where are these people? Why are the ports authorities not yet in place? Where is the permanent executive, the marketing staff, and the business plans? Why is everything not on track the way the way it ought to be? Until those questions are answered, there will not be an efficient and an effective ports portfolio.

Because there is no alternative, the blame for that must be laid at the feet of the Minister. The port of Sydney is demonstrably losing business to the ports of Melbourne and Brisbane. The trend is down. At the very time that our business should be increasing because of the corporatisation of the ports authorities, the business throughput in our ports is in fact decreasing. That is a disgrace. It reflects on the administration of the ports authorities simply because the Minister has not acted and made the necessary appointments. This has been totally avoidable. All that was needed was some action from the Minister: transition planning for new contracts and business plans. That has not happened. It is a disgrace to the Government and the Minister that the ports ministry is falling apart at the seams because of lack of action.

Mr SCULLY (Smithfield - Minister for Small Business and Regional Development, Minister for Ports, Assistant Minister for Energy, and Assistant Minister for State Development) [10.42]: What a gutless wonder! I cannot believe that the honourable member for Northern Tablelands sat for some two and a half hours on the other side of the Legislative Council Chamber during the estimates committee hearing, where he would have had ample opportunity to raise any of these matters, but failed to do so. I am happy to deal with them now. The honourable member for Northern Tablelands wants to take credit for some of the early work for the corporatisation of the ports and then has the gall to criticise them in this House. The honourable member ought to apologise for his attack. It is not an attack on me; it is an attack on the Sydney Ports Corporation and the two other corporations.

Why does the honourable member not ask me a question tomorrow in question time about who will be on the board of the Sydney Ports Corporation? The Opposition is not concerned with trying to get the best people on the board of the Sydney Ports Corporation. The Government has gone through an exhaustive process in trying to secure the best people. I have had a good working relationship with those on the port authorities. I do not want to disparage the Leader of the National Party in this debate, but there were many National Party mates on the board of the Waterways Authority. There are also Liberal Party mates on that board. It is an affront for the honourable member to suggest that there has been a delay because Australian Labor Party mates are being sorted.

I am confident that when the announcements are made soon, these characters opposite will be more than happy with the quality of the appointments. If there has been any delay, it has been because I wanted to make sure that the best people were appointed to the boards of those port corporations, particularly the Sydney Ports Corporation. In my view, that corporation will be the premier port corporation in Australia. I invite the honourable member to ask me a question tomorrow, and when the honourable member realises who the chairman of the Sydney Ports Corporation is, he will be giving me a big tick and he will apologise. In future this gutless bastard ought to at least ring me up -

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order:

Mr SCULLY: I withdraw that.

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order: I make the point that we are in committee. This is a formal sitting of the New South Wales Parliament. The language of the Minister is unbecoming to a Minister of the Crown. It is totally unparliamentary, and I ask that he withdraw that comment.

Mr Martin: On the point of order: the Minister already has withdrawn that statement. I am sure that was the case.

Mr Armstrong: Further to the point of order: as the originator of the point of order, I did not hear any indication of any attempt by the Minister to withdraw that unparliamentary word that he used. I ask that he formally withdraw it for the purpose of the Hansard record.

Mr SCULLY: I have already withdrawn it.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Minister has withdrawn the statement?

Mr SCULLY: Yes, I have withdrawn it.


Page 3793
Mr Armstrong: On a point of order -

Mr SCULLY: The Leader of the Opposition is being petty now.

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order: it is late at night and I am sorry to have to go through this process, but the Parliament is still in full session. The Minister has been asked to withdraw and apologise. I am now asking him to apologise for using that language in this place.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Minister has withdrawn the statement. I should have thought that an apology was axiomatic without it necessarily being stated.

Mr Armstrong: Further to the point of order -

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The point of order has been dealt with sufficiently.

Mr Armstrong: You can't take the pressure.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! It is not a matter of pressure. I have ruled on the point and, accordingly, consideration will resume.

Mr Armstrong: I am asking that an apology for that type of language in this place be recorded for Hansard.

Mr Martin: On the point of order: Mr Chairman, the matter has already been dealt with, you have ruled and I suggest that the debate continue.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I do not need to hear further advice. The Leader of the National Party will resume his seat. The direction to withdraw does not imply a direction to apologise unless the matter is extremely distasteful.

Mr Armstrong: I am taking a second point of order. I am asking the Minister to apologise for using that language in this Parliament. The endeavour of the Minister for Mineral Resources to instruct you is further evidence of the Government's attitude towards this Parliament. I ask that the apology be recorded.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I have ruled on the matter. An apology is not required. The Minister has withdrawn the statement and he may proceed.

Mr Chappell: An apology is not required for language like that? That interesting ruling is on the record, Mr Chairman.

Mr SCULLY: The Opposition is being overly precious; it is embarrassed about its record on ports. The former Minister for Ports was not particularly happy when I mentioned his role in the wharf charge dispute in Newcastle. The honourable member seems to be concerned about my role as Minister for Ports. I remind him of the role of the former Minister for Ports in the wharf charge dispute. Members of the Opposition got away with murder. If the honourable member wants to know about the detail of that, I am happy to give it to him. The important thing is to not try to score cheap points. If honourable members want to know about the members of the board of the ports corporation, they will hear about them soon. The important thing is that the enterprise bargaining agreement be allowed to unfold. This is an affront. All the honourable member had to do was to ring me up and ask me about the process. The process has taken probably a little longer than I would have liked but the Government is being careful and prudent and making sure that the best people are appointed to those boards.

Mr Chappell: Are we going to have further strikes?

Mr SCULLY: No-one likes strikes. Strikes have been called because the coalition's mates at CRA Limited have caused difficulties on the waterfront. I will not respond to further interjections. I thought I had a good rapport with my shadow colleague. On Friday night at a function celebrating the retirement of Glen Oakley he accepted my invitation to discuss matters; I should have thought that if he had problems he would bring them to my attention. These particular concerns will be allayed. The administration is being well handled. Honourable members must remember that port corporations are independent of government. I do not believe the honourable member realises the position in which he has placed his leader. If there is any problem with the administration of the ports, it is because of a problem with the members of the interim board authority that the coalition established. I am confident with the work those members have been doing; they have been addressing the problems. The ports have been administered well by the people put in place by the coalition. If there are any difficulties with the administration of the ports, it is because the people put in place by the coalition are not up to the job.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 21

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party [10.51]: In speaking to clause 21 I refer to matters associated with the Olympics. Of particular interest is the good management of the development of the Olympic facilities and the Olympic management structure in accordance with agreements originally signed by both the major parties that enabled Sydney to win the bid to host the Olympic Games in the year 2000. As has been indicated in this House, the Opposition will support on a sensible, bipartisan basis, the development, planning, management and ongoing construction in accordance with the contract signed with the International Olympics Committee. The Opposition reserves its right on behalf of the people of New South Wales to ensure that correct probity and proprieties are observed at all times for the development and management of the Olympic
Page 3794
Games. This will ensure that the facilities are truly worthy of the honour bestowed upon Sydney to host the Games in the year 2000, the turn of the millennium.

I draw attention to one particular funding aspect at page 58 of Budget Paper No. 2 under Olympic Co-ordination Authority - the relocation of the Royal Agricultural Society to Homebush Bay for the staging of the 1998 Royal Easter Show. The budget papers indicate that the relocation process commenced in 1992 and will be completed in 1999. The first Royal Easter Show will be held at Homebush in 1998. Having brought forward the staging of the first Royal Easter Show at Homebush by one year, it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that the show proceeds in 1998. The Royal Agricultural Society is the host of the Royal Easter Show, which is undoubtedly the largest and most recognised agricultural exhibition of its type in the world. That is not just political rhetoric; it is a fact that is acknowledged by agricultural societies throughout the world.

One secret of the show's success is that it has been continuously held. Therefore, it is incumbent on this Government, which will not be obstructed by the Opposition, to ensure that the show is relocated successfully and staged successfully in 1998. The Royal Agricultural Society is far more than a society that is responsible for the staging of the Royal Easter Show. Indeed, it is one of the major managers of events in this city and State. Currently it is taking bookings for the staging of exhibitions, symposiums and such gatherings up to the year 2005.

The society needs to be in a position to contractually obligate itself and to give guarantees to those with whom it has traditionally done business and new organisations within this State, interstate and overseas who wish to use its facilities and its management expertise after the turn of the century. The Royal Agricultural Society operates for 52 weeks of the year. I seek an assurance from the Minister that there will be no interruption through financial, physical or industrial disruption that would inhibit the Royal Agricultural Society from continuing its normal business practices and business management and allowing it to act in an entrepreneurial fashion as the major manager of exhibitions in this State. It was one of the delights of the previous Government to facilitate arrangements for the Royal Agricultural Society to relocate to Homebush.

It was one of the achievements of the coalition Government to reach agreement with various government departments to continue the Royal Agricultural Society and its association with Camden Park Estates, thus giving the society forever more, unless some government changes it in the future, a permanent agricultural place and home. This gives it the capacity to expand and accommodate the entertainment and cultural desires of Sydney. I record the appreciation of the National Party and the Liberal Party for the past management cooperation of the Royal Agricultural Society and assure it of our future cooperation as it makes its historic transformation and relocation from Paddington to Homebush. I compliment the society for the correct and proper manner in which it has dealt with this so far totally incompetent Government, which was elected in March this year.

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Deputy Leader of the National Party) [10.57]: I wish to place on record my comments about clause 21, which relates to the budget of the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads. I refer specifically to capital works and services for the Roads and Traffic Authority. I shall refer to funding for the M4, the M5, the M2, the Eastern Distributor and the Pacific Highway. It is a matter of history that the Australian Labor Party's long-standing promises to lift the tolls on the M4 and M5 were broken in August, on Victory in the Pacific Day. The Government converted its promise to an extra $73 million for roads and other projects in Sydney's west and south-west for the next four years.

Several issues arise from the breaking of this promise, arguably the largest political promise broken in the history of New South Wales politics. How much of the $73 million that was promised will be Commonwealth money as part of the western Sydney orbital project? Even the substitute promise contains a fallacy because it is not a promise of funding from State finances; rather it is being used to provide a screen as if it were part of State money when it is indeed Federal money. What other projects in the forward program were cut, delayed or downgraded to find State funds? How much of the western Sydney roads and transport allocation is being spent on road projects? How much of that allocation is being spent on public transport and related projects? These projects, which have been substituted in western Sydney because of the broken promise, are not strictly road projects. How many projects of the forward program of the Department of Transport, which are part of this substitute promise, have anything to do with the roads budget or the Roads and Traffic Authority? The Government has borrowed expenditure from other government departments in an attempt to make good politically this so-called substitution promise.

Will work on the M5 east, which is planned over a number of years, constitute work under this new scheme in future budgets? Was any of the $30 million listed under the line item relating to payments to be directed to the owners of the M4 and M5? Did the Minister or any of his colleagues acquaint themselves with the findings of the report of the Public Accounts Committee on private investment in public infrastructure? If not, why not? Did the Australian Labor Party ever believe that its promise to spend over $70 million each year for 30 years - a total of $2.1 billion - was feasible? Can the Minister produce any shadow cabinet
Page 3795
briefing notes, minutes or evidence to show that the Australian Labor Party at any stage was serious about delivering on its $70 million promise? The deception involved in this is absolutely breathtaking!

I turn now to the property acquisition aspect of the M2. At the estimates committee hearings the Minister for Roads indicated rather dramatically that the Government would be dropping the statewide policy applicable to the M2, which had been part of the previous Government's policy. Later, the Minister made statements in this House during question time to the effect that that breach of policy would apply to at least the M5 east project and all other major projects. I am referring here to the acquisition of noise-affected properties along these major routes. On 31 August the Government sent letters to 244 home owners offering to buy their noise-affected properties. Those home owners had four years to take up the offer. Seventy-four home owners had already had their homes bought and sold by the RTA. Another 53 are negotiating and these negotiations are continuing.

However, according to the Minister's comments on 1 November, the remaining 116 home owners are no longer eligible. The Minister said that this would save the Government between $5.4 million and $10 million. What an outrageous change of policy in midstream! Some people are affected, some people are satisfied and some people are relying on the validity of government documents that were sent to them concerning the time limits that applied. All these offers were taken as bona fide offers from the Crown. This Minister, who has no respect for those people, withdrew the offer midstream. He does not care about those who are affected, those who are left in the slipstream without compensation. Some people were fortunate. They jumped while they could and accepted the offer that was made. Why did the Minister not consult his Premier or Cabinet about this decision to withdraw these offers to purchase? I believe they constitute legal offers from the Crown.

When a government sends official policy documentation, letters of offer and letters outlining policy to individual property owners, I suggest that such documentation is legally binding. Why was the Minister not officially and publicly reprimanded for changing this policy on the run and for announcing it casually at a meeting? Will the Government table the advice that it has received as to the legal status of the withdrawal of the offer? The Government has done nothing to validate the decision that this Minister took on the run without consultation or notification. What documents exist that might support the legality of this Minister's actions? How many of the 116 home owners whose houses are apparently not eligible for purchase have actually written to the RTA since April 1995 - but before that fateful day in November 1995 - accepting its offer? What action was taken on these letters of acceptance? How much has the Government allocated to defend this dreadful decision in the courts, because that is where it will end up?

People who have been left out in the cold by this Minister have a valid class action. Considerable court action will be involved. I and my colleagues who have electorates in that area and who are associated with the M2 are behind these people. We will be supporting them every inch of the way. This outrageous decision was made by the Minister on the run. I turn now to the Eastern Distributor. In the Sunday Telegraph of 21 February 1993 the then shadow minister for transport, the present Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism, promised to commence the Eastern Distributor, toll free, six months after coming into office. He reiterated that promise in September 1994. The Australian Labor Party candidate for Bligh, Susan Harben, reiterated this promise throughout the State election campaign. The then Leader of the Opposition, the present Premier, said on 23 May 1995:

Labor won't be lifting the toll on the Eastern Distributor because we won't be imposing one in the first place.

Honourable members should be able to guess what happened when the Minister for Roads dealt with this issue. On 27 August 1995 he said that the Eastern Distributor would almost certainly go ahead and, if it did, it would be a toll road. The Premier stated, "We are a long way from making a decision on a toll. The issue is still alive. Never mind what I and the Minister for Roads said. It is all up in the air and it is still available." Newspaper reports at the end of August indicated that preferred tenderers would be called. Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering, Transfield Holdings and the airport motorway group were short listed. However, no announcement was made. In March 1995 New South Wales Treasury costed the proposal at $200 million. With a one-way toll the Roads and Traffic Authority capital contribution was estimated to be $105 million. However, with no toll the RTA contribution was estimated to be $200 million.

The fact that no announcement has been made raises quite a few issues, not the least of which is when the preferred tenderer will be announced. Will the proposed Eastern Distributor carry a toll? Many people want to know the answer to that very important question. If there is to be a toll, what will be the amount of the toll? How many properties are earmarked for purchase by the Government? How much has the Government set aside for this purpose? How many properties will suffer as a result of the proposed tunnel? What assurances can the Minister give residents who will be adversely affected by noise from the proposed development in view of the abandonment of the special acquisition policy - which seems fairly official from what has been said by the Minister for Roads? Will there be a viable alternative route that does not attract a toll? I doubt it. Can the Government assure us that the smaller streets of Darlinghurst and Woolloomooloo will not become clogged with motorists seeking to avoid the toll? How much will the Government spend to reduce so-
Page 3796
called rat-running? How much will it cost a motorist travelling from North Sydney to Liverpool through many routes that will carry a toll? These are significant questions.

The Government should come clean as soon as possible to indicate whether there will be a toll; whether the Premier was right or wrong; whether the Minister for Roads was right or wrong; how much it will be; whether anyone will be compensated; and whether the Government will take any notice of submissions with regard to noise affectation along the route. I now refer to the Pacific Highway - one of the most significant issues facing the roads portfolio in New South Wales. It is a major Australian road link, arguably one of the premier links in Australia. The Pacific Highway has claimed more lives since 1985 than any other major highway. Crashes on the highway have claimed 10,000 casualties, including almost 600 fatalities since 1985. Overtaking is effectively restricted for 64 per cent of the route; 62 per cent of the route has only two lanes. The average speed from Hexham to Tweed Heads is 70 kilometres per hour.

Mr Gibson: You were in government for seven years!

Mr SOURIS: Our plans were rejected by the Labor Opposition. It rejected the solution and failed to come up with an alternative. I thank the honourable member for the lead in; I was just coming to that. The highway has exhibited one of the poorest ride qualities of any major New South Wales highway for the past 10 years. It has an average pavement age of 22 years, exceeding its design life of 20 years. In 1994-95 the coalition allocated $125 million to roads. In the last three years of the Wran-Unsworth governments the Australian Labor Party spent only a total of $147.6 million on roads. In the last three years of the coalition Government $385 million was expended on roads. [Time expired.]

Clause agreed to.

Clause 23

Mr CHAPPELL (Northern Tablelands) [11.12]: I hope that I do not further incur the wrath of the Minister for Small Business and Regional Development. He may use more unparliamentary language that will stay on the record because he would not withdraw and apologise. There is some difficulty with regard to interpreting the budgets for state development and small business because of the amalgamation of two departments and a number of programs. We are faced with the rather strange situation of two departments becoming one, but maintaining two Ministers. These days it is difficult to know to whom one should address questions when dealing with matters of state development, small business and regional development.

The inclusion of the self-employment development program, including business enterprise centres, with the old small business and regional development programs has lead to some confusion. There is concern in the community that the business enterprise centres may not survive. I know the Minister has given some assurance that the program will continue, but rumours persist that at least some of the BECs will get the chop. The more than 50 BECs around the State do important work. I would like to think that they will continue to do that work. Next year is the year of state development. We have been told a number of times that this a major initiative of the Government; it is the first time we have ever had such a program.

The budget provides no specific funding for that initiative. Therefore, we can only assume that it will be part of the routine funding of programs of the now amalgamated department. We will have a further green paper on regional development. This is really exciting stuff. There have already been several green papers. In September last year a very well received statement on regional development was published. It has been looked at by a number of people in a number of constituencies around the world and most people think it is one of the most comprehensive statements on regional development and support programs they have ever seen. I guess this further green paper will say much the same sorts of things.

To the credit of the present Minister and the Government, they are continuing with all the programs the coalition put in place - which means that we were doing things correctly. There will be another green paper and another talkfest. We will have regional summits, which is an exciting prospect. We have been having them for years, so I am not sure what is new about them or how they will add to the concept of the year of state development. Regional development boards meet already on a regular basis to analyse their performances, their opportunities, and their strengths and weaknesses.

We will also have an audit of strengths and weaknesses, which has been part of the program, and an infrastructure audit. In terms of regional development and small business, there is some confusion about the programs because of the combining of the two departments, while leaving them in the hands of two Ministers. That does not make for good public administration or good government. We do not know what the outcome will be. We can only hope that the programs will be able to continue to deliver the goods. It is to the credit of the Minister for Small Business and Regional Development that he has maintained the programs that were so well received in the small business community and the regional development community.

Although the Minister may be intemperate in his use of language in this House in responding to questions on issues of this kind, I expect that he will ensure that the goodwill of the regional development boards and the various small business groups that the coalition dealt with in government over the
Page 3797
years is maintained. We rely on such goodwill to increase the effectiveness, efficiency and prosperity of this State. The Government cannot do it on its own. We need regional development boards and small business groups as partners, but we will only retain them as partners if this Government puts its shoulder to the wheel in the way that the previous Government did in past years.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 24

Mr O'FARRELL (Northcott) [11.20]: I speak to clause 24 of the Appropriation Bill. I wish to reflect on the comments by the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism that this budget is one of budget cuts and broken promises on transport. I refer to the 10 key features of Labor's first anti-public-transport budget, as set out by the shadow minister. Those features include such things as the $288 million cuts to public transport funding which have occurred despite the Minister's continued misleading of this House about the fall in operating costs of State Rail and the State Transit Authority under the former Government. They include massive cuts to State Rail's capital program in the order of $130 million, and also broken promises galore, including the $400 million Parramatta to Hornsby rail link.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Rogan): Order! I interrupt the member to remind him that this is not a second reading debate. He should identify the particular estimate he is referring to, and confine his remarks to that estimate.

Mr O'FARRELL: I am speaking to clause 24(2) and omissions from the capital works and services budget. I was referring to the broken promise relating to the absence of funding for capital works for the $400 million Parramatta to Hornsby rail link.

Mr Langton: On a point of order: I ask the honourable member to produce any evidence that there was a promise to fund it in this budget.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr O'FARRELL: The budget does not allocate capital funding for the Airport West rail link between Mascot and Badgerys Creek.

Mr Langton: On a point of order: honourable members must debate what appears in the estimates.

Mr O'FARRELL: On the point of order: I refer to an earlier ruling by Temporary Chairman Clough that it is in order to refer both to matters that are included and to matters that are not included, because they relate to the funding priorities of the Government.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Rogan): Order! The honourable member is in order at present and may proceed.

Mr O'FARRELL: This will not take long, Brian. Amongst the other broken promises -

Mr Langton: On a point of order: I draw attention to previous rulings that members are to be referred to by their titles.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! I uphold the point of order, as past occupants of the Chair have upheld similar points of order. Members will refer to other members by their correct titles.

Mr O'FARRELL: I apologise to you, Mr Temporary Chairman. The budget reflects broken promises in relation to massive job losses in public transport, with more than 1,000 jobs to go and State Rail's work force to be cut to 20,178. The budget also reflects the alleged reduction in the school student transport scheme of $100 million - another broken Labor promise which will affect families across the State.

Mr Langton: On a point of order: if the honourable member wishes to refer to matters such as that, he must give the basis for his assertion. If he cannot give that basis, he cannot refer to it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! It is not necessary for the member to refer specifically to a line item in this form of debate, as members were required to do in the estimates committee hearings. He is in order and may proceed.

Mr O'FARRELL: I can appreciate the Minister's great sensitivity on this anti public transport budget. I refer again to clause 24(1), relating to recurrent services and to the estimated $100 million cut in the school student transport scheme. That cut not only will affect families in this State but is currently affecting jobs in the bus and coach industry, and has caused a reduction in at least one coach company in this State.

[Interruption]

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! I call the Minister for Transport to order.

Mr Martin: On a point of order: the honourable member is waffling on about something other than a line item. He should be drawn back to addressing the budget.

Mr O'FARRELL: The school student transport scheme is included in the budget.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member is in order and may proceed.

Mr O'FARRELL: The school student transport scheme, which is not due to come into effect for some time, is already costing jobs and is already affecting business in this State. I turn to tourism, where the Minister does no better, given the 4.9 per cent reduction in that budget in real terms. The tourism budget was $38.4 million under the former coalition Government, whereas this year $34.7 million is to be allocated. Taking into
Page 3798
account a 4.3 per cent inflation forecast, the tourism budget has been reduced by $2.58 million. The effect of that reduction is most traumatic in the marketing area. This year Tourism New South Wales proposes reductions in the number of international and domestic brochures to be produced - by 100 per cent in the international market and 230 per cent in the domestic market. No wonder the Minister has had such a chequered history. He exercises no influence and that is reflected most dramatically in this budget.

Mr LANGTON (Kogarah - Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism) [11.25]: I reject the assertions by the honourable member for Northcott. I note the absence from the Chamber of the honourable member for Ermington, shadow minister for transport and tourism, who has removed himself from the Parliament while this important debate is taking place. Had he been here and taken part in this debate I would have been happy to debate with him the substantive issues raised in the budget, as opposed to the fairy floss issues raised by the honourable member for Northcott. As the honourable member for Ermington is not here, I do not feel obliged to respond.

Clause agreed to.

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Debate resumed from 15 November.

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Deputy Leader of the National Party) [11.29]: I lead for the Opposition on the Road Transport (Heavy Vehicles Registration Charges) Bill and the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill. The Opposition intends to support these bills and to move an amendment in Committee. At the Special Premier's Conference in October 1991 all heads of government agreed in principle to establish a national heavy vehicle registration scheme together with uniform national transport regulations and nationally consistent charges. The National Road Transport Commission - the NRTC - was set up as an independent statutory authority in July 1991. The purpose of the NRTC is to investigate and make recommendations on the establishment of a national registration scheme; uniform road charges for heavy vehicles; and nationally consistent operating regulations for all vehicles that promote road safety and transport efficiency and reduce the cost of transport administration. Adoption of the charges is the first step in complying with the Council of Australian Governments agreement of April 1995. The coalition supports the bills.

The bills represent an improvement in the competitiveness of the heavy vehicles industry in this State and nationally as a result of the equalisation of charges; a reduction in the cost of road transport, flowing through to the businesses that use it; the alleviation of the leakage of vehicle registrations from New South Wales to other jurisdictions where registration charges are currently much lower; the eliminations of distortions in the market due to differing charge regimes; a substantial decrease in the cost of registration for more than 95 per cent of affected heavy vehicles in New South Wales; and the importance for New South Wales, as the national hub of the transport industry, of being part of the national scheme.

The ability to register vehicles for periods of three, six, nine or 12 months allows primary producers and others the flexibility to register only for that time when the vehicle is needed; and allows for road user charges to be totally dedicated to the roads program. As I have already mentioned, I foreshadow moving an amendment in Committee to make the charging regime come into effect on 1 July 1996, unless it commences sooner. This issue has had a chequered political history. In the lead-up to the election campaign the Australian Labor Party made a specific promise. The Premier and the Minister for Transport, who was then shadow minister for transport and roads, promised a starting date of 1 July 1995. The current Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads indicated that it would be delayed until 1 January 1996. The most important aspect of this bill is that it is silent on a starting date. The purpose of the amendment is to indicate a date by which the bill will become operative and the national charging regime will take effect. The Minister said in his second reading speech:

. . . productivity improvements in the RTA, along with the other National Road Transport reforms currently under development will minimise the impact of the loss of revenue resulting from these charges.

I note the discrepancy between claims of the cost of the scheme to government. In his second reading speech the Minister said the cost of the scheme would be $75 million per annum, reducing to $60 per annum after three years. He has been quoted as giving a figure of $60 million to various other industry forums. The budget papers allow for $31 million for the six months to 30 June 1996. An independent report commissioned by the RTA and the road transport forum suggested that the loss would be more like $15 million to $25 million per annum. The Opposition believes that revenue flowing from a return to New South Wales of previous interstate registration and stamp duty on first-time registration will go some way to offset the gross cost. However, I ask the Minister in his concluding remarks to outline savings in the RTA and elsewhere, and cost offsets that may be available and may perhaps give a better indication of what the figures may be; and to indicate the net
Page 3799
costs over the first three years of the implementation of the scheme.

While supporting this legislation and the benefits that will flow to the road transport industry, it is worth noting that it will have the opposite effect to what was an explicit ALP promise. The Government is doing nothing to encourage heavy vehicle loads being taken off the roads. However, how does the Government intend to do that? The ALP must continue with the reforms of Freight Rail that the coalition Government undertook, which turned a $372 million per annum loss into a $50 million per annum loss. We should do everything possible to encourage freight by rail rather than by road. The reforms that were introduced under the previous Government, which I expect will continue under this Government, will encourage more freight onto the rail system. These bills do not present an opportunity to advance that cause by some reverse mechanism. It has been suggested that even higher registration charges nationally ought to be contemplated to force freight off the roads. Commercial decisions have to be made and people must have a realistic choice.

A precedent exists of concessions not being available for farmers. I acknowledge the assurances of the Minister that 29,000 farmers will have lower registration costs while only 1,700 will face increased charges. It is important to note the special circumstances faced by rural producers. Removal of exemptions has had an effect on local government. In my electorate the Muswellbrook Shire Council, which is a small council with about 25 heavy vehicles - mostly three-axle, type one trucks - will now have to pay $600 per truck, a total of $15,000. The Minister estimates that the total cost to local government will be in the order of $2.1 million around the State. I understand the Minister has given assurances that complementary increases in funding will be able to offset these extra costs as a result of registration.

I await the assurance of the Minister that the changes will be introduced efficiently and that anomalies will be dealt with quickly and sympathetically. I note the comments of the Minister that vehicles less than 4.5 tonnes will have the maximum business car rate. The Minister should detail the implementation procedures and reassure the House that all other anomalies will be dealt with as they arise. In Committee I will move an amendment that the commencement date not be appointed by proclamation but be no later than 1 July 1996. I strongly advocate 1 January 1996 as the commencement date. I have been in consultation with industry and with colleagues in other States. Some other States - notably Victoria, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory - have introduced this scheme, and I trust it will be in operation by 1 January 1996. South Australia, Western Australia and New South Wales were holding out.

I have had discussions with the Minister in the last day or so in an attempt to advance the commencement date and give the industry some certainty. The Minister indicated that the Government would use its numbers in the lower House to oppose the 1 January commencement date, but the Minister gave me an assurance that the Government would support a date no later than 1 January 1996. When I move the amendment I will do so with the expectation that the Government will support a definite date rather than the open-ended time frame in the bill, which gives no assurance. Indeed, we could be in the same position this time next year. With the foreshadowed amendment, the Opposition supports the bills with pleasure.

Mr KNIGHT (Campbelltown - Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads) [11.39], in reply: I am heartened by the shift in the position of the Liberal and National parties tonight. As the honourable member for Oxley says, they are here to help. Unfortunately they were not so forthcoming when in government, when they prevaricated and declined to support national heavy vehicle charges. Indeed, the former Minister for Transport, Bruce Baird - and Wal Murray before him - attempted to have a phoney linkage between alternative accreditation and uniform national heavy vehicle charges, and used that as an excuse not to enter the national scheme. Indeed, until the change of government, New South Wales was the most recalcitrant of all the States.

Reference has been made to a letter signed by the Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition stating that New South Wales under a Labor Government would be prepared to join the national scheme on 1 July 1995. The Premier signed that letter in the belief that other States were adhering to the nationally agreed position of uniform charges on 1 July 1995. When this Government took office it found that the other States were not adhering to the commitment. Uniform means precisely that: one in, all in. When I went to school, uniform meant that everyone wore the same clothes, and that is how it should be with common national heavy vehicle charges.

New South Wales faces a big short-term loss, a big financial hit, by dropping its charges. When other States, some of which will gain revenue under the changed arrangements, are dragging the chain, there is no way in the world that this State will join the scheme unless it is truly national and truly uniform. The honourable member for Upper Hunter wanted to know the real costs. The best estimate from the Roads and Traffic Authority is that the short-term loss will be $75 million gross per annum. We simply do not know how much of that will be clawed back in the form of additional registration fees from trailers and trucks currently registered out of State. The RTA estimates that we will claw back only about $15 million and get down to a $60 million net loss. It is difficult to calculate the figure until the charges are uniform and the
Page 3800
scheme is implemented. However, we will claw back a hell of a lot less unless the other States join the common scheme.

If New South Wales drops its charges and revenue and joins the national scheme while Western Australia, Tasmania and South Australia are still standing out from the scheme, it will have a similar situation to that in South Australia, in which trailers can be registered without inspection. Many people in New South Wales have postal addresses in South Australia and register their trailers in South Australia without taking them to that State for inspection. It is, effectively, the Liberia of the trucking industry. If that situation persists, we will claw nothing back in New South Wales.

The position of the other States is as follows. Queensland joined the scheme on 1 July this year. The Australian Capital Territory, which is small in terms of registration, also joined the scheme. Victoria, which also promised to join, did not join but now says that it will join on 1 January. South Australia has indicated that its legislation is through, as has the Northern Territory, but neither of them will join until Western Australia and New South Wales do. Western Australia is the main State holding out. However, the West Australians are saying that the latest they will join is 1 July. At the meeting of Ministers in Hobart approximately two weeks ago we put pressure on the West Australians for an earlier date. We have agreed to hold ongoing negotiations between New South Wales, South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia to get a common date. I indicated to the shadow minister that the latest date that New South Wales will join the scheme is 1 July. We hope to get an earlier date.

The shadow minister said that he is happy to accept my indication and to move his amendment tonight. He said I indicated that the Government will accept his amendment. The Government will honour the commitment that I gave him. It will accept the amendment, and is sure that he will honour his indication that no further amendments will be moved or supported by the National and Liberal parties in the upper House. On that basis I am glad that we have achieved bipartisanship. I seek the support of all honourable members, particularly those opposite, to get the Liberals and Nationals in South Australia and Western Australia to cooperate.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Gaudry): Order! The Committee will deal first with the Road Transport (Heavy Vehicles Registration Charges) Bill.

Clause 2

Amendment by Mr Souris agreed to:

Page 2, clause 2, line 7. Omit "a day or days to be appointed", insert instead "1 July 1996, unless commenced sooner".

Clause as amended agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The Committee will now deal with the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill.

Clause 2

Amendment by Mr Souris agreed to:

Page 2, clause 2, line 5. Omit "a day or days to be appointed", insert instead "1 July 1996, unless commenced sooner".

Clause as amended agreed to.

Bills reported from Committee with amendments, and report adopted.


Mr WHELAN: On behalf of the Premier, I give notice of business to be dealt with on 23 November under Standing Order 100:


Page 3801

Appropriation Bill:
All remaining stages, in the House, 5.15 p.m, in Committee, 5.15 p.m.

Appropriation (Parliament) Bill:
All remaining stages, in the House, 5.15 p.m, in Committee, 5.15 p.m.

Appropriation (Special Offices) Bill:
All remaining stages, in the House, 5.15 p.m, in Committee, 5.15 p.m.

General Government Debt Elimination Bill:
All remaining stages, in the House, 5.15 p.m, in Committee, 5.15 p.m.

Motor Vehicles Taxation Amendment Bill:
All remaining stages, in the House, 5.15 p.m, in Committee, 5.15 p.m.

Business Franchise Licences (Petroleum Products) Amendment Bill:
All remaining stages, in the House, 5.15 p.m, in Committee, 5.15 p.m.

Road Improvement (Special Funding) Further Amendment Bill:
All remaining stages, in the House, 5.15 p.m, in Committee, 5.15 p.m.

Motion by Mr Whelan, by leave, agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended on Thursday, 23 November 1995, to allow at 10.45 a.m. the interruption of business for the moving and debate at 11.00 a.m. of the following motion:

That this House commemorates the 50th Anniversary of the end of World War II on 15 August 1995, and remembers with respect and appreciation those citizens who gave their lives in the defence of Australia between 1939 and 1945, together with all Australians who have participated in defending the freedom of Australia in World War II.

The following bills were returned from the Legislative Council without amendment:

Casino Control Amendment Bill
Fair Trading Amendment Bill
Totalizator Legislation Further Amendment Bill

Bill received and read a first time.